Is a royal line back to the Middle Ages real genealogy?

In a recent comment to my statement about old royal pedigree, Martin said,

It's an incorrect opinion. You've confused two things. I don't believe in lines going back to Adam either. However, I can verify using modern genealogical standards, my line back to medieval
royalty and that royalty back to the early dark ages (about 400-600
A.D.). So it is real genealogy and real history.

Given Martin's expertise in genealogy, it is highly likely that his pedigree
is as accurate as possible, but unfortunately not all of the claimants
to genealogical validity have the same degree of expertise. I applaud
those, like Martin, who have the intellectual tools to research Medieval
genealogy, but before anyone makes such a claim, it would be a good
idea if they are careful that they did not just copy the information out
of an online database.

Normally a "pedigree" show father/son/daughter or mother/son/daughter
relationships. What I meant by real genealogy, is the documenting of
actual family relationships to the extent historically possible. The
commentator raises the issue of both the accuracy of his own genealogy
and that of the traditional royal lines back as far as 400 A.D. What I
meant by my comment that royalty had descendants was just that. Royalty
had children just like the rest of our ancestors and it is possible to
be related to royalty. My comments go to the accuracy of the early
records and the fact that traditional royal genealogies are not always
historically accurate.

Read more...