The Wier/Weir family Crest		The MacNaughton Clan Crest

Genealogy is really a side thing for me.  I've never put much effort into it, in part because there were enough other people in the family who were already fulfilling that role.  But when I do get into it sometimes, I enjoy it because, even if it is far from being an exact science, it can be fun at least to muse about what might be.  My patriline makes such musing easy, as there is reasonably good documentary evidence for major events in my ancestors' lives going back a good half-millennium, and beyond that good enough evidence to make comfortable conclusions for a further millenium.  It's also nice that there are enough Wiers (or Weirs, Wears, Wares, Vares, etc.) ultimately stemming from Scotland that at least three books have been published on the subject ["The Ten Tribes of Wier", "Wier-Creekmore Genealogy", "Wier-Britt Genealogy"], and a couple of other handy webpages.   Since there are much better sources already on the web  (notably this one and this one), this will be just a precis.

*Some data available, but haven't had time to input.

Alberic I's father did not have the surname Ver; he was the son of Alphonso Ghesnes, the son of Miles, the son of Varue, the son of Deomedes.  Alberic's mother Katherine of Flanders has a much more certain pedigree, as she is the descendent of Berenger II, King of Italy, Alfred the Great, King of England, and ultimately of Charlemagne, Emperor of the West.  If that is so, if we allow ourselves to be a bit (or a lot) credulous, we can push the genealogy back very, very far indeed. Though note that what follows is highly speculative and is probably apocryphal in whole or in part:

BODEG(E)ISEL (~540-601), 588 m. ODA the Suevian; 
their son:

So, how many of these people are simply made up, out of thin air? Well, many of these people have well-documented histories in various period sources.  This is true for all the crowned heads of the eighth and ninth centuries (hence the links), as well as to a lesser extent a number of noble families, such as for St. Arnulf, Charles Martel, or the counts of Flanders.  But as far I'm concerned, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone between Pharamond and Genuissa is entirely made up. They may in fact have existed, but it's very unlikely that we'll ever have good corroborating evidence for them. I suspect they are the product of Carolingian apologists looking for (and making up) antique grounds on which to found their dynastic claims to empire. Another problem is that even when you have relative bushiness, suggestive of something there, there are sometimes conflicting, equally bushy accounts, as the following shows:

SIEGBERT the Lame (455 - 508/509), King of Cologne, r. 496-508 

CLODERIC of Cologne  (477/480 - 509),
King of Cologne (r. 508-509) 
aka the Parricide, 'married to an Agilolfingian'; whose son:

MUNDERIC of Cologne (500-532), pretender to the throne 
of Austrasia, m.ARTHENIA/ARTNENIA/ARTHEMIA 
(500/505-?); their son:

BODEGISEL I, m. PALATINA; their son:

BODEGISEL II 'Dux'- 588 m. ODA the Suevian; their son:

At this point, the pedigree vanishes into obscurity, and it is not altogether clear whether Redburga was Charlemagne's sister or his neice, or even his sister-in-law. Be that as it may, what of the claim that Alberic was descended from Charlemagne's sister?  We can do little more than guess on this point, and genealogy is famous for its inconsistencies and outright fraud.  However, we may borrow some methodological principles from textual exegesis to make a more educated guess.  By the principle of locutio difficilior ('whichever reading is most obscure or difficult is most likely to be original in a text'), a claim to be related to Charlemagne's sister is more likely not to be invented by later generations than a claim to be related to Charlemagne himself, since everyone and their dog wanted to be (and in fact probably is) related to Charlemagne, but who wants to be related to his sister, whose very name is in doubt?