Any living male descendant of Charlemagne ?

[Denis Beauregard]

Hi all:

Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
Charlemagne from the main entries.

https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
what is found on this site.

So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

[joseph cook]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
> Charlemagne from the main entries.
>
> https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10
>
> I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
> if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
> generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
> to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
> what is found on this site.
>
> So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
> on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

To answer these three questions: No. No. No.
There are no known recent male-only Charlemagne lines.

--Joe C

[joseph cook]

Also..

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:

> Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.

There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
--Joe C

[taf]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
> Charlemagne from the main entries.
>
> https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10
>
> I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
> if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
> generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
> to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
> what is found on this site.
>
> So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
> on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?
>
> Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
> 2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
> have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?

The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.

taf

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
>> Charlemagne from the main entries.
>>

[...]

>> Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
>> 2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
>> have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?
>
>
>The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a
junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
>
>As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.

I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
(they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is
possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5
from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are
male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is
around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in
the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from
that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the
possibility.

Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with
many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more
utopic).

[Johnny Brananas]

I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).

I guess we are just trying to separate proven from unproven?

[Will Johnson]

The question here isn't descendant, as we are all probably in one or the other.
But male-line-only. I.E. the Y-DNA test, not the Autosomal DNA tests

Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.

So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence.
So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.

*However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.

And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths

And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
Extremely poor to mildly possible

[Johnny Brananas]

Yes, MALE-LINE only is what I meant. Shouldn't probability indicate there are some still around, given the huge number of descents of all Europeans from Charlemagne?

[taf]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:46:11 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Yes, MALE-LINE only is what I meant. Shouldn't probability indicate there are some still around, given the huge number of descents of all Europeans from Charlemagne?

Setting aside that the whole 'everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne' claim is itself an overstatement, male- or female- line descent doesn't work the same way as general descent, and the fact that someone has a lot of descendants is no real indication of how their male line fares over time. I would suggest that the number of male children who had issue is a much better indicator of who living at the dawn of the 9th century is going to have surviving male lines than how many total descendants they have, but it is all so random that even that would have realtively weak correlation.

That said, I think it likely that Charlemagne does have surviving male-line descent because of the 'Mel Brooks factor' ('it's good to be the king' - with so many generations of Carolingian royalty, there were probably many more sons born to each generation of Carolingian monarch than are documented).

taf

[taf]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:39:03 PM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:

> I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
> with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
> (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
> involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is
> possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
> and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

But when your 'paper trail' is simply a couple of modern families claiming that their undocumented origins must trace to Charlemagne because . . . well, just because, any pretense of beign able to triangulate is lost. The best you could do from DNA is to prove the lines ahd a common ancestor living at that time, but there is no way of identifying that person. Even with one line ahving a paper trail, and assuming that it is accurate, you still couldn't triangulate to prove it was Charlemagne who was the ancestor of the other line. The mutation rate is too imprecise and the mutations themselves too infrequent to give you generation-specificity in the absence of a trustworthy papertrail for both lines, and then what do you need the DNA for. The other line could descend from Carloman or Bernard or Drogo. with the common ancestor being one of the earlier pepins or Martel. Without such a paper trail for either line, there just is no basis whatsoever for identifying the shared ancestor.

taf

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 27 May 2022 13:40:03 -0700 (PDT), Will Johnson
<wjhons...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>The question here isn't descendant, as we are all probably in one or the other.
>But male-line-only. I.E. the Y-DNA test, not the Autosomal DNA tests
>
>Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.
>
>So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
>And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence.
>So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.
>
>*However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.
>
>And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths
>
>And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
>Extremely poor to mildly possible

With a rather small population like New France, it is usually
possible to get a reference signature from 2 descendants, and
ideally from 3 or more. I think we are 6 Beauregard who were
tested for Y DNA.

But indeed, in about 5% of cases, the NPE lineage is found,
often because there is a triangulation upward or because 2
descendants have different lineages. However, if you reach
nobility, then you have a longer paper trail and if one
lineage is in France, the other in England or Germany or
Spain, then odds of NPE is very small.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, a favorite of Louis XIV, claimed to be an agnatic descendant of the Carolingians through Eudes de Vermandois, the Insane, who was disinherited but this is believed to be a fraud.

[Peter Stewart]

Also a fictitious lineage surnamed 'Sohier de Vermandois' has persisted
in the literature since the 17th century, based on a series of false
charters first printed by Le Carpentier in 1661 that he probably
concocted himself in an attempt to substantiate the alleged Carolingian
agnatic ancestry of his patron Constantin Sohier, who paid for the
publication of the work after receiving an Imperial barony in 1658.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
>> Charlemagne from the main entries.
>>
>> https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10
>>
>> I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
>> if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
>> generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
>> to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
>> what is found on this site.
>>
>> So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
>> on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?
>>
>> Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
>> 2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
>> have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?
>
>
> The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of
_Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as
probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of
that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the
late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case
for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur
in 1989. It is not universally accepted.

[Peter Stewart]

It's also goodish to be the concubine or illegitimate offspring of a
king, so that there was strong incentive for claims of royal paternity
to be made and ascertained (or otherwise) in the lifetime of the
supposed father. If we don't have documented evidence for this, it is
lost history that no foreseeable DNA analysis could establish - if
anyone frets over learning the truth of this, it would make as much
fact-finding sense to experiment with time travel.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for this, Peter.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis?

[Peter Stewart]

I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
fully convincing proof.

The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it.

Peter Stewart

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.
>
> So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
> And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence.
> So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.
>
> *However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.
>
> And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths
>
> And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
> Extremely poor to mildly possible

While it is true that there is a lot of really bad Y-DNA "research" out there (sitting alongside the flood of really bad paper trail "research"), it is wrong to suggest that most Y-DNA research is that bad. In fact, the basic principles of Y-DNA genealogical research are quite straightforward for those who have the necessary skills in genealogical research, basic genetics, and logical thinking. The main stumbling block for serious researchers is the lack of usable data, and the lack of a good Y-DNA alternative to Gedmatch (as far as I know) doesn't help. However, if you have enough tested descendants with good paper trails, then much can be done.

That being said, it is absurd to suggest that Y-DNA evidence could be used to verify a male-line descent from Chartlemagne, or even to suggest (assuming that well-documented "ancient DNA" is not a factor) that an approximate Y-DNA signature for Charlemagne could be determined on the available evidence. For that, you would at the very least need Y-DNA from at least two testees who had believable direct-line paper trails back to two different sons of Charlemagne, and even that would only be enough to regard the connection as plausible. (I guess you could argue that two well documented brothers only two or three generations removed from Charlemagne in the male line would be close enough.) Since this scenario is nowhere near to being true, Y-DNA is not a reasonable factor in the question of the thread.

In a scenario from Fantasyland, suppose that you somehow had a pristine DNA sample that was 100% guaranteed to come from THE Charlemagne. Even then, getting a Y-DNA match with this sample would not show that you were a male-line descendant of Charlemagne, only that you and he shared a direct male-line ancestor who was probably not too many generations removed from him. Only if you also had samples from his brother and several other close male-line relatives which showed that Charlemagne had a specific mutation would you have a reasonable test for likely male-line descent from Charlemagne.

By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof that this claim is wrong.

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart]

On 29-May-22 2:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

<snip>

> By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof that this claim is wrong.

This will be the easiest $100 I ever made - as a newly-minted onomastics
fanatic, I can determine beyond doubt that the name Balwdin proves you
must be an agnatic descendant of Charles the Bald.

Peter (also Bald) Stewart

[joseph cook]

No, actually these flow in opposite directions at this point. Every year, it is more likely that "everyone is descended from charlemagne" (the universal ancestors point moves ever forward in the future).
However, every year is it _less_ likely that an all-male live survives.

--Joe C

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:05:17 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> > I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).
> No, actually these flow in opposite directions at this point. Every year, it is more likely that "everyone is descended from charlemagne" (the universal ancestors point moves ever forward in the future).
> However, every year is it _less_ likely that an all-male live survives.

The first statement is valid, but the second is not true. As some male lines die out, the percentages of others increase slighly in compensation (as do the actual number if the population of males is increasing). So, Of all of Charlemagne's male contemporaries, the male lines of most have already died out, and as time advances, some increase and some decrease (or die out). Without evidence, it is impossible to tell which category is relevant to Charlemagne.

Stewart Baldwin

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:29:56 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 29-May-22 2:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof that this claim is wrong.
> This will be the easiest $100 I ever made - as a newly-minted onomastics
> fanatic, I can determine beyond doubt that the name Balwdin proves you
> must be an agnatic descendant of Charles the Bald.
>
> Peter (also Bald) Stewart

Are you sure that the descent is in the direct male line? After all, the daughter of Charles was married to a Baldwin.

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart]

Charlemagne's heir Louis I tried to avert male-line descents through his
illegitimate paternal half-brothers by having them tonsured in 817/18,
so that not only natural probabilities have applied from the start in
this case.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, I am quite sure that you owe me $100.

In the onomastics cult that I joined yesterday in order to win this
prize, the default setting is _always_ male-line descent from the most
famous namesake, and of course names and indeed syllables were strictly
proprietry within lineages. These are articles of faith handed down from
Joseph Depoin and Maurice Chaume, not open to question by nasty little
people like the Peter Stewart of the past.

As for Baldwin of Flanders, note that his father was Odoacer, reputedly
son of Lideric - names that never again occur in the comital dynasty of
Flanders, showing beyond doubt that the exception proves the rule.

Baldwin I and Charles the Bald's daughter had a son named Baldwin the
Bald, the latter element directly after the child's maternal grandfather
and the former a diminutive of this adopted by his father plainly as a
tribute to the Carolingians on reconciling with the king. This the
onomastic patrimony of Lideric and Oddoacer was eliminated for ever, a
twist of the rules that is otherwise unaccountable.

Get with the program.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Is the onomastic argument something like, these noble families
called a son Louis to indicate a carolingian descent? Why not call him
Charles after Charlemagne if that is the case, why Louis? Apart from Louis of
Chiny [d1025] there are other Louis in the 11th century, that is well after the
expiry of the Carolingian male line and their loss of kingship.

Louis of Mousson 1042-71
Louis the Bearded ancestor of the Landgraves of Thuringia 1039-1056

Neither of them seem to have had a carolingian descent.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Looking for commonsense in the arguments of people who think they can
trace medieval genealogies by matching names to ancestry is like hoping
a rap artist is going to understand the difference between verse and
doggerel - they just don't have it in them.

The name Louis was adopted by the Carolingians as a PR exercise, like
the name Edward by the Plantagenets, and of course the Vermandois line
was (a) not descended from any Louis in their agnatic clan and (b) did
not use the names Charles, Carloman, Pippin or Bernard belonging to
their own direct forbears.

Trying to make Stewart Baldwin into a Carolingian on the basis of a
byname given to one of Charlemagne's grandsons is on an illogical par
with trying to make Charles of Vienne into a grandson of Leo VI because
the identifier 'Constantine' was used by Flodoard to differentiate him
from namesakes. Onomastics mavens will use free-association to get a
result if the actual evidence doesn't help in their pursuit of novelty.

Peter Stewart

[Stewart Baldwin]

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> In the onomastics cult that I joined yesterday in order to win this
> prize, the default setting is _always_ male-line descent from the most
> famous namesake, and of course names and indeed syllables were strictly
> proprietry within lineages. These are articles of faith handed down from
> Joseph Depoin and Maurice Chaume, not open to question by nasty little
> people like the Peter Stewart of the past.

If I correctly understand the Depoin-Chuame cult which you joined recently, it is less extreme than some of the other onomastic religions in the sense that actual documentary evidence is usually allowed to trump onomastic evidence when it is solid enough. Indeed, Depoin and Chaume generally resorted to onomastic arguments only when the direct documentation ran dry. For that reason, your onomastic "evidence" concerning the name Baldwin must be rejected as irrelevant, for I have pretty solid Y-DNA evidence (which I will give in excruciating detail if necessary) that sometime after the origin of surnames, but more than 300 years ago, one of my male-line Baldwin ancestors was in fact a biological son of a man whose surname was Mayberry or some variant thereof (Maybury, Mabry, etc.), so that my male-line descent goes through the Mayberry family. Since I doubt that even the onomastics cults would accept the two-letter match between Mayberry and Magnus as being sufficient, it is difficult to see where the evidence is. As further onomastic evidence in the negative direction, please note that the names Andy and Griffith are not known to occur in Charlemagne's family.

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart]

Not yet, anyway - but if Aunt Bee's name was Beatrice it has been
shoe-horned into the Vermandois family in the person of King Robert I's
wife of unknown origin, then mistakenly asserted to be original in her
and a version of the Carolingian name Berta meaning 'she who blesses
with good fortune', when it is actually a corruption of Viatrix, meaning
'a female wayfarer', the name of a Roman martyr of the fourth century.

The comparatively moderate onomastics belief that you have outlined was
well-established by 1721, when it was stated by Eckardt (translated from
Latin: 'It is now common knowledge with medieval genealogies that where
clear statements of authors are lacking, connection to the lineage of
illustrious families can be concluded from men's names, if other
circumstances are favourable.')

Depoin and Chaume did not bother themselves nearly enough over
favourable other circumstances. Their followers have become ever more
extravagant, not to say foolish, in theory and practice.

[mike davis]

yes that absence of certain names seems quite marked. I may be wrong
but a cursory look at the early capetian kings shows they stopped using
Hugh and Robert for their elder sons after Robert II. Some noble families
do seem wedded to just 1 or 2 names, the Guilhems of Montpellier and
Raymonds of Toulouse spring to mind, but you might have expected
a long line of King Hughs and Roberts, instead we have Henry and Philip
and then they too adopt Louis. And I believe that after the heiress Adelaide of
vermandois married one of the Hughs they didnt give any of their sons
'dynastic names' such as Hugh, Robert or Herbert.

mike

[Peter Stewart]

The process of dropping Hugo and Robert from the Capetian name-stock was
not altogether straightforward. Henri I gave the exotic name Philip to
his eldest son, but the next two were named Robert and Hugo
respectively. Henri's brother Robert of Burgundy named his eldest son
Hugo and the next two Henri and Robert respectively.

Robert II's eldest son was not only named Hugo but given Magnus along
with it, after Hugo Capet's father known as Hugo Magnus and presumably
on the pattern of Carolus Magnus for Charlemagne - this compound was
still used by one of Henri I's great-grandsons, a marquis of Vasto.

As you say, Hugo (Magnus) of Vermandois did not give recognised Capetian
names to two of his sons, although the middle one of three was named
Henri - the heir and the youngest were Radulf and Simon respectively,
both names also given in the family of their maternal grandmother.
However, we don't know that other dynastic names were bypassed entirely
as these may have been given to unrecorded sons who died young. (If this
happened repeatedly in a lineage, any name might have become discredited
as unlucky just as some fell out of use after an embarrassing family
member had brought it into disrepute.)

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> The process of dropping Hugo and Robert from the Capetian name-stock was
> not altogether straightforward. Henri I gave the exotic name Philip to
> his eldest son, but the next two were named Robert and Hugo
> respectively.

Indeed, while they didn't use it for their eldest son, the name Robert was used for a younger son by all but two kings down to Louis IX (which is as far as I went), and one of those only had a single son. It didn't really pass out of usage, just out of first preference.

> Henri's brother Robert of Burgundy named his eldest son
> Hugo and the next two Henri and Robert respectively.

And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

It's notable that the second duke named Robert came in the second half
of the 13th century, two hundred years after the first.

Also the form 'Hugo Magnus' does not occur in the ducal line - I suspect
(but haven't tried to prove) that the epithet attached to Hugo was
originally intended to indicate royal authority over the whole of
Francia, as appears to have been the case with Charlemagne.

Karl Ferdinand Werner considered that in his case 'magnus' did not refer
to Charles personally but was derived from Byzantine protocol associated
with the imperial title assumed by him in December 800 ("Karolus
[sere]nissimus augustus a deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator
Romanum gubernans imperium"). However, Werner's analysis placed too much
emphasis on diplomatic and liturgical forms, and on official practice in
general, as influences on popular usage: if the imperial title had been
the main association in Frankish minds, it seems far more likely that
the name would have turned into 'Charlauguste' in the vernacular instead
of Charlemagne. The epithet 'magnus' that ultimately became compounded
with his given name had been occasionally applied to him and to his
father as king, not emperor, for instance Charlemagne's cousin Adalhard
was described as "Pippini magni regis nepos, Caroli consobrinus Augusti"
- here 'magnus' is clearly associated either with Pippin's name or with
his title as king while 'augustus' stands for Charlemagne's title as
emperor. In the 770s according to the contemporary Vita of Hadrian I the
pope could not be budged from his high regard and affection for Charles
the great king ("a caritate et dilectione saepefati christianissimi
Caroli magni regis").

[taf]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:23:58 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 01-Jun-22 12:12 PM, taf wrote:
> >
> > And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.
> It's notable that the second duke named Robert came in the second half
> of the 13th century, two hundred years after the first.

Yeah. After being used for two boys who became bishops, it passed out of use in the 12th century, and when used again for a duke it is better viewed as a reintrocution via the intermarriage with Capetian Dreux line rather than a callback to the first duke.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
respectively - the namesake son came to a childless end, poisoned by his
mother-in-law, while Simon died unmarried as far as we know.

The latter name is interesting, new to the Capetian family and
introduced also into other magnate families around the same time (for
instance, Simon of Crépy, count of Mantes, Amiens, Valois etc, was born
within a few years of his Burgundian namesake). Parallel instances are
the sudden frequency of Stephen in the same century and of John in the
12th, all of course major saints' names (and Simon of Crépy became one
himself after a shortish life of heroic chastity).

The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors, failed to
take account of changing fashions, including in the veneration of saints.

[taf]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
> respectively

[snip]

But none named Dalmas.

> The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
> were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
> custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,

[snip]

Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>> Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
>> respectively
> [snip]
>
> But none named Dalmas.

Adopting a name from the mother's family probably happened more often
when this was of higher status than the father's, as was not the case
with Burgundy and Semur.

>> The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
>> were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
>> custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
> [snip]
>
> Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?

Depoin was focused on agnatic ancestry, but anyway some leeway with
tradition (and indulgence for a murder or two) must be given to a son of
Robert's appalling mother Constance.

[Peter Stewart]

On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:

Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of
Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of
Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
much less one specific about bare hands.

[taf]

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of
> Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of
> Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
> much less one specific about bare hands.

Don't remember where this came from. Not a primary source.
taf

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Dear Peter, could you, please, expand on how Constance of Provence was appaling?

[taf]

Retraced my steps - I was looking into two different things at the same time, and got them crossed in my head.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

In 1868 J-Henri Pignot suggested from carvings over a church portal in
Semur that Dalmas may have imbibed wine laced with poison while Robert
looked on, and that this was one of the crimes for which the duke later
travelled to Rome as a penitent. There is no other evidence I know of,
including for his alleged penitence.

[Peter Stewart]

Queen Constance was not someone to be caught with down a dark alley, or
even a well-lit street - she was a violent termagant who once poked out
a priest's eye with a stick when undertaking crowd control at a heresy
trial. She fomented war between her sons over the succession after
Robert II's death.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thanks for the reply, Peter. I checked Constance's Wikipedia page where the succession war she instigated is mentioned but I wanted more clarification.

[Will Johnson]

When Robert separated from his second wife Bertha, are there any primary documents that mention this separation ?

[Peter Stewart]

On 04-Jun-22 5:07 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> When Robert separated from his second wife Bertha, are there any primary documents that mention this separation ?

Not directly in an authentic contemporary document, but a letter from
Pope Leo IX to King Henri I in 1054 confirms that Robert and Berta had
eventually obeyed the Church's demand for their separation after being
excommunicated for marrying ("Pater tuus Robertus, laude et consultu
episcoporum regni tui, Bertam matrem Odonis comitis sibi duxit uxorem.
Ob quam rem, quoniam sibi erat carnis affinitate conjuncta, ab
antecessore nostro, cum episcopis qui placito interfuerunt,
excommunicati, post ad sedem apostolicam venientes cum satisfactione,
sumpta pœnitentia, redierunt ad propria").

See the Henry Project page for Robert II here
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/rober102.htm, setting out my
interpretation of evidence for the chronology of the illicit marriage
and its ending.

[Will Johnson]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, André Sijnesael wrote:
> Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
> > Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
> > > Hi all:
> > >
> > > Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
> > > Charlemagne from the main entries.
> > >
> > > https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10
> > >
> > > I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
> > > if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
> > > generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
> > > to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
> > > what is found on this site.
> > >
> > > So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
> > > on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?
> > >
> > > Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
> > > 2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
> > > have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
> > > Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
> > > French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
> > > Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
> >
> > I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
> I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).
>
> 1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
> 2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
> 3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
> 4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
> 5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
> 6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
> 7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
> 8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
> 9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
> 10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
> 11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
> 12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
> 13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
> 14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
> 15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
> 16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
> 17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
> 18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
> 19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
> 20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
> 21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
> 22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
> 23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
> 24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
> 25, Watier Sohier ?-?
> 26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
> 27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
> 28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
> 29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
> 30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
> 31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
> 32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
> 33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
> 34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
> 35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
> 36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
> 37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
> 38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.


See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudes_I,_Lord_of_Ham

which does not give this Eudes any children at all, and also says he was yet living as late as 1089

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Peter Stewart already said this is a fraud.

[Peter Stewart]

#28 above is completely fictitious - 'Sohier de Vermandois', purportedly
the issuer of a testament dated 1080, was invented for pay by Jean Le
Carpentier in the 17th century. This fraud was debunked as long ago as
1842, but unfortunately it has been perpetuated since. There was no such
person, and no agnatic descent from the Carolingians to the parvenu
Sohier family.

[Peter Stewart]

When I open your link the Wikipedia page shows two sons of Eudes I - his
successor Gérard and Lancelin, who is further alleged on the page for
his elder brother to be the father of Gérard's successor Eudes II.

This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced in the context of
Carolingian ancestry.

[Peter Stewart]

To be clearer, I meant to type the last sentence as follows:

This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced, in the context of
Carolingian ancestry.

The Wikipedia page is not wrong in giving Eudes of Ham sons named Gérard
and Lancelin, but only in placing their family as a branch of the
Vermandois lineage.

This mistake stems from a curious series of lapses in Père Anselme,
where Eudes I of Ham is arbitrarily stated without proof to have been
identical with Eudes the brother of Heribert of Vermandois (who was
correctly either IV or VI but confusingly numbered V in the Vermandois
section and IV in the seigneurs of Ham section).

The first proof cited (with a misprinted page number) for the alleged
connection was a charter of Heribert for Saint-Prix abbey dated 1076
witnessed by his brother Eudes. However, a subsequent witness in the
same charter was named as Ivo of Ham, indicating that the counts of
Vermandois had installed another family there as castellans beforehand.
The two subsequent citations in Anselme are erroneous since no brother
of Heribert or seigneur of Ham is mentioned on either page referenced in
Claude Héméré's _Augusta Viromanduorum_ (1643).

There is no basis in Anselme for the Wikipedia assertion that Eudes I
died after 1089. His family, of unknown origin, was discussed by Romain
Waroquier in 'Les hommes du pouvoir: l'entourage des comtes de
Vermandois au XIIe siècle' in _Le Moyen âge_ 127 (2021).

[Peter Stewart]

Oops - the page not only wrongly asserts that Eudes of Ham was "the son
of Otto, Count of Vermandois and Pavia" but is also unreliable in
stating that he "died after 1089".

We know that Eudes was living in 1089 from his own charter for
Notre-Dame de Noyon dated 12 March in that year, naming his father as
Ivo whose donation (dated 29 January 1055) he was confirming. This of
course contradicts the claimed Vermandois paternity while not proving
that Eudes lived beyond the end of 1089.

[M S]

perjantai 27. toukokuuta 2022 klo 19.04.01 UTC+3 Denis Beauregard kirjoitti:
> Hi all:
>
> Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
> Charlemagne from the main entries.
>
> https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10
>
> I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
> if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
> generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
> to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
> what is found on this site.
>
> So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
> on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?
>
> Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
> 2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
> have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?
>
>
> Denis
>
> --
> Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
> Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
> French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
> Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

All in all,
there are circa 10 male generations in Genealogics to be agnatic descendants of Charlemagne. (Not mere 8 generations.)

This seems to come frm the requirement of being documented (reliably enough). Documentation generally in those centuries comes from chronicles of olitically remarkable events, and from some soradical inheritances.