Fw:
AGeorgeSand
but would like to make the point, that in fact, Nennius, one of Geoffrey of Monmouth's main (and better) sources, refers all his data for the lines from 1st king Britus/Brutus, to Aneas (and on to Noah's father Lamech- cited also in similar later pedigrees for Edw IV et al) - from the Roman Chronicles,
- the very source used by Chris Bennet, who never gets heckled - and by his august source, the Octavian Society, for the respected Roman lines I was asking him to check ...
These Chronicles are generally considered the closest thing to a real source covering the time period, so if you have a taste for early legendary lines, and a modicum of good sense to judge a legendary source for what it's worth - which is considerably more than certain diploma-ed ignorants on this list wish to allow...
You may well accredit as not at all ridiculous, the lines to Priam and or Noah, cited in Monmouth's pedigree for Rhodri Mawr, (still looking for the original work it's in, if anyone has the url; it didnt come up on my browser).
So I'M RIGHT on this one, pals - the "experts" are WRONG - just jealous I found it first while they were still to chicken to defend it!
Forward, into the Past!
PS dont bother responding with your usual pitiful drivel -it just makes you reveal your inner lack of nobility - Peter Stewart sure took a tumble in my esteem last time - after all, he's just parroting good sources, but has no chivalry towards women or even viragos who treat him with too much respect for his state of evolution...
I'm outta here... there IS life offlist, and it's better - just thought some of you might like to know...
BMUSTNMILLOTP!
marshall kirk
out -- lest anyone be misled -- that there's no such (ancient) source
as "The Roman Chronicles." (Perhaps there's some program on PBS so
titled, but that's modern.) There are many *individual* Roman
historians and chroniclers, but nothing recognized, generically, as
"The Roman Chronicles." Nor do any Roman historians refer to figures
from Hebrew (or perhaps more correctly, Mesopotamian?) legend, such as
Lamech and Noah, save, perhaps, for late ecclesiastical writers,
working within the Roman world. By and large, these latter were
concerned with church affairs, and their versions of secular history
aren't usually worth a great deal, except for their own times.
"Nennius," if there was a single individual who compiled the work
generally fathered onto that name, stated outright that he'd made a
great heap of all the materials he'd found, and cobbled them together
-- round about the eighth century, I believe, tho' I may have to stand
corrected on that. (He didn't exert, I might add, much obvious effort
at editorial collation and rationalization.) The materials in
question derive from individual Roman historians, oral tradition
(possibly of some value), and apparently sheer myth. The result is a
concoction, with hopeless internal contradictions (as, *e.g.*, in the
stories of Vortigern and Ambrosius/Merlin) -- a mixture of real
history and pure fantasy, which are difficult (to put it mildly) to
separate.
The Octavian Society has published material of very varying quality.
Some of its contributors are knowledgeable scholars, while others
couldn't tell a hawk from a handsaw. I'm unclear, in any event, what
it's supposed to have to do with Geoffrey of Monmouth's fantastical
line of ancient kings of Britain, etc.
On the most charitable view of the Welsh pedigrees, one might accept
certain lines back to the Vth, perhaps even the IVth, century. There
is one curious line that looks at least remotely plausible, and
ascends to what appear to be known kings of the Catuvellauni, around
the time of Christ. (This line, which occurs in a manuscript of the
IXth or Xth century, doesn't connect with the others in that
collection, tho' presumably it was intended to do so.) That's the
limit. No line from Biblical figures down to Welsh kings would be
accepted as valid by scholars familiar with the evidence -- and
especially not if it was found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose work is
provably historically and genealogically distorted for quite late
periods.
I realize that the poster isn't going to read this, but perhaps this
will be of some use to others. Essential -- and probably first --
rule for doing ancient history and genealogy: familiarize yourself
with the original sources.
AGeor...@wanadoo.fr ("AGeorgeSand") wrote in message news:<04de01c3d833$d34bae70$e454f8c1@AnnieMobileUnit>...
Todd A. Farmerie
> but would like to make the point, that in fact, Nennius,
> one of Geoffrey of Monmouth's main (and better) sources,
> refers all his data for the lines from 1st king Britus/Brutus,
> to Aneas (and on to Noah's father Lamech- cited also in
> similar later pedigrees for Edw IV et al) - from the Roman
> gets heckled - and by his august source, the Octavian
> Society, for the respected Roman lines I was asking him to
> check ...
Setting aside the point raised by Marshall Kirk about whenther
such a source exists, it is perhaps worth pointing out that a
document, say, a chronicle, could be a highly accurate source for
some information, and absolutely worthless for other information.
Annal entries recording the events that took place the same
year, and in the immediate area of the chronicler, are likely to
be accurate. Events that occured at a great distance, of space
or time, are likely to be less so, or even completely fabular.
Rarely does a chronicler begin his chronicle with current events.
Rather, they usually give a background - a historical summary
or pseudo-chronology of events leading up to the present. This
material is not contemporary, and depending on how far back it
purports to go, it can be complete mythology. Thus, the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can be used as accurate evidence that
Eadric Streona died in 1017, but is much less valuble for the
date that Cerdic died (long before the composition was begun),
and worthless when it relates the ancestry of Woden.
Thus, 'Roman Chronicles' could be of value for documenting DFAs
involving Gallo-Roman families, but are worthless for mythical
individuals such as Anaeas and Brutus, who supposedly lived a
thousand years or more before the earliest contemporary entry,
and even more so for Lamech and Noah, supposedly a thousand years
before that.
> These Chronicles are generally considered the closest thing
> to a real source covering the time period,
If it is 'the closest thing to a real source,' it is, by
definition, not a real source.
> So I'M RIGHT on this one, pals - the "experts" are
> WRONG - just jealous I found it first while they were
> still to chicken to defend it!
Of course. That must be it.
taf
Chris Bennett
""AGeorgeSand"" <AGeor...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:04de01c3d833$d34bae70$e454f8c1@AnnieMobileUnit...
> Just dropping by to say I do much better offlist without your phony
inflatable expert cribbers, cheats and hecklers -
>
> but would like to make the point, that in fact, Nennius, one of Geoffrey
of Monmouth's main (and better) sources, refers all his data for the lines
from 1st king Britus/Brutus, to Aneas (and on to Noah's father Lamech- cited
also in similar later pedigrees for Edw IV et al) - from the Roman
Chronicles, - the very source used by Chris Bennet, who never gets
heckled - and by his august source, the Octavian Society, for the respected
Roman lines I was asking him to check ...
>
> These Chronicles are generally considered the closest thing to a real
source covering the time period, so if you have a taste for early legendary
lines, and a modicum of good sense to judge a legendary source for what it's
worth - which is considerably more than certain diploma-ed ignorants on this
list wish to allow...
Well, hecklers who don't spell my name right aren't starting off from a
position of strength! But, trust me, I've been heckled in my time here,
just not recently. Probably because I'm not all that active here these
days.
I'm not sure what Mme Sand is referring to by "Roman chronicles" -- I don't
know of any from the classical period mentioning Brutus or Noah -- but as it
happens I have recently been looking into early Roman historiography for my
own reasons. FWIW, what I have learnt, in summary, is as follows:
-- Roman history began to be written by Q. Fabius Pictor during the Second
Punic War. Detailed historical accounts of events before the First Punic
War are liable to include increasing amounts of data that is of dubious
reliability.
-- One of the original primary sources was a set of annals maintained by the
pontifex maximus. These annals appear to be the source, e.g., of the fasti
consulares. Ancient tradition was that these were heavily damaged at the
time of the Gallic sack of Rome in the early 4th century BC. They were
maintained until about 130 BC, and subsequently lost or destroyed. When or
by whom is controversial. The theory that seems most plausible to me is
that this was done by Augustus after a suitaby "edited" account, also now
lost, was created. Although they formed the base of republican chronology,
they were not considered completely reliable by later chronographers --
various editions of the fasti consulares start to diverge slightly before
about 300 BC.
In short, anything in the Roman historical tradition that is before the
third century BC should be scrutinized, and anything before some time in the
fifth needs to be looked at very, very carefully.
A couple of interesting webpages to look at are:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Roman.Chronol.html and
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/GrandLat/people/griffiths/collatin.htm
A must-read book is B. W. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificorum Maximorum: The
origins of the annalistic tradition 2nd edn (Ann Arbor, 1999)
Regards
Chris Bennett
marshall kirk
vaguely alludes under the heading of "The Roman Chronicles" may be
Livy's early history of Rome. That would certainly deal with Aeneas,
and perhaps with one or two of the other figures mentioned; but it
equally certainly isn't the source for Geoffrey's line of
pre-Christian British kings, let alone for anything to do with
Biblical patriarchs.
Livy is, perhaps, not a bad example of Todd's point. He (Livy, not
Todd!) is generally thought to have drawn on 'consular annals,' in
their origin an accumulation of brief notes attached to the recorded
names of the consuls for each year (and thus quite analogous, in
original motivation and nature, to later annals derived from notes
jotted in the margins of Easter tables); but the quality of his
history decreases steadily as one moves backward from his own time.
The first and second centuries BCE seem reliable enough; things start
getting steadily hazier, tho', before the Punic wars, until, by the
time of the founding of the Republic (say, around 500 BCE, altho' even
the year-date is open to question), Livy's account is at best
distorted, and may contain purely ahistorical matter. (It's often
quite difficult to follow, too, as tho' his earlier source materials
were inadequate for the writing of a consecutive, comprehensible
history, or perhaps as a result of distortions imposed on the actual
structure of the historical events in the interests of Livy's
overarching ideological agenda.) The Etruscan kings who preceded the
founding of the Republic may or may not have existed, but even if they
did, I'd put little stock in Livy's tales of their lives and doings.
I'd consider the Trojan origin pure mythology --in fact, I'd be
inclined to guess that the Romans at some point simply attached
themselves, mythologically, to the events and figures of the Iliad,
which must have become widely known at a fairly early date throughout
the Hellenistic world. The tendency of 'new peoples' to create a
national origin-legend attached to the prestigious mythology of an
older and higher culture is widely seen -- tho' I'd better refrain
from giving examples, lest I step on religious toes.
All subject to confutation, I realize.
mkk...@rcn.com (marshall kirk) wrote in message news:<1c74a9e5.04011...@posting.google.com>...
Stewart Baldwin
>"Nennius," if there was a single individual who compiled the work
>generally fathered onto that name, stated outright that he'd made a
>great heap of all the materials he'd found, and cobbled them together
>-- round about the eighth century, I believe, tho' I may have to stand
>corrected on that. (He didn't exert, I might add, much obvious effort
>at editorial collation and rationalization.) The materials in
>question derive from individual Roman historians, oral tradition
>(possibly of some value), and apparently sheer myth. The result is a
>concoction, with hopeless internal contradictions (as, *e.g.*, in the
>stories of Vortigern and Ambrosius/Merlin) -- a mixture of real
>history and pure fantasy, which are difficult (to put it mildly) to
>separate.
[snip]
"Historia Brittonum" (as the work often attributed to "Nennius" is
more properly called) is attributed to "Nennius" in only five
manuscripts of HB, and as one of these is the ultimate source of the
others, there is only one independent manuscript source for this. The
attribution of "Nennius" as the author was commonly accepted until the
article by Dumville (1975/6), which argued that the "Nennian Prologue"
and the attribution to Nennius could not be dated earlier than the
middle of the eleventh century. Dumville's analysis has been widely
accepted, but not universally [see Field (1996)]. There are two
distinct facets to the problem, of which the second is by far the most
important:
1. The authorship of Historia Brittonum.
Even if the common view is correct that the Nennian Prologue was not
an original part of HB, it is still possible that the writer of the
prologue was using reliable tradition to give the name of the author.
However, even if it were based on reliable tradition(and there is no
good evidence that this is the case), knowing the actual name of the
author is not of much help in assessing the value of the work, unless
we know something about him (which we don't).
2. The authorship of the "Nennian Prologue"
Whether or not the "Nennian Prologue" was written by the same person
who compsed HB is far more important. This is primarily because the
statement about the "great heap" has been used by some to suggest that
the author copied much of his source material into HB without much
manipulation, so that by this argument, HB would enable one to get a
good idea of the actual source material used by the author, which
would enhance the reliability, IF correct. However, I think that this
has been effectively demolished by Dumville's arguments, which have
shown that HB is not a "heap" that left much source material as it
was, but a finished history compiled about the year 830 by an author
who was suffering the handicap of having only very meager sources on
which to base his work. [See also Dumville (1986)]
Stewart Baldwin
Bibliography
Dumville (1975-6) = David N. Dumville, " 'Nennius' and the Historia
Brittonum", Studia Celtica 10/11 (1975-6), 78-95, reprinted in
Dumville, Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle Ages
(Aldershot, 1990).
Dumville (1986) = David N. Dumville, "The historical value of the
Historia Brittonum", Arthurian Literature 6 (1986), 1-26.
Field (1996) = P. J. C. Field, "Nennius and his history", Studia
Celtica 30 (1996), 159-65.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> AGeor...@wanadoo.fr ("AGeorgeSand") wrote in message
> news:<04de01c3d833$d34bae70$e454f8c1@AnnieMobileUnit>...
> >
> > Just dropping by to say I do much better offlist without your
> > phony inflatable expert cribbers, cheats and hecklers -
<snip>
> > So I'M RIGHT on this one, pals - the "experts" are WRONG -
> > just jealous I found it first while they were still to [sic]
> > chicken to defend it!
> >
> >
> > Forward, into the Past!
> >
> > PS dont bother responding with your usual pitiful drivel
> > -it just makes you reveal your inner lack of nobility - Peter
> > Stewart sure took a tumble in my esteem last time - after all,
> > he's just parroting good sources, but has no chivalry towards
> > women or even viragos who treat him with too much respect for
> > his state of evolution...
> >
> > I'm outta here... there IS life offlist, and it's better
> > - just thought some of you might like to know...
> > BMUSTNMILLOTP!
Perhaps Mr Kirk would care to tell us clearly just what aspect/s of
this poster's annoyance he sympathises with, and for what reason/s.
To me, as a specific object of her remarks, the complaints seem
utterly preposterous. The poster in question has been astoundingly,
repeatedly ill-mannered, insulting many posters who have tried in good
faith to help her see the consistent errors of her approach to
medieval genealogy and to simple communication with other people.
That she should find sympathy expressed here on departure is
surprising - that this should be put forward by Mr Kirk, perhaps, less
so, since they appear to share a habit of effusive overstatement
verging on bombast.
Peter Stewart
Antoine Freeman
your way to attempt to prove that any connection to any Biblical
person is false and a forgery. Sure, some of the lines may be
questionable and there is nothing wrong with examining sources
closely. The problem is many who come here totally loathe the idea of
both God and country. They realize, at least subconsciously, that if
there were a modern connection to Biblical personages then they would
have to realize the Bible is true, and that's something they don't
want to do. For then they would have to consider the divine right of
kings and that kings reign under the Grace of God. They much prefer to
make kings into robbers and tyrants who got lucky, and they don't
respect the concept of kingship. This in itself makes their view bias
and uncouthed, for scholars and researchers must keep an open mind. I
have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
disprove something as well. You can not effectively say that a child
does not belong to one father until you can prove that somebody else
is the father. The point being, until you can find a source that
provides more accurate information, who are you to sit as judge and
say these sources are incorrect. For instance, in a murder case all
suspects are urged not to leave the area, surely all of them are not
guilty, but one cannot be sure that one is not. In the name of truth,
let it be known that it takes evidence to disprove, not only to prove.
Antoine Freeman,
Duke of Berry
--
Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
from the race of Artois. He shall govern France with prudence and with
honour; the spirit of God will be with him, the Spirit said so. - Fr
Jerome Votin in the 15th century
Leo van de Pas
When genealogies are displayed it is important also to know why they are
displayed.
Mel Gibson made a rollicking good movie with Braveheart, but to make the
story more compelling he changed some historical and genealogical facts. So
what? It is only a story.
William Shakespeare wrote some rollicking good plays but, in some, to make
the story easier to follow he changed some historical and genealogical
facts. So what? It is the "story" that counts.
For certain reasons the bible has recorded genealogies, I have been told
that the "begats" each name could represent seven (or more) generations.
That genealogy cannot be correct as it is, as it does not cover enough
generations to span the period mankind has been on earth.
In my opinion it is the message and the story that counts, not the
genealogy.
The Bible is a message that has been written for the salvation of mankind,
it is not a history nor a genealogy, it is the story/message that counts,
not the genealogy.
I think religious toes are too sensitive in this case, they want to be
trampled upon. I understand that some parts of the new testament were
written as late as 70 AD. To link anyone mentioned in the bible to people
living later, we need other proof, documentary or otherwise. That proof, I
understand, is very much lacking. Like most people, I would dearly love to
see genealogies going all the way to Noah and beyond, but wishful thinking
is not "proof".
That people on gen-med loathe the idea of God and Country, where does that
come from?
The love for America shines through from many people, so much so that it
almost seems like a religion and that kind of religion, also, should be
respection on gen-med. We are here for genealogical reasons, not politics or
religion.
Whether the Bible is true has nothing to do with the linking of present day
people to people mentioned in the bible, the Bible is a unit of its own. A
unit created in the time of Emperor Constantine, the time when it was
decided by men what was part of the bible and what was not. The message of
the bible is there, that some parts of the message may be distorted is being
investigated by many learned people----but not on gen-med where this does
not belong.
The divine right of kings? Who decides on earth who should be king?
Charlemagne became King of the Franks by conquest, was he allowed to do so
by God? Who are we to say this?
Let's assume he, and his descendants were. Like in Scotland, they did not
necessarily stick to the eldest son of the monarch being the next
monarch----how divine is that? It is most definitely more practical, as then
always a mature person is the ruler. But what happened after a while? Hugues
Capet decided, not God, that by Divine Right his lineage were to be kings of
France, to the exclusion of the Carolingians. And as a result France was
stuck with the Capetingians for many centuries.
"You cannot effectively say that a child does not belong to one father until
you can prove that somebody else is the father". Surely, Antoine, these
days, you cannot mean this? How many paternity cases have there been where
DNA and blood tests have excluded a person as father without pointing the
finger at someone else as the father?
I think, what you are trying to say is, that if there is no proof either
way, we have to leave our options open and I agree with that. What do you
suggest what to do with this group of murder suspects? Execute them all
"because one must be guilty", or release all because only one can be guilty?
As far as genealogy is concerned, I rather have no parents than parents who
"possibly could be correct". By assigning wrong or questionable parents, you
also can assign wrong grandparents, great-grandparents and so on, I'd rather
have a blank than an error, and as far as Biblical links is concerned, we
only have blanks.
Am I correct in assuming Antoine is born in 1983 and has a very interesting
ancestry?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Nathaniel Taylor
ajhfr...@catholic.org (Antoine Freeman) wrote:
> The problem is many who come here totally loathe the idea of
> both God and country. They realize, at least subconsciously, that if
> there were a modern connection to Biblical personages then they would
> have to realize the Bible is true, and that's something they don't
> want to do.
The Bible contains no genealogies linking persons in it to 'modern'
times. This would be a logical impossibility--a sort of narratological
Klein Bottle. The fact that some contributors to this form may doubt or
challenge specific posited genealogies linking modern people to Biblical
personages therefore cannot reveal anything about those contributors'
attitudes toward the veracity (historical or theological) of the Bible
itself. To attempt to characterize such attitudes is therefore
logically baseless, as well as being strictly off-topic.
> I have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
> disprove something as well.
The burden of proof is always on the proponents of a particular
genealogy: that's the way the systems of evidence-based history or
genealogy work. Now, there is a vast intermediate zone between proven
and disproven: all the theories, fantasies, assertions, and isolated
data which can be neither proven nor disproven.
The question is, what are we obligated to do with all of it? An educated
investigation of the context in which a given theory or source was
generated will generally provide an effective triage between things
which are relevant to genealogical speculation over possible DFAs, and
things which have no utility there. DFAs which arise out of political
fraud, wishful thinking, uncritical hodgepodging or religious conviction
are going to get a lot less air time than those which are plausible
reconstructions by knowledgeable enthusiasts or experts. And, by the
way, Marshall is about as open-minded an expert as you will find on this
forum.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
> You've trampled on religious toes. I've seen it before, you go out of
> your way to attempt to prove that any connection to any Biblical
> person is false and a forgery.
Sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of such connections are
obvious forgeries (or at least sloppy errors), and the rest are
simply poorly supported, at best. That being said, such
discussions, in the abstract, are of little value. Instead, if
you think there is a valid line, perhaps you could post it, so
that at least the medieval portion of it can be evaluated.
> I
> have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
> disprove something as well. You can not effectively say that a child
> does not belong to one father until you can prove that somebody else
> is the father.
This is patently false. Herfast 'of Crepon' (whose father
remains unknown) could not possibly be the son of John F.
Kennedy. You do not need to know who Herfast's father is to
conclude this. Certainly, this is taking the argument to a
ridiculous extreme, but that is where this standard of proof leads.
Where else does it lead? This is not a novel argument to be
presented here - it has been made before, and it is just as
flawed as ever. "Because you don't have explicit evidence that X
is not the father of Y, then you can't say he isn't." Do you
have any evidence that the Pope is not a hyperdimentional alien
entity? No, but at some point, one has to apply a degree of
critical evaluation or anything is possible - ANYTHING, and when
anything is possible, nothing is probable.
There were hundreds of millions of people alive at the time, and
for the vast majority, you have no evidence that they are not
father of Y. By your argument, all 100 million are possible, and
not just them. Also possible are an infinite number of 'people'
who did not actually exist, but for whom you have no evidence
that they are not the father (this may seem ridiculous, but many
of the 'fathers' asigned by later sources have no factual basis -
they never existed). Thus, far from getting you closer to the
truth, this criterion renders you unable to ever approach it.
Even those who make this argument don't actually believe it, or
at least have not thought it through to its obvious conclusion -
they just don't want to reject a cherished, if unsupported,
mythology, to be replaced by a void.
> The point being, until you can find a source that
> provides more accurate information, who are you to sit as judge and
> say these sources are incorrect.
Who does one need to be to question a source? On what basis are
these sources above question? Rather every source should be
questioned.
taf
Renia
> You've trampled on religious toes. I've seen it before, you go out of
> your way to attempt to prove that any connection to any Biblical
> person is false and a forgery.
You don't have to go out of your way to prove such a connection false.
It is impossible for a man to beget a child when he is 500 years old,
for example. That 500-year gap represents something which is missing,
even if you do believe in the existence of the individually-named people.
> Sure, some of the lines may be
> questionable and there is nothing wrong with examining sources
> closely.
What other sources do you suggest back to the beginning of time?
>The problem is many who come here totally loathe the idea of
> both God and country. They realize, at least subconsciously, that if
> there were a modern connection to Biblical personages then they would
> have to realize the Bible is true, and that's something they don't
> want to do.
And this is the point of the post, not genealogy. But not everyone who
comes here is Christian or Jewish. And belief in The Bible is not a
faith in itself. Although it might be for some.
> For then they would have to consider the divine right of
> kings and that kings reign under the Grace of God. They much prefer to
> make kings into robbers and tyrants who got lucky, and they don't
> respect the concept of kingship. This in itself makes their view bias
> and uncouthed, for scholars and researchers must keep an open mind.
It is true that scholars must keep an open mind. But most of the kings
we know of and discuss ruled after the Bible was written. Perhaps not
all of those had the Divine Right?
> I
> have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
> disprove something as well.
Something can only be proved (either true or false) if you have the
evidence to prove it. Put very simply, if you don't have the evidence,
you can't prove it.
Before you can use The Bible as evidence, you have to prove its value as
a source and that is different to proving its value as a tool of
Religious faith.
> You can not effectively say that a child
> does not belong to one father until you can prove that somebody else
> is the father.
To do that, you have evidence that the child is not the child of its
father. And the evidence in the Bible for that, is the time-span between
the generations.
> The point being, until you can find a source that
> provides more accurate information, who are you to sit as judge and
> say these sources are incorrect.
We are not going to find sources which provide more accurate
information. Therefore, we have to evaluate The Bible itself as a
source. And we must not confuse evalutating The Bible as an historical
source with evaluating The Bible as a Reglious tool
> For instance, in a murder case all
> suspects are urged not to leave the area, surely all of them are not
> guilty, but one cannot be sure that one is not. In the name of truth,
> let it be known that it takes evidence to disprove, not only to prove.
In history, it is almost impossible to disprove something when there is
no reason to disprove it. History works the other way round, where the
burden of proof lies on the theorist to prove his theory.
Renia
marshall kirk
reviewing what seemed to me fairly telling arguments (indeed, quite
probably Dumville's, as I know I read a number of articles dating from
his *enfant terrible* days) concerning the ID of the author (which, as
a mere name, is, as you point out, of no particular importance if we
know nothing about the man who bore it), but had quite forgotten
reading anything on the question of whether the "Nennian Prologue"
came from the quill of the same author as the compiler of the HB
proper.----I'm a little doubtful, tho', as to the HB's
characterization as a "finished history." It's always struck me as
crudely put together and internally disjointed, even inconsistent,
quite as tho' the author had indeed amassed a heap of materials and
assembled them without much of an attempt at collation and
rationalization. (I suspect that, if the prologue really was by a
later hand, that's the way the work struck him, too, which could be
why he felt the need to 'apologize' for its condition.) That's the
sort of thing I was referring to *vis-a-vis* the Vortigern and
Ambrosius/Merlinus stories -- IIRC, Vortigern's henchmen locate, for
nefarious purposes connected with strengthening the foundations of his
wobbly fortress, a fatherless boy (which I think has been generally
understood to mean a boy who was not fathered by a male human being --
this was one of the legendary attributes of Merlin, wasn't it?); in
practically the next breath, the boy says his father had been "one of
the consuls of Britain," or something of the sort. (Writing at work,
as usual, so haven't the text before me.) I also seem to recall
Vortigern dying in two or three different ways (?). Then, too,
there's a passage that begins, not clearly *apropos* of what precedes
it, "Then Arthur fought against them in those days ..." Against whom?
In what days? One would think that, if the author were energetically
manipulating his materials, he'd have been able to do a somewhat
better job. (OTOH, he does make a clumsy and unconvincing attempt to
reconcile stories that seem, originally, to have related to distinct
figures -- Ambrosius and Merlin -- *via* some sort of aside to the
effect that the two names really refer to one person.)---However, I'm
not making an explicit argument here out of any great conviction, just
registering some doubt. Would be interested in hearing how you
evaluate these aspects of the HB's internal structure.
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<40031dd0...@news.east.earthlink.net>...
Gordon Banks
> Antoine Freeman,
> Duke of Berry
>
> --
>
> Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
> from the race of Artois. He shall govern France with prudence and with
> honour; the spirit of God will be with him, the Spirit said so. - Fr
> Jerome Votin in the 15th century
Would this son be anyone we know?
GRHa...@aol.com
I
have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
disprove something as well.
prove it but you must prove that it isn't so. It behooves the people making
what others see as wild speculation to prove the statement they are making.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Dolly Ziegler
(snip) > DFAs which arise out of political fraud, wishful thinking,
> uncritical hodgepodging or religious conviction
> are going to get a lot less air time than those which are
> plausible reconstructions by knowledgeable enthusiasts or experts.
Great phrase, Nat, wish I'd said that. Cheers, Dolly
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> History works the other way round, where the burden
> of proof lies on the theorist to prove his theory.
So do hereditary titles for that matter, like "duke of Berry" for
instance - if by any chance Mr Freeman wants to start practising the
disciplines of reality & proof, he could start by letting us know how
he came by that handle to his name.
Peter Stewart
marshall kirk
more recently informed source).----If Chris isn't heckled as much as
some here, it may have something to do with the fact that he's
generally recognized to be an intelligent, well-educated, judicious,
and scrupulous scholar, who quite consistently presents the
documentary evidence and logical reasoning on which his judgments
rest. (And I say so as a disinterested party, at least insofar as my
complete lack of prior dealings or even acquaintance with the fellow
would make it difficult to characterize me, here at any rate, as a
"shill" or a "flack" ... <g>)
"Chris Bennett" <cjbe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<QYBMb.9834$Ky6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
Peter Stewart
<chomp>
> Bibliography
>
> Dumville (1975-6) = David N. Dumville, " 'Nennius' and the Historia
> Brittonum", Studia Celtica 10/11 (1975-6), 78-95, reprinted in
> Dumville, Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle Ages
> (Aldershot, 1990).
>
> Dumville (1986) = David N. Dumville, "The historical value of the
> Historia Brittonum", Arthurian Literature 6 (1986), 1-26.
>
> Field (1996) = P. J. C. Field, "Nennius and his history", Studia
> Celtica 30 (1996), 159-65.
David Dumville has also published a more recent paper on this subject,
'Historia Brittonum: an Insular History from the Carolingian Age' in
_Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter_, edited by Anton Scharer &
Georg Scheibelreiter, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für
Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 32 (Munich, 1994), pp 406–434.
Peter Stewart
Antoine Freeman
> In article <5a71d4f0.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> ajhfr...@catholic.org (Antoine Freeman) wrote:
>
> > The problem is many who come here totally loathe the idea of
> > both God and country. They realize, at least subconsciously, that if
> > there were a modern connection to Biblical personages then they would
> > have to realize the Bible is true, and that's something they don't
> > want to do.
>
> The Bible contains no genealogies linking persons in it to 'modern'
> times. This would be a logical impossibility--a sort of narratological
> Klein Bottle. The fact that some contributors to this form may doubt or
> challenge specific posited genealogies linking modern people to Biblical
> personages therefore cannot reveal anything about those contributors'
> attitudes toward the veracity (historical or theological) of the Bible
> itself. To attempt to characterize such attitudes is therefore
> logically baseless, as well as being strictly off-topic.
No, the Bible does not link any modern person's genealogy from a
Biblical person, but that does not mean that there are not any. I do
not view my self as a totally Bible based person, but if someone views
me that way, then I am not offended, for it is not an insult in my
opinion. I look at facts in modern times, but I also ask myself how
could this fit in with the Biblical history that I know to be true,
other people don't ask that question.
> > I have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> > to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
> > disprove something as well.
>
> The burden of proof is always on the proponents of a particular
> genealogy: that's the way the systems of evidence-based history or
> genealogy work. Now, there is a vast intermediate zone between proven
> and disproven: all the theories, fantasies, assertions, and isolated
> data which can be neither proven nor disproven.
Now we've got a problem Mr Taylor, which is where I totally disagree
with your version of research. I see a repeated version of denouncing
in your research, but not only yours, a few others on gen-med as well.
By this I mean that instead of adding something you attempt to slowly
eat away at the research of others. I guess I have a Matlock view of
logic, by far the best way to prove something not true is to prove
what actually did happen.
Mr van de Pas emailed me his message and I responded to him via email,
but in my post I said the following: My basic point was concerning
ancient genealogies. If an ancient source says that someone's father
was a certain individual and there is no better evidence to prescribe
his parentage elsewhere, then nobody has a valid reason to see that
source as incorrect.
He went on to say absence and other such things are good reasons, and
of course they are, logic needs to be applied. Of couse JFK isn't
someone's father who lived a millenium before him. I am saying, as
many of you are already aware, that if someone is given a parentage,
and there is no valid evidence to disprove it, then at worst it is
questionable, not false, because a statement must be proven false. I
don't know where this mangled logic that someone must prove everything
came from. If you want definite proof of everything, then you know
nothing. I think therefore I am. Of course that could get frivolous,
just as imply JFK parented a child before he was born. We must accept
certain things to be true in the world, basic facts we must accept and
work within them. This is not philosophy, this genealogy, and written
word must be considered fact, until it is proven false. You can easily
prove assuredly false things as such, but where there is no clear
evidence, it can only be questionable, not false.
> The question is, what are we obligated to do with all of it? An educated
> investigation of the context in which a given theory or source was
> generated will generally provide an effective triage between things
> which are relevant to genealogical speculation over possible DFAs, and
> things which have no utility there. DFAs which arise out of political
> fraud, wishful thinking, uncritical hodgepodging or religious conviction
> are going to get a lot less air time than those which are plausible
> reconstructions by knowledgeable enthusiasts or experts. And, by the
> way, Marshall is about as open-minded an expert as you will find on this
> forum.
You are out to prove my God as a liar and I don't like that. I can
read through your words to the truth. I don't believe that everyone
understands some basic facts about my faith, which is that the
Church's leaders have a direct succession from the Apostles and as you
will have it, Christ's appointed successors, most importantly Peter. I
know about early church history, and it is off topic here, but in that
we believe in the divine right of kings. When members of the clergy,
and most importantly the Pope, crown a king, it is suppose to be done
with divine right. So hopefully I won't be asked again about how I can
think Charlemagne or any other king had God's approval, not to mention
the endless number of prophecies by saints and clergy saying such. If
you do not believe that to be so, then that is one thing, but at least
you understand where I am coming from, which is most important.
Antoine Freeman
Balderdash, balderdash, balderdash! Sigh! That was mostly in regard to
Renia's post of which I am not even going to respond, but I believe I
covered a lot of it in my response to Mr Taylor. It is a shame I have
to argue with a Stewart, but I suppose my ancestors have done worse,
fueded among siblings. My great-grandmother was a Stewart you see, and
I have most respect for Clan Stewart, if you are related somewhere up
the line. Feel most free to tear apart my lineage, I'm sure you will.
It is as follows:
Charles X Philippe d'Artois, King of France and Navarre, Count of
Artois [crowned at Reims on May 29, 1825; reigned September 16, 1824 -
August 2, 1830] (1757 - 1836) = Princess Maria Teresa of Savoy (1756 -
1805) a daughter of Vittorio Amedeo III of Savoy, King of Sardinia and
Maria Antonia de Borbon, Infanta of Spain
Charles-Ferdinand d'Artois, Duke of Berry (1778 - 1820) = Amy Brown
(1783 - 1876) a daughter of John Lewis Brown and Mary Ann Deacon
John Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry, Commander of the British Royal
Navy (1806 - 1866) = Baroness Juliette Sophie Frederique de Blonay
(1823 - 1898) a daughter of Baron Frederic Louis de Blonay, Lord of
the Manor of Grandson and Anne Louise Doxay
William Lewis Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry (1845 - 1907) = Dona
Maria Gennara Amelia Isabella Luisa Enrichetta Giovanna Bona
Nicanoretta Gisela Micaela Gabriela Rafaela Gonzaga di Borbone (1870 -
1941) a daughter of Don Luigi Maria Ferdinando Pietro di Alcantara
Francesco d'Assisi Gennaro Francesco di Paola Alfonso Luigi di Gonzaga
Camillo de Hellis Alexis Raimondo Torillo Sebastiano Filomena di
Borbone, Prince of the Two Sicilies, Count of Roccaguglielma and
Aquila and Dona Maria Amelia Isabel Bellow-Hamel y Penot
John William Lewis Francis Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry (1902 -
1968) = Beatrice Cecile Neva Marie de Galard-Bearn de Brassac (1906 -
1996) a daughter of Louis Elie Joseph Henry de Galard-Bearn de
Brassac, 2nd Prince of Bearn and Viana, Prince of Chalais, Grandee of
Spain, President of the French Association of the Sovereign Military
Order of Malta
Henry William Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry (1929 - 1987) = Liliane
Diane Tixier (1953) a daughter of Alexander William Tixier and
Margaret Elizabeth Minton Schwartz
Antoine James Henry Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry (1983)
One little warning, before you go on to try to say there is no
Gennara, there is, you will find her in any complete genealogy of the
Two Sicilies families as the wife of William Freeman, her grandmother
was also a princess imperial of Brazil. Also, the de Galard-Bearn de
Brassac family are recognized in Spain with the above titles, so keep
that in mind before you start tearing apart. Also, the Blonay family
are one of the most ancient of families in the Savoy region, dating
back to at least the ninth century.
SGMFAQ
>You are out to prove my God as a liar and I don't like that. I can
>read through your words to the truth. I don't believe that everyone
>understands some basic facts about my faith, which is that the
>Church's leaders have a direct succession from the Apostles and as you
>will have it, Christ's appointed successors, most importantly Peter. I
>know about early church history, and it is off topic here, but in that
>we believe in the divine right of kings. When members of the clergy,
>and most importantly the Pope, crown a king, it is suppose to be done
>with divine right. So hopefully I won't be asked again about how I can
>think Charlemagne or any other king had God's approval, not to mention
>the endless number of prophecies by saints and clergy saying such. If
>you do not believe that to be so, then that is one thing, but at least
>you understand where I am coming from, which is most important.
None of this is Medieval genealogy. Please stick to Medieval genealogy in your
messages to this newsgroup.
"Medieval", for purposes of this group, runs from about 500 C.E. to 1600 C.E.
Discussion of genealogical connections before 500 C.E. and after 1600 C.E., and
all non-genealogical discussion, is off-topic here. There are other groups
where such discussions are welcomed. Please take the non-Medieval genealogical
parts of your postings to those other groups
Pierre Aronax
"Antoine Freeman" <ajhfr...@catholic.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:5a71d4f0.04011...@posting.google.com...
<...>
Only for the records, the title of Duke of Berry was not hereditary, so in
all case there can be nothing like a "de jure Duke of Berry". Anyway, that
doesn't matter since, as it is well known, John Freeman was not the
legitimate son of the Duke of Berry and in fact was not his son at all. So,
Antoine Freeman is not a descendant of the Duke of Berry, neither the real
Antoine Freeman nor the troll who uses is name to pollute this forum.
Pierre
Peter Stewart
> p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> > Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:<bu0ils$g7k$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>...
> >
> > <chomp>
> >
> > > History works the other way round, where the burden
> > > of proof lies on the theorist to prove his theory.
> >
> > So do hereditary titles for that matter, like "duke of Berry" for
> > instance - if by any chance Mr Freeman wants to start practising the
> > disciplines of reality & proof, he could start by letting us know how
> > he came by that handle to his name.
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
<snip>
> Feel most free to tear apart my lineage, I'm sure you will.
> It is as follows:
>
> Charles X Philippe d'Artois, King of France and Navarre, Count of
> Artois [crowned at Reims on May 29, 1825; reigned September 16, 1824 -
> August 2, 1830] (1757 - 1836) = Princess Maria Teresa of Savoy (1756 -
> 1805) a daughter of Vittorio Amedeo III of Savoy, King of Sardinia and
> Maria Antonia de Borbon, Infanta of Spain
>
> Charles-Ferdinand d'Artois, Duke of Berry (1778 - 1820) = Amy Brown
> (1783 - 1876) a daughter of John Lewis Brown and Mary Ann Deacon
>
> John Freeman, de jure Duke of Berry, Commander of the British Royal
> Navy (1806 - 1866) = Baroness Juliette Sophie Frederique de Blonay
> (1823 - 1898) a daughter of Baron Frederic Louis de Blonay, Lord of
> the Manor of Grandson and Anne Louise Doxay
Does it not strike you as significant that King Charles X and Henri,
comte de Chambord (or Henri V, "de jure" king of France by what you
consider to be "divine right"), didn't recognise or sanction this? Or
were they divinely wrong?
<chomp>
> Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
> from the race of Artois. He shall govern France with prudence and
> with honour; the spirit of God will be with him, the Spirit said so.
> - Fr Jerome Votin in the 15th century
Well, Jerome Votin may have said the "Spirit said so" - you seem to
have trouble distinguishing even in principle the simple fact that
people try to aggrandise their fantasies by restating them as God's
word, the basis of much of the Bible. What possible logical process
could guarantee that second-hand reports came from on high? Wishful
thinking is self-indulgence, not faith.
And the (real) duke of Anjou, among countless others, might have
inklings of a higher "divine" right to any restored French throne than
can sensibly be claimed by a commoner of quite doubtful, and anyway
illegitimate, lineage.
Peter Stewart
Nathaniel Taylor
> Nathaniel Taylor <nathani...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<nathanieltaylor-05...@news06.east.earthlink.net>...
> > The burden of proof is always on the proponents of a particular
> > genealogy: that's the way the systems of evidence-based history or
> > genealogy work. Now, there is a vast intermediate zone between proven
> > and disproven: all the theories, fantasies, assertions, and isolated
> > data which can be neither proven nor disproven.
>
> Now we've got a problem Mr Taylor, which is where I totally disagree
> with your version of research....
Do we? This is not my (or any one person's) 'version of research': it
is a fundamental of historical method going back to the likes of Lorenzo
Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Jean Mabillon, and other inventors and
pioneer practitioners of the critical skills which all historians and
genealogists should have.
> > The question is, what are we obligated to do with all of it? An educated
> > investigation of the context in which a given theory or source was
> > generated will generally provide an effective triage between things
> > which are relevant to genealogical speculation over possible DFAs, and
> > things which have no utility there. DFAs which arise out of political
> > fraud, wishful thinking, uncritical hodgepodging or religious conviction
> > are going to get a lot less air time than those which are plausible
> > reconstructions by knowledgeable enthusiasts or experts. And, by the
> > way, Marshall is about as open-minded an expert as you will find on this
> > forum.
>
> You are out to prove my God as a liar and I don't like that...
The 'SGMFAQ' has intervened to stamp this off-topic, but I think one
methodological point is on-topic, and important to reiterate (and then I
will let it go).
Postmodern literary scholars have conditioned themselves to eschew any
consideration of 'authorial intent', but this is very important to
historians when parsing the context and assessing the evidentiary value
of pre-modern texts (or any texts, really). When looking at medieval or
ancient genealogical material (or non-narrative sources with
genealogical details), context is very important. Medieval texts and
modern interpretations may all fall prone to the various motives which
can account for bad genealogy, as listed above: political fraud, wishful
thinking, uncritical hodgepodging [thanks, Dolly, for your appreciation
of the phrase], and religious conviction.
Of these motives, two are also responsible for the irrational defense of
indefensible genealogical theories: wishful thinking and religious
conviction. Wishful thinking usually gives way in the face of education
in critical method, since the pleasure in a cherished but false descent
can be supplanted by the pleasure in critical skills involved in knowing
a descent to be false.
An interlocutor motivated by religious ideology, on the other hand,
usually avoids learning critical method (usually by avoiding the issue
altogether in a discussion). In this case it is ironic since textual
criticism is an invention of devout Catholic scholars of the Renaissance
and Early Modern period (including those I mentioned above), each of
whom would have been staunch supporters of the Petrine Doctrine and the
doctrine of divine right of kings.
But (to close), the SGMFAQ is right that discussions of particular
religious doctrines (e.g. the Petrine doctrine) or particular political
theories (e.g. divine right of kings) are strictly off-topic.
Nat Taylor
Antoine Freeman
Well I prefer the title Duke of Berry, and as the rightful kings of
France they are entitled to call themselves what so ever they wish as
far as titles in the country go. If you would rather me call myself
king, then by all means I shall, for that is hereditary title that I
hope meets you expectation. Seeing as how you have contributed nothing
to this forum of great note, I did not expect the great arguements
that the intellectuals such as Farmerie and Taylor could give me, but
I'm still disappointed. I always respect the time one puts into their
arguements, right or wrong, but just flat name calling for nothing is
a new low. I have never spoken to you before, never responded to you
even once, so I would think you could start off without name calling
like a five year old. If trolling is supporting my God and my country,
then I guess you stand for selfishness and the works of evil. Now I
know how Saint Louis felt in the crusade.
Antoine Freeman
What I consider? I hate to disappoint you, but there are over 1
billion Catholics in the world, regular attenders or not, so I am not
alone in my considering. Not only Catholics believe in the divine
right of kings either, it was a generally excepted belief until modern
times. Many Jews, Muslims, and Protestants also believe in the divine
right of kings. Monarchies didn't only exist in Catholic countries.
>
> > Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
> > from the race of Artois. He shall govern France with prudence and
> > with honour; the spirit of God will be with him, the Spirit said so.
> > - Fr Jerome Votin in the 15th century
>
> Well, Jerome Votin may have said the "Spirit said so" - you seem to
> have trouble distinguishing even in principle the simple fact that
> people try to aggrandise their fantasies by restating them as God's
> word, the basis of much of the Bible. What possible logical process
> could guarantee that second-hand reports came from on high? Wishful
> thinking is self-indulgence, not faith.
Just because you have no faith that does not mean that others do not.
An endless number of prophecies point the French monarchy being among
the greatest and God ordained. Mainly that at some point in time a
prince will come from exile to reign as the greatest of all French
kings. A friend of mine, Jonathan Foster, collected a number of these
prophecies for me. The most ancient being long before Charlemagne.
Take a look:
"The Great Gaulish Monarch, who shall subject all of the East, shall
come around the end of the world." - Saint Hyppolitus (170 - 236)
Another,
"It is finished. The mountain of God desolated has cried to God, the
children of Judah have invoked God from a strange land, and behold,
God is no longer deaf. France, that appeared disintegrated, is on the
point of being united. God loves peace. Come, young Prince, leave the
Island of Captivity. Join the lion to the white flower. Come, God
wills what has been foreseen. The ancient blood of centuries will also
put an end to long divisions. Then shall be seen in France one
shepherd only. The powerful man, assisted by God, will establish
himself well. Many wise laws shall restore peace. The scion of Capet
will be so prudent and wise that all men will believe God to be with
him. Thanks to the Father of mercies, the Holy Sion sings again in the
temples, One, only God. Many poor wandering sheep shall come to drink
of the living spring of truth and grace. Three princes and kings shall
throw off the garb of error, and will see clearly in the faith of God.
At this time two-thirds of a great nation of the sea shall return to
the true faith." - Prophecy of Orval in the 1200s
> And the (real) duke of Anjou, among countless others, might have
> inklings of a higher "divine" right to any restored French throne than
> can sensibly be claimed by a commoner of quite doubtful, and anyway
> illegitimate, lineage.
>
Would that be a reference to Luis McKeon? The great-grandson of a
facist dictator and descendant of Queen Isabel II and her dentist, Mr
McKeon, or wait, maybe her son was fathered by the captain of the
guard. This House of Esau who renounced their claim long, long ago now
trying to resurrect it. I'm not having any of it. One good thing can
be said for the Duke of Anjou, from what I've heard he is a good
Catholic, and believes I am sure in many of the things that I do. I'm
sure he is a great person, but that has nothing to do with his claims,
which are much more questionable than mine, if not more so, seeing as
how his was renounced by his alleged ancestor. Although, something you
have failed to realize, my ancestors were never treated as commoners.
They married from elite nobility and the Duke of Berry's son, John,
was given many honors by Queen Victoria. Also, I'm sure you are
unaware that two recognized grandchildren of the Duke of Berry
testified to John being the legitimate son of the Duke and a French
court at one point in time recognized him as such. Commoner? Hardly,
take a second look Petey.
Antoine Freeman,
Duke of Berry
--
Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
siabair ~^~
> What I consider? I hate to disappoint you, but there are over 1
> billion Catholics in the world, regular attenders or not, so I am not
> alone in my considering. Not only Catholics believe in the divine
Ouside of your rarified circle, the generality of Catholics have no truck
with this nonsense. It is certainly not an article of faith.
Peter Stewart
<snip - the following was, preposterously, addressed to Pierre
Artonax>
> Seeing as how you have contributed nothing to this forum of great
> note, I did not expect the great arguements that the intellectuals
> such as Farmerie and Taylor could give me, but I'm still disappointed.
Not that comments from such a rat-bag source deserve attention, but
this gives an opportunity to say that Pierre is, of course, one of the
most notable contributors to this forum, and has been so for a good
while - indeed since Mr Freeman was by some years younger in age, if
not in the mind, than he shows himself to be now.
Peter Stewart
Pierre Aronax
"Antoine Freeman" <ajhfr...@catholic.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:5a71d4f0.04011...@posting.google.com...
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<4006dbb7$0$10382$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>...
<...>
> > Only for the records, the title of Duke of Berry was not hereditary, so
in
> > all case there can be nothing like a "de jure Duke of Berry". Anyway,
that
> > doesn't matter since, as it is well known, John Freeman was not the
> > legitimate son of the Duke of Berry and in fact was not his son at all.
So,
> > Antoine Freeman is not a descendant of the Duke of Berry, neither the
real
> > Antoine Freeman nor the troll who uses is name to pollute this forum.
> >
>
> Well I prefer the title Duke of Berry, and as the rightful kings of
> France they are entitled to call themselves what so ever they wish as
> far as titles in the country go. If you would rather me call myself
> king, then by all means I shall, for that is hereditary title that I
> hope meets you expectation.
My God! We have found a new one! I don't know if there is something like a
"rightful king of France", but I know at least that it is certainly not you,
whoever you are. Even if you were the real Antoine Freeman, you were not the
"rightful king" because:
1) John Freeman was not the son of Amy Brown and the Duke of Berry.
2) Anyway, would he have been, that would make no difference because the
Duke of Berry and Amy Brown were not married.
3) Anyway, would Henry William Freeman (1929-1987) have been a legitime
descendant of the Duke of Berry, he divorced two times before marrying a
third wife by whom he had Antoine Freeman, who is not born from a religious
marriage.
In the real world, the legitimate male line posterity of the Duke of Berry
ended in 1883 with the death of his only surviving son Henry V, the Count of
Chambord: anything else is garbage. And all this is OT since the various
illegitimate children of Amy Brown have nothing of medieval.
> Seeing as how you have contributed nothing
> to this forum of great note, I did not expect the great arguements
> that the intellectuals such as Farmerie and Taylor could give me
Arguments? You make the irrational claim that you are the rightful King of
France: that's you who need badly arguments! Now, enough time wasted with
this foolishness.
Pierre
Renia
> p_m_s...@msn.com (Peter Stewart) wrote in message news:<88abeaa.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message news:<bu0ils$g7k$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>...
>>
>><chomp>
>>
>>>History works the other way round, where the burden
>>>of proof lies on the theorist to prove his theory.
>>
>>So do hereditary titles for that matter, like "duke of Berry" for
>>instance - if by any chance Mr Freeman wants to start practising the
>>disciplines of reality & proof, he could start by letting us know how
>>he came by that handle to his name.
>>
>>Peter Stewart
>
>
> Balderdash, balderdash, balderdash! Sigh! That was mostly in regard to
> Renia's post of which I am not even going to respond, but I believe I
> covered a lot of it in my response to Mr Taylor.
What is balderdash? Peter Stewart's response, or mine?
If you mean mine, then it is not balderdash, but the way historical
research works.
If you disagree and maintain that "evidence must also be given to
disprove something as well", then can you tell me how this works?
Let's say I present my theory that Ermentrude Glassblower was the
daughter of John Smith of Peebles citing evidence (diaries, baptismal
records, legal papers, etc).
How do you disprove this?
Let's say that I present the same theory, but there is not enough
evidence to prove it. My evidence is circumstantial. There was a John
Smith in Peebles who lived in the same house or had some connection with
an Ermentrude Glassblower. There was an Ermentrude Glassblower of
Peebles whose father's name was definitely John, but not cited as Smith.
How do you disprove this?
You cannot disprove my first presentation, because the evidence gives
all the details. The only way to disprove it, is if newly-discovered
evidence turns up which contradicts it.
Neither can you disprove my second presentation, because the evidence is
flawed either way. You cannot say that she was definitely not the
daughter of John Smith. Neither can I say that she definitely was. You
could only disprove it, again, if evidence turns up to contradict it.
And I, for my part, must find more evidence, or reject my own theory.
Either way, you would only WANT to disprove either of these theories
BECAUSE new evidence had turned up.
And in either case, you would have neither the time nor the resources to
examine every Ermentrude and every John Smith in order to discount all
the others. With a name like Ermentrude, that might not be so difficult,
but how do you disprove all the other John Smiths, as being her father?
You would have to look everywhere, not just Peebles, in case they moved
around. Indeed, you would have to examine everyone, just in case they
changed their names. It can't be done.
Which is why you formulate a theory based on the evidence you have, find
further evidence to back it up, then present your theory, using the
evidence as proof. In so doing, you are, at that point, disproving every
other theory, whether already forumulated or not.
Renia
Kelsey J. Williams
Sir,
In regards to your claim to be king (presumably of France) I feel
compelled to observe that the title you claim properly belongs to
Henri Philippe Pierre Marie, Comte de Paris & Duc de France (*
14.VI.1933), the heir-male of Louis-Philippe, last crowned Bourbon
King of France. His claim has always been recognized as the best
except by those who claim that King Felipe V of Spain's renunciation
of the right of succession was invalid. I might also point out that
he does not descend from an illegitimate or morgantic relationship in
any way. See the following pedigree:
1. Henri Philippe Pierre Marie, Comte de Paris & Duc de France. *
14.VI.1933.
2. Henri Robert Ferdinand Marie Louis Philippe, Comte de Paris.
*5.VII.1908. + 19.VI.1999. oo 8.IV.1931 to Isabella Pss of Orléans &
Braganca.
3. Jean Pierre Clément Marie, Duc de Guise. * 4.IX.1874.
+25.VIII.1940. oo 30.X.1899 to Isabelle Pss d'Orléans.
4. Robert Philippe Louis Eugène Ferdinand, Duc de Chartres. *
9.XI.1840. + 5.XII.1910. oo 11.VI.1863 to Françoise Pss d'Orléans.
5. Ferdinand Philippe Louis Charles Henri Rosolin, Duc d'Orléans. *
3.IX.1810. + 13.VII.1842. oo 30.V.1837 to Hélène Dss of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin.
6. LOUIS PHILIPPE, King of the French. * 6.X.1773. + 26.VIII.1850.
oo 25.XI.1809 to Maria Amelia Pss of Bourbon-Sicily.
For proof of this line see:
_Almanach de Gotha_, most editions
A.C. Addington, _The Royal House of Stuart_, 3v.
_Europaische Stammtafeln_, multiple vols.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Pierre Aronax
"Kelsey J. Williams" <gkkwi...@cowboy.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:5b747dd9.0401...@posting.google.com...
<...>
> the heir-male of Louis-Philippe, last crowned Bourbon
> King of France.
<...>
Their are two big errors in this few words: Louis-Philippe d'Orléans was
never crowned and he was never King of France. Now, what about stopping to
feed the troll, particularly if it is by adding historical mistakes to his
hallucinations?
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:88abeaa.04011...@posting.google.com...
Well, thanks! :)
Pierre
ADRIANC...@aol.com
Pierre wrote,
> My God! We have found a new one! I don't know if there is something like a
> "rightful king of France", but I know at least that it is certainly not you,
> whoever you are. Even if you were the real Antoine Freeman, you were not the
> "rightful king" because:
> 1) John Freeman was not the son of Amy Brown and the Duke of Berry.
> 2) Anyway, would he have been, that would make no difference because the
> Duke of Berry and Amy Brown were not married.
> 3) Anyway, would Henry William Freeman (1929-1987) have been a legitime
> descendant of the Duke of Berry, he divorced two times before marrying a
> third wife by whom he had Antoine Freeman, who is not born from a religious
> marriage.
> In the real world, the legitimate male line posterity of the Duke of Berry
> ended in 1883 with the death of his only surviving son Henry V, the Count of
> Chambord: anything else is garbage. And all this is OT since the various
> illegitimate children of Amy Brown have nothing of medieval.
>
_Lines of Succession_ by Jiri Louda & Michael Maclagan does state that
Ferdinand D. of Berry did marry Amy Brown in 1806, but divorced in 1815. If this
was a Catholic marriage, I presume divorce means annulment, so perhaps you are
correct. No issue is shown for this marriage.
Adrian
Pierre Aronax
<ADRIANC...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:15e.2a23a7...@aol.com...
<...>
> _Lines of Succession_ by Jiri Louda & Michael Maclagan does state that
> Ferdinand D. of Berry did marry Amy Brown in 1806, but divorced in 1815.
(Before answering, I must point again that we are off topic and giving
pervert pleasure to a megalomaniac troll.)
Then, Louda and Maclagan are wrong: nobody was never able to prove there was
a marriage, and anyway nobody claimed there was one before at least the
1870' (or give me a proof of the contrary). The story of a bigamous Duke of
Berry was invented by political opponents to Henry V, who was very close to
a restoration after the fall of Napoleon III.
> If this
> was a Catholic marriage, I presume divorce means annulment, so perhaps you
are
> correct.
There is no trace of an annulment, which is hardly surprising since there
was no marriage. The Duke of Berry married in 1816: it was his only
marriage.
> No issue is shown for this marriage.
The Duke of Berry and Amy Brown had two illegitimate daughters, born in 1808
and 1809, which were recognized by their father on his deathbed and later
married to minor French aristocrats. Before becoming the mistress of the
Duke, Amy Brown had had at least two other children from probably at least
two men, both outside wedlock: John Freeman was one of them. It has been
suggested that his father was the Duke of Clarence, later William IV: more
prosaically, it was probably a John Freeman (senior). There is not the
single historical basis to make of John Freeman a son of the Duke, even
illegitimate, only the pretentiousness of his descendants, who have made
later some aristocratic marriages.
Now, can we go back to Middle Ages? (And why is all this rubbish on SGM and
not on ATR where it belongs?)
Pierre
Gordon Banks
King of France, do you think?
It is as if some Mexican came forward claiming to be the King of Mexico
because he descends from Montezuma. France is a Republic and has been
for many years. There are no kings there. Neither are there Pharoahs
any more.
And if Kings ever do appear in France again, I doubt if they will be
taken from long lost dynasties.
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 04:27, Pierre Aronax wrote:
> "Antoine Freeman" <ajhfr...@catholic.org> a crit dans le message de
Pierre Aronax
"Gordon Banks" <g...@gordonbanks.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1074272622.1...@localhost.localdomain...
<...>
> And if Kings ever do appear in France again, I doubt if they will be
> taken from long lost dynasties.
I would rather say that, if a King ever appear again in France, which is
indeed extremely doubtful, he will certainly be taken from the ancient
dynasty.
Pierre
The Williams Family
Hello,
My sincere apologies! I wasn't thinking when I wrote the above. It should read ". . . the heir male of
Louis-Philippe last ELECTED King of THE FRENCH." Sorry about that!
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Pierre Aronax
"The Williams Family" <gkkwi...@cowboy.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:4008421A...@cowboy.net...
<...>
> My sincere apologies! I wasn't thinking when I wrote the above. It
should read ". . . the heir male of
> Louis-Philippe last ELECTED King of THE FRENCH." Sorry about that!
Last and first then.
Pierre
Antoine Freeman
Not by age, but by knowledge does one acquire wisdom. I swear you
antichrists will act like blood hounds until every grain of truth is
removed from the world. To quote Louis XIV, "I am the state." Why else
do you think the children of the king were addressed as fils/fille or
in spain infant/infanta? So, the proper heir to France, Navarre,
Andorra, and half of America, Heir General of the Spanish and Austrian
Houses of Habsburg, the Baliol Claim to Scotland, and the Wessex House
of England is a ratbag, that's one to tell your grandchildren.
I guess not to many righteous men are reading this thread, because
none have yet to respond to this satanic anti-monarchist babble.
Although, I have gotten a couple nice emails. One person sent me in an
email, "In this case you wouldn't have to worry about being a Duke of
France as the Blonay line is considered one of the most illustrious
and oldest lines in Europe, with definite proven filiation somehwat
older than most of the European monarchies." He was also familiar with
Sophie's parents, and said her mother's maiden name was actually
Doxat. Someone along the line made a typing or writing error, as most
sources list her as Doxay.
Antoine Freeman,
Duke of Berry
--
There will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be
self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive,
disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous,
implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good,
traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers
of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject
them. - 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Antoine Freeman
I have all the respect in the world for the Count of Paris, he is most
certainly in line for the throne, and also has much better claim than
any descendant of King Felipe V. I am very upset that the courts have
denied him the use of his rightful surname de Bourbon, even though he
uses de France. All of which I believe he has a right too. In my mind
he is Premier Prince of the Blood, as unfortunately for some, my
father managed to continute his line in his older days. I do have some
who support my claim to the throne, but I do recognized all titles
created by the counts of Paris. I do not see how he would be the Duke
of Berry, as the title was created for my ancestor, but if you want to
except him as the rightful king, then by all means he would have a
right to all titles one considered extinct. My family and the Count's
have suffered abuse at the hands of this House of Esau, in court, who
renounced their claims and now try to claim the Capetian heritage. I
have been, with a friend, writing a few articles for my upcoming
website, in which I mention all claims, and as you will see, I respect
the Count of Paris the most and his claim. Also mentioned is the Duke
of Anjou and the Jean Christophe, Prince Napoleon, whose mother is a
princess of Bourbon Two Sicilies, so he is a cousin of mine, with our
common ancestor of Francesco I, King of Two Sicilies, who even those
who would smite me cannot deny is my ancestor. I could send you this
article about the Bourbon legacy if you wish.
Antoine Freeman,
Duke of Berry
--
Todd A. Farmerie
> I guess not to many righteous men are reading this thread, because
> none have yet to respond to this satanic anti-monarchist babble.
Perhaps it is because such a discussion is off-topic for the group, as
has been all mention of Divine Right and discussion of modern claims to
no-longer existant titles, as well as your statements of your own
religious beliefs and, derived from these, your ill-characterizations of
those whose opinions happen to disagree with yours.
This group is for the discussion of how medieval (~500-1500 CE) people
are related to each other, and the scholarly tools, aproaches and
sources used to address this question. With the exception of some
methodological issues that seem to have been raised simply as a pretext
to launch yourself into off-topic themes, you have yet to post anything
relevant to the charter of this group. You may want to give the charter
and FAQ for the group another look.
taf
p.s.
> To quote Louis XIV, "I am the state."
To quote Louis XVI, . . . (whack) . . .
I guess the state disagreed.
Pierre Aronax
> In a message dated 1/12/2004 10:16:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> I
> have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> disprove something as well.
It is sad to see that you didn't understand your lesson: that is the
one who claims something who has to prove it, not those who don't
believe him. Go back to school, you have still to learn a lot.
> Sorry, must disagree. I might claim to be the Lord of the Universe. I won't
> prove it but you must prove that it isn't so.
No since we don't care: you make the claim, you prove it.
> It behooves the people making
> what others see as wild speculation to prove the statement they are making.
No, that's to the speculators to prove they are not speculating.
Pierre
GRHa...@aol.com
It behooves the people making
> what others see as wild speculation to prove the statement they are making.
No, that's to the speculators to prove they are not speculating.
Pierre
That is exactly what I wrote.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Pierre Aronax
<GRHa...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:8d.16b34a...@aol.com...
Then I'm affraid we agree.
Pierre
GRHa...@aol.com
Then I'm affraid we agree.
Pierre
.
Don't be afraid Pierre, even cowboys can be right at times.
Todd A. Farmerie
>>It behooves the people making
>>what others see as wild speculation to prove the statement they are making.
>
> No, that's to the speculators to prove they are not speculating.
You two are having communication problems - you just said the
same thing he did.
taf