Descents From Charlemange
John Watson
and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.
Exactly how many descendants are alive today is purely a matter of
conjecture, but we could make a guess at it mathematically, after
making a few assumptions.
Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that Charlemange had two
children and they each had two children, and each of those had two
children, etc. and there were three generations per century since
Charles died (an extremely conservative approach). How many living
descendants would he have today?
Charles died in 814, so give or take a couple of years, 1,200 years
ago. Our number of generations is therefore 12 x 3 = 36.
So in the first generation, he would have 2 descendants, in the next,
4, in the next 8, in the next 16, in the next 32, ... and so on. What
number would you expect to reach after 36 generations?
The answer is more than 68 billion. (The population of the world today
is around 6 billion) So mathematically (rather than genealogically),
everyone on earth is descended from Charlemange (more than once).
It isn't a big deal.
Regards,
John
Renia
> Old Charles is said to have had at least 18 children by various wives
> and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.
We could ask Leo van de Pas the names of as many of these wives,
concubines and children as he has on his database but as he has decided
he no longer wants to subscribe to this group, he won't hear our
question, unfortunately.
Another valuable contributor bites the dust.
James Dow Allen
> Exactly how many descendants are alive today is purely a matter of
> conjecture, but we could make a guess at it mathematically, after
> making a few assumptions.
If we're to guess with assumptions we should use good assumptions.
Very crude, OK. Deliberately wrong, why?
> ... there were three generations per century since
Four (or more!) generations per century is a better assumption.
Average age of parenting is higher than 25 years, but the earlier
births lead to faster growth in descendants.
> Charles died in 814, so give or take a couple of years, 1,200 years
> ago. Our number of generations is therefore 12 x 3 = 36.
1250 years makes more sense unless you're only interested in
descendants who are now very old. Number of generations is
therefore 12.5 * 4 = 50. Multiply by six, finally, to accomodate
population growth.
> The answer is more than 68 billion. (The population of the world today
> is around 6 billion) So mathematically (rather than genealogically),
> everyone on earth is descended from Charlemange (more than once).
With better assumptions, the answer is about six million billion.
On average each living human is descended from Charlemagne
in about 1 million ways!
That doesn't imply *every* human is Charlemagne's descendants.
Some peoples of Oceania have *very* little European blood.
> It isn't a big deal.
Stating Fermat's last theorem isn't a big deal either.
Proving it is.
James
John Watson
>
> Stating Fermat's last theorem isn't a big deal either.
> Proving it is.
>
> James
I have a truly marvelous proof of Fermat's last proposition but there
isn't enough space here to write it all down.
Regards,
John
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fioi0b$8mi$1...@mouse.otenet.gr...
simon fairthorne
Although commonly called his last theorem
it was not his last, he lived and worked for another 25 years
cheers
Simon
Doug McDonald
Oh poppycock.
You can "ask Leo" that question by asking it of his database directly.
I have, and the results are there for everybody to see, so I shall not quote them.
Or you can ask it of him personally, which is silly,
by email.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
>> I have a truly marvelous proof of Fermat's last proposition but there
>> isn't enough space here to write it all down.
>>
>
>
> Although commonly called his last theorem
> it was not his last, he lived and worked for another 25 years
It was called that because it was the last one of his propositions which
remained unproven, until very recently.
Doug McDonald
wjhonson
You state the number of children in each generation without
recognizing the many many many times that an entire family died out
s.p. There are so many examples, that certain persons like John Burke
felt inclined to compose a book pointing all these out because the
descents of titles and manors was so confusing !
If every manor went parent to child, we'd really only need a list of
the names of the married daughters once in a while.
A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
situation.
Another issue is the approach given does not include cousin-marriage
which obviously takes place in at the most the 20th generatioon or so
simply because *there were NOT enough people in the western world* to
account for all the necessary brides and grooms. And I'm fairly sure
you all will acknowledge that its much more likely high-born men and
women entered convents or died early, rather than marry the guy who
tends the pig sty.
Will Johnson
John Watson
Will,
The exact numbers are not important - the point is that just about
everyone with Western European ancestors is descended from
Charlemange.
Regards,
John
Bill Arnold
The exact numbers are not important - the point is that just about
everyone with Western European ancestors is descended from
BA: All the more reason for *The Lion* Douglas Richardson to complete
his upcoming book *Charlemagne Ancestry.* It is truly needed as a
reference tool.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Nathaniel Taylor
> ... reference tool.
As for reference tools not already mentioned, I would recommend
Christian Settipani, _La Préhistoire des Capétiens, 481-987, première
partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et Robertiens_, (_Nouvelle histoire
généalogique de l'auguste maison de France_, 1.1, Villeneuve d'Asq:
Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993), which treats all male-line Carolingian
descendants down to the 13th century; and
Karl Ferdinand Werner, "Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr
1000 (1.-8. Generation)," in _Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und
Nachleben_, Gen. ed. Wolfgang Braunfels, 4 vols. (Dusseldorf, 1965-68),
vol. 4 (_Das Nachleben_, ed. Braunfels & Percy Ernst Schramm), pp.
403ff., which deals with all lines (male and female) in the crucial
early period. Not exhaustively documented and no longer fully current,
but a magnificent overview with its enormous charts.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
BA: Thanks much for the information, gentleman scholar, Nat Taylor.
I recently went to your website and viewed your royal ancestral lines
and others you designate "bogus" or questionable. Perhaps we are
cousins and share a common link through my ancestral *Magruder* lineage.
If I find others as I complete my ancestral lines, I will let you know.
Bill
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WJho...@aol.com
[perhaps mythical] book which would have something like the following format:
Half of the book (or more) would simply be family tree charts of *all*
European noble houses, the remainder taken up by discussion.
The vast majority of books have only a few charts, maybe ten at the most.
While the heraldry book I quote from-time-to-time is closer to what I want,
its so heavy on the heraldry that it skimps on the people (for space). So it
shows perhaps only a third of the people I wish it would show in order to have
space for all the shields.
*IS* there such a book (perhaps even in print) where half or more is family
tree charts? I have seen a few oblique references to a book purported to show
*all* living descendents from Edward III (of England) in chart form, but
what I'm looking for is something, perhaps more medieval in scope, showing all
Europe, not just all England.
Will Johnson
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Nathaniel Taylor
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> Speaking of references, I've been checking various book stores for a
> [perhaps mythical] book which would have something like the following
> format:
>
> Half of the book (or more) would simply be family tree charts of *all*
> European noble houses, the remainder taken up by discussion.
This is the dealbreaker. You're asking about a series, not a book, to
include *all*.
> The vast majority of books have only a few charts, maybe ten at the most.
>
> *IS* there such a book (perhaps even in print) where half or more is family
> tree charts? I have seen a few oblique references to a book purported to
> show
> *all* living descendents from Edward III (of England) in chart form, but
> what I'm looking for is something, perhaps more medieval in scope, showing
> all Europe, not just all England.
Well, Europaische Stammtafeln maintains the agnatic organizing
principle, so it does not have every-descendant charts for anyone. The
8-generation chart included with Werner's "Nachkommen Karls des Grossen"
in the Dusseldorf volume is the most ambitious every-descendant chart
I've seen, for any medieval individual, included in any published book.
But generally, for all its faults, ES fits your bill best of any work
out there. There have also been plenty of one-volume greatest hit
historical genealogy works which offer incomplete charts for basic
historical purposes: I have often used such charts for teaching. One
nicely printed volume I have and enjoy is and edition of the old
_Genealogical Tables Illustrative of Modern History_, ed. Hereford B.
George & successors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, editions from 1874 through
about WWII). This uses 'Modern' in the English academic meaning of
post-Classical.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
> > > ... reference tool.
> >
> > As for reference tools not already mentioned, I would recommend
> > Christian Settipani, _La Préhistoire des Capétiens, 481-987, première
> > partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et Robertiens_, (_Nouvelle histoire
> > généalogique de l'auguste maison de France_, 1.1, Villeneuve d'Asq:
> > Patrick Van Kerrebrouck, 1993), which treats all male-line Carolingian
> > descendants down to the 13th century; and
> >
> > Karl Ferdinand Werner, "Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr
> > 1000 (1.-8. Generation)," in _Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und
> > Nachleben_, Gen. ed. Wolfgang Braunfels, 4 vols. (Dusseldorf, 1965-68),
> > vol. 4 (_Das Nachleben_, ed. Braunfels & Percy Ernst Schramm), pp.
> > 403ff., which deals with all lines (male and female) in the crucial
> > early period. Not exhaustively documented and no longer fully current,
> > but a magnificent overview with its enormous charts.
> >
>
> BA: Thanks much for the information, gentleman scholar, Nat Taylor.
> I recently went to your website and viewed your royal ancestral lines
> and others you designate "bogus" or questionable. Perhaps we are
> cousins and share a common link through my ancestral *Magruder* lineage.
> If I find others as I complete my ancestral lines, I will let you know.
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
Bill
*****[see below]
[key part of mine which links to yours]
My line branches off at generation 15.
>From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as well)
17. John Magruder and Sarah Prior
18. Pamelia Magruder and Thomas Jefferson Wright
19. John Thomas Wright and Mary Caroline Eugenia Cliett
20. William Thomas Wright and Frances Louise Overton
[Nat Taylor's from his clickable: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royaldescents/magruder.htm]
Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor's royal descents:
via Alexander Magruder of Prince George’s County, Maryland († 1677):
to Robert II, King of Scotland († 1390)
1. Robert I Bruce, King of Scotland († 1329) ∞ Isabel, dau. of Donald, Earl of Mar
2. Marjorie († 1316), Princess of Scotland ∞ Walter Stewart (1293-1326), 6th High Steward of
Scotland
3. Robert II (1316-1390), 1st Stewart King of Scotland 1371-1390 ∞ Elizabeth (†1355), dau.
Sir Adam Mure
4. Robert Stewart (~1340-1420) , 1st Duke of Albany, Regent of Scotland ∞ Margaret Graham of
Menteith (†1380)
5. Marjory Stewart († 1432) ∞ Duncan Campbell, 1st Lord Campbell (~1370-1453)
6. Archibald Campbell, Master of Campbell (~1393-1431/40) ∞ Elizabeth Somerville
7. Colin Campbell († 1493), 1st Earl of Argyll ∞ Isabel, daughter of John Stewart, Lord Lorn
8. Archibald Campbell († at the Battle of Flodden, 1513), 2d Earl of Argyll ∞ Elizabeth,
dau. John Stewart, Earl of Lenox
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
18. Cassandra Odell (1780-1832) ∞ John Kendrick Austin (1770-1854)
19. Elizabeth Austin (1807-1888) ∞ Blackstone Taylor (1806-1870)
20. William Harrison Taylor (1838-1911) ∞ Elizabeth Caroline Barnes (1841-1930)
21. Henry Barnes Taylor (1863-1926) ∞ Mildred Ann Matlack (1861-1939)
22. Marvin Hunter Taylor (1896-1941) ∞ Emma Katherine Schmitt (1894-1973)
23. Marvin Hunter Taylor (b. 1929) ∞ Elaine Doris Tucker (b. 1929)
24. Nathaniel Lane Taylor (b. 1965) ∞ Julie Harmon Scott (b. 1968)
25. Cassandra Elizabeth Taylor (b. 2000)
Sources:
Gens. 1-12: Gary B. Roberts, Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the
United States (1st ed., Baltimore, 1993), 99, and his principal sources: Charles G. Kurz & Thomas
G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of Margaret Campbell of Keithick," Yearbook of the
American Clan Gregor Society, 62 (1978), 55-65; and idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to
Magruder Family in America," Yearbook... 63 (1979), 53-71. See also the not-yet-published work of
Brice M. Clagett: Seven Centuries: Ancestors for Twenty Generations of John Brice de Treville
Clagett and Ann Calvert Brooke Clagett (Friendship, Maryland: the author, 200x).
Comment:
Clagett's manuscript (in notes, s.n. 'Magruder') contains a concise account of the compelling but
circumstantial evidence to identify Alexander Magruder of Maryland with the parentage shown here.
Clagett also indicates a possible descent from King Robert III through Katherine Drummond, wife of
Nicholas Campbell of Lismore.
back to CET royal descents index
[source: http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royaldescents/magruder.htm
rev 08/18/2004]
James Dow Allen
> All your maths are faulty, for the following reason.
No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)
Perhaps the easiest way to confirm the result is
to work the other way. Not everyone has descendants
but we all have ancestors! It may not be obvious
that, assuming no population growth, 2 is the average
number of children, but 2.00 is an excellent estimate
of one's number of parents. :-)
Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45. (This is because the need, alluded to in the
earlier post, to weight short generations higher
doesn't operate in the other direction.)
2^45 = 35 million million
That's how many ancestor *slots* one of us has in Charles'
generation. Now estimate how many of those were Europeans;
what the population of Europe was in Charlemagne's time;
restrict that to one generation (e.g. a 28-year age bracket);
exclude people who have zero present-day descendants (Charles
the Great was *not* one of these!); perform division.
Very roughly, you finish with 1 million descents from
Charlemagne just as before.
My own database -- in which of course a huge percentage of
distant ancestor slots will be missing -- shows 8.8 *billion*
descents from Charlemagne to England's future King William V,
or "only" 188 million when I tell the software to ignore the
more improbable connections.
(If such numbers seem bizarrely large for software to even
calculate, read http://james.fabpedigree.com/agggraph.htm )
> A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
> problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
> situation.
"Second"-order effects can be *very* important depending on
what question is posed. Nobles will have far more than the
average number of Charlemagne descents; peasants far less.
I assume nobles are much more productive, procreatively, than
peasants -- even ignoring undocumented bastards -- so the true
number of average descents from Charlemagne is probably much
more than a million. Whaever the flaws in my data, the number of
such descents for future William V is surely in the billions, or
probably even much more than that. (Remember, we deal
with the *fully* expanded ancestor table.)
James
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/1/2007 11:45:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jdall...@yahoo.com writes:
No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)>>
--------------------------------------------------------
That makes no sense.
That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
descent.
If your parents are siblings, and their parents (who let's say aren't
related closely) each have 90 unique descents from Charles, you still have those
descents regardless of your parents being related. And the mere fact that they
are related, doesn't merge all the descents into one.
Maybe you could restate that.
Doug McDonald
>
> Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
> use 45.
This is way too high. Prince William is Charlemagne's
31st great grandson, by the shortest path I have.
That's 33 generations. The number on average probably clusters
around 36 or 37. For me the average is about 38 or 39.
Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines
1 x 10^9 or so people living today have descents from Charlemagne.
DSH
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fiukho$gfa$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BA: Well, hello, Cousin Nat Taylor, once again: herein you will find our
> common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
> descent?
>
> From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
>
> 15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
> 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
> well)
Via what gateway?
> 17. John Magruder and Sarah Prior
> 18. Pamelia Magruder and Thomas Jefferson Wright
> 19. John Thomas Wright and Mary Caroline Eugenia Cliett
> 20. William Thomas Wright and Frances Louise Overton
>
> [Nat Taylor's from his clickable:
> http://www.nltaylor.net/ancestry/royaldescents/magruder.htm
Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
common lineage, way back when: is this a Charlemagne or Plantagenet
descent?
NT's lineage, in part, from royal descent:
9. Donald Campbell, O. C. (1492-1562), Abbot of Coupar Angus, Lord Privy Seal for Mary, Queen of
Scots
10. (illegitimate:) Nicholas Campbell, dean of Lismore Cathedral ∞ Katherine Drummond
11. Margaret Campbell ∞ Alexander Magruder of Dunblane, Perthshire (1569- )
12. Alexander Magruder of Prince George's County, Maryland (1610-1677) ∞ Sarah ___ [see
comment]
13. Captain Samuel Magruder (ca. 1660-1711) ∞ Sarah ___ ( - 1734)
14. Ninian Magruder (1686-1751) ∞ Elizabeth Brewer (1690-<1751)
15. Samuel Magruder III (1708-1786) ∞ Margaret Jackson (1711-1801)
16. Elizabeth Magruder (1730-1812) ∞ William Offutt III (1729-1786)
17. Margaret Offutt (1760-1820) ∞ Baruch Odell (1755-1789)
BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
well)
NT: Via what gateway?
BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
NT: Well, given the caveat that the case for Maryland planter Alexander
Magruder's identity (and, crucially, maternity) is only circumstantial,
if he is who he been identified as, then certainly, numerous paths to
Charlemagne are easily found: this is true of any English or Scottish
monarch from the late 11th century onward. Follow them back in the
pedigree view on Leo's genealogics site (www.genealogics.org) or use the
site's relationship calculator.
BA: Cousin Nat, it was my second cousin, a genealogist who did this
lineage, and he has written me: "The lineage is pretty well documented back to
the immigrant, the weakest link being generation 15. No known record identifies
Ninian Offutt Magruder's parents and no known record identifies John Magruder's
children, but he is the only logical candidate for Ninian Offutt Magruder's father.
I don't know about the pre-immigrant generations."
NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
all lines.
BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
or the lines further back."
If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
but not a Plantagenet, right?
lostc...@yahoo.com
One also cannot ignore the abrupt population declines due to the
various plagues, especially around the early to mid 15th C.
Jwc...@aol.com
I`ve checked two of my
royal lines, the most thoroughly documented one I have (thru Deighton- Williams-
Bird- Clapp and Ward to Cummings is a total 41 generations between Charlemagne
and myself) and the presumed "best" royal descent (Plantagenet - St Leger -
Manners - Constable- Stapleton - Nelson - Colburn - French - Prescott -
Cummings ) which is 40 generations unless it comes undone between Lucy (Nelson)
Colburn and her persumed son Jeremiah Colburn.
Henry I , King of England is 12 generations
from Charlemagne , Henry II , King of England is 14 and so is Willam I , King
of Scots and Henry I, Duke of Brabant.
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings
Dixmont,
Maine USA
PS James IV, King of Scots is 25 th in descent from Charlemagne
through King Edward III of England
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
> 15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
> 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
> well)
>
> NT: Via what gateway?
>
> BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
ancestry?
> NT: I do not believe that there are any descents from Henry II or Geoffrey
> of Anjou to this particular Scottish emigrant. The endogamous early
> Stewarts had no such descents, and I haven't looked fully into all the
> known (apparent) ancestors of Alexander Magruder to find other
> Anglo-Scottish marriages that might bring it in. This is something that
> can probably be tested in Brice Clagett's forthcoming work which should
> give 10 generations of Alexander Magruder's (apparent) known ancestry in
> all lines.
>
> BA: Of this part, my cousin wrote me: "Magruder lines of descent from
> royalty have been published widely since at least the World War I era.
> I've never investigated them, but I recall at least some of them tracing
> the Magruders through the McGregors. (Magruder was supposed to a a
> McGregor sept.) As I understand it, DNA evidence shows the
> Magruder-McGregor descent is spurious. There might, however, be some
> royal lines through the American immigrant's wife, Margaret Braithwaite,
> but I don't know the quality of the research supporting her identification
> or the lines further back."
More recent literature than that known to your cousin has dispensed with
the mistaken idea that 'Magruder' is a form of 'McGregor' and that the
Magruders are related to the old clan of McGregor. The articles by Kurz
& Magruder, here (I cite again) --
Charles G. Kurz & Thomas G. Magruder, Jr., "The Ancestral History of
Margaret Campbell of Keithick," _Yearbook of the American Clan Gregor
Society_, 62 (1978), 55-65;
and
idem, "The McGruder Lineage in Scotland to Magruder Family in America,"
_Yearbook..._ 63 (1979), 53-71.
-- show that the Magruders were a small family who were partisans of the
Perthshire Drummonds in the 16th century. All apparent earlier noble
ancestry comes through the Drummond-Magruder marriage apparently in the
generation above the emigrant Alexander.
By the way, Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, was not married to a
Margaret Braithwaite--this is another long-disproved canard.
> If I read you both right, we possibly have a Charlemagne descent here,
> but not a Plantagenet, right?
Many, many Carolingian descents can be found behind the late medieval
Scottish noble ancestry alleged for Alexander Magruder. I've given you
one line here, chosen because it goes through William the Conqueror and
because it can be followed for several generations in the very best
resource of its kind on the Internet -- Stewart Baldwin's _Henry
Project_, starting here for the page on King Henry I:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/henry001.htm
Here is *a* line from Charlemagne to Robert I 'the Bruce', King of Scots:
Charlemagne = Hildegard
Louis 'the Pious' = Judith
Charles II 'the Bald' of West Franks = Ermentrud
Judith of 'France' = Baldwin I 'Iron-arm', count of Flanders
Baldwin II, count of Flanders = Alfthryth of Wessex
Arnulf I, count of Flanders = Adele de Vermandois
Baldwin III, count of Flanders = Mathilde of Saxony
Arnulf II, count of Flanders = Rosala Susanna, dau. Berengar, K. of Italy
Baldwin IV, count of Flanders = Otgiva of Lucembourg
Baldwin V, count of Flanders = Adele, dau. Robert II of France
Matilda of Flanders = William I, king of England
Henry I, king of England
Robert, Earl of Gloucester (illegitimate) = Mabel fitz Hamon
Maud of Gloucester = Ranulf, earl of Chester
Hugh Keveliok, earl of Chester = Bertrada de Montfort
Maud of Chester = David, Earl of Huntingdon
Isabella = Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Isabella de Clare
Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale = Margaret, countess of Carrick
Robert I, king of Scots (etc.)
You can follow the line down to Magruder on my page you noted earlier.
This is one of many, many lines you can find. Using Leo's site --
-- and starting with Robert the Bruce, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006033&tree=LEO
-- or even Alexander Magruder, the immigrant, himself, here --
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00377894&tree=LEO
-- you can find many, many more interesting things.
Earlier I misspoke: the Scottish kings with an obvious Carolingian
ancestry begin only in 1153.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
I will query my cousin about Mary Harris,
and report back.
Cousin Bill
PS Thanks for the full response, and you are a
gentleman and scholar.
*****
--- Nathaniel Taylor <nlta...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the
> word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Bill Arnold
> > Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BA: From Ninian Magruder and Elizabeth Brewer, my line comes down as follows:
> > > 15. John Magruder and Jane Offutt
> > > 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may have a royal descent as
> > > well)
> > >
> > > NT: Via what gateway?
> > >
> > > BA: Do you mean Mary Harris?
> >
> > Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
> > ancestry?
>
> > http://www.nltaylor.net
***********************
--- Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Cousin Nat.
>
> I will query my cousin about Mary Harris,
> and report back.
>
> Cousin Bill
> PS Thanks for the full response, and you are a
> gentleman and scholar.
>
> *****
BA: Hi, again, Cousin Nat Taylor,
Here is a response from our cousin, my second cousin, all of us Magruders,
and I will post his full response so that you understand he is not being coy
but as a full-time college professor and due to retire he is wrapping up course
work of the semester, so that if it is not a full response as you would like,
let me know and I will try to wheedle more from him, as he is a good cousin
of ours.
Cousin Bill
******
[our Magruder cousin's response:]
Hi, Bill --- I should know better than to speak without checking my facts, but the gateway
ancestor of Mary Harris may be Henry Ridgely, who settled in Maryland. I didn't mean to imply that
the online information you referred me to was "not firm," just that I don't know whether it is
firm or not. I just don't accept genealogical information as accurate without reviewing the
compiler's documentation or verifying it with my own research. The time constraints I have right
now prohibit both activities, especially considering that medieval and royal lines, and English
genealogy in general, are not areas where I have much experience or expertise.
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, by what immigrant ancestor is Mary Harris alleged to have royal
> > > ancestry?
>
> Here is a response from our cousin, my second cousin, all of us Magruders,
> and I will post his full response so that you understand he is not being coy
> but as a full-time college professor and due to retire he is wrapping up
> course
> work of the semester, so that if it is not a full response as you would like,
> let me know and I will try to wheedle more from him, as he is a good cousin
> of ours.
I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
County, MD). He was wealthy & had reasonably high status, but according
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.
But the father of one of Ridely's wives, Matthew Howard, is the subject
of at least two distinct claims of noble parentage, the most absurd
being couched in a historical novel by James E. Moss: _Providence: the
Lost Towne at Severn in Mary Land_ (Washington: James Moss / Maryland
Historical Society, 1976). Neither Moss's theory nor the older, equally
groundless one by Henry Wright Newman, in _Ann Arundel County Gentry_
(Baltimore, 1933), can be accepted.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
fc...@charm.net
> In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
>
> ******
> [our Magruder cousin's response:]
>
> Hi, Bill --- I should know better than to speak without checking my facts, but the gateway
> ancestor of Mary Harris may be Henry Ridgely, who settled in Maryland. I didn't mean to imply that
> the online information you referred me to was "not firm," just that I don't know whether it is
> firm or not. I just don't accept genealogical information as accurate without reviewing the
> compiler's documentation or verifying it with my own research. The time constraints I have right
> now prohibit both activities, especially considering that medieval and royal lines, and English
> genealogy in general, are not areas where I have much experience or expertise.
>
> *****
Is Mary Harris a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely? If your Mary Harris
is the Mary Harris daughter of Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt then she
is not a descendant of Henry Ridgely. Henry Ridgely is not a gateway
ancestor. His parents are unknown. There has been a false line
attributed to his first wife, Elizabeth Howard, through her father
Matthew Howard, but his origins are unknown. Also Henry Ridgely did
not marry a Sarah Warner as is incorrectly put forth by some.
For a good overview of the connected families see:
Maryland and Virginia Colonials : genealogies of some Colonial
families : families of Bacon, Beall, Beasley, Cheney, Duckett, Dunbar,
Ellyson, Elmore, Graves, Heydon, Howard, Jacob, Morris, Nuthall,
Odell, Peerce, Reeder, Ridgley, Prather, Sprigg, Wesson, Williams, and
collateral kin by Sharon J. Doliante; Baltimore, MD : Genealogical
Pub. Co., 1991.
Fred Chalfant
wjhonson
> There have also been plenty of one-volume greatest hit
> historical genealogy works which offer incomplete charts for basic
> historical purposes: I have often used such charts for teaching. One
> nicely printed volume I have and enjoy is and edition of the old
> _Genealogical Tables Illustrative of Modern History_, ed. Hereford B.
> George & successors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, editions from 1874 through
> about WWII). This uses 'Modern' in the English academic meaning of
> post-Classical.
>
> Nat Taylor http://www.nltaylor.net
Nat thank you for this reference. I found an edition dated 1875 on
Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=FqMNAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage
And it's so closely related to my goal, that I've added it to my
Sources page.
Will Johnson
viridm...@gmail.com
> In article <mailman.146.1196628289.4586.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:
Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
Judith (died 1017) mother of:
Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
William I the Conqueror
Bill Arnold
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.
BA: Our cousin has done an AT for me of my southern ancestor in the line
in which we are second cousins. I do not have in that AT the reference
to Henry Ridgely. Generally, our cousin has only put in an AT something
which is comfirmed so I assume he has viewed the works you mention
and has the same misgivings you state. For parents of Mary Harris in the
AT he has not placed parents. In his post to me about yours, he had made
that reference about: 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may
have a royal descent as well).
BA: I will forward our gen-medieval messages to him and hope he can take
time from teaching duties to respond. In short: I know there are many
lines off the AT he is working on which are still *working* lines and so
he has not sent them to me yet. When he publishes lines, with documented
sources, he then sends me the published article. I hope I am understanding
you correctly.
Bill
Bill Arnold
Is Mary Harris a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely? If your Mary Harris
is the Mary Harris daughter of Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt then she
is not a descendant of Henry Ridgely. Henry Ridgely is not a gateway
ancestor. His parents are unknown. There has been a false line
attributed to his first wife, Elizabeth Howard, through her father
Matthew Howard, but his origins are unknown. Also Henry Ridgely did
not marry a Sarah Warner as is incorrectly put forth by some.
BA: I wrote the following to Nat Taylor about this matter:
BA: Our cousin has done an AT for me of my southern ancestor in the line
in which we are second cousins. I do not have in that AT the reference
to Henry Ridgely. Generally, our cousin has only put in an AT something
which is comfirmed so I assume he has viewed the works you mention
and has the same misgivings you state. For parents of Mary Harris in the
AT he has not placed parents. In his post to me about yours, he had made
that reference about: 16. Ninian Offutt Magruder and Mary Harris (she may
have a royal descent as well).
BA: I will forward our gen-medieval messages to him and hope he can take
time from teaching duties to respond. In short: I know there are many
lines off the AT he is working on which are still *working* lines and so
he has not sent them to me yet. When he publishes lines, with documented
sources, he then sends me the published article. I hope I am understanding
you correctly.
Bill
PS Fred, because I see no parents for Mary Harris in the AT my cousin gave
me I cannot know who her parents were. Are you suggesting they *were*
Thomas Harris and Sarah Offutt? Because Mary Harris's husband Ninian
Offutt Magruder was a son of John Magruder and Jane Offutt, it looks like
Mary Harris might have married an Offutt cousin? Do you know if it was,
and it looks like it might have been a first cousin at that? Do you have
a source? Better yet, can you supply the families and their interrelationships?
This is all *news* to me.
*****
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Bill Arnold
Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:
Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
Judith (died 1017) mother of:
Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
William I the Conqueror
BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
in the thousands?
Bill
Nathaniel Taylor
Bill Arnold <billar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> viridm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Here's a line from Charlemagne to William the Conqueror:
> >
> > Charlemagne (died 814) father of:
> > Carloman (Pippin), King of Italy (died 810) father of:
> > Bernard, King of Italy (died 818) father of:
> > Peppin, Count of Vermandois (born circa 815) father of:
> > Herbert I of Vermandois (died 907) father of:
> > Herbert II of Vermandois (died 943) father of:
> > Robert of Vermandois (died 968) father of:
> > Adele of Meaux (died 995) mother of:
> > Ermengarde of Anjou, mother of:
> > Judith (died 1017) mother of:
> > Robert, Duke of Normandy (died 999) father of:
> > William I the Conqueror
>
> BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
> Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
> Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
> With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
> in the thousands?
There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
Conqueror--the one above--but there are over a dozen uncontroversial
lines to his wife, Matilda of Flanders (and hence to King Henry I, their
son (I remember reading an old article in the _NEHGS Nexus_ which listed
the number of descents from Charlemagne to each English king from
William I to Edward III; I think it gave William 1 line and Henry I 19
lines, etc.).
If you follow the line given above in Stewart Baldwin's excellent Henry
Project pages, you will see that there is a generation in which the
descent is not directly documented in primary sources:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/herib001.htm
This is why the example I gave you went through Matilda of Flanders.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
t...@clearwire.net
> In article <mailman.218.1196778990.4586.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
> Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
> > Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
> > Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
> > With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
> > in the thousands?
>
> There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
> Conqueror--the one above--
There is only one 'proven' line. There have been numerous claims of
others. Bear in mind that with the exception of Judith, the mothers
of Norman rulers are poorly documented, there origins obscure even to
contemporaries. In review, Herleve was daughter (it is said) of a
local tradesman in Falaise - little probability of a Charlemagne
descent there. Gunnor was born to Danish parents of what might be
called the lower gentry - none there. Sprota was just a maiden taken
in a slave raid in Brittany - little chance of a descent there. Poppa
was daughter of a lord named Berenger from Bayeux. He has been
speculated to be either the Frankish or Breton lords of that name.
(the Breton has been speculated to be maternal grandson of the
Frankish, but this is based on nothing but the name). Richard I is
claimed to be nepos of a Vermandois-related count, but this may refled
a pseudo-relationship, via his father's legitimate wife. In turn, this
Vermandois connection has been used to link the Frank Berenger with
the Vermandois, and hence Carolingian descent. You can see how
tenuous this is.
That leaves Judith. On her paternal side, she descends from the same
Breton Judicael Berenger, who has been speculated to be maternal
grandson of the Frank Berenger. No wives are known at all in this
line, and given the status of the family, were probably local Bretons
- slim chance of descent from Charlemagne. Judith's mother was of
Anjou, and the earlier generations there were clearly on the rise -
they and their wives drawn from lower, not higher social status.
Finally we have the Vermandois line. Here there are loads of
possibilities, as the wives were probably drawn from the higher levels
of the nobility. However, Carolingian descent down to this point is
largely known (those reconstructing have gravitated to the few places
where there could be a descent and concluded that is exactly where the
relationship must lie).
All in all, I would set the upper limit at about a dozen, and that the
lone solid descent is the only one is not out of the question.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
<1e9a8d31-fca1-49a5...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
t...@clearwire.net wrote:
> On Dec 4, 8:47 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
> > In article <mailman.218.1196778990.4586.gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>,
> > Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BA: Thanks for that line. I see one from Nat Taylor and this one.
> > > Can you give me a guessimate of how many there might be from
> > > Charlemagne to William I the Conqueror? Is it know precisely?
> > > With abt. 12 generations and many children, I assume it could be
> > > in the thousands?
> >
> > There is only one apparent line from Charlemagne to William the
> > Conqueror--the one above--
>
> There is only one 'proven' line.
I agree with your review of the turf. But this one 'proved' line is
itself unproved at the generation of Heribert I to Heribert II--see
Stewart's page for Heribert I at the Henry Project.
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/herib001.htm
Of course there's no stretch here: it is perfectly reasonable to
conclude that Heribert II, as apparent successor to lands & power, was
likely son, and almost certainly son or nephew, of Heribert I--but it
isn't 'proved' by contemporary or near-contemporary statement of
relationship.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Bill Arnold
ancestry? I am also a descendant of Col. Henry Ridgely (d. 1710, Anne Arundel
to current published work his ancestry is unknown (see e.g. Sharon J.
Doliante, _Maryland and Virginia Colonials_ [Baltimore: Genealogical
Publishing, 1991]). I have never even seen any specific allegations of
parentage, let alone noble ancestry for him.
BA: Cousin Nat Taylor, re: above, I have compiled the following, which is
a *working* pedigree/lineage welcoming correction, additions, et al., which
seeks affirmation of gateway ancestors to America and possible royal ancestors
abroad. My second cousin was a contributor to the creation of this post
years ago, and I have had it in my file, and neither of us consider it to
be totally accurate, and issue the standard warning that this AT is only
a *working AT* and I, Bill Arnold, take full responsibility for errors. I
can provide some birth and death dates if needed to assist, but trim it
to make it a pedigree for eventual Charlemagne/other royal descent.
As already noted in the archives, through Nat Taylor's website the Magruder
line can be traced back to Charlemagne through William I The Conqueror
King of England.
Because we share cousinship in a few lines, it may turn out we share
cousinship in more than a few, and/or welcome new cousins on board.
The generations are from my grandmother's generation. Feel free to
question any segment and I will assist as best I am able.
Bill
*****
10. William Thomas Wright m. 12 January 1880
11. Frances Louise Overton
________________________________
20. John Thomas (Shep) Wright m. 4 December 1859, Thomson, Georgia
21. Mary Caroline Eugenia (Jenny) Cliett
________________________________________
22. William Jackson Overton m. 2 March 1852, Taliaferro County, Georgia
23. Elizabeth Justina (Lizzie) McKenney
_________________________________________
40. Thomas Jefferson Wright m. 14 November 1833, Columbia County, Georgia
41. Pamelia Magruder
_______________________________________
42. William Cliett m. 22 February 1842, Columbia County, Georgia
43. Caroline Elizabeth Zachry
________________________________________
44. Willis Overton (born Willis Howerton) m. 20 December 1791, Culpeper
45. Susannah Tureman
________________________________________
46. George McKenney m. 2 September 1813, Lincoln County, Georgia
47. Frances Mardre
_______________________________________
b. 16 January 1793, Bertie County, North Carolina
d. 7 August 1867, Wilkes County, Georgia
________________________________________
80-81. [Parents of Thomas J. Wright are unknown]
________________________________________
82. John Magruder m. 20 October 1800, Columbia County, Georgia
83. Sarah Prior
________________________________________
84. Jonathan Cliett m. 1 January 1793, Columbia County, Georgia
85. Mary Chambless
_______________________________________
86. William Zachry m. about 1809, Columbia County, Georgia
87. Caroline Tindall
_______________________________________
88. Obediah Overton (born Obediah Howerton) m. before 1770,
probably Spotsylvania County, Virginia
89. [probably] Frances [—?—]
_______________________________________
90. Ignatius Tureman m. before 1770
91. Eleanor [ —?—]
________________________________________
92. John McKenney m. about 1784
93. Catherine Rowland
________________________________________
94. John Mardre m. about 1783, probably Bertie County, North Carolina
95. Frances Capehart
________________________________________
160-163. [Grandparents of Thomas J. Wright unknown]
________________________________________
164. Ninian Offutt Magruder m.
165. Mary Harris
________________________________________
166. Haden Prior m. 9 October 1769, Granville County, North Carolina
167. Elizabeth Wade
________________________________________
168. James Cliett m.
169. [mother of Jonathan Cliett unknown]
________________________________________
170. [John?] Chambless
171. Mary [Taylor?]
________________________________________
172. William Zachary m. 21 November 1780, Caswell County, North Carolina
173. Nancy Lea
_______________________________________
174. Bird Booker Tindall m.
175. Nancy [Taylor?]
_________________________________________
176. John Overton [born John Howerton] m. before 1745
177. [possibly] Mary [—?—]
_________________________________________
180. Robert Tureman m. 23 December 1737, Middlesex County, Virginia
181. Mary Rice
_________________________________________
182-183. [Maternal grandparents of Susannah Tureman unknown]
_________________________________________
184. Travis McKinney m.
185. Nancy (Ann) [—?—]
__________________________________________
186-187. [Parents of Catherine Rowland unknown]
__________________________________________
188-189. [Parents of John Mardre unknown]
__________________________________________
190. Michael Capehart m. about 1749, Bertie County, North Carolina
191. Frances Hardy
__________________________________________
328. John Magruder m. about 1731, Montgomery County, Maryland
329. Jane Offutt
___________________________________________
332. Philip Prior m. about 1732
333. Ann Haden
___________________________________________
334. John Wade m.
335. Mary [—?—]
___________________________________________
344. James Zach(a)ry m.
345. Mary [Jackson?]
___________________________________________
346. James Lea (or Leigh) m.
347. Winnefred Kavanaugh
___________________________________________
348. William Tindall m.
349. Elizabeth Ann (Betsy) Bryan or Bryant [or possibly Booker]
___________________________________________
351. Thomas Howerton m.
352. [--?--]
___________________________________________
368. William McKinney m. about 1733
369. Winifred Gathings
___________________________________________
382. Lamb Hardy
383. Elizabeth Parrott
___________________________________________
656. Ninian Magruder (I) m.
657. Elizabeth Brewer
___________________________________________
658. Edward Offutt m.
659. Eleanor Edmonston
___________________________________________
664. Robert Prior b. 1666, England m. 1689
665. Betty Virginia Green
___________________________________________
668. Andrew Wade m.
669. Martha Farley
___________________________________________
692. James Lea (or Leigh) m. 1746
693. Ann Herndon
___________________________________________
702. Thomas Howerton b. about 1640 in England m.
[--?--]
____________________________________________
736. William McKinney m. about 1710
737. Elizabeth Blundall
____________________________________________
738. John Gathings m.
739. Ann Cobham
____________________________________________
1312. Samuel Magruder m.
1313. Sarah Beall
____________________________________________
1384. John Leigh or Lea b. 1677, England m.
1385. Ann Taylor b. 12 January 1674, Carlisle, County Cumberland, England
____________________________________________
1386. Edward Herndon m.
1387. Mary Waller b. 23 February 1674, Newport, Buckinghamshire, England
____________________________________________
2624. Alexander Magruder b. 1610, Belliclone, Perthshire, Scotland m.
[--?--]
end of American gateway AT
********************************************
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
James Dow Allen
A recent thread involved estimating the number of
generations between future King William V (b. 1982)
and Charlemagne (born 1240 years earlier). My
own data show mode, median *and* mean of path length
as 44 generations, but others thought this was high.
For example:
In these paths, what portion of links are male?
I estimate average parent-to-child age
gap as about 28 years (perhaps 26 for mother, 30 for
father) and others imply this is too low.
I'd like to mention some of the statistical biases
that can affect such estimates. I'm sure s.g.m'ers
can offer better information here than I.
The following are all reasons to expect a *true*
average path to Charlemagne to be longer (shorter
average generation) than shown in a genealogical database.
(1) Since missing mothers are more common than missing
fathers in all "old" pedigrees, the higher age of
fathers biases any database (producing, e.g. shorter
average paths to Charlemagne).
Taking the purely agnatic line of Victoria's Albert
back 25 generations, I see father's mean age at birth
as 35 years. The purely uterine line shows mother's
mean age at birth as 23 years! (Do *not* use this data
as a general estimate: Albert's pedigree is likely an
extreme case, even though both paths are mostly German.)
(2) Longer paths have more links, so more chance for
data to be missing or controversial. This effect will
bias any database (especially those omitting controversial
connections) toward shorter path lengths.
(3) One might surmise that young nobles may sow undocumented
wild oats, while older nobles might suffer undocumented
cuckolding. Either effect would, again, cause databases
to show shorter path lengths than a true picture.
(4) While the discussion focused on descents through nobility
from Charlemagne, population analysis would also be concerned
with descent through peasants from peasants. I'd assume
such paths would be longer than those from Charlemagne, due
to shorter life expectancies, right?
There are two possible biases that would operate the
other way, but I'm not sure either is significant.
(1) Descent from an heir (oldest son) might be more
likely to be recorded than descent from a younger son.
(2) Speculative and mistaken lineages may tend to have
younger parents, so longer path lengths.
The ancestry of Queen Victoria or her husband are good
places to search for long paths from Charlemagne to William:
I suppose this is because the path from Victoria to the
Heir Apparent is mostly of first-borns.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The pure-agnatic and pure-uterine ancestors of
Prince Consort Albert show a male-female age gap that
is surprisingly large. I'll show them with normal
"ancestor numbers" but remember that, these are *not*
father-mother pairs (except Albert's own parents) and
that, for example 4095 is a generation *earlier* than 4096.
CORRECTIONS WELCOME.
1 Albert Augustus Charles of SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA 1819 - 1861
2 Ernst I (Duke) of SAXE-SAALFELD-COBURG 1784 - 1844
3 Luise Dorothea of SAXE-GOTHA 1800 - 1831
4 Francis Frederick (Duke) of SAXE-COBURG 1750 - 1806
7 Louise Charlotte of MECKLENBURG-SCHWERIN 1779 - 1801
8 Ernest Frederick (Duke) of SAXE-COBURG 1724 - 1800
15 Luise (Princess) of SACHSEN-GOTHA 1756 - 1808
16 Franz Josias (Duke) of SACHSEN-COBURG 1697 - 1764
31 Louise (Princess) of REUSS-SCHLEIZ 1726 - 1773
32 Johann Ernst (Duke) of SACHSEN-SAALFELD 1658 - 1729
63 Juliana Dorothea zu LOWENSTEIN-WERTHEIM 1694 - 1734
64 Ernst I `the Pious' (Duke) of SACHSEN-GOTHA 1601 - 1675
127 Juliana (Juliana-Dorothee) de LIMPURG-GAILDORF 1677 - 1734
128 Johann (Duke) of SAXE-WEIMAR 1570 - 1605
255 Elisabetha Dorothea of LIMPURG-GAILDORF 1656 - 1712
256 Johann Wilhelm (Duke) of SAXE-WEIMAR 1530 - 1573
511 Elisabeth-Dorothee de LIMPURG-SONTHEIM 1639 - 1691
512 Johann Friedrich I (Elector) of SAXONY 1503 - 1554
1023 Dorothea Maria zu HOHENLOHE-WALDENBURG 1618 - 1695
1024 Johann (Elector) of SAXONY 1468 - 1532
2047 Dorothea von ERBACH 1593 - 1643
2048 Ernst de WETTIN (Elector) of SAXONY 1441 - 1486
4095 Marie von BARBY 1563 - 1619
4096 Frederick II Ernest (Elector) of SAXONY 1412 - 1464
8191 Maria von ANHALT 1538 - 1563
8192 Frederick I/IV de WETTIN (Elector) of SAXONY 1370 - 1428
16383 Margarethe of BRANDENBURG 1511 - 1551?
16384 Frederick III `Strenge' of SAXONY 1333 - 1381
32767 Elisabeth OLDENBURG 1485? - 1555
32768 Frederick II de WETTIN (Landgrave THURINGIA) 1310 - 1349
65535 Christina (of SAXONY) WETTIN 1461 - 1521
65536 Friedrich I (Landgrave) von THURINGIA 1257 - 1323
131071 Elizabeth von WITTELSBACH of BAVARIA-MUNCHEN 1443 - 1484
131072 Albrecht II (Margrave) von THURINGIA 1240? - 1315
262143 Anna WELF of BRUNSWICK-GRUBENHAGEN 1415? - 1474
262144 Heinrich III MEISSEN of THURINGIA 1215? - 1288
524287 Elisabeth of BRUNSWICK-GOTTINGEN ? - 1444
524288 Dietrich (Margrave) of MEISSEN 1162? - 1221
1048575 Marguerite de BERG 1364? - 1442?
1048576 Otto `the Rich' (Margrave) of MEISSEN 1125? - 1190
2097151 Anne von WITTELSBACH 1346? - 1415
2097152 Konrad `the Great' von GROITZSCH-ROCHLITZ 1098? - 1157
4194303 Beatrice of SICILY (& ARAGON) 1326? - 1365
4194304 Thiemo I/II (Count) von WETTIN
8388607 Elizabeth von KAERNTEN ? - 1352+
8388608 Thimo I von WETTIN ? - 1076+
16777215 Eufemia of SILESIA-LIEGNITZ ? - 1347
16777216 Dietrich II im HASSEGAU 991? - 1034
33554431 Elzbieta PIAST von POLEN-KALISCH 1263? - 1304
33554432 Dedi I Count in North HESSEGAU 946? - 1009
67108863 Jolan/Ilona/Helen ARPAD of HUNGARY 1241? - 1298?
Next we see that Albert's 24-great agnatic grandfather
died 290 years ("10 generations") before Albert's 24-great
uterine grandmother!
67108864 Dietrich I im HESSEGAU ? - ca 976
134217727 Maria LASKARINA (-NIKAIA) 1206? - 1270?
134217728 poss. Volkmar in HARZGAU
268435455 Anna ANGELINA KOMNENE 1176? - 1212?
268435456 Frederick II in HARZGAU ? - ca 945
536870911 Euphrosyne KAMATERINA DOUKANIA 1143? - 1211?
By the way, I have Maria LASKARINA as 15-g granddaughter
of Charlemagne. Is this correct? If so, it provides a
49-link path from Charlemagne to future William V.
(There are longer paths than this, but it would be an
effort to find one that passes 100% expert scrutiny.)
James Dow Allen
PS: In another message wjhonson wrote:
> James wrote:
>> That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
>> (Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
>> Charlemagne, not a million!)
> That makes no sense.
> That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
> descent.
You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
be a maximum of one descent. Trivially true, but absurd since
everyone's related. (Mine was a reduction ad absurdem to refute
someone who seemed unclear about this.)
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/8/2007 9:30:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jdall...@yahoo.com writes:
PS: In another message wjhonson wrote:
> James wrote:
>> That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
>> (Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
>> Charlemagne, not a million!)
> That makes no sense.
> That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
> descent.
You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
be a maximum of one descent. Trivially true, but absurd since
everyone's related. (Mine was a reduction ad absurdem to refute
someone who seemed unclear about this.)
-----------------------
This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
because your own parents are related? If your mother has 12 descents from
person X, her marrying her own first cousin, lets say, does not make those 12
descents combine into a single descent. So you still inherit at least her
own 12 descents. You don't have just one.
Will Johnson
James Dow Allen
> jdallen2...@yahoo.com writes:
> You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
> i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
> be a maximum of one descent.
> -----------------------
> This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
> because your own parents are related?
You're still flipping my meaning. Reread the sentence above.
Here, I'll capitalize parts of it for you:
"If mother and father are completely UNrelated (get that? UN UN
UN-Related) there'd be a maximum of one descent."
Does this help?
James
James Dow Allen
> On Dec 8, 5:56 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> > This still makes no sense. Please clarify how you'd have ONE descent simply
> > because your own parents are related?
> You're still flipping my meaning. Reread the sentence above.
> Here, I'll capitalize parts of it for you:
> "If mother and father are ALWAYS completely UNrelated (get that? UN UN
> UN-Related) there'd be a maximum of one descent."
>
> Does this help?
I'm sure this confusion is all due to a silly
communication problem. To be sure, I've capitalized another
word above. ALWAYS means all mothers and fathers are
completely UNrelated. By recursion neither of your parents
have multiple descents. ... And all this, of course, arose
from a reduction ad absurdem.
The problem with being a logician is thinking others have
logical minds. :-) :-)
James
WJho...@aol.com
all related to Adam and Eve and so not two people can be "unrelated". How's
that for extreme?
There are too many questionable descents from Charlemagne to be clear about
whether two people are or are not related 1200 years ago. I'm sure we've
gotten way off from the original intent.
I was referring in my own mind at least, to "near-term related" say related
in the past 200 years.
But I've forgotten the original point.
WJho...@aol.com
I mean related, near-term, *by people who themselves were near-term* as well.
Otherwise I'm sure you'll say something that doesn't address my point again
:)
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/8/2007 10:45:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
jdall...@yahoo.com writes:
ALWAYS means all mothers and fathers are
completely UNrelated. By recursion neither of your parents
have multiple descents.
-------------------
Genetically I don't think it's possible that any two humans are completely
unrelated. So it's a moot point. At some point, in the distant past, whether
that is 500, 2500, or 25000 years ago, there is a relation. If two humans
were *completely* unrelated, they would not share any part of their DNA with
each other, but we know that that isn't the case. We all share part of the
same DNA. It's only the part that's different that allows us to use it in
studies.
Will Johnson
Doug McDonald
> A recent thread involved estimating the number of
> generations between future King William V (b. 1982)
> and Charlemagne (born 1240 years earlier). My
> own data show mode, median *and* mean of path length
> as 44 generations, but others thought this was high.
I have a computer program that can give an exact answer,
that is, exact assuming that my GEDCOM for the prince
us complete, which it isn't, but its huge.
I will try it, and report back. The report may be, however,
"out of memory", or may be not in for days.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
So far, its "out of memory". The first
occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.
I will increase my swap space. This may fail. We do have
a computer with a terabyte of real memory, however (and
are getting the largest and fastest computer in the world,
"real soon" now that Blogo and enemies agreed to build
a home for it.)
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
>
> So far, its "out of memory".
I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.
Doug McDonald
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> The first
> occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
> from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.
>
> Doug McDonald
The Roglo database (http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo) currently shows
roughly 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne to Prince William. As
would be expected, over 95% of these are through Prince Charles -
although this is partially because Diana's ancestry is far less
complete on this database.
The length of the paths breaks down as follows:
33: 1
34: 90
35: 3,150
36: 53,016
37: 517,931
38: 3,388,542
39: 15,191,775
40: 47,902,310
41: 109,399,668
42: 184,704,696
43: 233,162,132
44: 220,811,155
45. 157,275,499
46: 84,779,102
47: 34,861,965
48: 11,107,358
49: 2,690,514
50: 590,260
51: 78,390
52: 10,333
53: 1,079
54: 76
There are undoubtedly some inaccuracies and (more likely) omissions in
the data which underlie these figures, but as an "order of magnitude"
figure it's probably in the ballpark.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 9, 7:08 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > The first
> > occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
> > from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.
>
> > Doug McDonald
>
> The Roglo database (http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo) currently shows
> roughly 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne to Prince William. As
> would be expected, over 95% of these are through Prince Charles -
> although this is partially because Diana's ancestry is far less
> complete on this database.
>
Actually, Roglo's count of 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne from
Prince William may be understated by as much as 50%. Roglo shows 18
paths from Charlemagne to Geoffrey Plantagenet, and I can identify
over 880,000 possible paths from Geoffrey to Prince William.
Combining these two figures would indicate that there could be as many
as roughly 1.6 billion paths from Charlemagne to William.
jhigg...@yahoo.com
Oops...kindly ignore the conclusion of 1.6 billion in the preceding
post. Obviously my math was faulty (to say the least). Roglo is
definitely understated but not necessarily by half a billion.
Ken Ozanne
I did something like this a couple of years ago. To avoid memory
hassles, I followed each line down a few generations and then got the number
of lines from there down to my son (who happens to have a forename which is
unique in my database). I had all direct line ancestry from him marked, so
could easily tell which descendants of Charlemagne were relevant.
Even so it took an hour or three and I didn't end up thinking the time
well spent.
Best,
Ken
Doug McDonald
I managed to figure out how to do the whole thing.
I got, strangely, 191,445,232 paths averaging 42.86
generations. The sampling must have sampled only the shortest
number of generation paths in each subset.
I personally have 5682 lines averaging 39.2 generations
Doug McDonald
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2007 8:10:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.>>
----------------
4 Gig is a hard wall for many of us.
We just never anticipated back in the 80s or 90s that any program would
actually have to address something that large. It's perhaps a *bit* lucky that
most Business programs at least have an intermediate level of interpretation
between them and the underlying machine. So it's not the actual programs
people are familiar with which have to be rewriten, but only that intervening
layer.
Of course compilers that generate actual machine-read code have to be
rewriten as well.
WJho...@aol.com
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Who is the most recent ancestor shared by both Charles and Diana?
Who is the most recent ancestor shared by both Elizabeth and Albert ?
Ian Fettes
>From earlier exercises I did using my database on Prince William, I have a
range of 33 to 66 generations accounting for 1,497,531,829 links through
20,765 common family members.
The program I use to analyse runs very quickly (one minute), giving the
following results
Generation Number paths Total paths
33 5 5
34 168 173
35 2403 2576
36 23123 25699
37 167554 193253
38 1111043 1304296
39 5950212 7254508
40 23099149 30353657
41 64996959 95350616
42 136609563 231960179
43 220219948 452180127
44 277293189 729473316
45 275327280 1004800596
46 217872580 1222673176
47 139844864 1362518040
48 74962412 1437480452
49 34964677 1472445129
50 15031078 1487476207
51 6216119 1493692326
52 2461481 1496153807
53 922626 1497076433
54 323358 1497399791
55 97775 1497497566
56 25393 1497522959
57 5509 1497528468
58 1700 1497530168
59 732 1497530900
60 422 1497531322
61 260 1497531582
62 135 1497531717
63 83 1497531800
64 21 1497531821
65 6 1497531827
66 2 1497531829
While I may still have some invalid links in the database, the result gives
an indication pof the order of magnitude of the relationships.
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)
James Dow Allen
> Generation Number paths
> 33 5
> ...
> 43 220219948
> 44 277293189
> 45 275327280
> ...
I'm glad to see my earlier estimates "vindicated". Although
I'm sure the details of our databases are quite different,
the "shape" of your results with median/mode near 44.4
duplicates mine remarkably. In my earlier list of reasons why
others produced lower estimates, I probably omitted an
important reason: the shorter paths are easier to find.
What are the 33-link paths? I have shorter "improbable"
paths, but when I tell the software to show only "probable"
paths, the shortest I see are some 34-link paths.
Here they are. (Please tell me of any mistakes!)
(Spouses are mentioned when they are also short-pathed
descendants of Charlemagne.)
1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Pepin King of Italy d. 810
3. Bernard King of Italy 797-818
4. Pepin II de Peronne
5. Herbert I de Vermandois d. 902
6. Kunigunde de Vermandois
7. Herbert Gleiberg in Kinzigau d. 992
8. Ermentrude von Gleiberg d. 1024?
9. Giselbert I of Luxemburg d. 1059
10. Hermann I of Luxemburg d. 1088
11. Otto I of Luxemburg d. 1154+
12. Beatrix von Salm-RheinecK d. 1140+
13. Beatrix von Hallermund d. 1221?
14. Burchard von Oldenburg d. 1233
15. Heinrich VI von Oldenburg d. 1270+
16. Hedwig von Oldenburg
m. Christian III von Oldenburg d. 1323+
17. Johann II von Oldenburg d. 1316+
18. Konrad I von Oldenburg d. 1347
m. Ingeborg Holstein
19. Christian V von Oldenburg-Welsburg
m. Agnes Honstein
20. Dietrich II von Oldenburg-Welsburg d. 1440
m. Hedwig Honstein
21. Christian I King of Denmark 1426-1481
m. Dorothea Hohenzollern, q.v.
22. Fredrik I King of Denmark 1471-1533
m. Sophia of Pomerania, q.v., b. 1498
23. Adolph of Denmark b. 1526
24. Sophie Schleswig-Holstein b. 1559
m. Johann Mecklenburg b. 1558 (2g-gson of Casimir IV)
25. Adolphus Mecklenburg b. 1588
26. Adolphus Mecklenburg b. 1658
m. Christiane Schwarzburg, q.v.
27. Karl Mecklenburg b. 1707
28. Sophia Mecklenburg b. 1733
29. Adolphus of Cambridge b. 1774
30. Mary of Cambridge b. 1833
31. Mary of Teck b. 1867
32. King George VI
33. Queen Elizabeth I
34. Charles of Wales
35. William Arthur Philip Louis b. 1982
Following are paths to the wives of Kings Christian I
and Fredrik I. The path to Dorothea Hohenzollern is
just as short as to her husband; the path to
Sophia of Pomerania slightly longer.
1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Louis I the Pious d. 840
3. Lothar I of Lotharingia d. 855
4. Ermengarde of Lorraine
5. Reginar I de Hainault d. 916
6. Reginar II de Hainault d. 932+
7. Reginar III de Hainault d. 973
8. Lambert I of Brabant d. 1015
9. Lambert II of Brabant d. 1062
10, Adelheid of Louvain d. ca 1083
11. Adelheid of Weimar d. ca 1100
m. Albrecht of Ballenstedt
12. Otto Ballenstedt Duke of Anhalt d. 1123
13. Albrecht I von Brandenburg d. 1170
14. Bernhard III d'Ascanie of Sacony d. 1212
15. Albrecht I d'Ascanie of Sacony d. 1261
16. Albrecht II of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1298
m. Agnes Gertrude Habsburg
17. Rudolf I of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1356
18. Wenceslas Elector of Saxony d. 1388
19. Rudolf III Elector of Saxony d. 1419
20. Barbara d' Ascanie d. 1465
m. John `the Alchemist' Hohenzollern d. 1464
21. Dorothea Hohenzollern d. 1495
m. Christian I King of Denmark, q.v.
16. Albrecht II of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1298
17. Anne of Saxe-Wittenburg 1282-1327
18. Johann I/IV von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1392
19. Ulrich I von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1417
20. Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1466
21. Madeleine von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1532
22. Wolfgang I of Barby 1502-1565
23. Jobst III of Barby 1544-1609
24. Albrecht Friedrich of Barby 1597-1641
25. Antonie Sibylle of Barby 1641-1684
26. Christiane Schwarzburg-Sondershausen 1681-1751
m. Adolphus Mecklenburg, q.v., b. 1658
3. dau of Louis I the Pious d. aft 841
4. Ranulf I of Aquitaine d. 866?
5. Ranulf II of Aquitaine d. 890
6. Ebles Manzer of Aquitaine d. ca 933
7. William III of Aquitaine d. 963
8. William IV of Aquitaine d. 995
9. William of Poitou & Aquitaine d. 1030
m. Emma of Blois (gdau of Heribert II d. 943)
10. Agnes of Poitou d. 1077
11. Judith(?) of Swabia
12. Sophia of Hungary
13. Heinrich I of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1132
14. Salome of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1144
m. Boleslaw III of Poland
(g-gson of Richeza of Pfalz-Lorraine, q.v.)
15. Kasimir II King of Poland d. 1194
16. Konrad I Piast Duke of Masowski d. 1247
17. Kasimir I of Kujavia d. 1267
18. Euphemia Piast d. ca 1307
19. Anastasia of Halicz d. 1365?
20. Juliana de Tver d. 1392
21. Wladislaw II of Poland d. 1434
22. King Casimir IV of Poland 1427-1492
23. Anne of Poland b. 1476
24. Sophia of Pomerania b. 1498
m. Fredrik I of Denmark, q.v.
James Dow Allen
Ian Fettes
I think some confusion has occurred due to generation numbering. Mine
starts at 0 and yours from 1. Hence my 33 and your 34 will be the same.
I have compared the details you listed against my data and am OK with all
except the link between 11 and 12 in the last section. I have nothing to
validate that link.
Cheers,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Dow Allen" <jdall...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)
> On Dec 10, 3:28 pm, "Ian Fettes" <fett...@st.net.au> wrote:
>> Generation Number paths
>> 33 5
>> ...
>> 43 220219948
>> 44 277293189
>> 45 275327280
>> ...
>
> I'm glad to see my earlier estimates "vindicated". Although
> I'm sure the details of our databases are quite different,
> the "shape" of your results with median/mode near 44.4
> duplicates mine remarkably. In my earlier list of reasons why
> others produced lower estimates, I probably omitted an
> important reason: the shorter paths are easier to find.
>
> What are the 33-link paths? I have shorter "improbable"
> paths, but when I tell the software to show only "probable"
> paths, the shortest I see are some 34-link paths.
> Here they are. (Please tell me of any mistakes!)
>
> <snip>
Marcus Aurelius
Emperor Charlemagne).
I, also, belong to the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta barons based upon
descent from the Magna Charta barons (father and son) who had the last
name of Bigod. The same were descendants of the Emperor Charlemagne.
I've seen the genealogy proving the same.
wjhonson
------------------------------
You mean this descent?
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Charlemagne_to_Roger_Bigod%2C_Earl_of_Norfolk
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
I though that Roger le Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk was the son
of Hugh le Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk by his 2nd wife Juliana de Vere, whose
ancestry in given In Weis Magna Charta Sureties line 155, 154 Juliana de Vere
being ta daughter of Aubrey de Vere II by his wife Alice de Clare, daughter
of Gilbert Fitz richard (de Clare) and Adeliz de Clermont, who through her
mother Margaret de Roucy was a descendant of Charlemagne (See Weis Ancestral
Roots of Certain American Colonists before 1700, 7th Edition lines 246 B, 246,
240, 151 et cetera) The Line is through Emperor Lothair I of the Holy Roman
Empire`s daughter Ermengarde who was ancestress by one Count Giselbert of the
first comital dynasty of Hainault. Count Reginer IV of Hainault`s daughter Beatrix
married Ebles I , Count of Roucy and had Adele who married Hildouin III,
Count of Roucy and Montdidier, Margaret of Roucy was one of their daughters.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
wjhonson
> Dear Will,
> I though that Roger le Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk was the son
> of Hugh le Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk by his 2nd wife Juliana de Vere, whose
> ancestry in given In Weis Magna Charta Sureties line 155, 154 Juliana de Vere
> of Gilbert Fitz richard (de Clare) and Adeliz de Clermont, who through her
> mother Margaret de Roucy was a descendant of Charlemagne (See Weis Ancestral
> Roots of Certain American Colonists before 1700, 7th Edition lines 246 B, 246,
> 240, 151 et cetera) The Line is through Emperor Lothair I of the Holy Roman
> Empire`s daughter Ermengarde who was ancestress by one Count Giselbert of the
> first comital dynasty of Hainault. Count Reginer IV of Hainault`s daughter Beatrix
> married Ebles I , Count of Roucy and had Adele who married Hildouin III,
> Count of Roucy and Montdidier, Margaret of Roucy was one of their daughters.
> Sincerely,
> James W Cummings
> Dixmont, Maine USA
-------------
If you review the dates you'll see. There were two men of this name,
Roger died in 1107 and his *grandson* Roger (the son of Juliana de
Vere) who died before 2 Aug 1215
Will Johnson
wjhonson
descent from Charlemagne to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Turns out
there are eight of them. Most if not all are probably highly
speculative, so that's your warning.
See
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Charlemagne_to_Hugh_Bigod%2C_Earl_of_Norfolk
If anyone has any additions or changes, let me know.
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
True enough, but You do state the 2nd Earl of Norfolk. Roger
le Bigod died 1107 wasn`t an Earl of Norfolk , was He ?
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
wjhonson
Well poop.
Maybe it was supposed to say Sheriff of Norfolk... yeah that's it....
(sits in the corner)
Will
t...@clearwire.net
> As a follow-up I thought I'd have fun and enumerate *every* proposed
> descent from Charlemagne to Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk. Turns out
> there are eight of them. Most if not all are probably highly
> speculative, so that's your warning.
>
>
> If anyone has any additions or changes, let me know.
Well, Let's see:
Descent 1
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Winilda (Guinidilda) de Ampurias living 877
Bogus filiation. her ancestry is unknown, but certainly not daughter
of Louis.
4. Suniare, Count of Besalu and Urgel died 15 Oct 950
5. Borrell II, Count of Barcelona died 30 Sep 992
6. Raimond Borrel I, Count of Barcelona died 24 Feb 1018/19
7. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
A Roger de Toeny went to Iberian and is said to have married the widow
of Garcia of Navarre, but there is some debate about the reliability
of this, and that it was the (otherwise unknown) father of Robert de
Tosny of Belvoir is pure speculation. She was not Godehaut, who is
wife of the Roger found above the Toeny main line, and who appears
distinct from this Iberian Roger. It is all pretty murky.
8. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
9. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
10. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
Descent 2
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/
I have never seen these connections suggested before, and am quite
skeptical about them.
4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Armengol, Count of /Toulouse/ died 937 + Adelaide, Countess of /
Rouergue/
Armengol (Ermengaud) was never Count of Toulouse.
7. Richildis de /Rouergue/ , toponym speculated
(quite - based entirely on the appearance of the name Armengol in the
Barcelona family in the next generation)
8. Borrell II, Count of /Barcelona/
9. then as in Descent 1
[edit]
Descent 3
Same as Descent 2 above, except in this descent Adelaide, Countess of
Rouergue is made the daughter of Eudes (Odo) Count of Toulouse,
instead of her husband being his son.
Again, I have never seen this even speculated. There seems general
consensus that Ermengaud was of the Toulouse stem.
[edit]
Descent 4
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Berthe of /France/ died 829 + Angilbert "The Saint" of /
Ponthieu/
3. Arsende of /Ponthieu/ + Remigus, Count of /Rheims/
4. Bertha de /Remy/ + Raimund I, Count of /Toulouse/ and of
Rouergue
5. Eudes (Odo), Count of /Toulouse/ died 918/19
6. Ermengaud, Count of /Rouergue/ died 937
(This is the same man you call Armengol above)
7. Raymond II, Count of /Rouergue/ died 961
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998
(quite, this is based on the name Raimond appearing in the Counts of
Barcelona in the next generation, but if the marriage was in the
generation before, this marriage is not also needed to explain
Rouergue names in the Barcelona counts)
9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
[edit]
Descent 5
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Boso, Count of Arles -931, Marquis of /Tuscany/ 931-, died 936
7. Bertha of /Tuscany/
8. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998
In addition to issues over Liutgarde belonging here at all, there is
no information on which of Raymond's wives was the mother of this
hypothetical daughter (and I don't remember how solid the marriage of
Bertha of Tuscany to Raymond is).
9. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
10. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
11. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
12. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
13. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
[edit]
Descent 6
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Willa of /Burgundy/
That Willa, wife of Boso had this maternity is likewise speculation.
8. Bertha of /Tuscany/
9. Luitgarde (Leodegarda ) of /Toulouse/ , toponym speculated died
998
10. Raimond Borrel I Count of /Barcelona/ died 25 Feb 1018/19
11. Godehaut (Adela) of Barcelona died 1077
12. Robert de Tosny, seigneur of Belvoir (in 1063), died 4 Aug 1088
13. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
14. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
[edit]
Descent 7
1. Charlemagne, King of the Franks 768-814, /HR Emperor/ 800-814
2. Louis (A) I, King of /France/ died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, King of /Italy/ died 8 Aug 869
5. Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
6. Guido (Gui), Marquis of /Tuscany/ , Count of Lucca
I don't know that the derivation of the Este can be safely traced to
Bertha, although I have never looked into it in any detail.
7. Adalbert III, Marquise of /Tuscany/
8. Oberto Azzo, Count of /Lucca/ & Este died 975
9. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
10. Gisela de /Este/
11. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
12. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
13. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
14. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7
I don't think there is the slightest evidence for the parentage of the
wife of Robert de Tosny of Belvoir.
15. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
16. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
[edit]
Descent 8
1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
(from 800)
2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
855
4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
9. Guilla of /Spoleto/
Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
but nothing solid.
10. Oberto II, Count of /Genoa/ , Tortone & Este died 1014
11. Gisela de /Este/
12. Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
13. Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
14. Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
15. Adelisa of /Savona/ died 1085/7
16. Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
17. Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk died between 1 Jan 1172
and 8 Mar 1177
Well, so much for those.
taf
wjhonson
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Charlemagne_to_Hugh_Bigod%2C_Earl_of_Norfolk
Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
problematic.
Will Johnson
t...@clearwire.net
> I have incorporated your critiques into the pagehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Charlemagne_to_Hugh...
>
> Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
> problematic.
>
> Will Johnson
Not exactly.
Line 1. Godeheut was neither daughter of Raimond Borrell nor mother of
Robert de Tosny. A chronicler claimed that the daughter of Raimond
Borrel, widow of Garcia, married A Roger de Toeny. The only known wife
of Garcia was named Stephanie, but there is no Iberian evidence that
she married anyone else, and another source makes Stephanie niece of
Raimond, daughter of his brother-in-law Bernard of Foix. It has been
speculated that the chronicler got confused and that Roger's wife and
Garcia's wife were distinct, but first cousins, while other's dismiss
the whole marriage, and still others accept it as described. That the
Tosny of Belvoir come from this marriage is speculative, and based on
the fact that Robert had a brother named Berenger (a name found in the
next Barcelona generation, but also found in Brittany and Normandy,
the father of Poppa being named Berenger). I guess I would suggest
replacing the name Godeheut with Stephanie, and characterizing the
relationship as speculative. (Godeheut was the documented wife of
Roger who was ancestor of the Toeny. However, if this is the same
Roger who went to Spain, his Spanish bride wasn't Godeheut. If the
Spanish Roger was not the same as the Roger who married Godeheut, she
is likewise out of the loop. Either way, Godeheut is not mother of
Robert de Belvoir, but that doesn't affect the hypothesized link of
Belvoir to Barcelona.
Where you indicate that the toponym is speculated, this perhaps gives
the wrong impression - it is not the toponym per se, but that she had
this specific parentage that is speculative, the toponym just being an
indication of this speculative parentage.
In line 7, it whould probably be expressed differently. In calling her
Adelaide of Savona, it is begging the question. She is just known as
Adelaide, and that she was de Savona is pure invention.
For Line 8, as I remember, and I don't remember very well, the problem
is not that Waldrada was daughter of Willa, but in the descent from
Waldrada. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.
taf
Peter Stewart
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:233a1173-65b2-4865...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> For Line 8, as I remember, and I don't remember very well, the problem
> is not that Waldrada was daughter of Willa, but in the descent from
> Waldrada. Perhaps someone else can chime in here.
I prefer not to read through such dumps of ancestral lines, much less eight
of them at once - every immediate link from Charlemagne to a distant
relative or to a descendant may be of interest separately, but not in the
slightest to me for merely connecting two end personages who can't have
known each other or influenced each other's lives in any way. Medieval
genealogy for me is not abstract or for getting at statistical oddities, or
a game of trivial pursuit.
However, in this case I checked the one line in question:
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:7d15359c-809e-4654...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Descent 8
>
> 1. Charlemange, King of the Franks (from 768), Emperor of the West
> (from 800)
> 2. Louis I, King of France died 20 Jun 840
> 3. Lothaire, King of Italy, Bavaria and /HR Emperor/ died 29 Sep
> 855
> 4. Louis II "le Jeune", King of Italy, /HR Emperor/ died 12 Aug 875
> 5. Ermengarde of /Lorraine/ died before 22 Jun 896
> 6. Willa of /Vienne/ died 14 Jun 929
> 7. Waldrada of /Burgundy/
> 8. Theubaldis, Marquis of /Spoleto/ died before 961
> 9. Guilla of /Spoleto/
>
> Ditto Waldrada. I have seen some highly speculative lines from her,
> but nothing solid.
and it is already broken before reaching Waldrada #7: her mother Willa _may_
have been a daughter of Ermengarde's husband Boso, but if so the conjecture
is that she was from his prior marriage, to a wife whom he murdered in order
to marry Louis II's daughter Ermengarde.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
You are right that the earlier generation should have been labeled
speculative, but I think the Linacre Prosopography Onomastics volume
has an article speculating that Willa was, in fact, daughter of
Ermengarde (can't find my copy right now). I also vaguely recall an
alternative that traced the same Willa from Lothair II.
taf
Peter Stewart
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:2bcb3ae4-0a0b-4b35...@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 12, 6:24 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Jean-Noël Mathieu in 'Recherches sur les origines de deux princesses du IXe
siècle: la reine Guille de Bourgogne et l'impératrice Engelberge',
_Onomastique et parenté dans l'Occident médiéval_ (2000) repeated Mauric
Chaume's conjecture that Willa was daughter of Boso by Ermentrude, but
offered little argument for this beyond the fact that she had a son named
Louis. He also speculated that the chronology allowed for Willa to be a
daughter of Emperor Louis II, he was not fixated on her being his
granddaughter.
But if she was one of the two daughters of Boso by his first wife, she would
have been a half-sister of Emperor Louis III - there are other ways to
account for this name occurring in her family than necessarily making her
the descendant of a namesake. However, Chaume didn't usually think so in
such cases, unless of course it happened to suit his conjectures for other
reasons.
There is no source giving direct or otherwise convincing support for this
particular relationship.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
> But if she was one of the two daughters of Boso by his first wife, she would
> have been a half-sister of Emperor Louis III - there are other ways to
> account for this name occurring in her family than necessarily making her
> the descendant of a namesake. However, Chaume didn't usually think so in
> such cases, unless of course it happened to suit his conjectures for other
> reasons.
I know I am preaching to the choir, but I repeatedly see these
onomastic reconstructions being unable to conceive of the possibility
that someone might name a child after a half-sibling. They have
turned a reasonable tendency to honor one's immediate family into a
formal set of rules that have no historical basis (and that doesn't
even take into account the other ways people selected names).
taf
Peter Stewart
<t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:37d7793f-f20e-4f42...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.
Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.
Obviously at some point in any bloodline there must be a first person to
bear any name, so that eventually it must be admitted that parental whim
took over from a supposed obsession with pedigree in the choice.
We don't know enough to trace developing practices in this regard, to say,
for instance "Before 700 AD they invented or adopted new names, after that
they repeated family precedents". This is simplifictation turned into
nonsense.
We also don't and can't know enough about social mobility. We do know that
names alleged to be the proprietary stock of certain noble families also
occurred at other levels of the social hierarchy. Who can say whether the
first Louis was a peasant or a lord, much less whether the second was his
own son or a neighbour's?
Peter Stewart
wjhonson
>
> 1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
> 2. Pepin King of Italy d. 810
> 3. Bernard King of Italy 797-818
> 4. Pepin II de Peronne
> 5. Herbert I de Vermandois d. 902
> 6. Kunigunde de Vermandois
>
What is the source for A) stating that Herbert had a daughter named
Cunigunde; B) stating that some woman named Cunigunde married Udo
Count of Wetterau (Welterau); C) stating that some woman Cunigunde was
the mother of Herbert the son ?
I believe all three of these seperate statements lack proof, but I'm
willing to be corrected without too much complaint.
Will Johnson
wjhonson
> 14. Burchard von Oldenburg d. 1233
> 15. Heinrich VI von Oldenburg d. 1270+
> 16. Hedwig von Oldenburg
> m. Christian III von Oldenburg d. 1323+
> 17. Johann II von Oldenburg d. 1316+
> 18. Konrad I von Oldenburg d. 1347
> m. Ingeborg Holstein
Rather than Konrad dying *in* 1347, I believe he was living in 1347.
Which of course is a bit anti-climatic as his son Christian V was
"born about 1360"
CF http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00023769&tree=LEO
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
"wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7ffe7e4d-61dd-43bf...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You are correct, all three statements lack proof. We are told by Flodoard
that Udo was married to a paternal aunt of Hugo, archbishop of Rheims, whose
father Heribert II of Vermandois was most probably son of Heribert I.
However, we don't know for certain this lady's name was Cunegunde, or that
she and Udo were parents of the other Heribert, count palatine.
Peter Stewart
t...@clearwire.net
> Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
> study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
> problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
> satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
> probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
> when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.
Just the other day, I again came across the rule (not trend, not
tendency, but RULE) that the eldest son was named for the paternal
grandfather, the second for the maternal, and it went on for three
more steps, then being used to identify who were the fathers of the
parents.
> Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
> people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
> case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
> that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
> variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.
. . . feudal lords . . .
I am reminded of Jackman's attempt to show that all Greek named
Western Europeans were named due to some family memory of a distant
Greek connection in their pedigree, to the point where there is
willingness to overturn relationships attested to in near-contemporary
sources simply because the names don't match with the expectations.
Someone was trying to make Richard I of Normandy legitimate son of his
father because of the names he gave his daughters, when our main
source for his illegitimacy was a friend of Richard's own half-
brother. It started as a framework to help understand the documented
events, then to supplement the documented events, and now to correct
documented events.
> Obviously at some point in any bloodline there must be a first person to
> bear any name, so that eventually it must be admitted that parental whim
> took over from a supposed obsession with pedigree in the choice.
As readers are probably aware, it is really annoying to me to find
onomastic reconstructions being applied to the early families of
Navarre, where we know so few names (little more than a handful of
male names, and less than that for females), and those that we know
show up in multiple families, so how anyone can claim these names as
evidence of relationship is beyond me. It is like claiming that the
use of William or Richard or Robert or Roger means anything in
Conquest-era Norman families. Further, there are only five known
families, yet there were not just five families in the whole region,
and it is unreasonable to conclude that each bride must come from one
of the other four (or from Asturias). Basically, it all begs the
question - it asks "which of these other families did this bride come
from?" assuming out of hand that she did come from one of them, and
all the while there is a Prince Garcia out there who doesn't fit into
any of the families.
taf
Peter Stewart
> On Dec 13, 12:43 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is one of the outcomes from taking two wrong approaches to the
> > study of genealogy in my view - first, starting from the idea that any
> > problem may be amenable to solution, when a lack of evidence can never be
> > satisfactorily overcome by guesswork; and secondly, that statistical
> > probabilities can have any definite application to individual circumstances
> > when working from the unknown where the vagaries of people are concerned.
>
> Just the other day, I again came across the rule (not trend, not
> tendency, but RULE) that the eldest son was named for the paternal
> grandfather, the second for the maternal, and it went on for three
> more steps, then being used to identify who were the fathers of the
> parents.
>
> > Even if it could be shown - and anyway it can't, of course - that 90% of
> > people were named after an ancestor, this cannot tell you that a specific
> > case didn't fall into the 10% of exceptions. We know from direct evidence
> > that some Frankish noble families gave exotic names to children, for a
> > variety of reasons, or called them after godparents, beloved saints, etc.
>
> . . . feudal lords . . .
>
> I am reminded of Jackman's attempt to show that all Greek named
> Western Europeans were named due to some family memory of a distant
> Greek connection in their pedigree, to the point where there is
> willingness to overturn relationships attested to in near-contemporary
> sources simply because the names don't match with the expectations.
One of the favourite excesses of this school of genealogy is with the
first dynasty of counts in Anjou. In that case the family memory
traced to a forester living south-east of Angers in the early- to
mid-9th century. But this is "corrected" by the wise heads who follow
Karl Werner in opining that the line _must_ have traced to the
Carolingian aristocracy, based on a selective survey of inadequate
evidence and despite the degrading of ancestors that are meant to be
such a source of pride, allegedly just to make a more romantic story -
so much for memories going back to "distant Greek connections", if
descendants can't even be trusted for intervening generations in their
own immediate neighbourhoods.
Peter Stewart
mqs...@gmail.com
> Hopefully I've gotten the gist of where you are saying each line is
> problematic.
>
> Will Johnson
Berta of /Lorraine/ , illegitimate died 8 Mar 925
2) Oberto Azzo, Count of /Lucca/ & Este died 975
5) Oberto I, Marquis of /Liguria & Savona/ died abt 1034
6) Oberto II, Marquis of /Liguria/ died before 1065
7) Manfredo, Marquis of /Liguria/ died 1079
8) Adelisa de /Savona/ died 1085/7 (*line breaks here* no evidence for the parentage of Adelisa, who is not called "de Savona")
9) Adelisa de Tosny, Dame of Belvoir (from 1129)
- - - - -
1)
what Adalbert III ??? the father of Oberto I, the first margareve of Genova, was marquess Adalberto but nothing seems to be known of his life nor of his ancestry.
Rather, marquess Adalberto, the father of Oberto I, has been geographically suggested to Milano. Not Tuscany.
To create ancestry for marquess Adalberto is quite obviously an exercise of fantasy genealogy.
2) Oberto I was surely not any Oberto Azzo
4) Gisla [of the margraviate of Genova] (who had seemingly nothing to do with Este castle) is attested as daughter of a marquess Adalberto. This has been reconstrued plausibly as her being daughter of the Obertenghi lord, Adalberto, margrave of Genova, elder brother of Oberto II.
5) it is not definitely known which one of Gisla's sons was the father of the next generation. The usual reconstruction is her second-eldest son, marquess Anselmo
6) what Oberto? the man at this genealogical spot is attested as Teuto and suchlike - it has been reconstrued as Oddone and could be Thiedo.
7) Teoto's eldest son marquess Manfredo, co-lord of Savona, was killed in an insurrection in 1079. However, at tha time, his children were yet young, and not marriageable for several years.
8) this is real funny. Adelais, wife of Robert of Belvoir, is here identified to the same genealogical place as Adelaida, the divorced queen-consort of Jerusalem and the known regent of Sicily (who actually as young woman married in late 1080s).
Adelaida regent of Sicily is here killed before her said historical career, already in 1087 (when she was probably not yet old enough to give birth).
However, it is well known that she gave birth to Simon and Roger, rulers of Sicily. A Tosny child would be a joke.
Robert's wife Adelais connected to this Savona parentage is fantasy genealogy.