Possible Davidic and Gupta Descent to Russian Nobility

[Paulo Canedo]

Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.

Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
Yazdegerd II of Persia
Hormisdas III of Parthia
Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
Dachi of Iberia
Bakur II of Iberia
NN (male)
Parsman VI of Iberia
NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
Smbat V Bagratuni
Vasak Bagratuni
Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
Smbat Bagratuni
Ashot IV Bagratuni
Bagrat of Taron
Tornik of Taron
Aponagem
Tornik
NN Tornikos
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev

[joe...@gmail.com]

There are so many bad links, I don't know where to start. There is zero percent chance of the line above being accurate and it should just be thrown out whole.
--Joe C

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Joe, could you please indicate the wrong links and explain them.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2017 13:18:44 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 6:29:34 AM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> > Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
> >
> > Exilarch Nathan II
> > Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
> > Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India

what is the primary source for this marriage and her father?

thank-you

[Paulo Canedo]

That marriage comes from the research of T Stanford Mommaerts and is also mentioned in an ancient persian tale availabe in https://books.google.pt/books?id=CaVEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=sapinud&source=bl&ots=eAhaePLvYT&sig=AWt5m8w29bQSQneoKIGHFvFQP5A&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyprCnrbVAhUGmBoKHdnbDIoQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=sapinud&f=false. Some of this information was given to the newsgroup in the 2000s by Matthew Rockefeller.

[nore...@san.rr.com]

I do have the shahnameh and found it there. I was hoping for a different source hence the question. how does one get from shangul, the indian king in the shahnameh relevant to the above to kumeragupta?
also, rockefeller was later revealed as extremely untrustworhy

[Paulo Canedo]

It is also mentioned in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay in 1977 in page 91 with her as sister of the Indian King Shangal although a tradition would instead make her of the second Kumara Gupta who is an obscure king.

[Stewart Baldwin]

On 8/1/2017 5:29 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.

As has already been pointed out, there are far too many weak links here
to take the line seriously. A couple of obvious "red flags" her would
be the appearance of several individuals who "name" is NN, and the
(apparent) lack of documentation. I have inserted some indications
below where I think that the lines should be cut. I am not that
familiar with Byzantine genealogy, but I suspect that there should be
additional cuts there. It has been some time since I looked at the
Bagratids, but I know that there are also problems with at least some of
the Bagratid links given below.
> Exilarch Nathan II
--------------------------------------------------

> Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
> Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India

I would regard this supposed marriage as a" red flag."

> Yazdegerd II of Persia
> Hormisdas III of Parthia

--------------------------------------------------

> Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
> Dachi of Iberia
> Bakur II of Iberia

--------------------------------------------------
> NN (male)
--------------------------------------------------
> Parsman VI of Iberia
--------------------------------------------------

> NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
> Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
> Smbat V Bagratuni
> Vasak Bagratuni
> Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
> Smbat Bagratuni
> Ashot IV Bagratuni
> Bagrat of Taron
> Tornik of Taron
> Aponagem
> Tornik

Probably several weak links in this region

> NN Tornikos
> NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
> Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
> Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
> Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev

Such lines need to be proven link-by-link. So, before trying to discuss
the above line as a whole, you should pick one or more of the above
objections, and explain why you think that the link is correct.

Stewart Baldwin

[wjhonson]

The fraud calling himself erroneously "Matthew Rockefeller" was disrobed by myself with help from some members of this group.

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matthew_Rockefeller

[Paulo Canedo]

About Balendukht the scholars seem to agree with her being daughter of Hormisdas III at least the link is given in Volume 2 of The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2017 16:13:00 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> The fraud calling himself erroneously "Matthew Rockefeller" was disrobed by myself with help from some members of this group.
>
> http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matthew_Rockefeller

I already know about that but although Matthew is not a good source for his recent ancestry I don't think we should doubt his ideas about the ancient Persian Kings which he retreated from T Stanford Mommaerts. And perhaps there is a very very remote possibility that Margaret's recordings were erased by the Rockefellers given that she married a man of Arab origin.

[wjhonson]

Paulo if you are going to become delusional, no one is going to listen to you.

I clearly showed through numerous contemporary newspaper articles that such a thing did *not* happen.

I suggest you stick to your fantasy lineage and try to show it's accuracy or decide that you are wrong.

Matthew had a clear agenda to proclaim himself heir to all the thrones of the globe and you should recognize that such a psychotic person has no validity in any claims they make whatsoever.

[Paulo Canedo]

I was undecided if I should have written the last part of the post because I know it isn't possible. I only pointed this out because Matthew seemed to believe at least in his supposed maternal descent of Charles II of England he asked a question on the topic.

[wjhonson]

Let's leave Mr Nutty Nutcase on the side, and stick to this topic.

I would advise that your very first link is rather unlikely.

What political benefit would a Shah have to marry a daughter of a Jewish political nobody.

You should look into the *basis* for such a claim, and I think you will find it seriously wanting in any credible evidence.

[Paulo Canedo]

The link is given by http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bahram-05 who quotes Page 74 of Provincial Capitals by Markwart. It would make sense since Yazdegerd I was very tolerant of Jews.

[wjhonson]

You are correct in the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

However, my objection still stands.
Being tolerant of a religious minority is not the same as deciding that a daughter of that minority would make a good political match for you as Shah or heir.

That's the problem here.

Writing down a legend, 1500 years after it supposedly happened, is not a source.

[Paulo Canedo]

In a post of 2005 it says:
"In a recent sketch of the Sasanian dynasty of Persia, Soshandukht,
daughter of a Jewish leader, was included.
There is good and useful information on her in the "Jewish Encyclopedia"
(not to be confused with the also useful "Encyclopedia Judaica"). See thearticles entitled "Pahlavi Literature", "Persia", and "Exilarch". See also
the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Yazdegerd" for background
information on her husband. (He was a liberal who allowed religious
freedom, and was therefore condemned by the Zoroastrian priesthood.)
From material discussed in the JE articles I have concluded that
Soshandukht (also sometimes given as Gasyandukht, Sashandukht, Susan,
Shoshan-dukht, and probably other transliterations) was indeed a Jewish
wife of Yazdegerd I and mother of Bahram V "Gor"."

So although the case is not perfect it is growing.

[taf]

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 3:29:34 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
> Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
> Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
> Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev

Even the most recent part of the descent isn't directly attested. It is reasonable that the wife of Vsevolod was a kinswoman of Constantine Monomachos, but a good bit was written by his near-contemporaries about Constantine's amorous escapades, and no such daughter is mentioned. Indeed, I don't think there is any source for 'Irina' at all, just the byname of Vsevolod's son.

taf

[wjhonson]

Paulo why are you citing a previous post from *this* group instead of citing directly to those underlying supposed alleged articles.

The original document of her supposed existence, is *utterly* *completely* *ultimately* and *finally* without any credibility.

*All* of these references stem from one single source, written down 1500 years after the event is supposed to have occurred.

That's the problem

[Paulo Canedo]

What is the original document and what does it say about this.

[wjhonson]

You already cited it, as did I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And all it says is that he married the daughter of a Jewish "leader"

However, a book written 1500 after an event, citing a legend, is not a source for what occurred 1500 years earlier.

Accept it.

[Paulo Canedo]

On another part of the line I still have to find a source or conjecture that says that Parsamn VI of Iberia was father-in-law of Smbat Bagratuni. Does anyone here know one?

[joe...@gmail.com]

You have been advised and I will repeat the advice that there is absolutely nothing to gain by inquiring more deeply into this line. It is hogwash from start to finish.

[Richard Smith]

But you said the descent you posted at the start of this thread was
plausible. Surely you didn't say that without even knowing a
conjecture, let alone a source, for one key link in the descent? I'm
not aware of a source for this either, though I'm not particularly
knowledge about early Iberia; but equally I'm not posting a descent
including on this link and characterising them as plausible.

Richard

[wjhonson]

Instead of trying to force a beginning to a line that is destined to fail, why not start closer in.

Theodosios Monomakos

Show any evidence at all, of who his wife was or who she was related to ?

[Paulo Canedo]

I said in the first post that that info came from T Stanford Mommaerts I simply don't know where he took it from.

[joe...@gmail.com]

Largely he took it from his own imagination for entertainment purposes only. Imagine almost every Link in this chain is as reliable as the proof people gave to show Prince Harry dad is not Prince Charles but then repeated through the game of telephone over the course of 1500 years

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Paulo Canedo <paulorica...@gmail.com> wrote:

in various posts, he mentioned that he was offering possibilities based on his own speculations for the purpose of discussion

[wjhonson]

Paulo you are mistaken

http://news.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-01/1073348592

T Stanford said nothing at all about this alleged wife

[Paulo Canedo]

In the page of Fabpedigree of Constantine's mother it says:
"Note: Pedigree of Emperor Constantine's mother (and much more) generously provided by T Stanford Mommaerts."

[wjhonson]

Fabpedigree is a site created by a nutty nutbar who has almost no concept of how to actually read ancient documents of any sort.

It contains literally thousands of gross errors.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2017 21:11:13 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> Fabpedigree is a site created by a nutty nutbar who has almost no concept of how to actually read ancient documents of any sort.
>
> It contains literally thousands of gross errors.

I don't want to be rude but Mr could you please read the word PROVIDED the pedigree of Constantine's mother was provided to Fabpedigree by Mommaerts who is a correspondent to the owner Jamie Allen. Do you think Jamie's lying or something? I am one of Jamie's correspondents too.

[wjhonson]

Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?

http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm

[Paulo Canedo]

Em terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2017 22:08:42 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?
>
> http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm

It is not in that page but in this one http://fabpedigree.com/s097/f580633.htm

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?
>
> http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm
>
>

he does not provide generation by generation sourcing. rather, he lists them from the main page by clicking "sources"

[wjhonson]

Instead of *starting* from such a useless piece of ... like fabpedigree, you need to start from *actual* sources.

Hand waving is the province of weak minded fools.

In the meantime I have asked T Stanford to comment on what source if any he might have for this complete load of ....

[Peter Stewart]

It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.

Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?

To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted? Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?

Peter Stewart

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
> It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
> for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
>
> Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
> specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
> to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?

through sources

>
> To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
> but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?

there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability

> Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
> accepted?

that it is possible

> Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
> actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?

academic curiousity and the research involved

[Richard Carruthers]

Dear Mr Canedo,

Why not provide what sources you can find for each statement you are
hoping to verify and see how far you get. That way you may prepare
something for list members to scrutinise and make comments which may
(or may not) prove useful in the process of deciding where the line
first goes wrong, and so on.

If, for example, the lineage fails at the first step in the series of
filiations, then posterity will be saved from repeating that part of
the proposed lineage without providing a different source to make up
for the earlier deficiency.

Now, just because the lineage as a whole may be false, there could
prove be some generational linkages (filiations) in it that are
correct. Those may be kept and investigated to see whether they yield
any other lineages connecting antiquity with modernity.

No doubt some will prove to do so as they may involve personages who
actually lived, had progeny, and may have been reliably recorded as
having such.

When dealing with these matters, it is often best to classify what one
is using by way of a source. While items in the evidentiary chain may
turn out to be unsatisfactory because they derive from a legend,
tradition, or some idea that arose centuries later in the mind of a
researcher or, indeed, their hopeful imagination, it can still be
helpful to oneself and other researchers to record such unacceptable,
weak, or errant sources, and label them as such, approaching each case
in as dispassionate and informed a manner as possible.

Then one can submit the list to an open forum such as this to allow
those more expert than oneself to comment on one's list of materials
and one's judgments on them if they so choose.

Simply to post a list without providing sources of any kind is to
place the burden of proof or disproof too heavily on others and makes
the process much more protracted.

Also without the evidence, such as it may be, the ground (or air) is
prone to shift because one has essentially built a castle in the air.

With this hurdle in mind, as one begins to investigate a lineage one
can often readily see where a proposed lineage fails and thereby save
oneself the bother of posting it in the first place, or, at least, pay
one's readership the compliment of acknowledging the weaknesses of
one's premise while asking for help in amending it, where possible.

All the best,

Richard

P.S.
Are you the person interested in the WILLOUGHBY family of Madeira? I
sent along information about it to the list some time ago.




On 01/08/2017, nore...@san.rr.com <nore...@san.rr.com> wrote:

>
> ---- wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?
>>
>> http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm
>>
>>

> he does not provide generation by generation sourcing. rather, he lists them
> from the main page by clicking "sources"
>

> -------------------------------
> 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
>

[Peter Stewart]

I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?

The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
and interpreted from preconception.

'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
aiming not for value but for adventure.

If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
come down to us already established. Forgotten links may sometimes (very
rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
flim-flam.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

This is right, the name Irina is imaginary and we don't know the name
(or with certainty the father) of Vladimir Monomakh's mother.

She was called Anastasia in the commemoration book of Vydubitsky
monastery in Kiev (founded by her husband in the 1070s), according to a
copy probably made in the 17th century. However, the list of her family
in this was inaccurate, as it made her the mother of Vladimir's paternal
half-brother Rostislav whose actual mother, a Polovtsian princess, was
baptised Anna (this may have been muddled into the name Anastasia
ascribed by the compiler to the founder's prior wife).

The name of Vladimir Monomakh's daughter Maria, probably his eldest, is
perhaps a better indicator of his mother's likely name - but this is far
from certain.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Carruthers]

I suppose there would be a good deal of glory for the researcher who
managed to establish a properly sourced DFA. Otherwise, I gather it is
the adventure and possibly the rather rarified value of being able to
dine out on one's claim of descent from some figure famed in
antiquity.

To my mind, however, begging St Luke's pardon, there is more glory
(and joy) to be gained over rescuing one forgotten soul's ancestry
from oblivion that from all the 99+ DFA so far posited by researchers
(excepting, perhaps, the claims of Confucian descent in the Orient).

Richard C-Z

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 02-Aug-17 8:58 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
> > ---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
> >> for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
> >>
> >> Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
> >> specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
> >> to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
> > through sources
> >> To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
> >> but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
> > there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
> >
> >> Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
> >> accepted?
> >
> > that it is possible
> >
> >> Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
> >> actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
> > academic curiousity and the research involved
>
> I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
> the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?
>

no. it is to investigate one or more theories put together through research

> The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
> 'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
> and interpreted from preconception.
>

perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup

> 'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
> aiming not for value but for adventure.
>

nothing wrong with adventure...

> If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
> come down to us already established.

there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period

>Forgotten links may sometimes (very
> rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
> are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
> flim-flam.
>

true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Richard Carruthers <leli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To my mind, however, begging St Luke's pardon, there is more glory
> (and joy) to be gained over rescuing one forgotten soul's ancestry
> from oblivion that from all the 99+ DFA so far posited by researchers
> (excepting, perhaps, the claims of Confucian descent in the Orient).
>
> Richard C-Z
>

many chinese clans have similar genealogies. confucius' one is simply the best known and documented

[wjhonson]

You know you could have started at least with a page that attempts to show the Bagratuni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagratuni_family_tree


I am not claiming that this page has any better basis in fact than your bare descent line, but at least it would give us a place from which to begin discussion

[wjhonson]

"Oral tradition" that is 1500 years old without any of it having found it's way into any documentation, is worthless.

A much better explanation is falsification, deceit, lie, and senility

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Aug-17 9:34 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
> ---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On 02-Aug-17 8:58 AM, nore...@san.rr.com wrote:
>>> ---- Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
>>>> for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
>>>>
>>>> Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
>>>> specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
>>>> to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
>>> through sources
>>>> To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
>>>> but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
>>> there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
>>>
>>>> Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
>>>> accepted?
>>> that it is possible
>>>
>>>> Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
>>>> actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
>>> academic curiousity and the research involved
>> I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
>> the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?
>>
> no. it is to investigate one or more theories put together through research

Of course, but the value underlying these theories seems to be novelty
value in theorising rather than a substantive contribution to knowledge.

>> The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
>> 'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
>> and interpreted from preconception.
>>
> perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup

Post away - this newsgroup does not bar material from elsewhere.

>
>> 'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
>> aiming not for value but for adventure.
>>
> nothing wrong with adventure...

Not much right with it either - little value altogether, except for
thrills. Becoming the first female to climb Mt Everst with a nosepeg and
one hand tied behind her back may be exciting, but it isn't useful.

>> If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
>> come down to us already established.
> there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period

People marry across regions, but they don't reproduce across different
time periods. Research that is not specific to individuals and their
immediate links may be fun, but a multi-disciplinary effort that shades
into broad-stroke history or even anthropology is not exactly genealogy.

>
>> Forgotten links may sometimes (very
>> rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
>> are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
>> flim-flam.
>>
> true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that late sources are invalid - but an oral
tradition over many centuries is folklore, not history.

Peter Stewart

[Richard Carruthers]

On 01/08/2017, nore...@san.rr.com <nore...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>

Many families in India have similarly long pedigrees, but I am not
aware of any there or in China (or elsewhere for that matter) which
are so well documented as the Confucian lineage(s) to which I
referred. As I understand it, the lineage of Confucius contains
adoptions which, at the very least, confuse the line of direct
descent, though the adoptions
may indeed have occurred from within the wider Confucian kindred.

Which families have reputably documented DFAs with strong scholarly acceptance?

In the West, the ancient Irish pedigrees of what became the O'Neills
and allied families are often cited as the longest corroborated
lineages, but at some point, even they disappear into legendary or
semi-legendary times and apparently show signs of having parts grafted
onto other lineages for the purposes of political legitimation, etc.
Ditto the ancient Welsh kindreds. Some of these affect my own ancient
"genealogy", but without a deep understanding of the textual,
linguistic, palaeographic, diplomatic and semantic issues involved,
there is little I can do, if anything, to shed light on these lineages
which have been the subject of scholarly investigations taking up the
research lives of many remarkably erudite persons.

DFAs are a minefield for those without the necessary prerequisites to
get involved. While most if not all serious scholars would shy away
from claiming to put their reputations on the line by endorsing any of
the DFAs from the ancient world (the Confucian lineage(s) and possibly
some others I don't know of excepted). This is not to say that ancient
genealogies are not within the scope of this list; however, the bulk
of these would likelier involve Descents in Antiquity (DIAs), i.e.
those which arise and terminate within ancient times without any claim
to reach into the modern era by named and corroborated persons.

All the best,

Richard C-Z

[nore...@san.rr.com]

perhaps to one looking from the outside in. however, the intent is to advance knowledge

>
> >> The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
> >> 'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
> >> and interpreted from preconception.
> >>
> > perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup
>
> Post away - this newsgroup does not bar material from elsewhere.

true. I am referring to material found in books and journals that might include lineages that tie specific cultures together, either via text or chart. also, there is very little interest here in much beyond europe

>
>
>
> >> If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
> >> come down to us already established.
> > there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period
>
> People marry across regions, but they don't reproduce across different
> time periods. Research that is not specific to individuals and their
> immediate links may be fun, but a multi-disciplinary effort that shades
> into broad-stroke history or even anthropology is not exactly genealogy.
>
> >

not directly. however, results can lead to genealogy when one asks why certain marriages happened and to whom

> >> Forgotten links may sometimes (very
> >> rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
> >> are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
> >> flim-flam.
> >>
> > true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition
>
> Yes, I didn't mean to imply that late sources are invalid - but an oral
> tradition over many centuries is folklore, not history.
>
>

true, however, folklore can have some history behind it

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- Richard Carruthers <leli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/08/2017, nore...@san.rr.com <nore...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > ---- Richard Carruthers <leli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> To my mind, however, begging St Luke's pardon, there is more glory
> >> (and joy) to be gained over rescuing one forgotten soul's ancestry
> >> from oblivion that from all the 99+ DFA so far posited by researchers
> >> (excepting, perhaps, the claims of Confucian descent in the Orient).
> >>
> >> Richard C-Z
> >>
> > many chinese clans have similar genealogies. confucius' one is simply the
> > best known and documented
>
> Many families in India have similarly long pedigrees,

true, with a few going back to the mahabharata and earlier

but I am not
> aware of any there or in China (or elsewhere for that matter) which
> are so well documented as the Confucian lineage(s) to which I
> referred. As I understand it, the lineage of Confucius contains
> adoptions which, at the very least, confuse the line of direct
> descent, though the adoptions
> may indeed have occurred from within the wider Confucian kindred.

internal clan adoptions did occur within this family. however, these were from junior branches with known ancestry to the senior branch. I am unaware of any non-kong person being adopted to fulfill this role. this frequently happens within chinese families as it is the obligation of the eldest son of the senior branch to maintain not only the genealogy, but the rituals to honor the ancestors. non-clan adoptions did happen in other families, but for different reasons. other families have similarly long genealogies, but lack documentation at one or more generations

>
> Which families have reputably documented DFAs with strong scholarly acceptance?
>

>

> DFAs are a minefield for those without the necessary prerequisites to
> get involved. While most if not all serious scholars would shy away
> from claiming to put their reputations on the line by endorsing any of
> the DFAs from the ancient world

partly because these require comfort in a variety of cultures and time periods. something most don't do

> (the Confucian lineage(s) and possibly
> some others I don't know of excepted). This is not to say that ancient
> genealogies are not within the scope of this list; however, the bulk
> of these would likelier involve Descents in Antiquity (DIAs), i.e.
> those which arise and terminate within ancient times without any claim
> to reach into the modern era by named and corroborated persons.
>

this often happens and is worth studying as such

[zglorg zmeh]

By the way...

just to be curious.

Who could be assimilated to Shangul in the legend ? Could Shangul be a derivate of an historical indian ruler ?

Many thnaks

JL

[nore...@san.rr.com]

monmaerts thought he could be kumaragupta I of the gupta dynasty. whether he was the first to think that, I do not know

[Paulo Canedo]

Em terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2017 18:25:02 UTC+1, taf escreveu:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 3:29:34 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
>
> > NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
> > Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
> > Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
> > Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
>
> Even the most recent part of the descent isn't directly attested. It is reasonable that the wife of Vsevolod was a kinswoman of Constantine Monomachos, but a good bit was written by his near-contemporaries about Constantine's amorous escapades, and no such daughter is mentioned. Indeed, I don't think there is any source for 'Irina' at all, just the byname of Vsevolod's son.
>

> taf

It is known from a chronicle that Vsevolod married a Greek Princess and because of the byname of his son Vladimir it is assumed that she was a Monomachos.

[wjhonson]

You have overstated the case.

It is stated that she was a "relative"
Calling her a "Princess" pushes that point too far

[wjhonson]

You do all readers a great disservice by citing *no* sources in your ramblings.

It is not "a" chronicle you great bumbling ninny but

http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf

The Russian Primary Chronicle legendarily by Nestor

I have no idea why you would create this vast database and include no sources for anything you have in it. That just makes it a great heap of garbage

[Paulo Canedo]

Are you talking to me? I have no database and I did not remember what chronicle it was.

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 8:11:57 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> Are you talking to me? I have no database and I did not remember what chronicle it was.

And you can't be bothered to make any attempt to even try to find out before you post all this trash.

[taf]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 7:44:00 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> It is known from a chronicle that Vsevolod married a Greek Princess and
> because of the byname of his son Vladimir it is assumed that she was a
> Monomachos.

Which is hardly the basis for making her "Irina, daughter of Constantine IX". This is in the nature of such DFAs, they tend to present possibilities, guesses and speculation as if they were well documented facts.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.

[P J Evans]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:04:36 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.

That isn't solid evidence for your claims. DO you have anything that's worth more of our time?

[Paulo Canedo]

I know some of those connections are probably conjectures and I didn't claim the line was correct I only said I thought it was plausible and asked for comments on it. If you want sources I'll give the ones I didn't say yet the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the other kings of Iberia is documented by The Georgian Chronicles. The source of the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the Bagratuni is more hard to find and the earliest source I find is The British Chronicles by David Hughes that is not a very trustworthy.

[taf]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:04:36 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line
> of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.

The internet is an echo chamber for bad genealogy. That one or another language Wikipedia has a particular genealogical connection provides no weight in evaluating accuracy.

taf

[Paulo Canedo]

The French Wikipeda is usually more trustworthy because the French have more acess to Settipani's books on these topics.

[wjhonson]

David Hughes had a bee in his bonnet for British Israelism which is a dog's breakfast

You should take his book and burn it, and save the future society from his nonsense

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quarta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2017 21:03:42 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> David Hughes had a bee in his bonnet for British Israelism which is a dog's breakfast
>
> You should take his book and burn it, and save the future society from his nonsense

Since all of Hughes's genealogies ended with Queen Elizabeth II perhaps he wanted her to be able to make claims to all thrones of the globe with his genealogies. But burning books isn't a good thing to do since it destroys knowledge and knowledge shouldn't be completely destroyed no matter whether it is good or bad.

[wjhonson]

Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quarta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2017 21:09:56 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu:
> Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.

Weren't they researched in his book about the myth and reality or in the one about the countinuity of the elites in Byzantium?

[wjhonson]

As another point, the Bagrationi have claimed for a thousand years to be descendants of King David (of the Bible) or various other people in the Bible, but their claims keep moving about in various ways.

Educate yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_the_biblical_descent_of_the_Bagrationi_dynasty

[wjhonson]

IF it had been known by even a few people that some king around 200 married a Jewish "princess", you would not get such divergent and wildly variant claims

[wjhonson]

On the point of what Settipani did or didn't say, perhaps (since you've never seen the book itself) you are referring to this posting

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-02/1203202799

[nore...@san.rr.com]

his work, continuite des elites a byzance has a chapter about them

[wjhonson]

Or we could look at actual useful sources

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975

[nore...@san.rr.com]

---- wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> On the point of what Settipani did or didn't say, perhaps (since you've never seen the book itself) you are referring to this posting
>
> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-02/1203202799
>
>
>

for clarity, please include the post in whole or part that you are responding to

thank-you

[wjhonson]

I post through the google groups
So to me the post is directly present

[Paulo Canedo]

In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".

[wjhonson]

A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways

child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent

One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.

[Paulo Canedo]

Actually that is a first cousin second cousin on maternal side is someone whose father or mother was a grandchild of my greatgrandfather so there are actually even more possibilities but the possibility of Constantine Monomachos's mother being a Tornikaina is still a plausible conjecture.

[joe...@gmail.com]

You are wasting everyone's time because you are not understanding what everyone is trying to tell you. That the line has presented is not plausible at all he is not possible. Some people try and find DFA for the same reason they tried to find any links it is an interesting puzzle. Some of the DFA described in previous years on this news group have some interest because they have maybe at most a 5% chance of being accurate. The line you present is just fantasy it is as likely to be correct as it is that one of the people in you were linked just happened to receive all of the genetic mutations at the same time such that his father was a monkey for a fish. Zero.

The French Wikipedia is not more accurate than the English Wikipedia there are many many fewer editors meaning that errors can creep in more easily in a non English version. To say that the French Wikipedia editors have more access to a widely published book because it is written in French makes no sense.

I suggest instead of posting here anymore on this topic you find a Facebook group on genealogy that is on topic. They will be much more receptive to your discussions believe me.

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 2:56:13 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Actually that is a first cousin second cousin on maternal side is someone whose father or mother was a grandchild of my greatgrandfather so there are actually even more possibilities but the possibility of Constantine Monomachos's mother being a Tornikaina is still a plausible conjecture.

But One possibility out of Four does not make a conjecture "plausible" it only makes it "possible". For it to become "plausible" you need enough weight to turn it into "probable" because "plausible" is a synonym for "probable". It's not a synonym for a "one in four chance".

[Peter Stewart]

It is also hardly the basis for confidence in the value of newsgroup
discussions and the Gen-Med archive - only last month there was a thread
about this woman, in which links were provided to the earliest
manuscript and the standard edition of the primary source for
identifying her, as well as a transliteration and translation of the
relevant text, see:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2017-06/1497486047.

But why bother?

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Zonaras did not write in Latin, and any book or article relying on an
editor's translation from the original Greek into Latin, English or any
other language is not worth using for relationship terms (if at all).

For some reason, at a time when it has never been easier to learn
languages or at least make use of online dictionaries and translators,
many people who want to be historians or genealogists have decided not
to make this effort and to pretend that this isn't necessary anyway.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

Googling this term I found this

https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false

[wjhonson]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 3:48:16 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

Googling this term I found this

https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false

To me it appears as if the footnote using this term is by the author (writing in Latin), not by Zonares writing in Greek

[Peter Stewart]

On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 7:19:44 AM UTC+10, wjhonson wrote:
> I post through the google groups
> So to me the post is directly present

I am posting this reply through Google Groups, and the whole of your post was automatically copied into mine when I clicked to reply. Perhaps you can adjust your settings (though mine are the defaults, since I don't have a clue how to change this).

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

Oh this is not a footnote.
The author is translating the work from Greek into Latin, page-by-page

[Peter Stewart]

Appearances are not a reliable guide - books are meant to be read, not Googled. Zonaras (who wrote in Greek) is the author.

An editor's Latin translation running on the lower part of pages below the corresponding Greek text is found in most if not all 'Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae' editions.

What did you suppose the manuscript variants in Greek shown above the Latin translation were there for?

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 1:00:03 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> The French Wikipeda is usually more trustworthy because the French have more
> acess to Settipani's books on these topics.

That begs the question. Settipani himself admits that his work is highly speculative.

taf

[taf]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 12:50:23 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> The source of the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the Bagratuni is
> more hard to find and the earliest source I find is The British Chronicles
> by David Hughes that is not a very trustworthy.

That is an understatement. Hughes used to participate here, and he made the argument that his genealogical descents should not be subjected to critical evaluation, because were they to be disproved it would deprive 'descendants' of fascinating names in their pedigrees. His material is utterly worthless - not DFA worthless where it is a house of cards built on speculation, but outright fraud and fantasy.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is
between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the
Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in
the other is questionable. When no DFA has been continuously recorded,
apart from nonsensical lines into folklore such as Adamic pedigrees, and
the clear consensus over many centuries is that Europeans cannot trace
their ancestry back to antiquity, setting out to achieve what is thought
impossible seems to me a kind of intellectual egotism and contrariness,
even arrogance - not unlike setting out to climb Mt Everest wearing a
nosepeg because the mountaineering community says this can't be done.
Failing a credible explanation, that is still wanting, I can only assume
that the hope for glory in unimagined success is a large part of the
motivation.

Peter Stewart

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

It's fun to speculate on DFA, but I agree it needs to backed up with at least some evidence, which I haven't seen any here. My wife and I descend from Charlemagne, whose ancestry has been discussed on this list. His proven ancestry goes back to the late 500s, while academic conjecture takes it back another 200 years to the late 300s. Pure speculation takes it back to the 1230s BC, according to one list I've seen, but it's just that - speculation. From what I've seen the proposed ancestral line for Vladimir II is not backed up by anything except wishful thinking.

[taf]

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 5:57:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is
> between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the
> Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in
> the other is questionable.

Well, as I see it, one is making wishful-thinking connections between real people. Their hypotheses may be credulous, but at least you can see how they got there even if you think they are grossly over-interpreting things. Hughes, if you remember, had a pedigree tracing from the King of Atlantis, split people in two to deal with sources that gave alternative ancestry to the same person, etc., and as I said, was adamantly opposed any kind of evaluation of the lines he was put together. Maybe they are differences in degree, rather than kind, but I m not going to view Hughes and Settipani as equivalent in their failings.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Aug-17 11:04 AM, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> It's fun to speculate on DFA, but I agree it needs to backed up with at least some evidence, which I haven't seen any here. My wife and I descend from Charlemagne, whose ancestry has been discussed on this list. His proven ancestry goes back to the late 500s, while academic conjecture takes it back another 200 years to the late 300s. Pure speculation takes it back to the 1230s BC, according to one list I've seen, but it's just that - speculation. From what I've seen the proposed ancestral line for Vladimir II is not backed up by anything except wishful thinking.

The Greek imperial origin of Vladimir's mother is backed up by the
Russian primary chronicle. The first source to name Constantine Monomakh
as her father was the Gustin chronicle, compiled in the 17th century.
This early-modern work (by Western European assessment) is taken more
seriously by Russian historians than you or I might think prudent, but I
would characterise this more as 'trustful' than 'wishful' - the starting
point is faith in the value of historiographic tradition as recorded in
the 17th century, and not the mere wish to aggrandise Vladimir's pedigree.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I certainly agree with the last point, but Settipani is not the issue.
He is now focused on Hellenic genealogy, that as far as I know was his
starting point in genealogy and probably in his search for DFAs. I think
he makes some gross misjudgements that set off some of his speculative
pursuits, that he is too eager to read evidence into legends, that his
over-reliance on onomastics shades into absurdity, and that some of his
'possibilities' are not worth the ink to print them, but he is not by
any means an unhinged fantasist.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Aug-17 11:50 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>
> On 03-Aug-17 11:04 AM, peter...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> The Greek imperial origin of Vladimir's mother is backed up by the
> Russian primary chronicle. The first source to name Constantine
> Monomakh as her father was the Gustin chronicle, compiled in the 17th
> century.

I should have been more precise: this is the first source explicitly
stating that Vladimir's father married a daughter of Constantine
Monomakh. However, the Tver chronicle (begun at Rostov in the 16th
century, and thought to contain fragments from earlier Tver annals)
stated that Vladimir's byname Monomakh came from his grandfather
Constantine. Also one of two early 19th-century extracts from the lost
commemoration book of Vidubitsky monastery states that the lady (there
named 'Anastasia') was Constantine Monomakh's daughter, though it is
unknown whether this is because the extracts were copied from different
originals or if the information was added by Maxim Berlinsky, one of the
copyists. It is thought that the original/s may have been as old as the
mid-15th century, but this too is uncertain - an indication that the
family details may not be close to any contemporary record is that it
does not follow the earlier custom of giving the Christian names of the
princes (for instance, Vladimir was baptised Basil and his father
Vsevolod was baptised Andrei).

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

Although Irina was given in marriage as a peace treaty I would like to know why the Byzantines were more fond of marrying with the Varangians than with the Franks. Weren't they both barbarians? What did the Byzantines saw of special in the Varangians?

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Aug-17 8:27 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Although Irina was given in marriage as a peace treaty I would like to know why the Byzantines were more fond of marrying with the Varangians than with the Franks. Weren't they both barbarians? What did the Byzantines saw of special in the Varangians?

Perhaps you could tell us first why you are more fond of the baseless
name Irina for this woman than of information you have been given
against it.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

It was to simplify things but now I'll call her NN. Could someone answer my question?

[Peter Stewart]

On 03-Aug-17 8:46 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> It was to simplify things but now I'll call her NN. Could someone answer my question?

It doesn't simplify anything to use a false or imaginary name for
someone. The obvious alternative is to call her Monomakhina.

As to marriages, why wouldn't Byzantines prefer unions within their own
Orthodox confession? Franks were considered presumptuous, obtreporous
and remote. The pretensions of the papacy and the western 'Roman' empire
were irritants at best, cultural, political and eventually doctrinal
insults to the Byzantines. Until smelly and ravening Franks arrived en
masse during the Crusades they did not often present themselves in
Constantinople or go to war with the eastern empire that considered
itself the sole 'Roman' authority under heaven. 'Varangians', as you
call them - princely scions from Kievan Rus' - were not too infrequently
exiled in Constantinople, or travelled there to find patriarchs for
their Church, etc., whereas Franks even before the Great Schism did not.
In the case of Monomakhina, there was a Rus'-Byzantine war in 1043 that
was allegedly settled with her marriage - this kind of exigency had not
arisen with Franks at that time. People from Rus' could make their way
down the Dnieper and across the Black Sea, a fairly easy and quick trip
to visit Constantinople. Franks had to trudge through a vast swathe of
foreign territory, or risk a relatively long sea voyage, to reach there.
Franks, including Germans when they were favoured with Byzantine
marriages, never showed the appreciation of giving a maternal surname as
byname to a ruler's son, even when a Greek princess was as influential
in the west as empress Theophanu - indeed they didn't bother to record
her surname.

Peter Stewart