Rome didn’t End, it simply Changed

Unlike a lot of people who’ll say something like this I’m referring primarily to The Western Roman Empire.

According to Genesis 10 in verses 5, 20 and 31 National identity is defined first and foremost by Tongue or Language, and Genesis 11 then explains the origin story of why that is. Modern Romance Languages descend from the Latin spoken by Ancient Rome same as Modern English and Scots both descend from Old English.  

So I consider every modern Nation-State where the Official or Majority Language is a Romance Language a Roman successor state.  And we could maybe also add any Nation whose State or culturally dominant Religion is Roman Catholicism since Latin is still their Liturgical Language (Vatican II allowed Mass to be held in other Languages but it did not abandon their tether to Latin Liturgy entirely).  Additionally I view any communities in the Southwestern United States or Florida or certain U.S. Territories where most of the people’s native tongue is still a Romance Language to be Rome under American Occupation.  Of course Rome only got there itself by Colonizing, Enslaving and Raping the indigenous populations, but still.

By this logic I of course then do controversially consider the Byzantine Empire to not be authentically Roman anymore once it’s instead speaking Greek.  Every History YouTuber defending the Byzantines’ status as Roman acts like they’re going against popular opinion when in fact few actually interested in the topic disagree with them, but I do.  Rome isn’t a Gender being Roman requires more than self identification.  

Now the counter argument to denying the Byzantines’ true Roman status based on Language is often that the East spoke Greek more then Latin already well before the split into separate States. But to me that just proves my point more, Rome only subjugated the East they never truly assimilated it.  Now I do consider the Eastern Empire still Romans ruling the majority Greek population for a while after the administrative split and even after the West is popularly considered to have fallen.  Justinian I consider to be a Roman, but Heraclius was Greek.  Phokas's overthrow of Maurice I've come to view as the key turning point.

Western Europe was not as densely populated in antiquity.  But more importantly the people that were already there when the Romans came were people the Romans considered uncivilized Barbarians and so they were much more invested in culturally assimilating them. In the East however they followed the example of Alexander and his Successors of mostly ruling those people how they were used to being ruled.  There are some interesting counter examples, Rome did assimilate the Dacians and thus from them descend modern Romania and Moldova, they are the true remnant of the Eastern Empire.  However they failed to assimilate the Britons of Britannia, yet some Sub-Roman Brythonic Kingdoms saw themselves as Roman successor states just as much as the Byzantines did, especially Gwynedd.

Now you may respond “okay some today descend culturally if not genealogically from Ancient Romans, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a discontinuity between the Ancient Roman State and the States modern Romans live in”.  So now I shall go on to argue for the continuity of the State but it is complicated.

When people ask “When did the Western Roman Empire Fall”, they are usually using the word “Fall” differently than it’s used in almost any other context.  Normally someone's Fall refers to falling from their past height not when they flat out cease to exist.  That’s why I didn’t title the post “Rome didn’t Fall”, I’d argue it fell more than once, the Crisis of the Third Century was a fall that it went on to recover from culminating in the Christian Rome of Late Antiquity.  Now as far as when did the Western Half of that Rome fall, if you use the term properly 476 AD becomes the latest possible candidate not the earliest.  It ceased to be an Empire when Emperor Majorian aka Maiorianus died in 461 AD since from then on the Emperors didn’t control much beyond Italy itself.

But perhaps the Vandal sack of 455 was the key unrecoverable wound.  Especially from a Biblical POV as that's when the Temple of Peace was plundered the Treasures Titus took from Herod's Temple were carried away to Carthage.

Let’s step back a century now to discuss why French is a Romance Language named after a Germanic Tribe.  The Franks were not one of the Barbarian Tribes whose settlement on Roman territory mostly began after the freezing of the Rhine in the early 5th Century, under Constantine they were allowed to settle in what is now Northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands as a buffer.  They were heavily Romanized very early on and some Franks were important officials in the 4th Century Empire like Richomeres and Abrogast, and Magnus Magnentus was a half Frankish Usurper Emperor.  So I strongly believe the Merovingian Kingdom can be considered a Roman Rump State as much as the realms of Syagrius of Nepos can.  

So no Charlemagne being crowned Emperor of The Romans was not the nonsense some History Tubers want to paint it as, it wasn’t the first time a New Emperor was crowned that the already reigning one didn’t necessarily approve of.  Both Imperial Capitals of the Holy Roman Empire, Achen and Vienna were Roman cities, as were other core cities of the HRE like Pavia, Trier and Munich.

But it’s not just the Franks, even the Gothic Barbarians who never became as linguistically Romanized also served as Foderati for the Roman Empire, as did the Vandals and Burgundians and Lombards.  They are all people who should have been recognized as Roman Citizens even though they never were.

When Odovacer overthrew Romulus Augustulus in 476 nothing changed about the day to day administrative governance of Italy anymore than any prior time who was in charge had changed.  Odovacer was called King in terms of leadership of the Gothic Barbarians in Italy but he was also recognized by the still operating Senate of Rome and the Eastern Emperor Zeno as a Roman Governor governing Rome on their behalf. It was actually Romulus Augustulus who was not recognized as legitimate in the East.

When Odovacer and the Eastern Empire fell out, Theodoric King of the Ostrogoths was sent by the Eastern Empire and again he was recognized as ruling Italy for Rome. But when the Ostrogoths and the East fell out Justinian sent Belisarius.  Later the Lombards also first invaded the west as proxies of the East under Walthari and Audion.

Justinian’s Reconquests of Italy, North Africa and other parts of the Western Mediterranean is often looked at as the Eastern Empire expanding its border westward, but from a certain POV it was a war of Liberation.  The same Roman Senate continued to exist until the early 7th Century, and these reclaimed Western Provinces had administrative self governance. It is the Western Empire under an Emperor based in Constantinople ruling both halves just as it was under Constantine, Constantius II and Theodosius I.  But how the Western Province were governed was reorganized creating the Exarchate of Africa and the Exarchate of Ravenna, with the Duchy of Rome then forming within the Exarchate of Ravenna.

In time much of what Justinian reconquered fell to the Arabs or Lombards, but not all of it.  The Papal States and the Venetian Republic and San Marino were never conquered, The Papal States were simply the Duchy of Rome becoming independent when Constantinople lost interest in them and turning to the Carolingians to be their new Emperors.  This is mostly true of Naples and Calabria as well even though there were a few hiccups.  When the Normans conquered parts of Southern Italy they made an effort to keep running it in the Byzantine style, very unlike their approach to England.

And I would strongly argue the same applies to the history of the Island of Sardinia. Which is relevant to the fact that due to how 19th Century Italian Unification happened modern standard Italian descends from what was previously the Sardinian Dialect.

The Iberian Peninsula became Roman again because of the Centuries of Reconquista carried out by Kingdoms that descended from Chalremgne’s Empire.  Britannia was reconquered by Rome in 1066 but after centuries of strife secured independence again in 1604.

I could add arguments about how modern Western legal systems still have their roots in Roman Law filtered through the Justinian Reforms.  Or the fact that various "Feudal" titles came from the Roman Offices.  

I’m posting this on my new Prophecy Blog because my current Eschatology is a mix of Partial Preterism, Postmillennialism and Historicism and this way of looking at Rome is part of Historicism.  But it’s different from standard Protestant Premillennial Historicism where it’s only Clerically they see eschatologically relevant continuity between the modern world and Ancient Rome.  

The Seventh Day Adventists standard approach to Daniel 7 involves believing modern Italy descends from the Lombard Kingdoms not its Roman remnants, and likewise Spain and Portugal are the Visigoths and Suebi and the Burgundians are Switzerland.  Why that is wrong somewhat naturally flows from what I already explained.  But to fill in some gaps the Goths of Iberia were conquered by the Arabs so the Reconquista was against them.  The Lombards were mostly conquered by Charlemagne leaving only a small rump of them left to slowly be absorbed by the Romans around them. And the Burgundians were conquered by the Franks.

The Eastern Germanic Languages spoken by the Goths, Lombards and other Arian Barbarians are dead languages, no one speaks them anymore and the last one to die died in Crimea not in the West.  Genealogical descendants of people who spoke them in the past still exist but they have long been absorbed into other cultures.  My personal theories about Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups lead me to conclude Haplogroup I2a represents patrilineal descent from East Germanic tribes, but it’s strongest presence in The West is on Sardinia where it could only have been  the Vandals who brought them there, the Vandals are one of the tribes the SDAs agree was “plucked out” by Belisarius.  

The Byzantine  Empire does still have Biblical Significance, it’s the restored Third Beast of Daniel 7 specifically The Little Horn.  I argued for that in my Justinian post but it’s also backed up by my Heraclius thesis.

Now you may also ask how do the Romance Languages fit into the Genesis 10 genealogy?  Well I agree with the Italo-Celtic theory among Linguists, that the Italic Languages (including Latin) and Celtic Languages are closely related to each other even more specifically then just both being Indo-European.  And at the end of my 666 post I argued that through Troy the Celts and Romans could share common descent from Ashkenaz son of Gomer.

And hey those who insist on considering the Byzantines Romans in-spite of their Language, you kind of have to do the same for the Brythonic Kingdoms of Sub-Roman Briton which became Medieval Wales, Cornwall, Brittany and Starhclyde, they still used Roman Titles and Roman Laws and lived in Romanized cities and defended themselves with Roman Forts.  

This is a good video about Gwnedd as a Roman Rump State.  And Cambrian Chronicles has one on how how the title of Prince of Wales came form the rulers of Gwynedd claiming to be heirs to the Roman Emperors and thus outranking the King of England.

The 70th Week was 30-37 AD

The 70 weeks Prophecy four times refers to an awaited personage at the the end of the 69 weeks and/or the 70th week.

Messiah The Prince in verse 25

The Messiah in verse 26

The Prince that shall come in verse 26

He in verse 27

The standard view among Christians who are Premillennial Futurists (and even some Preterists) has been that the first two are Jesus Christ and the last two the person commonly called "The Antichrist".  Chris White however promotes a theory he didn't invent himself that makes each of the four something different. predicating it largely on how unclear it is which of the earlier personages the He in verse 27 appears to be.

However most people reading this Prophecy without a Christian starting point, as well as many Christians who are Preterist, see the clear grammatical logic as saying all four are the same person.

When verse 25 says to await the coming of a Messiah The Prince and then verse 26 says The Prince that shall come logic dictates that it's the same Prince.  And if there aren't two or three different people refereed to earlier, figuring out who He is, isn't that complicated.

It's also pretty much unique to Christians to see a Villain in any of the four references.  Because you see the "he" after "Abominations" in the KJV of verse 27 isn't in the Hebrew.  So the first He is not the one who sets it/them up.

Going back to Daniel 9:24, let's look again at what the purpose for the 70 Weeks are.

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." 

It is commonly argued that the Second Advent is required for this to be fully fulfilled, that certain aspects of this clearly aren't fulfilled already.   In fact I've even seen some Christians try to remove the First Advent from this altogether, like Chris White.  To me that grossly undervalues what happened in that Aviv in a way no Christian, no matter how Futurist and Premillennial they are, should be willing to do.

If you think "make an end of sins" means no one will be sinning anymore then you have to move the end of the 70 Weeks to after the Millennium, not before it.  I would be curious to hear someone argue such a theory.  This is referring to Jesus paying the price for Sin on The Cross, when He said "It Is Finished".

Some take "seal up the vision and prophecy" to mean no more Prophecies left to be fulfilled.  Again you have to move the 70th Week to after the Millennium in that case.

I think that the anointing of the most Holy can be seen as fulfilled at Pentecost.

Every argument that the first advent wasn't enough to fulfill that requires an interpretation that places the fulfillment after not before the Millennium.

I feel there is a perfectly very real sense in which all those details were satisfied in 30-37 AD.

A decade ago when I was a Futurist I justified the gap concept not with the usual Pre-Tirb/Dispensationalist the Gap is the Church Age logic.  But by arguing that since it revolved around The Temple, the Gap was from when the Second Temple lost it's Holy Anointing when the Veil was Torn till when the future Temple will be consecrated. I feel ashamed of that argument now, because it implies what the Veil being Torn achieved is gonna be undone.

I've been putting a lot of thought into specifically Daniel 9:27 and am starting to think it's about The Passion in even more ways.

First of all what is the Abomination?  

This ties in with how I have come to view John 5:43 as fulfilled by John 19:15 when the Chief Priest says "We have no King but Caesar".  I've already talked about how Israel demanding a Human King was them rejecting YHWH as their King, and Caesar was being worshiped as a living God in the Eastern Provinces.  The High Priest committed this idolatrous Abomination the same day he later had to offer the Passover Sacrifice in The Temple.

And as I've pointed out before the "he" associated with the Abomination isn't in the Hebrew, it's not identifying any person as setting it up.

The Hebrew word for "Desolation" or "Desolate" is a word that can also be translated "Abandoned" Jeremiah's Desolation of Jerusalem is about Jerusalem being depopulated after it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, but it can also be connected to YHWH's Divine presence leaving The Temple at that same time.  Whatever Divine presence the Second Temple had (in John 4) left it at or before Pentecost to indwell in The Church which is why it's gone in Acts 7.

This word is used twice in Daniel 9:27 however.  In the KJV the verse ends with "upon the desolate" in some translations the last word is "desolator" but in the Young's Literal Translation it's "Desolate one".  On the Cross I think the "abandoned one" is Jesus "my God, my God, why has thou Forsaken me".  

The Consummation and that which was determined or "the decreed end" was poured out onto Jesus on The Cross and then He said "it is finished".

As for how 37 AD works as the end of the Week specifically.  March 16th of that year was the day Tiberius Caesar died.  All the people in positions of power referred to in Luke 3:1 seem to have died or been removed form power in 36 or 37 AD.  Pilate was removed while Tiberius was still Emperor but Tiberius was dead by the time he arrived in Rome.

Many have argued the weak temporary Governorship of Marcellus makes most sense for the context of the Martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 6-7.  I think Simon The Magician of Acts 8:9 is the same Samaritan False Prophet who Josephus says in Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 4 started the issues in Samaria that lead to Pilate's removal.  

Maybe even Acts 9-11 are still in March-April of 37 AD given how the end of Acts 11 and beginning of Acts 12 feels like it's being presented as a significant time Jump from well before Claudius was Emperor till when he had been Emperor for some time already.

So if all of Acts 6-11 is the end of the 70th Week that's some pretty Biblically significant events.

Also an Earthquake hit Antioch on April 9th of 37.

The 69th Week ended in 30 AD

 The Passion happened in 30 AD as I've argued independent of any Prophecies.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-passion-and-resurrection-happened.html

Daniel 9:24-27

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Why the 7 and 62 weeks are distinct I don't know, I'm sure there is a reason, but distinct or not they're consecutive.

Interpreting this as referring to 490 years is NOT the Day=Year theory because neither Day or Year is used. The Hebrew word translated "week" here simply means seven and can refer to seven of anything. Leviticus 25 refers to Sabbaths of years. The context of this prophecy was Daniel praying at the end of the 70 year captivity, so the context is years. 2 Chronicles 36:21 cites one of the reasons for a 70 years captivity is that for 490 years they'd failed to keep the sabbatical year.

The text in Daniel 9 doesn't refer to The Temple's rebuilding or of returning form Captivity, it's about rebuilding the City of Jerusalem with special emphasis on the wall(s).  

The end of 2 Chronicles and start of Ezra record Cyrus's decree, Ezra 6 records Darius's decree and Ezra 7 records the first of the Artaxerxes decrees.  None are about the City or the wall they are all about returning form Captivity and/or rebuilding The Temple. Jerusalem's walls are mentioned in Ezra in chapters 4, 5 and 9, all of them in context about how they are not rebuilt and still in ruins as the first 3 verses of Nehemiah confirm.

Nehemiah 2 records the 20th year of Artaxerxes decree and it's about Rebuilding the City with special Emphasis on the Wall.  So only this decree can be what Daniel 9 was about.  Nehemiah also prayed the same Prayer Daniel prayed in Daniel 9, he's clearly linked to this prophecy.

The decree recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8 was given in Nisan, the same month as Passover. One argument against the Nehemiah decree is we don't know the exact day, only the month. All the text of Daniel 9 deals with is years however and Nisan is Biblically the first Month of the Year, so I never word my interpretation of Daniel 9 as saying it was fulfilled to the exact day, only the year. The day the Messiah arrives as well as the day he is cut off is determined by understanding the Spring Feasts. 

So the Decree was in fact issued in the Nisan of 454 BC. 483 years latter takes us to the Nisan of 30 AD. Ussher agreed with this date for Artaxerxes 20th year, but still insisted on a 33 A.D. Crucifixion, so he insisted the date pointed to the Baptism.

Those trying to make this point to 32 or 33 AD (starting from the incorrect 444 or 445 B.C. date for the Decree) by talking about "God's calendar is 360 days" are just torturing the data. The Jews always synchronized their Lunar calendar to the Solar cycle.

There is a trend of even some Christians, even Futurist/Premillennial ones, arguing that "Messiah the Prince" does not refer to Jesus, or The Messiah at all. First they argue that the definite article "ha" isn't used before Messiah here. The text does use in place of the usual definite article the Hebrew letters Ayin and Res, this is usually left untranslated. Ayin-Resh is the Hebrew word for city. It's foretelling the arrival in Jerusalem of that City's Anointed One and Prince.

The word Messiah is used of individuals who aren't Jesus often. But this is actually the most unique of ALL uses of the word Messiah, only here is it so uniquely paired with the word Nagiyd, not the more common and mundane Sar.   I've seen it erroneously claimed Nagyid is a Persian word not Hebrew. If it were Persian in origin the only Biblical texts it could appear in are Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther and perhaps the very end of II Chronicles. But it's used by Ezekiel in 28:2 (the "Prince" of Tyre here is distinct from The King), many times in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, in Jeremiah and in the Psalms, and Proverbs. And even in Job, which is possibly older then the completion of the Torah in the days of Moses.

It's a far more important and precise occurrence then just using an equivalent of "The". To me No usage of the word is more indisputably about The Messiah Ben-David promised in II Samuel 7. The Triumphal entry wasn't the only time Jesus entered Jerusalem, but it is the only time he did so in a way that matched Zachariah 9:9's prophecy of the coming of the Messiah, with the people singing Psalm 118.

A claim exists that in verse 25 a period should be after the Seven Weeks and before the 62, and that it's only after the 7 weeks that "Messiah the Prince" appears. This is not justified by the Greens inter-lineal Bible I have at all.  Messiah is "cut off" AFTER the 62 weeks have ended.

I've seen some argue the translation "Messiah" as "Anointed One" in verse 26 is inaccurate. This shows complete ignorance of Hebrew, the letter Yot being used in the word the way it is here makes it always a noun, a separate word, messah, is used to simply mean anointing or to anoint. This argument uses the Septuagint version to back itself up. I need to do a whole study on just the Septuagint someday, the Septuagint is very problematic for many reasons and in my view Christians need to stop using it like they do.

This interpretation tries to get the 62 weeks to end in 70 AD by citing the same nonsense about the Persian Empire's history being wrong to support the Sedar Olam's dating system on which the modern Jewish calendar is based. This won't hold up under scrutiny because it is well known the Sedar Olam's dates were deliberately fudged to try and make the 70 weeks prophecy point to Bar Kochba, who lived roughly a century too late.  We also have Greek kings-lists backing up the Length of this period, due to Alexander I of Macedon being involved in the first two Persian wars.

The core of this argument is that the focus of the 70 weeks prophecy is about The Temple and Jerusalem, and nothing significant happened there when Jesus died. Their forgetting something important. Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45 all record then when Jesus died on The Cross "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;". The Temple physically stood for another 40 years, but it's Mosaic anointing ended when Jesus finally became the true Sacrificial offering all the others were only rehearsals for.  I'll again quote the Talmud Yoma 39b

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

So actually even what this wrong interpretation says the 62 weeks points to happened in 30 AD. So I've come to interpret "Messiah be cut off" as having a double meaning, both referring to Jesus' death on the Cross, and the removing of divine presence from The Temple when the veil was torn.

Jerome records in his Letter to Hedibia 120.8 that some early altered versions of Matthew's Gospels added to Matthew 27:51 that the lintel of the Temple collapsed.

After the Triumphal Entry Luke 19:41 records that Jesus.

And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

And goes on to foretell Jerusalem's coming destruction. The people were judged for failing to recognize prophecy had been fulfilled. And not just because what he did matched what Zachariah 9:9 described, a false Messiah could attempt such a thing. The phrase "in this thy day", clearly tells us timing was the key. The context of the coming destruction of Jerusalem clearly tells us to look to Daniel 9, no where else does the Hebrew Bible speak of Jerusalem being destroyed again in addition to the destruction in 588 BC. And then in verse 44 the matter is made more clear "because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."

So using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that settles the matter for me.

P.S. A huge section of the original version of this I posted on the retired prophecy blog in 2014 was copy/pasted from some older website I no longer remember what it was.  I'm sorry for that, it's agaisnt my current policy. 

Genealogy of Charlemagne

Ancestry of Charlemagne 

Charlemagne's Descent from Seleucid Dynasty

Seleucus I Nicator + Apama

Antiochus I Soter & Achaeus

Antiochus II Theos = Laodice I

Seleucus II Callinicus & Laodice wife of Mithridates II of Pontus

Antiochus III the Great + Laodice III

Seleucus IV Philopator = Laodice IV

Demetrius I Soter

Demetrius II Nicator + Cleopatra Thea

Antiochus VIII Grypus + Tryphaena

Laodice VII Thea, wife of Mithridates I Callinicus

Antiochus I Theos of Commagene

Mithridates II of Commagene & Athenais of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Descent through Antiochus Epiphanes himself (A bit less solid)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes = Laodice IV

Laodice, wife of Mithridates V of Pontus

Mithridates VI of Pontus

Cleopatra of Pontus, wife of Tigranes The Great

[Name Unkown], wife of Mithridates of Media Atropatene

Ariobarzanes I of Media Atropatene

Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene

Mithridates III of Commagene + Iotapa

Antiochus III of Commagene = Iotapa

Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Commagene = Julia Iotapa

Julia Iotapa, wife of Gaius Julius Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlamagne's descent from Caesar Augustus

Octavius Caesar Augustus

Julia The Elder

Julia The Younger

Aemilia Lepida

Junia Lepida

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Ides of March

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus

Gaius Cassius Longinus, Suffectus Consul in 30 AD

Cassius Lepidus

Cassia Lepida

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Late Roman Aristocracy of Gaul

Ferreolus, a Roman Senator

Tonantius Ferreolus (prefect)

Tonantius Ferreolus II

Tonantius Ferreolus III

Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Merovingians

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Blithilde, wife of Ansbert

Arnoald

Itta, wife of Pepin of Landen

Begga, wife of Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Childeric I

Clovis I

Chlothar I

Charibert I

Chrodobertus (d. 595)

Charibert of Hesbaye

Robert I Bishop of Tours

Lambert I of Hesbaye

Robert II Lord Chanceler of France

Lambert II of Hesbaye

Rotrude of Hesbaye wife of Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from Bishops of Lyon

Eucherius Bishop of Lyon + Galla

Tullia

Aquilinus

Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Maternal Ancestry of Charlemagne's mother's father

Irmina of Oeren

Bertrada of Prüm

Charibert of Laon

Bertrada of Laon

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Herodian Dynasty

Antipater the Idumaean

Herod the Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Charlemagne's descent from the Hasmoneans (Martel and Maccabeus both mean The Hammer)

The Priestly Order of Joarib

Asamoneus

Simeon

John

Mattathias

Simon Thassi

John Hyrcanus

Alexander Jannaeus + Salome Alexandra

Aristobulus II  & Hyrcanus II

Alexander + Alexandra

Mariamne the Hasmonean, wife of Herod The Great

Alexander

Gaius Julius Alexander

Tigranes VI of Armenia

Gaius Julius Alexander, Ruler of Cetis in Cilicia

Gaius Julius Alexander Berenicianus

Julia Cassia Alexandra wife of Gaius Avidius Heliodorus

Gaius Avidius Cassius, Usurper Emperor in 175 AD

Avidia Cassia Alexandra

Claudia Vettia Agrippina

Claudia wife of Claudius Capitolinus Bassus, proconsul of Asia

Claudia Capitolina

Amnia Demetrias wife of Anicius Faustus, Consul in 298

Amnius Anicius Julianus, Consul in 322

Amnius Anicius Paulinus, Consul in 334

Anicius Auchenius Bassus (prefect)

Tirrania Anicia Juliana, wife of Quintus Clodius Hermogenianus Olybrius

Anicia

Adelphius of Limoges

[Female Name Unknown]

Ruricius Bishop of Limoges

Hiberie de Limoges, wife of Rusticus Archbishop of Lyon

Artemia, wife Roman Senator Florentinus

Arthemia, wife of Munderic 

Mummolin

Bodegisel, Based on the Vita Gundolphi

Arnulf of Metz

Ansegisel

Pepin of Herstal

Charles Martel

Pepin The Short

Charlemagne

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from Charlemagne

If you don't count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from Pepin of Aquitaine the original intended Heir of West Francia.

Pepin I of Aquitaine

daughter

Ranulf I of Poitiers, Duke of Aquitaine

Ranulf II of Aquitaine

Ebalus, Duke of Aquitaine

William III, Duke of Aquitaine

William IV, Duke of Aquitaine

William V, Duke of Aquitaine

William VIII, Duke of Aquitaine

William IX, Duke of Aquitaine

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

King John

If you do count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Herbert II, Count of Vermandois

Robert of Vermandois

Adele of Meaux

Fulk III, Count of Anjou

Ermengarde of Anjou, Duchess of Burgundy

Fulk IV, Count of Anjou

Fulk V, Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem

Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou

Henry II of England

King John

Male Preference Primogeniture Descent from King John

King John

Joan, Lady of Wales

Gwladus ferch Llywelyn

Roger Mortimer, 1st Baron Mortimer of Wigmore

Edmund Mortimer, 2nd Baron Mortimer of Wigmore

Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March

Edmund Mortimer (died 1331)

Roger Mortimer, 2nd Earl of March

Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March

Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March

Anne de Mortimer

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York

Edward IV of England

Elizabeth of York

Margaret Tudor, Queen Consort of Scotland

James V of Scotland

Mary, Queen of Scots

King James VI of Scotland and I of England

Jacobite Succession to the present day

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Charlemagne

If you count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Beatrice of Vermandois

Hugh the Great

Beatrice of France

Theodoric I, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Sophie, Countess of Bar

Theodoric I, Count of Montbéliard

Sophie († 1148), married in 1128 to Richard II, Count of Montfaucon

Amadeus II of Montfaucon

Walter of Montbéliard

Eschiva de Montfaucon

John II, Lord of Beirut

Eschive d'Ibelin

Rupen of Montfort

Jeanne of Montfort

Maria of Ibelin

Guy

Hugh

Charlemagne

Pepin of Italy

Bernard of Italy

Pepin, Count of Vermandois

Herbert I, Count of Vermandois

Beatrice of Vermandois

Hugh the Great

Beatrice of France

Theodoric I, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine

Sophie, Countess of Bar

Theodoric I, Count of Montbéliard

Sophie († 1148), married in 1128 to Richard II, Count of Montfaucon

Amadeus II of Montfaucon

Walter of Montbéliard

Eschiva de Montfaucon

John II, Lord of Beirut

Eschive d'Ibelin

Hugh IV of Cyprus

James I of Cyprus

Janus, King of Cyprus

Anne de Lusignan

Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy

Anne of Savoy

Charlotte of Naples

Anne de Laval, Viscountess of Thouars

Louis III de La Trémoille

Claude de La Trémoille

Henri de La Trémoille

Henri Charles de La Trémoille

Charles Belgique Hollande de La Trémoille

Marie Armande de La Trémoille

Marie Hortense Victoire de La Tour d'Auvergne

Jean Bretagne Charles de La Trémoille

Charles Bretagne Marie de La Trémoille

As far as Wikipedia allows me to trace it

If you don't count Bernard of Italy

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Marguerite of Bourbon-La Marche

Catherine de Nevers

Henri II d'Orléans, Duke of Longueville

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Lothair I

Louis II of Italy

Ermengard of Italy

Louis the Blind

Charles-Constantine

Constance of Vienne

Rotbold I, Count of Provence

Rotbold II, Count of Provence

Emma of Provence

Pons, Count of Toulouse

William IV, Count of Toulouse

Philippa, Countess of Toulouse

William X, Duke of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Antoine of Navarre

Henry IV of France

Louis XIII the Just

Louis XIV the Great The Sun King

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louise-Élisabeth of France

Ferdinand I, Duke of Parma

Princess Carolina of Parma

Princess Maria Anna of Saxony

Archduchess Auguste Ferdinande of Austria

Ludwig III of Bavaria

Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria

Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria

Princess Marie Gabrielle

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Eleanor of Aquitaine's Marriage to Henry II of England.

Eleanor of Aquitaine + Henry II

Matilda of England, Duchess of Saxony

Henry V, Count Palatine of the Rhine

Irmengard of Baden

Herman VI, Margrave of Baden

Agnes of Baden, Duchess of Carinthia

Catherine of Heunburg

Frederick I, Count of Celje

Ulrich I, Count of Celje

William, Count of Celje

Anna of Cilli

Hedwig Jagiellon

As far as I could trace it on Wikipedia.

Gender Neutral Primogeniture Succession from Charles The Bald who inherited France

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Adalulf Count of Boulogne

Arnulf II of Boulogne

Baldwin II of Boulogne

Eustace I of Boulogne

Eustace II of Boulogne

Eustace III of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne

Marie I Countess of Boulogne

Mathilde of Flanders

Margaret of Brabant

Otto II Count of Guelders

Reginald I of Guelders

Reginald II of Guelders

Marie of Guelders

Joanna of Jülich

Maria van Arkel

Arnold of Egmond

Mary of Guelders

James III of Scotland

James IV of Scotland

James V of Scotland

Mary Queen of Scots

James VI of Scotland and I of England

Elizabeth Stuart Queen of Bohemia

Charles I Louis Elector Palatine

Princess Elisabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate

Philippe II Duke of Orléans

Charlotte Aglaé d'Orléans

Maria Teresa Felicitas d'Este

Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon Duchess of Orléans

Louis Philippe I King of The French

Ferdinand Philippe Duke of Orléans

Prince Philippe of Orléans Count of Paris

Princess Hélène of Orléans

Prince Amedeo Duke of Aosta

Princess Margherita of Savoy-Aosta

Archduchess Maria Beatrice Anna Felicitas Zita Charlotte Adelheid Christina Elisabeth Gennara

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Arnulf I, Count of Flanders

Hildegarde

Arnulf, Count of Holland

Dirk III, Count of Holland

Floris I, Count of Holland

Bertha of Holland

Constance of France, Princess of Antioch

Bohemond II of Antioch

Constance of Antioch

Maria of Antioch

Alexios II Komnenos

Charles The Bald

Judith of Flanders

Baldwin II of Flanders

Arnulf I, Count of Flanders

Hildegarde

Arnulf, Count of Holland

Dirk III, Count of Holland

Floris I, Count of Holland

Bertha of Holland

Constance of France, Princess of Antioch

Bohemond II of Antioch

Constance of Antioch

Bohemond III of Antioch

Raymond IV, Count of Tripoli

Raymond-Roupen

Maria of Antioch-Armenia

Humphrey of Montfort

Rupen of Montfort

Jeanne of Montfort

Eventually this too arguably converges on Hugh IV of Cyprus

Female Preference Primogeniture Succession from Charlemagne just for the fun of it

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Emma of Italy

Louis V of France

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Matilda, Abbess of Quedlinburg

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Adelaide I, Abbess of Quedlinburg & Sophia I, Abbess of Gandersheim

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Richardis of Carniola

Otto III (d. after 15 December 1130), Eckhard III (d. after 11 July 1183), Bernard II (d. c. 1135), unnamed son

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Wulfhilde of Saxony

Sophia of Bavaria

Ottokar III of Styria

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Bertha of Swabia

Adelaide of Italy

Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor

Matilda of Germany, Countess Palatine of Lotharingia

Richeza of Lotharingia

Richeza of Poland, Queen of Hungary

Sophia of Hungary

Wulfhilde of Saxony

Judith of Bavaria, Duchess of Swabia

Bertha, Duchess of Lorraine

Alice of Lorraine

Odo III, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy

Margaret, Lady of Molinot

Marie, Viscountess of Limoges

Guy de Penthièvre

Joan, Duchess of Brittany

Marie of Blois, Duchess of Anjou

Louis II of Anjou

Marie of Anjou

Magdalena of Valois

Catherine of Navarre

Isabel d'Albret of Navarre

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Countess Palatine Magdalene Catherine of Zweibrücken

Countess Palatine Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Countess Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

From this point Wikipedia doesn't say one way or the other if any daughters had children

This line is disputed actually but if true it's more senior then the Judith of Friuli lines.

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Below is a line I first documented from Berengar I of Italy because Gisela's own page didn't mention her daughters

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Berengar I of Italy

Gisela of Friuli

Berengar II of Italy

Rozala of Italy

Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders

Judith of Flanders

Henry IX, Duke of Bavaria

Judith of Bavaria, Duchess of Swabia

Bertha, Duchess of Lorraine

Alice of Lorraine

Odo III, Duke of Burgundy

Hugh IV, Duke of Burgundy

Margaret, Lady of Molinot

Marie, Viscountess of Limoges

Guy de Penthièvre

Joan, Duchess of Brittany

Marie of Blois, Duchess of Anjou

Louis II of Anjou

Marie of Anjou

Magdalena of Valois

Catherine of Navarre

Isabel d'Albret of Navarre

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Countess Palatine Magdalene Catherine of Zweibrücken

Countess Palatine Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Countess Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

From this point Wikipedia doesn't say one way or the other if any daughters had children

Female Only Primogeniture succession from Gisela

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Judith of Friuli

Gisela (mother of Regelinda)

Regelinda of Zürich

Ida of Swabia

Mathilde, Abbess of Essen

Charlemagne

Louis the Pious

Gisela

Ingeltrude

Hedwig of Babenberg

Oda of Saxony

Oda of Metz

Female Preference Primogeniture descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Marie de Bourbon, Princess of Achaea

Hugh of Lusignan

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Beatrice of Bourbon, Queen of Bohemia

Wenceslaus I, Duke of Luxembourg

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Isabella of Valois

Joan of Valois, Duchess of Alençon

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Isabella of Brittany

Jeanne de Laval

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Francis I, Duke of Brittany

Margaret of Brittany

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Marie of Champagne, Latin Empress of Constantinople

Margaret II, Countess of Flanders

John I, Count of Hainaut

John II, Count of Holland

Mary of Avesnes

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon

Joanna of Bourbon

Charles VI of France

Joan of France, Duchess of Brittany

Francis I, Duke of Brittany

Marie of Brittany, Viscountess of Rohan

Anne, Viscountess of Rohan

René I, Viscount of Rohan

René II, Viscount of Rohan

Catherine de Rohan

Magdalena Catherine, Countess Palatine of Zweibrücken

Dorothea Catherine of Birkenfeld-Bischweiler

Anna Catherine of Nassau-Ottweiler

Charles, Wild- and Rhinegrave of Salm-Dhaun

John Philip III, Wild- and Rhinegrave of Salm-Dhaun

Update March 11th:

Male preference primogeniture descent from Charles Martel

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Adalard the Seneschal

Adalhard of Metz

Gerhard I of Metz

Oda of Metz

Godfrey I, Count of Verdun

Gothelo I, Duke of Lorraine

Godfrey the Bearded

Ida of Lorraine

Eustace III, Count of Boulogne

Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne

Marie I, Countess of Boulogne

Matilda of Boulogne, Duchess of Brabant

Henry II, Duke of Brabant

Henry III, Duke of Brabant

John I, Duke of Brabant

John II, Duke of Brabant

John III, Duke of Brabant

Margaret of Brabant, Countess of Flanders

Margaret III, Countess of Flanders

John the Fearless

Philip the Good

Charles the Bold

Mary the Rich

Philip the Handsome

Charles V Holy Roman Emperor

Philip II King of Spain

Philip III King of Spain

Philip IV King of Spain

Maria Theresa of Spain

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louis, Dauphin of France

Charles X King of France

Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry

Princess Louise d'Artois

Robert I, Duke of Parma

Elias, Duke of Parma

Infantia Alicia, Duchess of Calabria 

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria

Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria

This line would be more senior but it's based on a disputed connected proposed by by Eduard Hlawitschka.

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Adalard the Seneschal

Adalhard of Metz

Gerhard I of Metz

Godfrey of Jülich

Gerhard II Count of Metz

Richard Count of Metz

Adalbert Count in Saargau

Gerhard IV Count of Metz

Gerard the Wonderful

Theodoric II, Duke of Lorraine

Simon I, Duke of Lorraine

Matthias I, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick I, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick II, Duke of Lorraine

Matthias II, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick III, Duke of Lorraine

Theobald II, Duke of Lorraine

Frederick IV, Duke of Lorraine

Rudolph, Duke of Lorraine

John I, Duke of Lorraine

Charles II, Duke of Lorraine

Isabella, Duchess of Lorraine

Yolande, Duchess of Lorraine

René II, Duke of Lorraine

Antoine, Duke of Lorraine

Francis I, Duke of Lorraine

Charles III, Duke of Lorraine

Henry II, Duke of Lorraine

Nicole, Duchess of Lorraine

Claude-Françoise of Lorraine

Charles V, Duke of Lorraine

Leopold, Duke of Lorraine

Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor

Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

Archduke Franz Karl of Austria

Franz Joseph I of Austria

Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria

Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria

Franz Joseph (b. 1904 – d. 1981)

Princess Stéphanie Windisch-Graetz 

Henry Victor William Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell (born 1967)

:Bryan Vahram John Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell 2005 

:Eleonore Mélinée Blundell-Hollinshead-Blundell 2002

Absolute primogeniture descent from Charles Martel

Charles Martel

Carloman

Rotrude, Countess of Paris

Leuthard I of Paris

Engeltrude de Fézensac

Ermentrude of Orléans

Same as succession from Charles The Bald

Update September 10th 2024: I found this hypothetical Line interesting.

Male Preference Primogeniture Succession from Eleanor of Aquitaine if we only consider her first Marriage Legitimate

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Marie of France, Countess of Champagne

Henry II, Count of Champagne

Alice of Champagne

Mary of Lusignan, Countess of Brienne

Hugh, Count of Brienne

Walter V, Count of Brienne

Isabella, Countess of Brienne

Louis, Count of Enghien

Margaret, Countess of Brienne

Peter of Luxembourg

Louis, Count of Saint-Pol

Peter II, Count of Saint-Pol

Marie I, Countess of Saint-Pol and Soissons

Charles de Bourbon, Duke of Vendome

Antoine of Navarre

Henry IV of France

Louis XIII the Just

Louis XIV the Great The Sun King

Louis, Grand Dauphin

Louis, Duke of Burgundy

Louis XV King of France

Louis, Dauphin of France

Charles X King of France

Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry

Princess Louise d'Artois

Robert I, Duke of Parma

Elias, Duke of Parma

Infantia Alicia, Duchess of Calabria 

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria

Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria