Oldest male line?
bryan tinlin
What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
present day or, if not, who was the last one?
Bryan
bti...@u.arizona.edu
Leonard M. Keane
In <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu
As I've recently posted, the oldest traceable unbroken male-line
descent for a European family is a horserace between O'Neill, McCarthy
and O'Conor (Don), all having present-day descendants who are heirs to
the ancient royal dynastys of each. The dates are subject to some
debate, but somewhere between 350 - 550 A.D. is in the ballpark. I'm
not sure about Charlemagne.
Len.
D. Spencer Hines
bryan tinlin wrote:
>
> What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
> Bryan
> bti...@u.arizona.edu
Now why didn't I think of that? All we have to do is find this chap who is a direct Living Descendant of Charlemagne
(LDOC) through an uninterrupted male line and ask him to give us a list of his relatives.
Smokin'!
--
D. Spencer Hines-----Exitus acta probat----President George Washington (1732-1799)
John Yohalem
---------
> From: bryan tinlin <bti...@MUSTIQUE.U.ARIZONA.EDU>
> To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
> Subject: Oldest male line?
> Date: Wednesday, October 23, 1996 11:11 PM
>
> What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in
the
> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
> Bryan
> bti...@u.arizona.edu
There was a cadet of the house of Vermandois who died around 1365 without
issue.
The Guelfs of Hannover go back to the beginnings of the House of Este -- I
don't know the precise year; the legend says 5th century but I don't
believe it. After them, I suppose, it would be the Orsini or the Colonna.
Jean coeur de lapin
ench...@escape.com
Robert Gordon
How about "Adam"?
W. David Samuelsen
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> bryan tinlin wrote:
> >
> > What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
> > is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
> > present day or, if not, who was the last one?
> >
> > Bryan
> > bti...@u.arizona.edu
>
who is a
> direct Living Descendant of Charlemagne
> (LDOC) through an uninterrupted male line and ask him to give us a list of his
> relatives.
>
> Smokin'!
>
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines-----Exitus acta probat----President George Washington
> (1732-1799)
Since the new updated Ancestral File is out now, We have the good chance
of tracking downing to last record on the file. I had made comments
about the Ancestral File underwent the major cleaning up as well as
removing wrong information plus cutting off any attempts to add pre 1500
submissions in my earlier posting.
So.....
W. David Samuelsen
ds...@aros.net
Charles & Karen Hofmann
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
-> bryan tinlin wrote:
-> > What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from -someone who
-> > is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne -in the
-> > present day or, if not, who was the last one?
-> > Bryan
-> > bti...@u.arizona.edu
Now why didn't I think of that? All we have to do is find this chap who
is a direct Living Descendant of Charlemagne
relatives.
-> Smokin'!
Go to any Family History Center FHC or genealogy library and ask around a bit,
you'll find lots of folks who claim to have researched one or more of their lines
to Charlemagne. I always tell them, I hope they did it through the mothers side,
or it might be a guess...
Researching names - Harding in Kentucky, Haas in New Orleans, Feldmann in Hannover
Germany, Hasenwinkel, Oelschlegel in New Orleans and Bonn Germany areas. Try our
Home Page
<http://www.azstarnet.com/~hofmann/index.html>
Stewart Baldwin
Bryan Tinlin <bti...@MUSTIQUE.U.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:
>What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
>is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
>present day or, if not, who was the last one?
The most modern attempt to trace all the male line descendants of
Charlemagne is in "La Prehistoire des Capetiens", by Christian
Settipani (1993). The last such descendant mentioned in this work is
a certain Boemond (living 1317), a clerk who was a younger son of
Arnulf, seigneur of Falkenstein and Neufchateau. Boemond also had
some brothers who died (or were last mentioned) before him. It seems
likely that there were some younger sons who failed to get mentioned
in the sources somewhere along the line, and that male line
descendants of Charlemagne still exist today, but it is very doubtful
that anybody could document such a descent.
The generations (with page numbers from Settipani's book) are:
1. Arnulf, bishop of Metz, ca. 613-ca. 629. [p. 147]
2. Ansegisel. [p. 151]
3. Pepin, mayor of the palace of Austrasia, 688/90-714. [p. 153]
4. Charles Martel, duke of the Franks, 715-741. [p. 165]
5. Pepin, king of the Franks, 751-768. [p. 181]
6. Charlemagne, b. 2 Apr 748, d. 28 Jan 814, emperor. [p. 191]
7. Pepin, d. 8 July 810, king of Italy. [p. 211]
8. Bernard, d. 17 Apr 818, king of Italy. [p. 212]
9. Pepin, d. after 840, count nort of the Seine. [p. 214]
10. Herbert I, d. 900/907, count of Vermandois. [p. 220]
11. Herbert II, d. 23 Feb 943, count of Vermandois. [p. 223]
12. Albert I, d. 8 Sep 987, count of Vermandois. [p. 236]
13. Otto I * [see note at bottom] , count of Chiny, d. 986/7. [p. 241]
14. Louis I, count of Chiny, living 1025. [p. 242]
15. Luois II, count of Chiny. [p. 243]
16. Arnulf I, count of Chiny, d. 16 Apr 1106. [p. 243]
17. Otto II, count of Chiny, 1106. [p. 244]
18. Albert, count of Chiny bef. 1131. [p. 244]
19. Thierry, living 1207, sire de Mellier. [p. 247]
20. Hugues, mentioned 1224, 1229, sgr. de Mellier. [p. 247]
21. Thibaut I, d. bef. Sep 1271, sgr. de Mellier, Neufchateau, etc. [p. 247]
22. Arnulf, d. bef. 23 Apr 1281, sgr. de Falkenstein & Neufchateau. [p.248]
23. Boemond, a clerk, mentioned 1317. [p.248]
* Note: This link is not as well documented as the others. See the
sources cited by Settipani.
As for the longest male line descents traceable from the present day,
some Irish families appear to have the best claim as far as Europe is
concerned (and probably anywhere), being probably reliable back to the
fifth century. See the recent thread on the O'Neills which appeared
in this newsgroup.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
dol...@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
>In <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu
>(bryan tinlin) writes:
>>
>>What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
>>is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
>>present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>>
>>Bryan
>>bti...@u.arizona.edu
>
>
>As I've recently posted, the oldest traceable unbroken male-line
>descent for a European family is a horserace between O'Neill, McCarthy
>and O'Conor (Don), all having present-day descendants who are heirs to
>the ancient royal dynastys of each. The dates are subject to some
>debate, but somewhere between 350 - 550 A.D. is in the ballpark. I'm
>not sure about Charlemagne.
>
>Len.
Actually, there is no reason to single out two or three Irish families
here. In fact, there are numerous Irish families whose traceable origin
goes back to roughly the same time, and insufficient evidence to "break
the ties," since it is often not known where the fiction ends and the
history begins, and the earliest historical generations cannot be dated
accurately enough.
Stewart Baldwin
William Addams Reitwiesner
Stewart Baldwin <sb...@AUBURN.CAMPUS.MCI.NET> wrote:
>Bryan Tinlin <bti...@MUSTIQUE.U.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:
>
>>What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
>>is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
>>present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
>Charlemagne is in "La Prehistoire des Capetiens", by Christian
>Settipani (1993). The last such descendant mentioned in this work is
>a certain Boemond (living 1317), a clerk who was a younger son of
>Arnulf, seigneur of Falkenstein and Neufchateau. Boemond also had
>some brothers who died (or were last mentioned) before him. It seems
>likely that there were some younger sons who failed to get mentioned
>in the sources somewhere along the line, and that male line
>descendants of Charlemagne still exist today, but it is very doubtful
>that anybody could document such a descent.
Excluding the descendants of the doubtful connection in the 900s (through
which Boemund and Arnulf descend), the last generally recognized
descendant of the Carolingians in the male line is Eudes the Intense,
Count of Vermandois and Valois, who died after 1085 but probably before
1087 when his sister's husband was Count of both places. See
*Europaeische Stammtafeln*, edited by Detlev Schwennicke, Band III,
Teilband 1 (1984), Tafel 49.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Tom Camfield
In article <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu (bryan tinlin) wrote:
> What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
Can't answer that. Just want to mention that I've always been a bit puzzled
by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
genealogical authors. It's pure hell, even today, trying to trace the
allied female lines after getting back 3 or 4 generations. But in my mind
these lines are every bit as important as the "direct" male line; the
contributed blood lessens in equal measure in all cases.
Thus it was that my first book dealt with my mother's ancestry, my second
with my father's...and each proceeded to follow allied female lines as
completely as possible.
Whenever getting back a couple of generations to the ancestry of a maternal
grandmother, one seems always to encounter the reversion to a male line in
the thought patterns of about everyone involved--resulting in great
difficulty uncovering spousal history.
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
MrSandmich
I agree with Tom. By the way, would anyone like to comment on long lines
of direct maternal lineage? This is a difficult research for even the
modern genealogist as the surname changes every generation. For instance,
begining with my own mother, I can take the direct maternal lineage back 9
generations.
Todd Johnson
William Addams Reitwiesner
For long lines of direct maternal lineage, also called matrilineal
descents, you could start with *Matrilineal Descents of the European
Royalty*, by me, available on microfiche at various universities and
genealogical libraries.
There was some discussion here a while ago about Aoife of Leinster,
Countess of Pembroke (d. 1189). There are persons alive today who are
matrilineally descended from her. Those lines go back 28-30 generations
in direct maternal lineage. Other lines go back a bit further, and 36 or
so generations (900 or so years) appears to be the maximum length that
you can trace matrilineal ancestries of persons living today. See the
above reference for further details.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Wally Jansen
>is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
>present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
>bti...@u.arizona.edu
I think that this question should be opened up a little. Why not make
it the oldest straight male line or the oldest straight female line?
Presumably this ng isn't only for European men.
For longest continuously documented male line I nominate the current
generation of Confucius (551-479BC) descendants. I remember an article
in the National Geogrphic magazine abot 15 to 25 years ago even showing
a photo of the 77th generation oldest son an a middle aged man.
The longest unbroken male line in my ancestry is 18 generations, and
the longest female line I have is 8 generations. It does seem to be a
lot easier to track the guys.
-Wally
Mary Keck
> camf...@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) writes:
. . . Just want to mention that I've always been a bit puzzled
> by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>
> Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
>
>>>>
Well said, Mr. Camfield. That is one of my major frustrations in researching
my lines (certainly not a unique frustration). I am sure I inherited the
same amount of DNA from my mother as from my father (and I most assuredly got
more of her characteristics)--but my own brother, believe it or not, when I
mentioned the problem of tracing our female lines, responded with "Why would
you want to do that?" I enjoy your curmudgeonly posts. Thanks for
brightening the day just a little. MK
Leonard M. Keane
In <1996102417...@escape.com> John Yohalem
<ench...@ESCAPE.COM> writes:
>
>---------
>> From: bryan tinlin <bti...@MUSTIQUE.U.ARIZONA.EDU>
>> To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
>> Subject: Oldest male line?
>> Date: Wednesday, October 23, 1996 11:11 PM
>>
someone who
>> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne
in
>the
>> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>>
>> Bryan
>> bti...@u.arizona.edu
>
without
>issue.
>
>The Guelfs of Hannover go back to the beginnings of the House of Este
-- I
>don't know the precise year; the legend says 5th century but I don't
>believe it. After them, I suppose, it would be the Orsini or the
Colonna.
>
>Jean coeur de lapin
>ench...@escape.com
All partisanship aside, the Celtic families I've cited have them beat.
Len.
Leonard M. Keane
In <camfield-2...@ptpm017.olympus.net> camf...@olympus.net
(Tom Camfield) writes:
>
>In article <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu (bryan tinlin) wrote:
>
someone who
>> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne
in the
>> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
puzzled
>by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>allied female lines after getting back 3 or 4 generations. But in my
mind
>these lines are every bit as important as the "direct" male line; the
>contributed blood lessens in equal measure in all cases.
>
>Thus it was that my first book dealt with my mother's ancestry, my
second
>with my father's...and each proceeded to follow allied female lines as
>completely as possible.
>
>Whenever getting back a couple of generations to the ancestry of a
maternal
>grandmother, one seems always to encounter the reversion to a male
line in
>the thought patterns of about everyone involved--resulting in great
>difficulty uncovering spousal history.
>
>Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
Tom:
Of course female lines are every bit as important as male lines. But
you see the preoccupation with the male line in patriarchal societies
where it was of vital importance in inheritance of property and tribal
dignities. Even in more recent times male-line primogeniture was most
important, and considerable family pride went with demonstrating a long
male-line. I think it went a long way in establishing family continuity
and stability, and it went hand in hand with property ownership and the
records this required. A real boon to genealogists! However, in the
more ancient male-line descents, wives were often ignored altogether,
which is most irritating to genealogists.
Len.
Leonard M. Keane
In <54qpcg$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mrsan...@aol.com (MrSandmich)
writes:
>I agree with Tom. By the way, would anyone like to comment on long
lines
>of direct maternal lineage? This is a difficult research for even the
>modern genealogist as the surname changes every generation. For
instance,
>begining with my own mother, I can take the direct maternal lineage
back 9
>generations.
>
Interesting. I wonder if anyone has any specific lines they might want
to post about? The Picts of Scotland were the last matriarchal society
in western Europe that I know of, but of course their lineages are
already ancient and probably, I would think, not well documented.
Len.
Leonard M. Keane
In <54tcup$7...@scramble.lm.com> m...@telerama.lm.com (Mary Keck) writes:
>
>> camf...@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) writes:
>> by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>>
>> Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
>>
>>>>>
>Well said, Mr. Camfield. That is one of my major frustrations in
researching
>my lines (certainly not a unique frustration). I am sure I inherited
the
>same amount of DNA from my mother as from my father (and I most
assuredly got
>more of her characteristics)--but my own brother, believe it or not,
when I
>mentioned the problem of tracing our female lines, responded with "Why
would
>you want to do that?" I enjoy your curmudgeonly posts. Thanks for
>brightening the day just a little. MK
>
Mary:
It's all in traceability. If you *can* trace back many generations
it's simply because the family or families left records and that
occurred mainly through male line descent. It's just the way our
patriarchal society was set up.
It is a bit ridiculous today for your brother to question the value of
tracing female lines. We all hope to find traceable female lines as we
do our research, but usually if we find one it will be because her
father came from a similarly well-recorded male-line family with
continuity and social/geographical stability.
Len.
Antique Mall of Mountain Home
>In article <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu (bryan tinlin) wrote:
>
>> What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
>> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
>> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>
>by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>allied female lines after getting back 3 or 4 generations. But in my mind
>these lines are every bit as important as the "direct" male line; the
>contributed blood lessens in equal measure in all cases.
>
>Thus it was that my first book dealt with my mother's ancestry, my second
>with my father's...and each proceeded to follow allied female lines as
>completely as possible.
>
>Whenever getting back a couple of generations to the ancestry of a maternal
>grandmother, one seems always to encounter the reversion to a male line in
>the thought patterns of about everyone involved--resulting in great
>difficulty uncovering spousal history.
>
>Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
>
>
Tom:
Thank you for bringing this into the open. I have been working for
about 15 years on my lines. Have many dead ends, mostly on the women.
My daughter has just begun helping me and wants to trace only the direct
male decendants. "Why", I ask. It takes two for every generation.
I will be posting queries on my lines soon. Thanks to all.
Georgia Williamson
Mary Keck
> considerable family pride went with demonstrating a long
> male-line.
>>>>
"motherhood is a matter of record; fatherhood is a matter of conjecture?" :)
MK
btd...@ns.net
>Thus it was that my first book dealt with my mother's ancestry, my second
>with my father's...and each proceeded to follow allied female lines as
>completely as possible.
Tom, I also did my family genealogy in somewhat a like manner.
However, I split it to Father-Mother-Grandfather-Grandmother (of
Father) -Grandfather-Grandmother (of Mother) and traced each line back
as a seperate chapter. It was pretty nice and gave special emphasis
to the strong Irish blood of my mothers grandmother. It was just a
family project, but many peoplle commented on the nice 'maternal'
touch.
Brad Deem in Newcastle, CA
Todd A. Farmerie
Leonard M. Keane wrote:
>
> Interesting. I wonder if anyone has any specific lines they might want
> to post about? The Picts of Scotland were the last matriarchal society
> in western Europe that I know of, but of course their lineages are
> already ancient and probably, I would think, not well documented.
>
This is an understatement. The Pict lines have all been reconstructed
from lists of kings which only named their father. Connections through
the female line have been hypothesized based on nomenclature and
chronology, but with only a few exceptions, when the father was a
foreigner known from other sources, scholars have been unable to do more
than guess. (This hasn't stopped authors from generating extensive
family trees for these kings, but these should be taken with an ocean of
salt.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
Wally Jansen wrote:
>
> In <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu (bryan
> tinlin) writes:
> >
> >is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in the
> >present day or, if not, who was the last one?
> >
> >bti...@u.arizona.edu
>
> I think that this question should be opened up a little. Why not make
> it the oldest straight male line or the oldest straight female line?
> Presumably this ng isn't only for European men.
>
> For longest continuously documented male line I nominate the current
> generation of Confucius (551-479BC) descendants. I remember an article
> in the National Geogrphic magazine abot 15 to 25 years ago even showing
> a photo of the 77th generation oldest son an a middle aged man.
>
These chinese lines are deceptive. While I am not familiar with this
particular Confucian (as apposed to confusion, which my chinese friend
could never quite distinguish) line, I am with the chinese genealogical
tradition. In their system of genealogies, individuals took a back seat
to family and generations. Thus, my friend could recite a list of names
from himself back 15 generations to the founder of his village (he could
also recite the names from the founder back in his village of origin
another 20 or so generations to the founder of that village).
Importantly, though, he could also recite the next 12 generations in his
village. The reason he could do this is that the names are not personal
names, but generational names, and the founder of his village had
written a poem of what the first 28 generations of his descendant would
be named. Every male descendant of the founder of a particular
generation bears that generation's name as part of their own, which they
adopt at adulthood (usually marriage) in place of (but sometimes
incorporating part of) the name given them by their parents. (Take, for
instance, the last emperor of China. His generational name was Pu. He
was Pu Yi, his brother Pu Chin, his cousins Pu (something else), but the
previous generation shared a different name. This was not their
surname, which being imperial, they did not use, but when forced to
under the communist regime was something like Aisin-Giaro.)
I suspect then that this 77 generation descendant of Confucius, when
asked to provide the 76 intervening generations, would recite off the
generation names, rather than the personal names of the descent. This
pedigree would thus be identical for every male-line descendant of
Confucius of the 77th generation, even if their closest common ancestor
was Confucius himself. (Actually, this is a bit of an overstatement.
The pedigree would probably only be shared for those from the same
village, since when a descendant of Confucius established a new village,
he would have developed a new scheme, just as in the case of my friend's
family.)
When asked for the personal names of his ancestors, my friend could not
quite understand what I wanted, but when I explained it to him, he could
only go back to his grandfather or great-grandfather, and I suspect that
this is not uncommon (in fact, if I had to guess, my friend is a rare
exception among todays chinese in knowing what he does about his
history, considering the disruptions over the past century in the stable
village society that preserved such traditions). This individuality is
not something of particular importance in the chinese tradition when
compared to family. In this context it is not surprising that in their
nomenclatural system, the family name is given the position of
preeminance, while in ours, some cultures (Welsh, for instance) did not
even use family names until quite recently.
Todd
John Yohalem
> I hate to be a prig about this, but, while Pictish society
appears
> to have been matrilinear, I do not know of any cogent evidence that it
was
> ever matriarchal. Although the topic is not really germane to this list,
I
> would be very interested in any sources you have making a reasoned
argument
> for the Picts as a matriarchal society.
> Jim
You are perfectly correct to make the distinction. I'm not sure ANY
entirely matriarchal societies have ever been discovered, and it is
unlikely that they existed (though certain excessively politicized and
"feminist" -- I put the word in quotes because there are many genuine and
scholarly feminists who are not of this attitude -- archaeologists have
invented them in the distant past, with not a shred of unchallenged
evidence). What were the men supposed to have been doing in these mythical
matriarchies? Just following orders?
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Todd A. Farmerie
Mary Keck wrote:
>
> Well said, Mr. Camfield. That is one of my major frustrations in researching
> my lines (certainly not a unique frustration). I am sure I inherited the
> same amount of DNA from my mother as from my father
Nope, you didn't get the same amount from each. You got slightly more
from your mother since you got your mtDNA from her.
taf
R. Leutner
Peter raises an interesting question herebelow. One obvious answer is
that maternal lines matter where property can be transmitted through
heiresses. Another, and more relevant, perhaps -most- relevant in a U.S.
context, is that tracing both lines matters where ideas become, are, or
were current about the idea of "blood," most especially in the US
instance where hereditary societies like DAR, SAR, Colonial Dames, etc.
have/had their day. The question of why it might be important to claim a
colonial, Revolutionary, etc. descent is a topic for another time
probably. Not to draw parallels, but another place I can think of where
tracing all lines was important was Germany in a certain historical
time. Something of the same might have been operating in certain US
places, too, when it was nice to be able to demonstrate a -lack- of
certain "blood" rather than as in the DAR (etc.) case, the presence of
certain other "blood."
This isn't entirely a savory business historically. Most of us these
days are probably motivated more by intellectual curiosity, although that
understates the obsessiveness, of course. :)
Bob Leutner
Iowa City IA
On 28 Oct 1996, Peter William Gooding wrote:
> Maybe it is better to ask who were the people who did start considering
> and recording multiple lines, and why *they* had these thought patterns,
> rather than why others did not.
R. Leutner
On 28 Oct 1996, Peter Gooding wrote:
>
> Also, what are we omitting that future people will get mad about?
>
> Peter Gooding
> Australia
Same-sex marriages, I'm sure. Even now people get mad about them. :)
Peter William Gooding
camf...@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) wrote:
>Can't answer that. Just want to mention that I've always been a bit >puzzled
>by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>genealogical authors. It's pure hell, even today, trying to trace the
>allied female lines after getting back 3 or 4 generations.But in mymind
>these lines are every bit as important as the "direct" male line; the
>contributed blood lessens in equal measure in all cases.
Why have you been puzzled about it? Look for the ancient origin of linear
genealogy and I think you will find that early genealogical authors just
used the same ideas, and this continued to reinforce the same ideas in
other authors.
Tracing two parental ancestories for each ancestor, is not just twice as
complex as tracing one lineage, and was probably too complex for most people
until modern times. Of course, they would have to understand the complexity
as well. If they didnt know about ancestoral structure, they'd hardly be able
to consider that other lines were important if they didnt understand all the
lines that existed.
It would never do to find out that everyone was related.
Also, heredity wasnt necessarily understood, so maybe their ideas of
genetic significance may have been incorrectly biased? Your use
of "contributed blood" may say something about the past. Or even about the
present (?) - *Genetic inheritance along an ascent line certainly doesnt
continue to lessen in equal measure in all cases.
Maybe it is better to ask who were the people who did start considering
and recording multiple lines, and why *they* had these thought patterns,
rather than why others did not.
Also, what are we omitting that future people will get mad about?
Peter Gooding
Australia
>
>Whenever getting back a couple of generations to the ancestry of a maternal
>grandmother,one seems always to encounter the reversion to a male line
>in the thought patterns of about everyone involved--resulting in great
>difficulty uncovering spousal history.
>
>Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
"spousal" or "maternal"? (!)
From whose perspective?
Gordon Fisher
At 08:29 PM 10/27/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter raises an interesting question herebelow. One obvious answer is
>that maternal lines matter where property can be transmitted through
>heiresses. Another, and more relevant, perhaps -most- relevant in a U.S.
>context, is that tracing both lines matters where ideas become, are, or
>were current about the idea of "blood," most especially in the US
>instance where hereditary societies like DAR, SAR, Colonial Dames, etc.
>have/had their day. The question of why it might be important to claim a
>colonial, Revolutionary, etc. descent is a topic for another time
>probably. Not to draw parallels, but another place I can think of where
>tracing all lines was important was Germany in a certain historical
>time. Something of the same might have been operating in certain US
>places, too, when it was nice to be able to demonstrate a -lack- of
>certain "blood" rather than as in the DAR (etc.) case, the presence of
>certain other "blood."
>
>This isn't entirely a savory business historically. Most of us these
>days are probably motivated more by intellectual curiosity, although that
>
>Bob Leutner
>Iowa City IA
>
>
>> Maybe it is better to ask who were the people who did start considering
>> and recording multiple lines, and why *they* had these thought patterns,
>> rather than why others did not.
>
>
Despite Bob's remark about this not being the time for a discussion of why
people like to claim a colonial, Revolutionary (USA), royal or other
descent, I'd like to hear what people have to say on this topic. I have in
my database several lines of all three of these kinds. I'm under no
illusion about the validity of the royal lines --- there's one in particular
that I'm deeply suspicious of. However, I keep it nevertheless, chiefly
because it gives me a kind of psychological gateway into history. (The line
I'm suspicious of gives me a direct route to certain Plantagenets, who
otherwise would be remote cousins). I've had much enjoyment rooting (and
routing) about in the history of early and middle England, medieval European
royalty, etc. My database (as some of you may have noticed) contains many
items taken from the work of medievalists (historians not primarily
interested in genealogy), and from translations of the works of medieval
writers themselves. It's a lovely hobby. And if one or more of my royal
lines is invalid, so what? The only thing I can claim I get from them is a
focus, or rather foci, for studying enjoyable history.
My lines to Revolutionary War (USA) and colonial people (in what became the
USA) are more secure, but what I value them for is the same thing I value
the royal lines for. I certainly don't value them for some genetic (or
sanguinary) heritage, or political affiliations, or the like --- although I
suppose the fact that some of my ancestors were 17th century English
Puritans who migrated to Connecticut has left some cultural traces in me,
just as the fact that my wife's grandparents were Jewish immigrants from
Russia in the early 20th century has left some traces on her. Nevertheless,
my wife and I agree on basic things like religion and politics --- do you
suppose this is attributable to the fact that some Puritans and some Jews
weren't all that far apart on such matters, way back then? Some of them
might be close even now, except we don't call them Puritans any more. To
prevent misunderstanding, I suppose I should observe that neither my wife
nor I belong to any organized religion at all, and never really have.
Still, religious attitudes can be transmitted in other ways.
Somewhat ironically, one of our daughters now works for an Episcopal church,
without, however, being an Episcopalian (or any other religion). Our other
daughter has recently joined the DAR where she lives, in London, England,
after having hesitated to do so for some time --- she and I do genealogy
together, and she decided the help we could get from the DAR would be worth
it. To her surprise, she's enjoying the social contacts she's making.
What do others think?
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Peter Gooding
camf...@olympus.net (Tom Camfield) wrote:
>Can't answer that. Just want to mention that I've always been a bit >puzzled
>by the obsession with the male-line descent so favored by early
>genealogical authors. It's pure hell, even today, trying to trace the
>allied female lines after getting back 3 or 4 generations.But in mymind
>these lines are every bit as important as the "direct" male line; the
>contributed blood lessens in equal measure in all cases.
Why have you been puzzled about it? Look for the ancient origin of linear genealogy and I think you will find that early genealogica=
l authors just used the same ideas, and this continued to reinforce the same ideas in other authors.
Tracing two parental ancestories for each ancestor, is not just twice as complex as tracing one lineage, and was probably too comple=
x for most people until modern times. Of course, they would have to understand the complexity as well. If they didnt know about ance=
storal structure, they'd hardly be able to consider that other lines were important if they didnt understand all the lines that exis=
ted.
It would never do to find out that everyone was related.
Also, heredity wasnt necessarily understood, so maybe their ideas of genetic significance may have been incorrectly biased? Your use=
of "contributed blood" may say something about the past. Or even about the present (?) - *Genetic inheritance along an ascent line =
certainly doesnt continue to lessen in equal measure in all cases.
Maybe it is better to ask who were the people who did start considering and recording multiple lines, and why *they* had these thoug=
ht patterns, rather than why others did not.
Also, what are we omitting that future people will get mad about?
Peter Gooding
Australia
>
>Whenever getting back a couple of generations to the ancestry of a maternal
>grandmother,one seems always to encounter the reversion to a male line >in the thought patterns of about everyone involved--resulti=
Leonard M. Keane
In <1.5.4.16.1996102...@popd.ix.netcom.com> "James P.
Robinson III" <jpro...@IX.NETCOM.COM> writes:
>
> I hate to be a prig about this, but, while Pictish society
appears
>to have been matrilinear, I do not know of any cogent evidence that it
was
>ever matriarchal. Although the topic is not really germane to this
list, I
>would be very interested in any sources you have making a reasoned
argument
>for the Picts as a matriarchal society.
> Jim
>
>
>**********************************************************************
****
>James P. Robinson, III
>
>jpro...@ix.netcom.com
>**********************************************************************
*****
Sorry about that! A hasty slip of the mind. Yes, I should have said
"matrilineal". I'm no student of the Pictish lines, other than to
believe that the later Scottish system of family representation whereby
the line can pass through, and even be held by, a female derives from
the ancient Pictish system.
Len.
John Yohalem
> On 28 Oct 1996, Peter Gooding wrote:
> >
> > Also, what are we omitting that future people will get mad about?
> >
> > Peter Gooding
> > Australia
>
>
> Bob Leutner
> Iowa City IA
Somehow I doubt many people in the near future (the far-distant, perhaps)
will trace their lineal descent from same-sex marriages. Adoptions, of
course....
Jean Coeur de Lapin
ench...@escape.com
Al & Sue O'Neill
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>
> Wally Jansen wrote:
> >
> > In <54mmof$v...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> bti...@mustique.u.arizona.edu (bryan
> > tinlin) writes:
> > >
> > >What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who is alive today?
The oldest tracable European family is O'Neill from either
The O'Neill Mor (in Spain) of the Clan Tyrone
or The O'Neill (in Portugal) of Clanaboy
traceable back to 'the great' Niall 'of the nine hostages
from 400AD to today!
the family can be traced back further...
to Cormac MacAirt in the year 254AD...
and further still to Phenius Pharsa King of Scythia (1800BC) but the
authenticity is arguable to say the least.
Alan O'Neill
> Todd
D. Spencer Hines
>>From: Gordon Fisher <gfi...@pop.shentel.net>
>>>The calculation made by D. Spencer Hines, outlined below by him, depends,**>among other things,** [Emphasis mine.]
<snip>
Quite true. There are other sources for the 10^8 figure in Europe.
Credible, serious people have told me that 50% of all Europeans are
descended from Charlemagne. Hhowever, there is no accompanying methodology
or reasoned argument.
Suffice it to say that this is not the sort of evidence that would convince
Galileo, Newton, Crick, Watson, Mendel. Donald Lines Jacobus or any other respectable
social, physical or biological scientist. As I've stated many times in my
several posts---I'm not convinced either. I was looking for a focal point,
a first approximation for the true number.
I don't buy the argument some make that it is an impossible task, so we should
stop asking and give up.
<continued from above>
> on a statement made by Gary Boyd Roberts in the NEXUS
>newsletter of the NEHGS for June-September 1994, a copy of which I received
>from NEHGS today. The relevant statement is on p 104, and reads as follows:
>>><snip>
> noted that the 167 are ancestors collectively of probably over 100 million
>Americans (very likely quite a conservative guess)."
>>>
>>>My interpretation of this passage is that the 10^8 estimate was made by a
>person unknown who wrote the advertising flyer, by means unknown. Roberts
>appears to accept this estimate as a "conservative" one, for reasons unstated.
A reasonable inference. Perhaps Gary Boyd Roberts would be so kind as to
clarify, and perhaps expand on this for us. It is ambiguous and we are overreaching
and heading into treacherous waters if we try to read the tea leaves.
It would be wrong for us to try to speak for him. He is quite capable of
doing that for himself.
>>>
>>>Also, I've seen no evidence or arguments for the 10^8 figure, even if it
>is meant to count both the living and dead descendants of the 167.
Neither have I, and like Galileo I want to see those ruddy balls roll down
inclined planes or hear a reasoned argument based on genealogy, genetics and
other solid disciplines, such as probabilistic mathematics.
We should not think that one must somehow accept that 167 immigrants produced
100,000,000 descendants, all by themselves. The hypothetical premise is simply that
those 167 contributed at least one gene of the 100,000 in the human genome
to each of the 10^8. Many other ancestors could have contributed the remaining lion's
share of the genetic material.
Spence Hines
---
D. Spencer Hines-----Exitus acta probat----President George Washington (1732-1799)
James Edward Maule
Antique Mall of Mountain Home wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this into the open. I have been working for
> about 15 years on my lines. Have many dead ends, mostly on the women.
>
> My daughter has just begun helping me and wants to trace only the > direct
> male decendants. "Why", I ask. It takes two for every generation.
When I started, I was going to do the same thing as your daughter was
going to do. My mother asked, "And when your sisters marry and have
children are you going to leave them out?"
Enough said. I know better than to question the wisdom mom gained when
I turned 18.....
Leonard M. Keane
In <Pine.A32.3.91.961027...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu> "R.
Leutner" <rleu...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes:
>
>Peter raises an interesting question herebelow. One obvious answer is
>that maternal lines matter where property can be transmitted through
>heiresses. Another, and more relevant, perhaps -most- relevant in a
U.S.
>context, is that tracing both lines matters where ideas become, are,
or
>were current about the idea of "blood," most especially in the US
>instance where hereditary societies like DAR, SAR, Colonial Dames,
etc.
>have/had their day. The question of why it might be important to
claim a
>colonial, Revolutionary, etc. descent is a topic for another time
>probably. Not to draw parallels, but another place I can think of
where
>tracing all lines was important was Germany in a certain historical
>time. Something of the same might have been operating in certain US
>places, too, when it was nice to be able to demonstrate a -lack- of
>certain "blood" rather than as in the DAR (etc.) case, the presence of
>certain other "blood."
>
>This isn't entirely a savory business historically. Most of us these
>days are probably motivated more by intellectual curiosity, although
that
>understates the obsessiveness, of course. :)
>
>Bob Leutner
>Iowa City IA
>
>On 28 Oct 1996, Peter William Gooding wrote:
>
>> Maybe it is better to ask who were the people who did start
considering
>> and recording multiple lines, and why *they* had these thought
patterns,
>> rather than why others did not.
---
I guess people who record multiple lines do intend to prove descent
from something or other. I think everyone hopes to find an
"interesting" ancestor, and that's probably the main reason most do it.
Perhaps it originated from the "need" for applicants to certain ancient
orders of chivalry to prove Christian ancestors in all 8 great-
grandparents or, sometimes in Scandinavia, all 16 great-great
grandparents, and the coats-of-arms for each. The coats-of-arms were
required to prove the noble status of these 8 or 16 ancestors.
Len.
Mary Keck
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> Mary Keck wrote:
> > ...same amount of DNA from my mother as from my father
> (excerpt)
> You got slightly more
> from your mother since you got your mtDNA from her.
>
> taf
>
>>>>
Learning all the time... Thanks! :)
John Yohalem
> I still think the Uradel family of Hessen, the v. BOYENBURG, who go
> back to the 900s with imperial connections way back then and are still
> extant, are at least first runners-up.
>
The Hohenzollerns and the Savoys are THAT old.
Me
Grant Menzies
John Yohalem <ench...@ESCAPE.COM> wrote:
>---------
>> From: bryan tinlin <bti...@MUSTIQUE.U.ARIZONA.EDU>
>> To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
>> Subject: Oldest male line?
>> Date: Wednesday, October 23, 1996 11:11 PM
>>
>> What is the oldest traceable European straight male line from someone who
>> is alive today? Are there any male line descendants of Charlemagne in
>the
>> present day or, if not, who was the last one?
>>
>> Bryan
>> bti...@u.arizona.edu
>There was a cadet of the house of Vermandois who died around 1365 without
>issue.
>The Guelfs of Hannover go back to the beginnings of the House of Este -- I
>don't know the precise year; the legend says 5th century but I don't
>believe it. After them, I suppose, it would be the Orsini or the Colonna.
I still think the Uradel family of Hessen, the v. BOYENBURG, who go
back to the 900s with imperial connections way back then and are still
extant, are at least first runners-up.
G M Menzies
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Se non e vero, e molto ben trovato
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Melissa
How about the fact that unless an adoption or something was kept a
secret, you KNOW who the mother is.. but her husband may not have been
the father. :) When I first started researching I was told that I
should go through the females because of that reason. It seems easier
though to go through the male.
Paul M. Gifford
According to Sir Anthony Wagner, all Gifford/Giffard lines likely go
back either to Osbern de Bolebec (10th century) or Giffard the Usher, of Dry
Drayton,Cambridgeshire, a Domesday tenant (1086), without serious
interruptions. I think the line of Lord Halsbury goes back to Osbern and
may be the oldest English male line. Unfortunately I haven't figured
out the origin of my immigrant ancestor's family, so it stops at about 1600.
Paul Gifford
Aardy R. DeVarque
John Yohalem (ench...@ESCAPE.COM) wrote:
> The Guelfs of Hannover go back to the beginnings of the House of Este -- I
> don't know the precise year; the legend says 5th century but I don't
> believe it.
I happen to have a chart of the Estensi's beginnings that was given to me
by a nice "researcher" that kinda sorta forgot to write down any of his
sources, except for "a 15 or so volume set that lists family trees for
every european family!" (which I assume would be EuroStamm). I've seen a
few things that contradict it at the recent end (though most of them
contradict each *other*, too), and haven't found anything to corroborate
except that Azo [IV] is the earliest one on the list that everyone seems
to agree on, (and there's a couple of...questionable... bits), but here it
is anyway. Laugh away. :)
1. Caius Actius I (resided in the old castle of Este in the Dukedom of
Venice) ca. 390
2. Caius Actius II, Decurio & Senator at Rome; Prince or Lord of Este
(402); d. 410; fought against the Goths/Vandals. m. Marcia
3. Aurelius Actius, Lord of Este (411); d. 418. m. Norca (Norcis)
4. Tiberius I, Lord of Este (418); d. 428. m. Jucunda
5. Alphorisius, Lord of Felstro by partition of Forestus, brother of
Tiberius I; d. 478, slain in battle vs. the Wends
6. Maximus, restored to his father's estate in 493; d. 538
7. Bonifacius of Este, Lord of Felstro; d. 556. m. Elisa
8. Valerianus of Este, Lord of Feltro [sic]; d. 590 in the Gothic War. m.
Constantia
9. Gundelhard, Prince of Este, Feltro [sic], Monselice; Majordomus of
Dagobert I of Neustria (636); d. 682
10. Heribert, Lord of Este; d. 694
11. Ernest, Lord of Este & Monselice; d. 752, slain at Ravennia. m.
Theodora
12. Henry I, created Prince of Tarvis by Charlemagne. m. Arestia
13. Berengarius, Margrave of Este, Lord of Tarvis; d. 840, Paris
14. Otto II, Margrave of Este & Tarvis; d. 898. m. Lada, dau. of
Caladoccus of Friuli
15. Sigfrid I (Sigebert), Count of Este, Lord of Lucca/Parma; d. 954
16. Azo II, Count of Este, Margrave of Milan & Genoa, Lord of Placentia &
Rheggio, Imperial Vicar & Stadtholder in Italy (963); d. 970
17. Albert II (Oberto/Sigbert), Margrave of Este, Milan, & Genoa, Count of
Freyburg; d. 995. m. Adelheid
18. Hugh III, Margrave of Este, Milan, Genoa, & Tuscany; d. Oct 1014. m.
Mary
19. Azo IV "the Great", Margrave of Este; d. 1055. m. (1st) 1040
Cunissa/Cunigunda, sister of Welf III, Duke of Lower Bavaria & Count of
Weingarten.
20. Welf IV, Duke of Bavaria (1070), Count of Altdorf; d. 9(6) Nov 1101.
m. Judith, Countess of Flanders (b. (1033), d. 5 Mar 1094), dau. of
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders
--
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Tom Camfield
Just another note on the subject. Regarding ancient ancestors, both male
and female. Perhaps it's not so important whether genes and chromosones
come into play.
As I pursue the history of my great, great, great grandmother's
mother-in-law, I am not particularly concerned whether I inherited her
nose, her misshapen
tush or anything else purely physical. I like to think that virtues and
values are passed down through succeeding generations--and that I have been
composed of bits of personality from a wide range of ancestors. :-)
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
Grant Menzies
John Yohalem <ench...@ESCAPE.COM> wrote:
>> I still think the Uradel family of Hessen, the v. BOYENBURG, who go
>> back to the 900s with imperial connections way back then and are still
>> extant, are at least first runners-up.
>>
>The Hohenzollerns and the Savoys are THAT old.
Hello, you--
But the Hohenzollerns weren't much to shake a stick at back in the
900's, oui ou non? (Always liked Ludwig I's prounouncement about
"upstart rabbits" ;-)
I agree about the Savoys, though.
Al & Sue O'Neill
the oldest traceable European family is O'Neill
the present chief of the Clanaboy O'Neills (senior branch)
His Excellency
Hugo O'Neill living in Portugal
titled The O'Neill
is the oldest male
of the Royal family
next would be the O'Neill Mor (Great O'Neill) chief of the Tyrone
O'Neills who resides in Spain.
after that might be the O'Neill of the Ivowen Clan
The family is traced back to Cormac MacAirt
(god king) King of Tara 254AD...
and his father Airt 'the Lonely' son of
Conn 'of the Hundred Battles'
I could go back further but even I'd have trouble believing it!
Alan
Peter Gooding
Genetic inheritance and chromosomes are important anyway if you wish to
study personality or behaviour, from an inheritance perspective from your
ancestors. Even so, you arent necessarily going to receive cultural traits
from all of your ancestors anyway, so I dont think you can justify your
relation to all 1024 ancestors (or whatever) by culture or personality
and dismissing genetics as unimportant or trite.
You dont have to be interested in this area, but you are suggesting
to everyone that genetic inheritance is not important. Someone tracing
your ggg-gm's m-inlaw may be interested one day. Seems strange, though
that you should be using this title for someone you suggest has an
ancestoral relationship. Personality may also be affected by your
environment and influenced by your peers, sometimes instead of from
your ancestors, who may have died when their child was very young, or
emigrated and only be influenced by one parent or someone unrelated
etc.
It is possible to justify the essential importance of all your
ancestors, through cause-and-effect type scenario (ie history).
The expression of this idea has been adopted from something I have
read, that:
If any one of your ancestors had never existed, (regardless of whether
you have genetic or cultural traits from them), then neither would you.
So, if your ggggf wasnt born, neither then would be your gggm, or your
ggf, or your gf, or your m, or you. The same applies to any ancestor.
Peter Gooding
Stewart Baldwin
Al & Sue O'Neill <aon...@vaxxine.com> wrote:
>Once again...
>the oldest traceable European family is O'Neill
>the present chief of the Clanaboy O'Neills (senior branch)
>His Excellency
>Hugo O'Neill living in Portugal
>titled The O'Neill
>is the oldest male
>of the Royal family
>next would be the O'Neill Mor (Great O'Neill) chief of the Tyrone
>O'Neills who resides in Spain.
>after that might be the O'Neill of the Ivowen Clan
>The family is traced back to Cormac MacAirt
>(god king) King of Tara 254AD...
>and his father Airt 'the Lonely' son of
>Conn 'of the Hundred Battles'
>I could go back further but even I'd have trouble believing it!
>Alan
To briefly outline what has been discussed in great detail in this
group before. [See earlier postings for more details.]
(a) There is not the slightest justification for regarding the
O'Neill pedigree as authentic back to Cormac, Art, and Conn, who are
legendary, and not historical figures. They are a part of the
deliberately concocted pseudohistory which was fabricated by the later
Irish scholars. The documented political history of Ireland is
reasonably well known from the seventh century on, obscure for the
sixth century, massively obscure for the fifth century, and
nonexistent for the fourth century and earlier.
(b) In the contest for oldest traceable family, there is no reason to
give the O'Neill's priority over the many other Irish families whose
genealogy can be traced back to roughly the same vague times.
Stewart Baldwin
Leonard M. Keane
In <56apcg$p...@news.campus.mci.net> sb...@auburn.campus.mci.net
Those in the running for "oldest" male line necessarily would be those
who can trace their male line. Those certainly include those
previously mentioned lines of the ancient Provincial monarchs who have
living male-line representatives today. What other Irish families,
except possibly a few cadet lines (with different surnames) of those
provincial monarchical families can be traced by connected lineage to
those same early times?
Len.
John Yohalem
Thank-you, SB. If we are keeping to patriarchal families (and I assume we
are, because that is how families tend to be traced in our society, or did
until quite recently, and not because we are deeply anti-female), then I
believe the palm may go to the House of Guelf-Hannover, which can be traced
back to the Carolingian Era Estes. Or is it the Capets, who go back to the
7th century?
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Stewart Baldwin
John Yohalem <ench...@ESCAPE.COM> wrote
>Thank-you, SB. If we are keeping to patriarchal families (and I assume we
>are, because that is how families tend to be traced in our society, or did
>until quite recently, and not because we are deeply anti-female), then I
>believe the palm may go to the House of Guelf-Hannover, which can be traced
>back to the Carolingian Era Estes. Or is it the Capets, who go back to the
>7th century?
>
>Jean Coeur de Lapin
No, the early Irish families still win the direct male line contest
too, even if you take the extreme skeptic's position that the earliest
such lines are only reliable back to the sixth century.
Stewart Baldwin
Gordon Fisher
You don't suppose, do you, that the records reflect a naming pattern, or
something of the sort (perhaps based on male dominance -- or something of
the sort), which kept the patronymic even for female descendants? Actually,
I know nothing about this topic, or even thread, but my innate skepticism
(and mathematical training) force me to ask this question.
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Jill O'Neall Ching
Another O'Neill researcher here......I have a photocopy of
Shane's Castle in Antrim, whence the Clannaboy's hail from,
if anyone would like it. Must send
sase to me, email me for my address.
~~~Aloha and Mahalo Nui Loa from.....Jill mau...@maui.net~~~
http://www.maui.net/~mauifun/genweb.htm
----------
> From: Stewart Baldwin <sb...@AUBURN.CAMPUS.MCI.NET>
> To: GEN-ME...@MAIL.EWORLD.COM
> Subject: Re: Oldest male line?
> Date: Tuesday, November 12, 1996 1:17 PM
Gordon Fisher
With regard to my skeptical question about preservation of patronymics in
Ireland, let me add that I had in mind something on the order of the English
tradion, as illustrated in the following quotation, which may be of interest
to those with CLAREs, DESPENSERs, AUDLEYs, and/or one or two other lines.
One sees that men took titles from the fathers of their wives.
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
"At his death in 1314, Gilbert [de CLARE, Earl of Gloucester] left no
children, so that his co-heiresses were his three sisters, Eleanor, Margaret
and Elizabeth, who split the lands, worth some L6,000 gross, between them.
Eleanor was already married to the younger [Hugh] Despenser, and the other
two were soon married off to another two of the rising stars of Edward II's
court, Margaret to Hugh Audley, and Elizabeth to Roger Damory. Thus three
very substantial inheritances had been created, each of adequate comital
size, and over the next eighty years, largely throuch a series of judicious
marriages, they were to be used to endow a number of earls, despite the fact
that each third was subjected to forfeiture on at least one occasion. The
Despenser third was increawsed enormoously by violence in 1321-6, forfeited
in 1326, partially restored in 1328, and eventually descended to the younger
Hugh's great-grandson Thomas, who was created earl of Gloucester in 1397.
Audley's third was forfeited following his rebellion in 1322 but restored in
1326-7, and was sufficient to elevate him to the earldom of Gloucester in
1337. He died in 1347 leaving only one child, a daughter, Margaret, who in
1336 had been married to Ralph, Lord Stafford. Naturally, Stafford was now
a much greater man than he had been before, and he was also a noted soldier
and a friend of the king's. Thus when, in 1351, Edward promoted Ralph to
the earldom of Stafford it cost him virtually nothing to do so -- once
again, it was his share of the Clare inheritance which provided the chief
element of his endowment. Elizabeth's third did little for her husband, for
Roger Damory joined the opposition in 1321 in order to fight for his
inheritance and was killed at Boroughbridge. Her lands thus passed to her
son by her first marriage, William de Burgh, earl of Ulster. When he died
in 1333, aged only twenty-one, the reversion of all his lands (not only a
third of the Clare inheritance, but also the lands of the earldom of Ulster)
was vested in his only daughter, Elizabeth, born in 1332. Edward III now
saw his chance. In 1342 he betrothed his second son, Lionel of Clarence, to
Elizabeth; they were aged four and ten respectively. From 1347 Lionel was
styled earl of Ulster, and in 1362 he became duke of Clarence, a title
derived from his Clare inheritance. Provision for his second son thus cost
the king virtually nothing. Nor was this quite the end of the story, for
Lionel himself died in 1368, leaving only a daughter, Philippa. Philippa
was promptly married, by the king's arrangement, to Edmund Mortimer, the son
of the man whom Edward had restored to the earldom of March in 1354, the
result of which was to transform the earls of March into the greatest
landholders in England outside the royal family. Thus from one earl of
Gloucester at the beginning of the fourteenth century to another at its end,
the great Clare inheritance had provided a major (and usually the chief)
element in no less than seven comital families' landed endowments, largely
as a consequence of a series of carefully arranged marriages."
--- Chris Given-Wilson, *The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages*,
London & NY (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987, p 40, 42 and chart on p 41
Leonard M. Keane
In <328AFE...@vaxxine.com> Al & Sue O'Neill <aon...@vaxxine.com>
writes:
>John Yohalem wrote:
>>
>> > Al & Sue O'Neill <aon...@vaxxine.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Once again...
>> > >the oldest traceable European family is O'Neill
>> > >the present chief of the Clanaboy O'Neills (senior branch)
>> > >His Excellency
>> > >Hugo O'Neill living in Portugal
>> > >titled The O'Neill
>> > >is the oldest male
>> > >of the Royal family
>> >
>> > >next would be the O'Neill Mor (Great O'Neill) chief of the Tyrone
>> > >O'Neills who resides in Spain.
>> >
>> > >after that might be the O'Neill of the Ivowen Clan
>> >
>> > >The family is traced back to Cormac MacAirt
>> > >(god king) King of Tara 254AD...
>> > >and his father Airt 'the Lonely' son of
>> > >Conn 'of the Hundred Battles'
>> >
>> > >I could go back further but even I'd have trouble believing it!
>> >
>> >
>> > To briefly outline what has been discussed in great detail in this
>> > group before. [See earlier postings for more details.]
>> >
>> > (a) There is not the slightest justification for regarding the
>> > O'Neill pedigree as authentic back to Cormac, Art, and Conn, who
are
>> > legendary, and not historical figures. They are a part of the
>> > deliberately concocted pseudohistory which was fabricated by the
later
>> > Irish scholars. The documented political history of Ireland is
>> > reasonably well known from the seventh century on, obscure for the
>> > sixth century, massively obscure for the fifth century, and
>> > nonexistent for the fourth century and earlier.
>> >
>> > (b) In the contest for oldest traceable family, there is no
reason to
>> > give the O'Neill's priority over the many other Irish families
whose
>> > genealogy can be traced back to roughly the same vague times.
>> >
>> > Stewart Baldwin
>>
assume we
>> are, because that is how families tend to be traced in our society,
or did
>> until quite recently, and not because we are deeply anti-female),
then I
>> believe the palm may go to the House of Guelf-Hannover, which can be
traced
>> back to the Carolingian Era Estes. Or is it the Capets, who go back
to the
>> 7th century?
>>
>> Jean Coeur de Lapin
>
not
>real...that his father Eochu 'the Slaves Lord' did not exist...that
>Cormac the son of Airt 'the Lonely' is a fabrication? There are many
>encyclopedias that need rewriting, even Burke's has possibly erred!!!?
>
>I admit that history tells us those darned O'Neills were an arrogant
>bunch....so you will believe what you will, and I and my kin will
known
>our truth. (By the way there is a reason the O'Neills should take
>priority over all other Irish families...because were are! If I had
to
>name another family that is as old they would be the distant cousins
>O'Donnell or Fox...but I believe there may exist some gaps in tracing
>their lineage.
>
>It was nice playing my small part in this thread. Good bye.
>
>Alan O'Neill ;-)
Alan:
I am waiting for someone to post the connected male-line descent of
those Continental houses from ca. 400 A.D. to the present-day
representative!!
Len.
Leonard M. Keane
In <1996111321...@head.globalcom.net> Gordon Fisher
Such scenarios were totally foreign to the native Irish system.
Len.
Leonard M. Keane
In <1996111320...@head.globalcom.net> Gordon Fisher
<gfi...@SHENTEL.NET> writes:
>
>At 11:37 AM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>John Yohalem <ench...@ESCAPE.COM> wrote
>>
assume we
>>>are, because that is how families tend to be traced in our society,
or did
>>>until quite recently, and not because we are deeply anti-female),
then I
>>>believe the palm may go to the House of Guelf-Hannover, which can be
traced
>>>back to the Carolingian Era Estes. Or is it the Capets, who go back
to the
>>>7th century?
>>>
>>>Jean Coeur de Lapin
>>
>>too, even if you take the extreme skeptic's position that the
earliest
>>such lines are only reliable back to the sixth century.
>>
>>Stewart Baldwin
>>
>>
>
>You don't suppose, do you, that the records reflect a naming pattern,
or
>something of the sort (perhaps based on male dominance -- or something
of
>the sort), which kept the patronymic even for female descendants?
Actually,
>I know nothing about this topic, or even thread, but my innate
skepticism
>(and mathematical training) force me to ask this question.
>
>Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Gordon:
Fair question, but the fact is the Irish system of salic succession
prevented any family representation from passing through female lines.
In fact, wives are rarely mentioned in the early Irish pedigrees. This
follows from pre-Christian times when marriages as we know them were
non-existent and from the fact that an Irish chief, under the system of
tanistry, was required to name his successor, which technically need
not have been a son by a "regular" spouse, nor his eldest son, nor even
a son at all. It could have been any male-line relative up to the
degree of second cousin (the chiefly "derbhfine", or kin group). We
can assume that pedigrees were very well-kept to allow for these
contingencies.
Len.
Stewart Baldwin
Al & Sue O'Neill <aon...@vaxxine.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Are you suggesting that 'the Great' Niall 'of the Nine Hostages' was not
>real...that his father Eochu 'the Slaves Lord' did not exist...that
>Cormac the son of Airt 'the Lonely' is a fabrication? There are many
>encyclopedias that need rewriting, even Burke's has possibly erred!!!?
There are a lot of encyclopedias which need rewriting on other
subjects, too. No reference source can possibly include discoveries
which haven't been made yet, and it is a simple fact of life that the
encyclopedias will always need rewriting on some subjects. [At least,
I hope that we never quit discovering new things.] In the nineteenth
century, much of Irish pseudohistory was generaaly believed to be
true, and it is only with the discoveries of the twentieth century
that these ideas have been overturned. Many sources do not show this
new information, either because thay have not bothered to check the
recent scholarly literature, or because wishful thinking has caused
them to ignore those discoveries which alter cherished beliefs.
The traditional date of 405 A.D. given for the death of Niall cannot
possibly be correct, for chronological reasons. If he existed at all,
he lived in the fifth, and not the fourth century. Although there are
some historians who doubt his existence, the majority opinion (with
which I agree) seems to be that he actually existed. However, the
legends which were built up around him can not be trusted, and there
is little that can be said about him other than the fact that he had
famous descendants. As discussed before in this newsgroup, in great
detail, there are good reasons for being suspicious about the pedigree
prior to Niall. While Eochaid Mugmedon may have existed, there is a
strong possibility that the genealogical link between him and Niall
was invented. [As for Cormac mac Airt, forget it. By the time you
get that far back, you are in genealogical fantasyland.]
Stewart Baldwin
Al & Sue O'Neill
> Gordon:
> Fair question, but the fact is the Irish system of salic succession
> prevented any family representation from passing through female lines.
> In fact, wives are rarely mentioned in the early Irish pedigrees. This
> follows from pre-Christian times when marriages as we know them were
> non-existent and from the fact that an Irish chief, under the system of
> tanistry, was required to name his successor, which technically need
> not have been a son by a "regular" spouse, nor his eldest son, nor even
> a son at all. It could have been any male-line relative up to the
> degree of second cousin (the chiefly "derbhfine", or kin group). We
> can assume that pedigrees were very well-kept to allow for these
> contingencies.
> Len.
Len:
And I thought I was done.
Derbfine would mean Inner Family such as sons and grandsons.
In early times succession was by murder (in most cases) this is why the
Irish had such a difficult time banding together...they feared their
allies would attempt to overtake their kingdom.
Natural succession "by appointment" was not rare but rather
uncommon...kings were regularly watching their backs...brothers and
cousins could not be trusted.
If you want me to list in order the lineage from Cormac MacAirt 254AD to
The O'Neill 1996AD I'm not about do do it here...I've done it once
already (http:www.vaxxine.com/family_memories)and you can find it on the
web elsewhere.
Alan
Todd A. Farmerie
Al & Sue O'Neill wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting that 'the Great' Niall 'of the Nine Hostages' was not
> real...that his father Eochu 'the Slaves Lord' did not exist...that
> Cormac the son of Airt 'the Lonely' is a fabrication? There are many
> encyclopedias that need rewriting, even Burke's has possibly erred!!!?
taf
Al & Sue O'Neill
> are, because that is how families tend to be traced in our society, or did
> until quite recently, and not because we are deeply anti-female), then I
> believe the palm may go to the House of Guelf-Hannover, which can be traced
> back to the Carolingian Era Estes. Or is it the Capets, who go back to the
> 7th century?
>
> Jean Coeur de Lapin
Are you suggesting that 'the Great' Niall 'of the Nine Hostages' was not
real...that his father Eochu 'the Slaves Lord' did not exist...that
Cormac the son of Airt 'the Lonely' is a fabrication? There are many
encyclopedias that need rewriting, even Burke's has possibly erred!!!?
I admit that history tells us those darned O'Neills were an arrogant
William L. "Toby" Dills
We've seen lots about the oldest male line. What is the oldest
continuous female line known or proven?
Toby Dills
William Addams Reitwiesner
I had an article in TAG back in the mid-1970s on a 40 generation
matrilineal descent, but more recently I found a flaw in the line and can
only support it for 37 generations, from the wife of Henry I, Count of
Limburg (d. 1119) through Empress Maria Theresia to the granddaughters of
Michael, the exiled King of Romania. For further details, see my
*Matrilineal Descents of the European Royalty*
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Mike Ruby
Scythia and from St. Patrick. I think not.
John Yohalem
Dear Alan,
I'd love to read it but when I hit that website, I was told the address was
incorrect and could not be accessed. Any ideas? Or could you copy it quick
and send it to:
Jean Coeur de Lapin
ench...@escape.com
Stewart Baldwin
Toby Dills <WDI...@umassd.edu> wrote:
>We've seen lots about the oldest male line. What is the oldest
>continuous female line known or proven?
>Toby Dills
Here is one which is far from the longest, because it only goes for
eleven generations, but it starts relatively early, and appears to
have
a number of opportunities for extension, if someone has better sources
than I had. This was a project which I did many years ago when I
noticed that Adele, wife of Hilduin de Ramerupt, count of Roucy, could
be traced back for four generations in the direct female line to
Gerloc, daughter of Rollo of Normandy, and that Adele had seven
daughters, most of whose progeny were easily traced. I therefore
resolved to trace as many descendants of Gerloc in the direct female
line whom I could find, with the results below. This was done mainly
from secondary sources back when I knew much less about genealogy than
I know now, so some allowance has to be made for possible errors, but
I see no obvious errors from looking over the line. Of course, many
of the sons have easily traceable descendants, but their lines are not
followed here. The numbering is the usual "Henry system", in order to
give the data in the least room possible. An "*" after a number
indicates a later marriage, and the parentage can then be found by
looking higher up on the table (using the number as a guide). It has
been years since I worked on this, and I have no idea whether or not
any of the lines can be extended further. Needless to say, I would be
pleased to have any additions or corrections.
Stewart Baldwin
[I transferred the file from another computer, which had some unusual
characters. I think I have removed them all, but my apologies if some
strange characters remain. Some accents have been left off because of
the limited character set.]
Matrilineal descendants of Gerloc, daughter of Rollo of Normandy
1. Gerloc of Normandy, md. 935 Guillaume I, ct. Poitou.
11. Guillaume II, d. 995/6, ct. Poitou.
12. Adelaide, md. Hugues Capet, k. France.
121. Robert II, b. 971, d. 20 July 1031, k. France.
122. Hedwige, md. 1st, Reginar IV, ct. Hainaut.
1221. Reginar V, d. after 1039, ct. Hainaut 1013-39.
1222. Beatrix, md. 1st, Ebles I, ct. Roucy,
12221. Hedwige, md. Geoffrey II, de Rumigny.
122211. Nicholas I, lord of Rumigny.
122212. daughter, md. Raoul, ct. Viesville.
1222121. Ebles de Florennes.
1222122. Ermentrude, md. NN.
12221221. Guillaume de Birbais.
122213. daughter, md. Godefroi de Ranst.
1222131. Jean.
1222132. Nicholas.
122214. daughter, md. NN, lord of Granci.
1222141. Ebles, lord of Granci.
12222. Adele, md. Hilduin III de Ramerupt, ct. Roucy.
122221. Ebles I, ct. Roucy.
122222. Andre, lord of Arcis and Ramerupt.
122223. Felicie, md. Sancho Ramirez, k. Aragon.
1222231. Fernando, d. young.
1222232. Alfonso I, d. 1134, k. Aragon.
1222233. Ramiro, d. 1157, k. Aragon.
122224. Beatrix, md. Geoffrey II, ct. Perche.
1222241. Rotrou II, d. Apr 1144, ct. Perche.
1222242. Julienne, md. Gilbert de l'Aigle.
12222421. Richer de l'Aigle.
12222422. Engenulf de l'Aigle, d. 1120 on the White Ship.
12222423. Geoffrey de l'Aigle, d. 1120 on the White Ship.
12222424. Gilbert de l'Aigle.
12222425. Margaret, d. 1141, md. Garcia Ramirez, k. Navarre.
122224251. Sancho el Sabio, d. 27 June 1194, k. Navarre.
122224252. Blanca, md. Sancho III, k. Castile.
1222242521. Alfonso VIII, b. 1155, d. 1214, k. Castile.
1222242522. Garcia, b. ca. 1156.
122224253. Margaret, md. William I, k. Sicily.
1222242531. Roger, 1152-61.
1222242532. William II, b. 1153, d. 16 Nov 1189, k. Sicily.
1222243. Mahaut, md. Raymond I, viscount of Turenne.
12222431. Boson II, d. 1143, viscount of Turenne.
12222432. Marguerite, md 1st, Ademar IV, visc. of Limoges.
122224321. daughter.
122224322. Ademar V, viscount of Limoges.
12222432* Marguerite md. 2nd, Guillaume IV, ct. Angouleme.
122224323. Wulgrin III Taillefer, ct. Angouleme.
122224324. Guillaume V Taillefer, ct. Angouleme.
122224325. Aymar Taillefer, d. 1218, ct. Angouleme.
122224326. Griset, d. young.
122224327. Foulques, d. young.
122224328. Adelmodis, md. 1st, Amanieu V, sire d'Albret.
1222243281. Amanieu VI, sire d'Albret.
1222243282. Pincelle, md. Roger d'Armagnac.
12222432821. Geraud V d'Armagnac, md. 1260, Mathe de Bearn.
12222432822. Amanieu d'Armagnac, archbishop of Auch.
12222432823. Arnaud-Bernard d'Armagnac, lord of Aure.
1222243283. Mathe, md. NN, viscount of Tartas.
122224328* Adelmodis md. 2nd, Bernard, viscount of Brosse.
1222244. Margaret, md. Henry de Newburgh, earl of Warwick.
12222441. Roger, d. 12 June 1153, earl of Warwick.
12222442. Robert, d. 30 Aug 1158.
12222443. Henry.
12222444. Geoffrey.
12222445. Rotrode, bishop of Evreux.
12222446. daughter.
12222447. daughter.
122225. Marguerite, md. Hugues I, ct. Clermont.
1222251. Gui.
1222252. Hugues Pauper.
1222253. Renaud, ct. Clermont.
1222254. Ermentrude, md. Hugh d'Avranches, earl of Chester.
12222541. Richard, d. 1120, earl of Chester.
1222255. Aelis or Adeliza, md. 1st, Gilbert, lord of Clare.
12222551. Richard de Clare, d. 15 Apr 1136.
12222552. Gilbert Strongbow, earl of Pembroke.
12222553. Walter Fitz Gilbert, crusader.
12222554. Baldwin Fitz Gilbert.
12222555. Rohese de Clare, md. Braderon de Monmouth.
122225551. Gilbert, living 1177.
122225552. James, living 1184.
122225553. Rose, md. Hugh de Lacy, lord of Meath.
1222255531. Walter, lord of Meath..
1222255532. Gilbert, living 27 Dec 1222.
1222255533. Robert, d. before 1 Jan 1215.
1222255534. Hugh, d. 1242, earl of Ulster.
1222255535. Elayne, md. Richard de Beaufou.
12222555351. Richard de Beaufou.
1222255536. Alice, md. 1st, Roger Pipard.
12222555361. William Pipard, md. Alde or Aude de Hereford.
1222255536* Alice md. 2nd, Geoffrey de Marisco.
1222255537. daughter, md. William Fitz Alan.
12222555371. William Fitz Alan, md. Mary de Erdington.
12222555372. John Fitz Alan, d. 1240.
12222555373. Agnes Fitz Alan, md. Philip de Kyme.
122225553731. Simon de Kyme, md. Maud de Ferrers.
122225553732. William de Kyme, d. 1259, md. Lucy.
12222555374. Pernell Fitz Alan, md. Walter de Dunstanville.
122225553741. Walter de Dunstanville, d. 14 Jan 1270.
122225553742. John.
12222556. Alice de Clare, md. Aubry II de Vere.
122225561. Aubrey III de Vere, first earl of Oxford.
122225562. Geoffrey de Vere, d. 1170, lord of Clun.
122225563. Robert.
122225564. William.
122225565. Gilbert.
122225566. Alice de Vere, md. 1st, Robert de Essex,
122225566* Alice md. 2nd, Roger Fitz Richard.
1222255661. Robert Fitz Roger, md. Margaret de Cheney.
1222255662. Alice, md. John, constable of Chester.
12222556621. Roger de Lacy, d. 1211, constable of Chester.
12222556622. Eustace de Cester.
12222556623. Richard.
12222556624. Geoffrey.
12222556625. Peter.
12222556626. Alice.
122225567. Rohese, md. 1st, Geoffrey, earl of Essex.
1222255671. Ernulf de Mandeville, d. 1178.
1222255672. Geoffrey de Mandeville, earl of Essex.
1222255673. William de Mandeville, earl of Essex.
1222255674. Robert de Mandeville.
122225567* Rohese md. 2nd Payn de Beauchamp.
1222255675. Simon de Beauchamp, d. 1208, baron of Bedford.
122225568. Juliane, md. 1st, Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk.
1222255681. Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk.
1222255682. Hugh Bigod.
122225568* Juliane md. 2nd, Walkelin Maminot.
122225569. daughter, md. Roger de Raimes, lord of Rayne.
1222255691. William, d. 1195, lord of Rayne.
12222557. Margaret de Clare, md. William de Montfichet.
122225571. Gilbert, md. Aveline de Lucy.
12222558. Adeliza de Clare, md. William de Percy.
122225581. Alan, d.s.p.
122225582. Maud, md. William de Newburgh, earl of Warwick.
122225583. Agnes, d. 1205, md. Josceline de Louvaine.
1222255831. Henry Percy, md. Isabel de Bruce.
1222255832. Richard, d. 1244, md. Agnes de Neville.
1222255833. Robert.
1222255834. Josceline.
1222255835. Roger.
1222255836. Alice.
1222255837. Eleanor.
1222255838. Maud Percy, md. John de Daiville.
12222558381. Henry de Daiville.
1222255* Aelis md. 2nd, Bouchard de Montmorency.
12222559. Hervey de Montmorency, constable of Ireland.
1222256. daughter, md. Mathieu I, ct. Beaumont-sur-Oise.
12222561. Mathieu II, d. 1174/7, ct. Beaumont-sur-oise.
12222562. Hugues I, viscount of Beaumont-sur-Oise.
122226. Ermentrude, md. Thibaut, ct. Reynel.
1222261. Hughues.
1222262. Hildegarde, md. NN.
12222621. Ebles de Buxi.
122227. Ade, md. 1st, Godefroy de Guise.
1222271. Gui de Guise.
122227* Ade md. 2nd, Gauthier d'Ath.
1222272. Beatrix, md. Arnulf of Hainaut.
12222721. Eustache I, lord of Roeulx.
1222273. Ide, md. Rasse III de Gavre, ct. Everghem.
12222731. Rasse IV de Gavre, d. 1150.
122227* Ade md. 3rd, Thierry d'Avesnes.
122228. Adele, md. Arnoul, ct. Chiny.
1222281. Otto II, d. 1124/31, ct. Chiny.
1222282. Alberon, d. 2 Nov 1158, bishop of Verdun.
1222283. Hedwige, md. Dodon de Cons.
1222284. daughter, md. NN.
12222841. Arnoul, archdeacon of Treves.
122229. Aelis, md. Foulques de Bourgogne.
1222291. Ebles, lord of Mont-Jura and La Sarraz.
1222292. Barthelemy, bishop of Laon, 1131-51.
1222293. Ermentrude, md. Henri I, ct. Grandpre.
12222931. Henri II, ct. Grandpre.
12222932. Adelaide, md. 1st, Godefroid, ct. Durbuil.
12222932* Adelaide md. 2nd, Godefroid, d'Aissa.
1222294. daughter, md. Archambaud, viscout of Mascuns.
1222295. daughter, md. Trombert d'Alteville.
1222296. daughter, md. Pagan de Sancci.
1222297. daughter, md. Burlo de Mureno.
1222* Beatrix md. 2nd. Manasses Calva-asina.
12223. Manasses, archbishop of Rheims.
12224. Gui de Neufchatel.
12225. Adele, abbess of St. Jean.
122* Hedwige md. 2nd, Hugh II, ct. Dagsburg.
123. Gisele, md. Hugues I, ct. Ponthieu.
1231. Enguerrand I, d. 1046, ct. Ponthieu.
124? Advise md. Renaud I, ct. Nevers.
Rik Vigeland
I can't say whether this line is strictly a male line (it bears some
investigation), but the last monarch of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie,
claimed to be 225th in descent from King Solomon by his son Menelik,
whose mother was the Queen of Sheba. Menelik was, in that way, Solomon's
oldest son.
The customs of the Jews in Ethiopia are quite different than those of
Jews in Israel, indicating that they moved away from Israel in the
approximate time of Solomon. This lends some credence to the legend.
For more detail, you can see articles 1-3 at:
http://www.cais.com:80/nacoej/index.html
This is also covered in "The Sign and the Seal" by Graham Hancock,
in his quest to show that Menelik smuggled the Ark of the Covenant
with him to Ethiopia.
Rik Vigeland
ri...@wv.mentorg.com
Diane Riepe
Does anyone know what important thing Petrus Waldus did around the
1200's? This name came from a German translation. Is the name
different in our English texts? If you have any ideas, please e-mail me
because I don't regularly read this newsgroup.
Thanks,
Diane Riepe
Rodolphe Audette
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> Matrilineal descendants of Gerloc, daughter of Rollo of Normandy
>
> 1. Gerloc of Normandy, md. 935 Guillaume I, ct. Poitou.
> 11. Guillaume II, d. 995/6, ct. Poitou.
> 12. Adelaide, md. Hugues Capet, k. France.
> 121. Robert II, b. 971, d. 20 July 1031, k. France.
As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
Gerloc's mother. If not, who was? But if so, then Robert II of France
would be descended from Charlemagne. Now I have long thought that the
first Capetian king who was descended from Charlemagne was Philippe
Auguste, by his mother Adèle de Champagne. Can someone clarify this,
please?
Thank you.
Rodolphe Audette
Todd A. Farmerie
Rodolphe Audette wrote:
> =
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> =
> > Matrilineal descendants of Gerloc, daughter of Rollo of Normandy
> >
> > 1. Gerloc of Normandy, md. 935 Guillaume I, ct. Poitou.
> > 11. Guillaume II, d. 995/6, ct. Poitou.
> > 12. Adelaide, md. Hugues Capet, k. France.
> > 121. Robert II, b. 971, d. 20 July 1031, k. France.
> =
> As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
> Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
> Gerloc's mother. If not, who was? But if so, then Robert II of France
> would be descended from Charlemagne. Now I have long thought that the
> first Capetian king who was descended from Charlemagne was Philippe
> Auguste, by his mother Ad=E8le de Champagne. Can someone clarify this,
> please?
Poitou itself traces back to Charlemagne, (straight back the male line
to - Gerard was it? - who married a daughter of Chuck) so Richard
descends independant of Gerloc's mother.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Rodolphe Audette wrote:
> As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
> Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
> Gerloc's mother. If not, who was? But if so, then Robert II of France
> would be descended from Charlemagne. Now I have long thought that the
> first Capetian king who was descended from Charlemagne was Philippe
> Auguste, by his mother Ad=E8le de Champagne. Can someone clarify this,
> please?
> =
> Thank you.
> =
> Rodolphe Audette
=
The first Capetian King who was descended from Charlemagne was Hugh Capet
himself, King of France, i.e. the first "French sovereign" in the dynasty.
His father, Hugh the Great of Neustria, was descended through his mother
Beatrice de Vermandois back to Pepin I of Italy, Charlemagne's son.
Hugh Capet, King of France, was the fifth [5th] Great-Grandson of C=
harlemagne.
Cheers, Spence Hines =
-- =
D. Spencer Hines-----Exitus acta probat----President George Washington
(1732-1799)
D. Spencer Hines
At 09:05 PM 11/22/96 -0800, you wrote:
>As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
>Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
>Gerloc's mother. If not, who was? But if so, then Robert II of France
>would be descended from Charlemagne. Now I have long thought that the
>first Capetian king who was descended from Charlemagne was Philippe
>Auguste, by his mother Adhle de Champagne. Can someone clarify this,
>please?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Rodolphe Audette
The first Capetian King who is descended from Charlemagne is Hugh Capet
himself, King of France, i.e. the first "French sovereign" in the dynasty.
His father, Hugh the Great of Neustria, is descended through his mother
Beatrice de Vermandois back to Pepin of Italy, Charlemagne's son.
Hugh Capet, King of France, was the fifth Great-grandson of Charlemagne.
Cheers, Spence Hines
John Yohalem
> As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
> Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
> Gerloc's mother. If not, who was? But if so, then Robert II of France
> would be descended from Charlemagne. Now I have long thought that the
> first Capetian king who was descended from Charlemagne was Philippe
> Auguste, by his mother Adhle de Champagne. Can someone clarify this,
> please?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Rodolphe Audette
I believe there was such a marriage, but Rollo didn't care for her and
ignored her; his children were by a Danish concubine.
I believe Louis VI was descended from Charlemagne through his mother.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
ic
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, John Yohalem wrote:
> > As per the 911 treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte, a daughter of Charles the
> > Simple's was to marry Rollo. Was this woman (I don't know her name)
> > Gerloc's mother.
> >
> > Rodolphe Audette
>
> I believe there was such a marriage, but Rollo didn't care for her and
> ignored her; his children were by a Danish concubine.
>
> Jean Coeur de Lapin
>
>
I think the only source for this marriage is Dudo de St.Quentin: its not
impossible, for Charles the Fat gave Gisela illegitimate dau of
Lothar II to the norman Godfrid in 882. However Charles had only
married in 906, so any daughter must have been tiny. It seems unlikely
that such a marriage took place. I suspect Dudo is either confusing
this earlier marriage, or that he wanted to invent Carolingian ancestry
for the dukes.
Stewart Baldwin
dol...@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
[snip]
>Fair question, but the fact is the Irish system of salic succession
>prevented any family representation from passing through female lines.
>In fact, wives are rarely mentioned in the early Irish pedigrees. This
>follows from pre-Christian times when marriages as we know them were
>non-existent and from the fact that an Irish chief, under the system of
>tanistry, was required to name his successor, which technically need
>not have been a son by a "regular" spouse, nor his eldest son, nor even
>a son at all. It could have been any male-line relative up to the
>degree of second cousin (the chiefly "derbhfine", or kin group). We
>can assume that pedigrees were very well-kept to allow for these
>contingencies.
The old idea that royal succession in early Ireland was confined to
the "derbfine" (i.e., a man and his sons, grandsons, and
great-grandsons) of earlier kings is simply not true. There are
simply too many well documented examples in which this was not the
case. For example, see the detailed study on the succession of the
kings of Ui Chennselaig which appears in "Irish Regnal Succession - A
Reappraisal" [Studia Hibernica 11 (1971), pp. 7-39], which showed
quite a few examples of kings who were many generations removed from
previous kings. Ui Chennselaig is not unique in this sense. Most of
the Irish petty kingdoms whose succession and genealogy is well enough
known to do the study in the first place show examples of succession
outside the royal derbfine. The truth is that political power
mattered much more than any supposed rule of succession, and that any
man, no matter how far removed genealogically, could succeed as king
if he built a sufficient power base. Of course, most such successions
were within the royal derbfine, because it was relatives of kings (and
previous kings) who most often had the political connections needed to
rise to power. Even this was usually the case, there were quite a few
successions of kings whose official genealogies (real or faked) put
them well outside the derbfine.
As for the claim that "We can assume that pedigrees were very
well-kept to allow for these contingencies", it would be nice to see
what kind of evidence this claim is based on, since the surviving
pedigrees seem to indicate that this was not the case. It is true
that there were some families who had well kept pedigrees, but there
are also families (such as the Dal Cais) whose pedigrees were faked at
a late date. In fact, it is more likely that many kings during the
historical period never had their pedigrees written down until after
they had become king (if it was done at all). For new kings who were
very closely related to recent kings, the relationships would be well
known by many, and there would be little chance of a mistake in the
genealogies. However, for new kings who were more distantly related
(say seven or eight generations down from a previous king), the
generations would probably be filled in as well as they could, with
little chance of detecting errors in the part that was more than a
hundred years earlier. A good example of this is the succession of
Tadg mac Diarmata as king of Ui Chennselaig in 858. (This is a good
example, because Tadg's brother Cairpre was ancestor in the direct
male line of Diarmait Mac Murchada, father of Eve of Leinster, who
carried the Irish royal blood into the English nobility.) The
official genealogies place Tadg as six generations in descent from the
Ui Chennselaig king Faelan mac Silain, who, if historical, must have
lived in the mid sixth century (Faelan's third successor died in 605).
This gives an average of about fifty years per generation over six
generations, which is large enough to cause considerable suspicion.
If there is any truth to the claim of descent from Faelan, then the
pedigree is almost certainly missing some generations, and therefore
should be rejected, since there is no good evidence to show where the
pedigree is faulty. It is possible that there were quite a few kings
who were usurpers, and had a suitable genealogy invented for
themselves after the fact.
Stewart Baldwin
William Addams Reitwiesner
ri...@wv.mentorg.com (Rik Vigeland) wrote:
>I can't say whether this line is strictly a male line (it bears some
>investigation), but the last monarch of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie,
>claimed to be 225th in descent from King Solomon by his son Menelik,
>whose mother was the Queen of Sheba. Menelik was, in that way, Solomon's
>oldest son.
*Burke's Royal Families of the World*, Vol. II [London: Burke's, 1980],
pp. 38-55, contains material on the Imperial House of Ethiopia. Haile
Selassie's male-line ancestry is not shown beyond his great-grandfather,
Dejazmatch Wolde Malakot (p. 53). Haile Selassie's paternal grandmother,
Tenagne Worq, was a daughter (by a concubine) of Sahle Selassie, King of
Shoa (d. 1847). Sahle Selassie's patrilineal line is shown back to
Yekuno Amulak (d. 1285), and from there back to Solomon the text uses the
words "tradition", "alleged", "according to legend", and so on.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Mary and Tom Dix
Alan ( http://www.vaxxine.com/family_memories ) will work better for those
like me who like to cut and paste addresses out of e-mail. Nice commercial
but the links to other pages didn't work sorry, I tried.
Mary
>><snip>
>> If you want me to list in order the lineage from Cormac MacAirt 254AD to
>> The O'Neill 1996AD I'm not about do do it here...I've done it once
>> already (http:www.vaxxine.com/family_memories)and you can find it on the
>> web elsewhere.
>>
>Scythia and from St. Patrick. I think not.
>
>
Mary Cofer Dix
Too many ancestors and so little time! Oh but what a merry chase.
Researching Cofer, Early, Bilbro, Ferrell, Gildersleeve, Lanneau, George,
Witten, Swofford, Chapman, Bumgardner, Newton, Logan, Bridges, Bedford....
Dix, Eden, Smith, Rhodes. O'Connor (O'Connell), Senita, Kopchick, Dvorchak,
Cimba..... Etc. and on and on with love.
Todd A. Farmerie
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> As for the claim that "We can assume that pedigrees were very
> well-kept to allow for these contingencies", it would be nice to see
> what kind of evidence this claim is based on, since the surviving
> pedigrees seem to indicate that this was not the case. It is true
> that there were some families who had well kept pedigrees, but there
> are also families (such as the Dal Cais) whose pedigrees were faked at
> a late date. In fact, it is more likely that many kings during the
> historical period never had their pedigrees written down until after
> they had become king (if it was done at all). For new kings who were
> very closely related to recent kings, the relationships would be well
> known by many, and there would be little chance of a mistake in the
> genealogies. However, for new kings who were more distantly related
> (say seven or eight generations down from a previous king), the
> generations would probably be filled in as well as they could, with
> little chance of detecting errors in the part that was more than a
> hundred years earlier.
I have long thought the Wessex pedigree, particularly for Ine and Egbert
back to Woden, might be an example of this, as well as several of the
other early Anglo Saxon lineages, like Mercia (and lets not forget what
has been done to the Ynglings).
taf
Leonard M. Keane
In <329CBA...@po.cwru.edu> "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
writes:
todd:
I, not Stewart, said "We can assume that pedigrees were very well-kept
to allow for these contingencies".
I believe this must be by and large so. To assume otherwise would be
to claim that fraud in royal dynsaties was closer to the norm than
accuracy in pedigree keeping. Speaking of the Celtic realms, of which I
am more familiar, all of the royal households had their family bards
who were ranked second only to the king within the clan structure. This
is another one of those ancient "noble" professions. Genealogies, if
not always written down, which I find very difficult to believe, were
at least always committed to memory by bards whose sole duty was to
keep the royal lineage flawlessly preserved. I suppose critics will say
they were co-conspirators in deception!
Of course there is the DalCais example, and Brian Boru was widely
regarded as a usurper. There was some funny stuff going on with the
early Eoghanacht line as well. But we know about it and such things
are often evident to scholars. Even the succession feuds such as those
among the OCathain of Ulster, where at least 20 potential heirs to the
Chiefship of this princely family were killed within about a generation
in the 16th and early 17th centuries, the line is well established and
the feud probably helped documentation to a considerable extent by
causing the annalists to record the deaths and related events
(Certainly not my recommended way of doing it!).
I doubt if a long established royal family, such as O'Neill or
MacCarthy, could deliberately falsify their pedigrees and get away with
it. What reason could they have in doing so, especially with the
fierce pride in lineage and family? Tacking on a false ancestry would
not be binding, at least not in ancient Ireland. Conn O'Neill tried
something of the sort by naming a reputed son, born to a woman married
to another man at the time, as his heir. Completely impossible under
the Irish system of succession.
I think if records were more complete we would find far fewer instances
of falsification in royal lines than may be suspected.
I am curious what monarch might have been seven or eight generations
removed from the previous king.
Len.
Stewart Baldwin
dol...@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
This is probably true. Pedigrees are available for Ine and his
immediate predecessors, but not for the kings between Ine and Egbert,
so it looks like someone brought the pedigrees up to date sometime
during the reign of Ine, and that nobody bothered to do that for the
later reigns. When they finally got around to doing it for Egbert,
the pedigrees of Egbert's immediate predecessors had apparently been
forgotten.
>todd:
>I, not Stewart, said "We can assume that pedigrees were very well-kept
>to allow for these contingencies".
As I stated before, it would be nice to see the evidence on which this
statement is based, since the recent scholarly literature gives a
quite different picture (citations below).
>I believe this must be by and large so. To assume otherwise would be
>to claim that fraud in royal dynsaties was closer to the norm than
>accuracy in pedigree keeping. Speaking of the Celtic realms, of which I
>am more familiar, all of the royal households had their family bards
>who were ranked second only to the king within the clan structure. This
>is another one of those ancient "noble" professions. Genealogies, if
>not always written down, which I find very difficult to believe, were
>at least always committed to memory by bards whose sole duty was to
>keep the royal lineage flawlessly preserved. I suppose critics will say
>they were co-conspirators in deception!
First, it is quite well documented that two millenia of the official
pedigrees (the "Milesian" pedigrees) were deliberately fabricated, in
an extremely artificail scheme intended to justify the current
political status quo by putting forth genealogies which showed that
the current political situation had existed from time immemorial (see
references below, especially the two articles by Kelleher). So much
for the "noble" bard who was supposed to keep the lineage flawlessly
preserved.
As for the genealogies being preserved as you claim, let's examine the
evidence. If the bards were going to make sure that only those of the
correct lineage were going to succeed to the throne, then they would
have to keep track of ALL descendants in the direct male line of the
numerous relevant families. So, where are these genealogies? If they
were written down, then what happened to them? Most of the surviving
pedigrees start with a king and trace his ancestors backwards.
Sometimes, the ancestry of a handful of members of collateral lines of
importance are also traced. However, it is quite rare (in the early
medieval period which I am addressing here) to find a pedigree which
attempts to trace all descendants of a given king, and those that
exist are late, and don't go for many generations. Although many
records have been lost, the odds are that what survives at least
represents a reasonable cross section of the whole, and what survives
does not support the widespread existence of the types of pedigrees
which you are claiming here.
>Of course there is the DalCais example, and Brian Boru was widely
>regarded as a usurper. There was some funny stuff going on with the
>early Eoghanacht line as well. But we know about it and such things
>are often evident to scholars. Even the succession feuds such as those
>among the OCathain of Ulster, where at least 20 potential heirs to the
>Chiefship of this princely family were killed within about a generation
>in the 16th and early 17th centuries, the line is well established and
>the feud probably helped documentation to a considerable extent by
>causing the annalists to record the deaths and related events
>(Certainly not my recommended way of doing it!).
A seventeenth century example is not particularly relevant to the
early medieval period which has been the main topic of this thread.
>I doubt if a long established royal family, such as O'Neill or
>MacCarthy, could deliberately falsify their pedigrees and get away with
>it. What reason could they have in doing so, especially with the
>fierce pride in lineage and family? Tacking on a false ancestry would
>not be binding, at least not in ancient Ireland. Conn O'Neill tried
>something of the sort by naming a reputed son, born to a woman married
>to another man at the time, as his heir. Completely impossible under
>the Irish system of succession.
A long established royal family doesn't need to worry about falsifying
themselves a new pedigree, as they already have one. It is the
successful new guy that has a clear motive to attach his pedigree to
the previous royal dynasty, even if he wasn't a part of that family.
The above example is not a good one, because the genealogies which are
the most suspicious are those which have several number of generations
of unknowns between the current king and the one from whom descent is
claimed. A man who falsely claims to be the son or grandson of a
previous monarch is probably going to have trouble getting people to
believe him, because of all of the people who know differently, but
one who claims to be a fourth or fifth cousin is less likely to be
questioned, because nobody actually knew the people involved. The
motive for the new king to falsify his lineage is clear (wealth and
power), and a bard who was unwilling to cooperate might not be around
for long.
>I think if records were more complete we would find far fewer instances
>of falsification in royal lines than may be suspected.
Actually, I think that the number of times from the sixth century and
on for which we have a deliberately falsified pedigree form a
relatively small proportion of the whole, as opposed to the rampant
falsification of the fifth century and earlier pedigrees. However,
that doesn't mean that the pedigrees can necessarily be trusted. As I
stated before, it appears that in most cases no attempt was made to
write down a man's pedigree until after he became king or attained
some other important status. If he was a close relatve of a previous
king, then it would be relatively easy to get the correct pedigree,
but if he was only distantly related, they would do the best that they
could on the information available, which might not be accurate, even
if the attempt were honest. The case of Tadg mac Diarmata, which I
have mentioned before, is a good example. I doubt that his pedigree
was deliberately falsified. Rather, it is more likely that his family
had a tradition (probably correct) that they were descended from the
Ui Chennselaig king Faelan mac Silain, but that the number of
generations was large enough that the exact line of descent had been
forgotten. When he became king, and his brother's descendants
established a powerful dynasy, at some point a genealogy was written
down for them, using the best information available at the time (which
apparently wasn't very good).
>I am curious what monarch might have been seven or eight generations
>removed from the previous king.
Here are several pre-Norman examples I found from the genealogical
tables in "A New History of Ireland" which are seven or more
generations removed from a previous king (the ones outside the
"derbfine" being far too numerous to list):
Ui Neill "high kings":
Domnall Midi 743-63 - 7 generations removed from Diarmait mac Cerbaill
Congalach Cnogba, 944-56 - 10 from Aed Slaine
Ulster:
Cathusach 735-49 - 7 from Eochaid mac Condlai
Leinster:
Donnchad mac Gilla Patraic 1033-39 - usurper from Osraige dynasty
Diarmait mac Mael na mBo 1042-72 - 15 from Crimthann
Munster:
Fedelmid ?-590/3 - 7 from Conall Corc
Cenn Faelad 859-72 - 7 from Eochaid mac Oengusa
Cormac mac Cuillenain 902-8 - 10 from Oengus mad Nad Froich
Lorcan 944 - 10 from Colcu mac Failbe Fland
Cellacahn Caisel 944-54 - 7 from Colcu mac Failbe Fland
Meal Fothardaig 954-? - 10 from Fingen
Dub Da Bairenn 957-9 - 16 from Conall Corc
Mael Muad 976-8 - 14 from Fedelmid
Connacht:
Fergal Ua Ruairc 956-66 - 15 from Daui Tengae Umai
And this is just from the major kingdoms, and does not include the
huge number of kings descended from 4, 5, or 6 generations (also
outside the debfine) or the kings whose ancestry is unknown (many of
whom would probably belong in the above list). Since less is known of
the succession in the smaller kingdoms, it is harder to do a list for
them, but in O'Corrain's study on the Ui Chennselaig kings, 20 percent
of the successions were of men whose father, grandfather, and great
grandfather had not been king (plus another seven percent of unknown
lineage who may belong in this group). Of these, the most exteme case
was Tadg mac Diarmata, mentioned above, who was 6 generations (and 300
years) removed according to the official genealogy, which means that
it was probably significantly more than six generations, since the
pedigree is chronologically suspect.
Stewart Baldwin
References:
Donnchadh O' Corrain, "Irish Regnal Succession - A Reappraisal",
Studia Hibernica vol. 11 (1971), 7-39.
John V. Kelleher, "Early Irish History and Pseudo-History", Studia
Hibernica vol. 3 (1963), 113-127.
John V. Kelleher, "The Pre-Norman Irish genealogies", Irish Historical
Studies, vol. 16 (1968/9), 138-53.
David N. Dumville, "Kingship, Genealogies and Regnal Lists", in "Early
Medieval Kingship" (ed. P. H. Sawyer & I. N. Wood, 1977), 72-104.
Gearoid Mac Niocaill, "Ireland before the Vikings" (The Gill History
of Ireland, vol. 1, 1972, Dublin).
Moody, Martin, Byrne, eds., "A New History of Ireland", vol 9 (Maps,
Genealogies, Lists) (Oxford, 1984).