Descendants of Charlemange
David Blocher
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/b/l/o/David-A-Blocher-WA/FAMO2-0001/index.htm
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I thought a lot of you would like to view my web-site:
>
> http://www.familyorigins.com/users/b/l/o/David-A-Blocher-WA/FAMO2-0001/index.htm
Just for example, I didn't get beyond the third page when I found
King Berhard (sic) of Italy as father by Kunigunda Cunigonde
(which is redundant) of #25 Lord Pippin II, and by Cunigunda of
#26 Count Pippin. These represent different spellings of the
same wife, and different titles given the same lone son. This
duplication is carried out for at least one additional
generation.
It looks like you have some serious housecleaning to do.
taf
David A. Blocher
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
I have a helluva lot of housecleaning to do! The way to do it is by informing me
about the error so I can go in and correct the problem.
I am not a scholar on the descendants of Charlemagne, I have to go by the way it
was submitted. If other sources are available I would use it as well! The usually
way
I verify information from submission is if it is consistant with the others that
submit.
I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor is the son of Odin,
not
of Memno. They are going by the Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the
actual Thor, King of Thrace!
Another theory of the discreption that you made, could have been an inadvertant error
when merging duplicate matches.
Jo Rune Ugulen
meldingsnyheter:3BBACC82...@home.com...
>I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor is the son
of Odin,
>not
>of Memno. They are going by the Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder;
not the
>actual Thor, King of Thrace!
Eh..? The _actual_ Thor?
regards
----
Jo Rune Ugulen, P.O.Box 205, N-5202 Os, Norway
E-mail: jo.u...@student.uib.no
Redaktør av Genealogen og
distriktsrepresentant i Hordaland for
Norsk Slektshistorisk Forening, sjå http://genealogi.no
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> King of Thrace!
What is either doing in your genealogical database?
taf
Roz Griston
taf
as much as, we all like to be purists. we do have freedom of choice. as
long as david clearly indicates he has mythological and/or unverified
lines it is HIS database.
it is up to the reader of his database to chose to ignore or be
entertained by the information contained in it. i've gotten much
enjoyment playing with ppl's databases who go back to adam and eve.
just because i read it..doesn't mean i buy into it.
are you going to write and chastise this library for publically
displaying king edward iv's genealogical chart? it goes back to adam
and eve.
http://libwww.library.phila.gov/medieval/lewis_e201/index.html
mind you i don't think david's website will be as pretty to look at,
nor bare the same historical value as this magnificant artifact.
roz
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> "David A. Blocher" wrote:
> >
> > I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> > King of Thrace!
>
> What is either doing in your genealogical database?
>
> taf
>
> as much as, we all like to be purists. we do have freedom of choice. as
> long as david clearly indicates he has mythological and/or unverified
> lines it is HIS database.
And HIS database is entitled "descendants of Charlemagne", so the
question remains.
taf
Roz Griston
taf
oops major faux pas..humble apologies.. i guess he threw in some (known
and supposed) ancestors too.
david...yo! daveyyyyyy..please change the name of your database to:
CHARLEMANGE..before and after
we don't want confused ppl. ta, muchly your cooperation is
appreciated...:-))
roz
David A. Blocher
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
The mythical version is not in my genealogical database, but the actual
version
(the King of Thrace) is in my genealogical database because he is my
direct
ancestor! That should be a logical reason! : )
D. Spencer Hines
1. And what leads you to think this 'Thor', "King of Thrace" is not
mythical?
2. How do you trace your ancestry to him?
3. How does a "direct ancestor" differ from an "indirect ancestor"?
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBB82B5...@home.com...
David A. Blocher
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
No, just that "one" website is entitled "Descendants of Charlemagne". My
entire
database is entitled "Entire Family".
I created the "Descendants of Charlemagne" website for those who's primary
interest is gravitated in the vacinity of King Charlemagne. I also have
another website
called "Ancestry of David Blocher" for those that are interested in seeing if
they have
any common ancestry with me!
I also had another website entitled "Descendants of Thor" generated, but must
have been
too large to upload. I will be checking other places to upload this site!
David Blocher
James P. Robinson III
Charlemagne. Nor did either ever exist.
Jim
As the clock struck 09:23 PM 10/3/2001 +0000, David A. Blocher took pen in
hand and wrote:
--
=================================================
James P. Robinson III jpro...@ix.netcom.com
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with
an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given in writing.
=================================================
Stewart Baldwin
You are completely missing the point. In order for the individual in
question to be your ancestor, it would be necessary for him to have
actually existed (for starters). However, "King Thor of Thrace" is a
COMPLETELY FICTIONAL character, who was completely made up out of
whole cloth more than a thousand years after his alleged existence
(and the generations leading to him are also purely mythical for MANY
generations). This mythical personage has no place in any database
that alleges to give real information about real people.
Stewart Baldwin
Arthur Murata
fabrications and attempts by forebears to make Christianity
fit into "pagan" systems to be fascinating in and of
themselves. I do not confuse them, except through error
perhaps, with actual genealogy. Bronwen Edwarda
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Chris Bennett
"David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3BBB82B5...@home.com...
It might be if Thor king of Thrace was a historical person, but he wasn't.
Seuthes, Cotys, Rhoemetalces by the gross, all of them kings of Thrace
(though none with traceable descendants). But not a Thor in sight.
Chris
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Murata <lostc...@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:04 AM
Subject: RE: Descendants of Charlemange
> I agree with Roz. As a social scientist, I find the
> fabrications and attempts by forebears to make Christianity
> fit into "pagan" systems to be fascinating in and of
> themselves. I do not confuse them, except through error
> perhaps, with actual genealogy. Bronwen Edwarda
>
Dear Bronwen
I disagree with you and Roz. Either you have a genealogical collection and
make it as good as possible or you have an all encompasing mythological
collection. If you combine the two, both become a mess and do you still know
where mythology ends and genealogy starts?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: David A. Blocher <bloc...@home.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Charlemange
>
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
> > Roz Griston wrote:
> > >
> > > "David A. Blocher" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> > > > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> > > > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> > > > King of Thrace!
> > >
> > > What is either doing in your genealogical database?
> > >
> > > taf
> > >
> > > as much as, we all like to be purists. we do have freedom of choice.
as
> > > long as david clearly indicates he has mythological and/or unverified
> > > lines it is HIS database.
> >
norenxaq
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Arthur Murata <lostc...@yahoo.com>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:04 AM
> Subject: RE: Descendants of Charlemange
>
> > I agree with Roz. As a social scientist, I find the
> > fabrications and attempts by forebears to make Christianity
> > fit into "pagan" systems to be fascinating in and of
> > themselves. I do not confuse them, except through error
> > perhaps, with actual genealogy. Bronwen Edwarda
> >
> Dear Bronwen
> I disagree with you and Roz. Either you have a genealogical collection and
> make it as good as possible or you have an all encompasing mythological
> collection. If you combine the two, both become a mess and do you still know
> where mythology ends and genealogy starts?
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
>
Hello:
To a lot of people genealogy encompasses fact as well as mythical lines, with
the former becoming the latter at some point. Whether one should include
mythical lines is a personal choice, but these should be clearly labeled so as
to avoid confusion. As many seem to apply the term "genealogy" to fact and
myth, (esp. many on-line sites) perhaps another differentiation would apply to
avoid any confusion?
David A. Blocher
Roz Griston wrote:
The name of my website has nothing to do with the name of my database!
Descendants
of Charlemange was just a portion of my database. The name of my database
is Entire
Family, and regardless of what I named my database it would still have the
same information
that it would if I called it "History of the World"! A Rose by any other
name is still a Rose!
I named this particuliar website as "Descendants of Charlemange" because it
was generated
for the descendany of this Frankish King.
Frankly I never knew anything about ppl (I presume that stands for
"Phillidephia Public Library")
until you post a link to their website. I can't prove or disprove their
accuracy so I can only
take it on their word until proven differently. At least we know of a
possible direction to
navigate our research!
The providers of some of my middle age information claim to have the link
going back to
Adam & Eve. I am very sceptical about putting that information into my
database, even
though most of them that claim this link tend to be consistant. On the
other hand, how do
I know that there isn't any documentation of the genealogical links between
Memno to Noah,
or from Noah back to Adam! Could it be possible that you were other
templets explained
about the connections that were not written in the Holy Bible. The Bible
is primarely a book
of the Gospell, and we have no idea if there was ever any personal records
that were kept.
For example, in the book "Biography of Malcom X" would tell us about the
highlights of his
life, which was basically more gravitated to the racial hostility. The
book wouldn't however
explain what was written in every letter that was sent home to his mother
while he was at
camp!
Another theory is the longivity of the early generations of man. For Adam
himself lived for
930 years (no idea about how many of those years were spent in the Garden
of Eden), assuming that Adam was about 35-40 years old by the time he gave
birth to Seth (I assume that Seth was born after Cain slained Abel), Adam
could have lived to see the birth of several generations (that would
explain how the world was so overly populated at the time of the Flood).
Adam may have died by the time of the birth of Noah's father. Considering
that Noah was 600 yrs old at the time of the Floor, there is nearly 6
centurys that Noah could have been told tales of Adam, Seth, Noem, etc., by
his grandparents, or passed from his Grandparents to his parents and on to
Noah, and eventually
to Shem, Jetpha, and Ham; and so on from there. Someone in that era could
have easily documented the pedigree even after the flood. And assuming
that Noah's sons were indeed King of Asia, Europe, and Africa as ppl
claims, they would most likely keep family records to keep trace of the
passing of the Throne and the Royal Court!
To remind everyone that the above is only a theory, not a fact!
Someone sent me some links to websites that explains the connection from
Adam & Eve down to
Henry Plantagenet (King Henry II). The information was too extension to
review in one sitting, but
I am going to review it thouroughly someday!
David A. Blocher
"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> Subject Line Corrected:
>
> 1. And what leads you to think this 'Thor', "King of Thrace" is not
> mythical?
What makes you think he is mythical? You see, the question of this mystery
can
go both ways!
Thor (King of Thrace) was a real living human being that ruled some country
called
Thrace (don't ask me whatever became of "Thrace" because I never heard of
it!).
Thor (God of Thunder) is mythical and was inspired by the actual Thor. I
have no idea
who came up with the conception of transforming The King of Thrace into The
God of
Thunder. I do know that Jack Kirby created the Comic Book rendition or
Thor out of inspiration of the Mythical God of Thunder, and made him into a
super-hero. It is much in the same fashion
that Vlad Dracula "Vlad the Impaler" was the Dark Prince of Romania, and
was mythically constructed to be a vampire known as Count Dracula. I know
that Bram Stoker used some
aspects of Vlad Dracula to create the Myth of Count Dracula.
> 2. How do you trace your ancestry to him?
I personally didn't! However someone apparently did, and there is
apparently documentation
of the passing of the throne. I ask a provider this same question and she
pointed me out to a
few interesting and extensive website that explains the connections going
back to Adam &
Eve. If this is proven, I'll confirm it! If this is dis-proven, I'll
repute it!
> 3. How does a "direct ancestor" differ from an "indirect ancestor"?
A "direct ancestor" generated in a direct lineage like Father to son, or
Mother to son!
An "indirect ancestor" is a lineage that is shifted over a bit like Uncle
to nephew and
then down from there!
David A. Blocher
David A. Blocher
"James P. Robinson III" wrote:
> I hate to state the obvious but neither Thor is a "descendant" of
> Charlemagne. Nor did either ever exist.
>
> Jim
Thor came long before Charlemange, and if you visited my website, you won't
see
Thor listed anywhere in the index!
As to weather Thor or Charlemagne never existed, as you obviously believe, is
your
own theory! There is a statue of Charlemange erected in Paris, France of
Charlemange
and he seems to be well documented.
Are you aware that there was a Vlad Dracula that existed in Romania over 500
years
ago? His castle, Castle Dracula, still stands today!
Just because a myth was created doesn't mean that a real person that inspired
the myth
never existed!
Some believe that Noah never existed, and this great flood is just part of a
bibical myth.
Well there is a documentation stating that God created a Rainbow to inform us
that he
is not going to flood the world again every time it rains. How do I know
incase you
should ask? At the end of a rainy day, look up in the sky and see those
beautiful colors that have been there for over 5,000 years!
D. Spencer Hines
Very well said, Leo.
Capital!
Mythology + Genealogy = Farrago.
Eschew Farrago.
Deus Vult.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:008b01c14c59$95bee300$129f3bcb@leo...
David A. Blocher
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Oops David. Charlemagne was King of the Franks but he is mainly known as the
> first Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
This is something I alway forget to ask... what is the difference between a
"King" and
an "Emperor"?
How do they rank?
What do they rule?
Also, what is the difference between the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and
the
Caeser?
David A. Blocher,
Descendant of Charlemange
JKent...@aol.com
bloc...@home.com writes:
<< Another theory is the longivity of the early generations of man. For Adam
himself lived for
930 years >>
OK, Good Buddy, tell us whose calendar this was calculated by. How did it
compare to the calendar we use today? How long was the gestation period back
then in terms of their calendar and ours today? How old might a mother be
back then when she gave birth to her last child in terms of their calendar
and ours today.
One web site has shown about 60 generations between 1 AD and Adam and Eve.
Really????? At what point in time did people stop living so long and begin
living the range of years we find people living today? What happened to
cause people to start living shorter lives? Could it be because we got a
more accurate calendar?
I don't have a problem believing in Adam and Eve, but the math just needs to
be cleaned up.
Jno
Leo van de Pas
In principle, a King rules one territory and an Emperor, again in principle,
stands above the Kings. However, as always, there are exceptions to the
rule.
We had the Caesars, rulers of the Roman Empire. They split the teritory into
two. The Emperors went to live in Byzantium and in a way allowed the west to
go its own way, with the Bishop of Rome in charge for the Emperor in
Byzantium. Things turned out differently and the West was besieged by the
Huns, Vandals and so on. The Kings of the Franks then came to the rescue of
the pope, and established a territory around Rome, to be the beginning of
the papal territory. They came to the rescue several times and, in 800, the
Pope crowned Charlemagne Emperor. To make the difference with the heathen
Empire, he became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Charlemagne was followed by his son, Louis the Pious. As Louis had three
sons, he divided the empire into three parts, one for each son. One part is
what is now roughly France, the second what is now roughly Germany, and the
third was a strip in the middle, called Lorraine after his son, Lothar. The
Imperial title went to the territory, very roughly, Germany.
Emperors had it in their power to create and/or elevate rulers to the
position of King (Bohemia for one).
This is a very simplistic explanation, and I am sure some people will cringe
as the subject deserves a much better explanation, but for that you should
try to obtain a few books.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
> > > > > "David A. Blocher" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> > > > > > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> > > > > > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> > > > > > King of Thrace!
> > > > >
> > > > > What is either doing in your genealogical database?
> > > > >
> > > > > taf
> > > > >
> > > > > as much as, we all like to be purists. we do have freedom of
choice.
> > as
> > > > > long as david clearly indicates he has mythological and/or
unverified
> > > > > lines it is HIS database.
> > > >
James P. Robinson III
>No, just that "one" website is entitled "Descendants of Charlemagne". My
>entire
>database is entitled "Entire Family".
>
>I created the "Descendants of Charlemagne" website for those who's primary
>interest is gravitated in the vacinity of King Charlemagne. I also have
>another website
>called "Ancestry of David Blocher" for those that are interested in seeing if
>they have
>any common ancestry with me!
What are the URL's?
Jim
--
=================================================
James P. Robinson III jpro...@ix.netcom.com
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with
an attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given in writing.
=================================================
Chris Bennett
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> >
> > 1. And what leads you to think this 'Thor', "King of Thrace" is not
> > mythical?
>
> What makes you think he is mythical? You see, the question of this
mystery
> can
> go both ways!
> Thor (King of Thrace) was a real living human being that ruled some
country
> called
> Thrace (don't ask me whatever became of "Thrace" because I never heard of
> it!).
The question is, how do you know that Thor king of Thrace was a real human
being?
In genealogical and historical research, it is important to establish the
reliability of your sources. Is an individual named in a contemporary
document? Can you prove, by various tests, that a document is contemporary?
Can it be trusted? If a contemporary document is not available but you are
working from a later historian, how reliable is that historian on other
matters? What can you establish about how that historian came to know the
"fact" you are relying on? If a relationship is not directly stated
anywhere in your sources, perhaps there are patterns of inheritance or
naming that are normal in that society which allow you to establish that
that relation is the only one possible, or at least reasonable, and so on.
Ideally, you should be able to establish the reliability of your data for
every person and relationship in your database. Of course, in practice that
is rarely possible for compilation databases such as yours. But, you can
still check whether you are using, for example, works by reputable
historians and genealogists, or whether someone else's compilation is
regarded as reliable. TO take an example, there is a book called "Royalty
for Commoners" which is a widely used compilation. But if you review the
archives for this group, you will find that this book is regarded, by
everyone who has examined material in it that he or she is knowledgeable
about, as so unreliable as to be worthless. Therefore, you would be very
unwise to use RFC as a source for anything in your database.
Now, in the case of Thor king of Thrace, we happen to know a fair amount
about the kings of Thrace. Thrace was a territory in SE Europe, roughly
corresponding to modern European Turkey only bigger. Its history and kings
are named in many classical works covering the period from the 5th century
BC to the 1st century AD, at which time it became part of the Roman Empire.
This history is supplemented by archaeological finds, notably coinage. You
can read about it in any reasonably well-equipped university library. The
later history of the region is also quite well-known.
None of these sources name a Thor king of Thrace. Now, it is certainly true
that there are periods of Thracian history that are obscure, and perhaps a
king Thor lived in these times. But, two problems arise. First, the name
is not like that of any other king of Thrace. These typically follow a
Greek-like pattern: Seuthes, Cotys, Rhoemetalces. Rather, the name Thor
appears to be Northern European, like the God. So you have to explain how a
king of Thrace got such a name. Secondly, if the contemporary sources do
not name him, how does your source come to know about him? In other words,
what is the chain of authority for king Thor and why should we regard it as
reliable?
In medieval times, it was common for genealogists to invent fanciful
ancestors with links back to the classical past. A famous example is the
claim that the British were descended from Brutus of Troy. You can prove
that these are fictitious by going through exactly the kind of exercise I
went through above. They don't match contemporary evidence, they don't make
sense in the contemporary context, and they suddenly appear out of nowhere
in the works of much later scholars.
Thor king of Thrace appears to be one of these fanciful inventions. Mr
Hines' comment is actually on point: given that there is absolutely no
contemporary or historical evidence for him, the onus really is on you to
prove that he is not mythical, if you want to claim him as a real ancestor.
Best regards,
CHris Bennett
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Thor (God of Thunder) is mythical and was inspired by the
> actual Thor. I have no idea who came up with the conception
> of transforming The King of Thrace into The God of Thunder.
Are you sure that it went this way, rather than someone taking
the actual god THor and converted him into a mythical King of
Thrace? (I mean this in all seriousness. There are numerous
instances of gods being converted into people in order to justify
placing them in genealogies.)
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Thor (God of Thunder) is mythical and was inspired by the
> actual Thor. I have no idea who came up with the conception
> of transforming The King of Thrace into The God of Thunder.
Are you sure that it went this way, rather than someone taking
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 10/3/01 6:35:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
> bloc...@home.com writes:
>
> << Another theory is the longivity of the early generations of man. For Adam
> himself lived for
> 930 years >>
>
> OK, Good Buddy, tell us whose calendar this was calculated by.
I guess it is about time here for my usual rejoinder.
Genealogical connections appearing within the Bible are
explicitly off-topic in this group, because they cannot be
discussed solely in a genalogical context - these discussions
invariably turn into holy wars, because one's interpretation of
the text usually has much more to do with one's religious beliefs
than value of the source as a historical/genealogical document
independent of said beliefs.
To be more blunt, the minute someone says that it was all
invented a thousand years after the events it describes, and
there are those here who believe that, then all Hell will break
loose (as opposed to what has been going on here recently).
Todd A. Farmerie
co-Listowner
Reedpcgen
>it!).
David,
History [and genealogy] is based on factual events--events which we can prove
through documentary or archaeological evidence.
Mythical tradition might have evolved from historical events, but where time
has separated the "traditions" from the evidence, we must regard it as no more
than tradition or myth.
As you move back, generation from generation, you should find documentation for
each generation. It is not enough to take things from sources like "Ancestral
File" and just because things are in print do not make them true (cold print is
not hard fact).
It is backwards reasoning to say "prove me wrong." If you plan on building a
usable data base, it should have appropriate references. There are already
data bases available online that do much of what you have written you are doing
[such as the Hull data base].
There are many on this list who have had years of experience working with
documentary evidence, be it historical or genealogical. I would suggest all
can learn more from listening to those who request evidence and have had a
great deal of experience with it than brushing them off.
Paul
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/3/01 11:33:11 PM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< There are numerous
instances of gods being converted into people in order to justify
placing them in genealogies.) >>
Oh? And what are these? I doubt seriously if this is a provable comcept.
Todd A. Farmerie
I would start with ancient pedigrees in which the stellar
godhoods (i.e. the moon and the sun) are given flesh to found
royal lines, particularly the Incas come to mind, but it is also
seen in other cultures. Look also to the various spirit totems
that find there way into the primitive germanic pedigrees, but
also native American ones. Then there are a scattering of Celtic
lake sprites and such, and of course the ones we are talking
about here - the Scandinavian pantheon. Scyld, Niord, and yes,
the Big O himself.
taf
Reedpcgen
Well, Betham's _Genealogical Tables_ comes immediately to my mind, where all
the Greek and Roman gods are shown in the earliest placements as ancestors of
various royal and noble Greek and Roman lines. That Zeus really got around.
Hercules sowed his seed to. Why, if I remember correctly, there is even a swan
involved with someone.
Betham also has a collection of Biblical genealogies.
In Christian times it was important for the clerics writing the genealogical
accounts in their histories to invent ancestry so as to trace lineage of the
kings back to Biblical lines to show continuity from secular back to religious,
to lead the readers back to God and remind them where they came from. To them,
it was no a matter of falsifying, but justifying the connection to religious
views--they did not see such invention as sinful.
In non-Christian societies it was much the same, the Norse ancestries being
traced back to Odin, French to Troy, etc. It was after the Norse became
Christian that Odin became a real man and then had additional ancestry added on
tracing his ancestry back to the Bible and Adam.
Was this not what Todd meant about turning gods into men so the could procreate
and head the genealogical line?
Paul
Reedpcgen
>it was no a matter of falsifying, but justifying the connection to religious
>views--they did not see such invention as sinful.
They saw it as a way to promote the faith of their readers, and historical
criticism as we think of it did not exist at that time.
Paul
PS Please forgive the typos. The information is the important part, rather
than wasting time and bandwidth prattling on about a keystroke being
missed--n'est pas?
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> I disagree with you and Roz. Either you have a genealogical collection and
> make it as good as possible or you have an all encompasing mythological
> collection. If you combine the two, both become a mess
Not necessarily.
> and do you still know
> where mythology ends and genealogy starts?
I believe that Roz's stipulation was that the myths & legends be noted.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
Additionally, Bronwen is quite correct in her assertion that there is much
to be learned about the mythologizers from studying the tales created.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
Not to burst bubbles, but the so-called history & the king list of the
High-Kings of Ireland for starters. The characters of the _Mabinogion_,
Much of Classical mythology, esp. Italinate kings. Since it has come up a
couple of times, an excellent source for studying the evolution of myths &
legends is Edward Tripp's _Crowell's Handbook of Classical Mythology_.
norenxaq
> Well, Betham's _Genealogical Tables_ comes immediately to my mind, where all
> the Greek and Roman gods are shown in the earliest placements as ancestors of
> various royal and noble Greek and Roman lines. That Zeus really got around.
> Hercules sowed his seed to. Why, if I remember correctly, there is even a swan
> involved with someone.
>
The swan was Zeus who decided to pay Leda a "visit". The result was Perseus
>
>
>
> In Christian times it was important for the clerics writing the genealogical
> accounts in their histories to invent ancestry so as to trace lineage of the
> kings back to Biblical lines to show continuity from secular back to religious,
> to lead the readers back to God and remind them where they came from. To them,
> it was no a matter of falsifying, but justifying the connection to religious
> views--they did not see such invention as sinful.
>
> In non-Christian societies it was much the same, the Norse ancestries being
> traced back to Odin, French to Troy, etc.
It was after the Franks became Christian and aware of Troy that their rulers
traced their ancestry back to it
Reedpcgen
>The swan was Zeus who decided to pay Leda a "visit". The result was Perseus
Yes, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. There are plenty of other beasties, etc.,
mentioned in the genealogical tables, with descents: nyphms, satyrs, etc. (but
Zeus seems to have gotten around more than anyone else). The point is, they
are claimed as being ancestral to real men, though it is obviously
impossible--or our DNA would be closer to a duck in some instances than chimps
; P.
Lord love a duck (or a god a swan). quack!
Paul
"run, spot, run!!!"
Matthew Harley
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
Another explanation for this process of turning gods into humans
(euhemerism) was that the early Christian Church used it to help
eradicate continuing pagan beliefs.
"No, it was not a god; it was only your great-great-granddaddy dressed
up"!
Matt Harley
K. Williams
It seems to me that although the pedigrees themselves are fictitious
by the time you get back to the god they can still be an important
source of information if you can figure out how early they were written
in their original form. It seems only logical that the Anglo-Saxon
pedigrees back to Odin pre-date the conversion of various bits of
England to Christianity even though there were later additions in the
forms of biblical genealogy. If you can figure out the age of the
pedigree within fifty years or so you should be able to determine a
living historical figure who would have headed it and it is, I think,
more likely than not that his father and grandfather would be historical
as well.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/4/01 12:32:44 AM, farm...@interfold.com writes:
<< I would start with ancient pedigrees in which the stellar
godhoods (i.e. the moon and the sun) are given flesh to found
royal lines, particularly the Incas come to mind, but it is also
seen in other cultures. >>
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about people or leaders
who are also deified like Odin. It is not a provable concept that they were
never truly human. And vise versa. We've been over that before. All we can
say is that we do not know if legendary characters of this ilk were real or
not.
- Ken
Barbarossa
nore...@nethere.com (norenxaq) wrote:
>The swan was Zeus who decided to pay Leda a "visit". The result was Perseus
Barbarossa:
I thought Zeus visited Danae (in a shower of golden coins?)
to produce Perseus.
Wasn't Leda the mother of Castor and Pollux? and Helen?
--
_____________B_a_r_b_a_r_o_s_s_a____________ ;^{>
Wayne B. Hewitt Encinitas, CA whe...@ucsd.edu
norenxaq
Barbarossa wrote:
> In article <3BBC1570...@nethere.com>,
> nore...@nethere.com (norenxaq) wrote:
>
> >The swan was Zeus who decided to pay Leda a "visit". The result was Perseus
>
> Barbarossa:
>
> I thought Zeus visited Danae (in a shower of golden coins?)
> to produce Perseus.
>
> Wasn't Leda the mother of Castor and Pollux? and Helen?
>
you are correct. Thank-you
Brant Gibbard
>
> Wasn't Leda the mother of Castor and Pollux? and Helen?
Yup, and Clytaemnestra as well.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, ON
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
document(s), [from specific religious leader(s) or
group(s)], which factually proves your assertion of
a {Monastic} copyist's right to falsify archived records,
in the compilation of genealogy pedigrees.
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/ <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
-----------------------------------------------------
Reedpcgen wrote:
>>To them,
>>it was no a matter of falsifying, but justifying the connection to religious
>>views--they did not see such invention as sinful.
>>
>
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
within a genealogical context? If so, then
what is the intrinsic value of the Bible for
medieval genealogists, if any?
Charles Carpenter stated:
"including mythical people in a
genealogical database built primarily
of real people is like the 13th chime
of a clock -- calls into question
everything that has come before."
This is the complete intrinsic value
of the Bible for medieval genealogists.
It is a history of "prophets" trying
to keep out mythical gods from the
genealogical databases (i.e., worship)
of real people (Israel's posterity).
Elijah, for example, went to heaven in
a chariot, but never replaced God as
creator, nor, did he become a "Father"
pedigree node. Interesting, if you
just think about it. Now, back to
the subject at hand, Thor:
"It's easy to see the relatedness
between Jupiter and Thor just by looking
at the names of the week. The fifth day
is in English named after Thor "Thursday"
but in Latin it's named after Jupiter.
Thor is also often called Jupiter in
scripts written in Latin. Some scholars
believe that he is related to the Indian
god Indra which is almost identical to him."
http://www.islandia.is/~oldnorse/gods/thor.htm
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,
notes that Jupiter is called Hor-
tash-tawy, the last word segment
similar to the Hebrew alphabet
letter "T" or taw. The Rosie
Crucian Secrets, (Wellingborough,
England: The Aquarian Press,
1985), p. 209, states that:
JUPITER is Tin.
"Etruscan Magic and Occult Remedies, calls
TINA or TINIA the highest Etruscan god,
honoured in every Tuscan city. Invocations
were made for the power that speaks in the
thunder [synonymous to Thor, God of
the North, noted by Robert Ferguson,
The Teutonic Name-System, (1864), as
the god from which the Anglo-Saxon
surname TINNEY originated, as well as
the designation of the day Thursday]
and descends in the lightning.
He, TINIA alone had three separate
bolts to hurl. The location of the
physical strike of lightning by the
Etruscan God Tina or Tinia was
considered "sacred". It parallels
the Biblical account of Elijah in
the death of the false prophets
of Baal [in Palestine].
1 Kings, 18: 36-41
"Tarchun [in Italy] took his omen,
which was a flash of lightning drawn
by himself from a cloud - for the augur
had a mysterious power over the electric
element." Cicero records that Tarchun,
while plowing, received inspired laws of
his future government from the genie
Tages, a son of Jupiter. This Etruscan
tradition is similar to I Kings 19: 19,
when Elijah found Elisha, the son of
Shaphat, who was plowing with twelve
yoke of oxen before him, and he with
the twelfth; and Elijah passed by him,
and cast his mantle upon him.
The god Tinia is found displayed as a
man in physical form on mirrors, with
other gods. Mythologies, (1991),
compiled by Yves Bonnefoy, mentions
Uni, consort to Tinia. The connection
of physical man to deity comes from the added
definition: TINIA is also found in
Tuscan legends as that of a great
and wealthy lord - un milionario,
the richest in all the country, a
deus ex machina, or higher power.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/tingeo.htm
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/ <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
---------------------------------------
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>JKent...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 10/3/01 6:35:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
>>bloc...@home.com writes:
>>
>><< Another theory is the longivity of the early generations of man. For Adam
>> himself lived for
>> 930 years >>
>>
>>OK, Good Buddy, tell us whose calendar this was calculated by.
>>
>
Reedpcgen
>a {Monastic} copyist's right to falsify archived records,
>in the compilation of genealogy pedigrees.
>
Falsify archive records?
You misunderstand. They traced the ancestry out at far as they could, and
after they reached the point of nil, filled in a few things that did not
previously exist to further the work of God and connect things back to Adam.
Where do YOU think these claimed genealogies came from, and how do you think
they were created in the first place?
Respectfully,
Paul
Arthur Murata
another person's literal interpretation of religious
scripture. I regard all of the characters named here as
mythological, as surely as Thor. I do know of one definite
Thor who exists in the flesh: a local Chinese guy with a
small shop goes by that name. I have failed to locate his
hammer, however, just as I have failed to locate any
talking snakes from Mesopotamia. Leo, I would never
knowingly mix the mythological with the genealogical on a
work intended for public consumption. In the absence of DNA
testing, much of our genuine genealogy will always be
potentially mythological as well!
Another thing I have learned over the years: never argue
scripture or history or mythology with a fundamentalist of
any religion, no matter how widespread. They live in a
different world from most of us. Good thoughts, Bronwen
--- "David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Roz Griston wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Todd A. Farmerie [SMTP:farm...@interfold.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:26 PM
> > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: Descendants of Charlemange
> >
> > Roz Griston wrote:
> > >
> > > "David A. Blocher" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still have a few people that complain to me
> stating that Thor
> > > > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going
> by the
> > > > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the
> actual Thor,
> > > > King of Thrace!
> > >
> > > What is either doing in your genealogical database?
> > >
> > > taf
> > >
> > > as much as, we all like to be purists. we do have
> freedom of choice.
> > as
> > > long as david clearly indicates he has mythological
> and/or unverified
> > > lines it is HIS database.
> >
> > And HIS database is entitled "descendants of
> Charlemagne", so the
> > question remains.
> >
> > taf
> >
> > oops major faux pas..humble apologies.. i guess he
> threw in some (known
> > and supposed) ancestors too.
> >
> > david...yo! daveyyyyyy..please change the name of your
> database to:
> > CHARLEMANGE..before and after
> >
> > we don't want confused ppl. ta, muchly your cooperation
> is
> > appreciated...:-))
> > roz
>
> The name of my website has nothing to do with the name of
> my database!
> Descendants
> of Charlemange was just a portion of my database. The
> name of my database
> is Entire
> Family, and regardless of what I named my database it
> would still have the
> same information
> that it would if I called it "History of the World"! A
> Rose by any other
> name is still a Rose!
> I named this particuliar website as "Descendants of
> Charlemange" because it
> was generated
> for the descendany of this Frankish King.
>
> Frankly I never knew anything about ppl (I presume that
> stands for
> "Phillidephia Public Library")
> until you post a link to their website. I can't prove or
> disprove their
> accuracy so I can only
> take it on their word until proven differently. At least
> we know of a
> possible direction to
> navigate our research!
>
> The providers of some of my middle age information claim
> to have the link
> going back to
> Adam & Eve. I am very sceptical about putting that
> information into my
> database, even
> though most of them that claim this link tend to be
> consistant. On the
> other hand, how do
> I know that there isn't any documentation of the
> genealogical links between
> Memno to Noah,
> or from Noah back to Adam! Could it be possible that you
> were other
> templets explained
> about the connections that were not written in the Holy
> Bible. The Bible
> is primarely a book
> of the Gospell, and we have no idea if there was ever any
> personal records
> that were kept.
> For example, in the book "Biography of Malcom X" would
> tell us about the
> highlights of his
> life, which was basically more gravitated to the racial
> hostility. The
> book wouldn't however
> explain what was written in every letter that was sent
> home to his mother
> while he was at
> camp!
>
> Another theory is the longivity of the early generations
> of man. For Adam
> himself lived for
> 930 years (no idea about how many of those years were
> spent in the Garden
> of Eden), assuming that Adam was about 35-40 years old by
> the time he gave
> birth to Seth (I assume that Seth was born after Cain
> slained Abel), Adam
> could have lived to see the birth of several generations
> (that would
> explain how the world was so overly populated at the time
> of the Flood).
> Adam may have died by the time of the birth of Noah's
> father. Considering
> that Noah was 600 yrs old at the time of the Floor, there
> is nearly 6
> centurys that Noah could have been told tales of Adam,
> Seth, Noem, etc., by
> his grandparents, or passed from his Grandparents to his
> parents and on to
> Noah, and eventually
> to Shem, Jetpha, and Ham; and so on from there. Someone
> in that era could
> have easily documented the pedigree even after the flood.
> And assuming
> that Noah's sons were indeed King of Asia, Europe, and
> Africa as ppl
> claims, they would most likely keep family records to
> keep trace of the
> passing of the Throne and the Royal Court!
>
> To remind everyone that the above is only a theory, not a
> fact!
>
> Someone sent me some links to websites that explains the
> connection from
> Adam & Eve down to
> Henry Plantagenet (King Henry II). The information was
> too extension to
> review in one sitting, but
> I am going to review it thouroughly someday!
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Arthur Murata
historical Thor, it might have been linked to the
possibly-historical Woden who, according to some books on
the history of the royal families of Scandinavia and Kiev,
was a real person originally from Byzantium who migrated
north, depositing his sons to become kings of various
places on the way up. He is credited (don't remember if it
was the Heimskringla or Snorri or who, but he is the mythic
progenitor of the Ynglng Dynasty in Scandinavia. Of course,
the evidence is of the folkloric kind.
Now as to the Marvel action hero, Thor, a super-hero can be
based on anyone or anything because it is fiction. In my
personal opinion, the same goes for Adam, Noah, etc. Maybe,
since your grammar and spelling suggest that you may be
quite young, the problem has to do with too many comic
books! Best, Bronwen
--- "David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
>
> > Subject Line Corrected:
> >
> > 1. And what leads you to think this 'Thor', "King of
> Thrace" is not
> > mythical?
>
> What makes you think he is mythical? You see, the
> question of this mystery
> can
> go both ways!
> Thor (King of Thrace) was a real living human being that
> ruled some country
> called
> Thrace (don't ask me whatever became of "Thrace" because
> I never heard of
> it!).
>
> Thor (God of Thunder) is mythical and was inspired by the
> actual Thor. I
> have no idea
> who came up with the conception of transforming The King
> of Thrace into The
> God of
> Thunder. I do know that Jack Kirby created the Comic
> Book rendition or
> Thor out of inspiration of the Mythical God of Thunder,
> and made him into a
> super-hero. It is much in the same fashion
> that Vlad Dracula "Vlad the Impaler" was the Dark Prince
> of Romania, and
> was mythically constructed to be a vampire known as Count
> Dracula. I know
> that Bram Stoker used some
> aspects of Vlad Dracula to create the Myth of Count
> Dracula.
>
> > 2. How do you trace your ancestry to him?
>
> I personally didn't! However someone apparently did, and
> there is
> apparently documentation
> of the passing of the throne. I ask a provider this same
> question and she
> pointed me out to a
> few interesting and extensive website that explains the
> connections going
> back to Adam &
> Eve. If this is proven, I'll confirm it! If this is
> dis-proven, I'll
> repute it!
>
> > 3. How does a "direct ancestor" differ from an
> "indirect ancestor"?
>
> A "direct ancestor" generated in a direct lineage like
> Father to son, or
> Mother to son!
> An "indirect ancestor" is a lineage that is shifted over
> a bit like Uncle
> to nephew and
> then down from there!
>
> David A. Blocher
>
> > | "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> > |
> > | > "David A. Blocher" wrote:
> > | > >
> > | > > I still have a few people that complain to me
> stating that Thor
> > | > > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going
> by the
> > | > > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the
> actual Thor,
> > | > > King of Thrace!
> > | >
> > | > What is either doing in your genealogical database?
> > | >
> > | > taf
> > |
> > | The mythical version is not in my genealogical
> database, but the
> > actual
> > | version
> > | (the King of Thrace) is in my genealogical database
> because he is my
> > | direct
> > | ancestor! That should be a logical reason! : )
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reedpcgen" <reed...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 October, 2001 0308
Subject: Re: Descendants Of Thor
> >
> >The swan was Zeus who decided to pay Leda a "visit". The result was
Perseus
>
> Yes, my comment was tongue-in-cheek. There are plenty of other beasties,
etc.,
> mentioned in the genealogical tables, with descents: nyphms, satyrs, etc.
(but
> Zeus seems to have gotten around more than anyone else). The point is,
they
> are claimed as being ancestral to real men, though it is obviously
> impossible--or our DNA would be closer to a duck in some instances than
chimps
> ; P.
>
> Lord love a duck (or a god a swan). quack!
>
> Paul
>
> "run, spot, run!!!"
>
>
DOes anyone remember the bear(s) in Uchtred's & Siward's family? (Something
that found it's way into Tolkien's mythos.)
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> DOes anyone remember the bear(s) in Uchtred's & Siward's family? (Something
> that found it's way into Tolkien's mythos.)
I was going to mention this but decided it didn't qualify. The
most likely explanation here is not a god made man, but a woman
made bear - Siward appears to have been Berasson (Bera being a
female name), which has then been misinterpreted as bear's son,
followed by the elabotation of the surrounding events, in "Just
So" fashion.
taf
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
----- Original Message -----
From: "K. Williams" <kw...@ionet.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 October, 2001 0923
Subject: Re: Descendants Of Thor
Not necessarily. Almost all of the West Saxon kings have near contemporary
documentation; yet look to the muddle of the Gewisi. The ancestry of Cerdic
is obviously faked. A prevalent theory is that he had mixed Saxon &
Brythonic ancestry, and hence came from some place, (perhaps Frisia?), where
these peoples had already been inter-mingling. I think it more likely that
he was a Brython that came to lead a troop mostly Saxon, but of mixed
origin, including Jutes, (as represented by his purported nephew &
grand-nephew, Stuf & Whitgar. Later chroniclers, genealogists, priests &
propagandists cobbled together an acceptably Teutonic pedigree, even
borrowing minor gods from another royal line, but Angle, not Saxon - that of
Bernicia.
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <vcti...@dcn.davis.ca.us>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 October, 2001 1251
Subject: Re: Descendants Of Thor
> Please present on this list, the validating medieval
> document(s), [from specific religious leader(s) or
> group(s)], which factually proves your assertion of
> a {Monastic} copyist's right to falsify archived records,
> in the compilation of genealogy pedigrees.
>
This is a preposterous demand/request. Propagandists don't look to
authorized permission for their deeds. Like any fanatic, they assume the
rights to spread their lies, to twist their beliefs to fit their needs.
Examples: The Taliban; the Moral Majority, (so-called); the CIA; the NaZis.
'Even the devil can cite scripture to suit his own ends.' One is reminded
of the (self-styled) Rev. Fred Phelps of Kansas. He is noted for showing up
at the funerals of ANY AIDS-related death bearing signs saying 'GOD HATES
FAGS!'. Underneath that he puts a citation from the Bible. I looked it up.
The quote is: 'Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man put
asunder'. Does anyone really believe that some church hierarchy or organ of
the state issued him a license so to behave? Why do you think that the
Ayatollahs in Iran & the Mullahs of Afghanistan are bodies unto themselves?
Because no internationally-recognized & accepted Islamic authority accepts
them or their tenets. The Medieval Church taught that anything was
acceptable to save a soul. If a monk saw fraud, prevarication & deceit as a
means to that end, do it!
Todd A. Farmerie
> Oh boy. Thrace was part of Greece. If there was an
> historical Thor, it might have been linked to the
> possibly-historical Woden who, according to some books on
> the history of the royal families of Scandinavia and Kiev,
> was a real person originally from Byzantium who migrated
> north, depositing his sons to become kings of various
> places on the way up.
And these stories were first told how many millennia after he is
supposed to have lived? As far as I am concerned, there is no
more basis for a "historical" Odin than there is for a historical
Brutus of Troy. The stories surrounding both of them just have
zero probability of having survived intact for the necessary
1000+ years necessary (longer in the case of Brutus).
(This is where Ken jumps in and objects.)
Brutus can be dismissed out of hand, as a classic epinomous
founder. Odin, being a god, was likely introduced into the
pedigree as such, and his "life" later invented to fill out the
tale (like this Thor of Thrace, who is nothing more than an
anthropomorphed god). IF his original placement in the
Scandinavian pantheon was based on an actual individual of some
sort who lived in some distant past, then you can bet that his
actual life was long since lost in the mists of time before Saxo
and others invented this new one for him.
taf
Reedpcgen
Byzantium who was fighting the Romans (first century BC?). Wasn't he mentioned
in Gibbon's Roman Empire? I haven't read that since high school and my copy's
in storage.
AND, I think we have learned enough from experiences on this list that just
because there was one peron whose name was pronounced something like Odin does
not mean he was the same person who was the god or king of Norse mythology.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> So it is okay to discuss the Bible if kept
> within a genealogical context?
It would be (well, aspects of it would - see below*) IF it could
be discussed BY EVERYONE as simply another genealogical source
document. The problem is that this immediately requires its
reliability to be questioned, (chronological nightmare,
contradictory pedigrees, extremely similar pedigrees given to
supposedly unrelated people, claim of a women being impregnated
by deity . . .). We already have ample evidence that such a
discussion would not be restricted to such scholarly genealogical
evaluation. Better to leave it be, as it is out of the date
range anyhow.
(* The relationships discussed in the Bible fall outside the
charter of this group, mostly being over 1000 years or more too
early. The only possible exception would be the royal pedigree,
as non-medieval royals were included in the group's mandate.
However, as I say above, the unique nature of the Bible, the
Koran, etc. render them too integrally tied to their followers'
religion to be discussed dispassionately. Look how excited
everyone is gettong over Thor, and we don't even have any of the
reformed Aesir worshipers joining in.)
Todd A. Farmerie
co-Listowner
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> supposed to have lived? As far as I am concerned, there is no
> more basis for a "historical" Odin than there is for a historical
> Brutus of Troy. The stories surrounding both of them just have
> zero probability of having survived intact for the necessary
> 1000+ years necessary (longer in the case of Brutus).
>
> (This is where Ken jumps in and objects.)
>
> Brutus can be dismissed out of hand, as a classic epinomous
> founder. Odin, being a god, was likely introduced into the
> pedigree as such, and his "life" later invented to fill out the
> tale (like this Thor of Thrace, who is nothing more than an
> anthropomorphed god). IF his original placement in the
> Scandinavian pantheon was based on an actual individual of some
> sort who lived in some distant past, then you can bet that his
> actual life was long since lost in the mists of time before Saxo
> and others invented this new one for him.
>
> taf
>
>
So many were deified in various ways _post mortem_ that it is easy to
understand, (if one is an understanding type), how one can see a _post
mortem_ deification in many instances. this is why the monks used just such
a phenomenon to explain the preponderance of godlings in the genealogies of
the Kings & High-Kings of Ireland. But then, in Ireland was the effort
greatest to accommodate the 'Auld Religion'. One can read about it in _How
the Irish Saved Civilization_. The authors also discuss the survival of the
Ancient Irish 'Yin-Yang' dichotomy that is so accurate in their darker &
lighter grey quotes of Modern Irish: 'Well, now...He will, and he won't.';
Well, now...She is, and she isn't.' I can still hear my Celtic kin using
the phrases; but when I read them in the book, I heard them in the voice of
Barry FitzGerald as in _The Quiet Man_. I would trust the Irish genealogies
IN SOME LINES further than many mindless, automatic nay-sayers; but still,
much of the pre-Niall Noigallach stuff is documentable gods. Still & all,
the monks may, very well, have strayed closer to the truth than they
reälized, or intended. I think/feel that the Ulster cycle has much more
truth behind it than is usually assumed. But, that doesn't mean that I
accept anything else prior to the fourth century.
One criterion that I use is that fact that the descendants of the Ulaid were
displaced by the Uí Neill. Yet their tales still survived. As I have said
before, (more than once), acknowledging that it was not, originally my
sentiment, that the
winner(s) get to write the (hi)story. the Uí Neill had nothing to gain by
preserving the legends of the heroes of those whom they defeated/conquered.
In the words of Cicero, _cui bono?_. (Please avoid the works of Karen
Harper, a Romance novelist who decided to take a turn at demeaning
mysteries. She constantly & consistently through the series misquotes,
misattributes & mistranslates the quote.) the fact the tales & stories,
fables & legends can survive such a total cultural/tribal defeat &
subversion shows that the had to have been more tan a modicum of truth
underlying the tales.
Bottom-line, though, is that gods are made men, & men are made gods. And,
more importantly, the trend is known well-enough that MANY used them.
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
of Archaeology, mention is made that the
"roots of archaeology can be traced back to
a basic human concern of its origins, the
identification and collection of antiquities
from past cultures, and the development
of the Western intellectual tradition."
This would suggest that all "claimed genealogies
came from and were created by an innate
"basic human concern of its origins". They
were thus "created in the first place" by
those individuals who had an interest in Being.
http://www.arts.ubc.ca/anso/pokotylo/anth103/chpthree.htm
For the Medieval period, the archives available
were the "recognized sources of information
available on this question . . . the Scriptures[,]
the histories of Greece and Rome, and
contemporary historical records of traditions
extending back to the Dark Ages."
A "basic human concern of its origins" is also
revealed in "A concern with the physical remains
of past cultures [that] can be traced back to the
later stages of some ancient civilizations. In Egypt,
rulers during the New Kingdom (ca. 1550 B.C.)
period restored and conserved Old Kingdom
monuments from 1000 years earlier. Nabodinus,
the last of the kings of Babylon (555-538 B.C.),
excavated the ancient ruins of his predecessors
to gather information on past Babylonian cultures
and also exhibited the items recovered in what
might be considered an early museum. In the
second century B.C., Si-ma Qien, an early
Chinese historian, examined relics and visited
ancient ruins in addition to using texts in
preparing his account of ancient Chinese history."
Written genealogies maintained in Biblical Israel
were consulted to validate claims to status. In
458 B. C., Ezra the scribe obtained from
Artaxerxes an edict for the return of the Jews,
which included, from the Book of Ezra 2: 62,
the fact that part of the returning exiles "sought
their register among those that were reckoned
by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore
were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood."
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/ <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
---------------------------------------------
Reedpcgen wrote:
>>which factually proves your assertion of
>>a {Monastic} copyist's right to falsify archived records,
>>in the compilation of genealogy pedigrees.
>>
>
Phil Moody
The only 'historical' Odin I can think of was someone of that name near
Byzantium who was fighting the Romans (first century BC?). Wasn't he
mentioned in Gibbon's Roman Empire? I haven't read that since high school
and my copy's in storage.
PLM: The most promising Odin in my book would be Septimius Odenathus (fl.
260 AD) He was created Emperor of the East by Gallinius, after he defeated
Shapur I and saved the pre-pubescent Eastern Roman Empire. He is variously
called Odenath, Odeynath, and the Prince of Palmyra, Syria.
He is the only one great enough to be deified hundreds of years later;
although Saxo indicates that this process was unfolding as he still lived.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Reedpcgen
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:10 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Descendants Of Thor
Sam Sloan
Seriously, I spent hours on this tonight, trying to figure out how to get
from Charlemange to Louis XVI. I got stuck on King Henry IV of France. I
cannot figure out how he got in on this. I know he succeeded King Henry III
and he must have been a relative of some kind.
Sam Sloan
between Henry IV of France and Charlemagne.
I have just put all of them on my website, but I cannot connect the dots:
Here is Henry IV of France
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg44.htm#1285
Here is Henry III of France
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg05.htm#1507
Here is Louis VII of France.
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg50.htm#2779
Here is Charlemange:
http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg11.htm#484
I cannot bridge the gaps between them. Can anybody help?
Meanwhile, I have corrected at least 200 errors and added at least 500
names to my database, so it is now much different from what it was three
days ago.
Sam Sloan
William Addams Reitwiesner
>OK I give up. Just tell me who are the Descendants of Charlemange & Thor.
The normal spelling is "Charlemagne", or Charles the Great, rather than
"Charlemange", or Charles the Unkempt :)
>Seriously, I spent hours on this tonight, trying to figure out how to get
>from Charlemange to Louis XVI. I got stuck on King Henry IV of France. I
>cannot figure out how he got in on this. I know he succeeded King Henry III
>and he must have been a relative of some kind.
Henry IV succeeded because he was the nearest relative in the direct male
line. He wasn't very close, but he was the closest.
Henry III (d. 1589) <- Henri II <- Francois I <- Charles <- Jean <- Louis
<- Charles V <- Jean II <- Philippe VI <- Charles <- Philippe III <- Louis
IX (d. 1270)
Henry IV (d. 1610) <- Antoine <- Charles <- Francois <- Jean <- Louis <-
Jean <- Jacques <- Louis <- Robert <- Louix IX (d. 1270)
--
Ceterum censeo DSH delendam esse.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Dewayne E Perry
you are all making much ado about very little: this is about charlemange,
commonly called charles the mangy, not charlemange, commonly called charles
the great.
charlemange is the sone of charlemigne (charlie the small) and his wife
aleanor le mange. this long line of well documented le mange ancestors
represents the only known documented case of matrilineal descent (le mange
being like le bald, inherited only thru the mother). the progenitor of this
long family is an indirerect ancestor, thor who did not have the primary
characteristic of le mange and seems to have disappeared without a thrace.
the next in line is thus the direct ancestor and brother of thor was mostthoro
the first know carrier of this famous characteristic (hence know through out
the world at that time as mosthorolemange (pronounced ... :-)
recent genealogical research has uncover possible traces to a previously
unknown nymph who managed somhow to find her way from the rather unhealthy
waters of rome to the less so of polutia (now extinct, but somewhere near
dalmatia). it is conjectured that this might well be the source of
the family name and primary characteristic.
cheers - dewayne de austin
Dewayne E Perry
dewayne d'austin alias dewayne de summit
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
<snip>
>
>Bottom-line, though, is that gods are made men, & men are made gods. And,
>more importantly, the trend is known well-enough that MANY used them.
>
The Ancient Tradition continues, is well known and is
expounded today. It is the Key purpose given by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
for constructing Temples and doing genealogy
research. The Mormon faith, bottom line,
starting with pre earth life:
Spirit children of God come to earth and become
earthly men (and women). Through the sacrifice
of the God Jehovah who became the Man Jesus; they
can again become through His salvation, (with an
immortal body), like the Eternal God Father and
Mother in Heaven and live in an Eternal Patriarchal Unit.
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/4/01 12:32:31 AM, reed...@aol.com writes:
<< Was this not what Todd meant about turning gods into men so the could
procreate
and head the genealogical line? >>
Evidently it was. I do not know what I meant. His words confused me.
-Ken
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/5/01 12:11:03 AM, vcti...@dcn.davis.ca.us writes:
<< This would suggest that all "claimed genealogies
came from and were created by an innate
"basic human concern of its origins". >>
I would agree.
Genealogical scholars want to clean it up--discover the spots where the
legends end and the myths begin. Even so, the human mind will find other ways
of pushing their desire to find their origins back farther and farther ...
perhaps through genetic family traits instead of named legendaries from
ancient text.
I agree with the majority that the very ancient pedigrees do not belong in
any database purporting to be real people. Yet, where to stop and where to
start is so arguable that no one has been able to create a reference work to
satisfy modern scholars yet -- even among these very same scholars.
With genealogical research, sooner or later we get back to strings of names
that mean little to anyone. Perhaps a good rule is that personal databases
could stop when they start becoming like a list in a phonebook of people whom
we know nothing personally. Others will consider their personal data a
statement of their own beliefs and trace back to Adam despite what anyone
tells them about accuracy of historical process.
Despite the attempt of genealogical scholars to show us where they think
legends and reality begins, ancient traditions and ancient writings will
still be preserved--accurate of not--for their venerable antiquity. New
generations will draw different conclusions and see different lessons for
their time in the interpretation of the writings these ancients left us.
There is more important information in the legends than in strings of grafted
(or real) names. I suspect that interest in legends will continue far into
the future despite the attempt by modern scholars to show that the legends
are not accurate.
It was never the purpose of a legend to be accurate. The purpose was to
relate a lesson or a moral story. It does not matter whether George
Washington cut down a cherry tree or not. The lesson was that he was an
honest youth that turned into an honest adult.
If old legends die, new ones arise because they play a part in our
development and growth as an individual. By the same token, the old legends
describe of collective growth as a collective people.
Legends and myths are more interesting than life in the same way that movies
are larger than life. They are life and human concepts in a distilled form --
without the tedium or real time life. We only have time and room for only
one real time life--our own--of which we are constantly conscious. All other
experience is distilled in various ways ... some in more interesting manners
than others.
In the meantime, we can enjoy these interpretations and observations of
voices from our own time. One school can say that the advent of Christianity
brought new pedigrees into the world as religious scholars struggled to trace
the life lines of important people back to their mythical beginnings. Another
can say that attempts to preserve ancient traditions and non-Christian
religious practices resulted in pedigrees that went back to mythical origins.
The fact is that traced pedigrees will always disappear into the mythical,
as that is their primary purpose. When traced to the beginnings of time,
accuracy will never be a part of the formula.
The practical purpose of pedigrees is in inheritance--the transmission of
power and property. This practicality disappears when written records cannot
support the claims of transmission. Other tools are then used to attempt to
trace things further, but they are often more argumentative than enlightening
and do not hold the weight of written documentary evidence. Even written
evidence can be subject to quite different interpretation when is scanty and
incomplete, as all beginnings really are. Another modern practicality is in
tracing genetic tendencies for disease which will hopefully result in disease
control and a way to correct hereditary genetic abnormalities.
- Ken
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm">
http://HTCommunications.org/homepage.htm</A>
KHF...@AOL.com
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 10/4/01 11:28:36 PM, smo...@peoplepc.com writes:
<< Bottom-line, though, is that gods are made men, & men are made gods. And,
more importantly, the trend is known well-enough that MANY used them. >>
Bottom line is that God is man and man is God. This is an ancient view
reflected in many of these genealogies that many moderns fail to see. The
immortal begets a mortal who is the son of a god. These are all ways of
pointing to the divinity of man and deal more with theology that genealogy.
- Ken
Graeme Wall
"David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Thor came long before Charlemange,
<snip>
> There is a statue of Charlemange erected in Paris, France of Charlemange
> and he seems to be well documented.
<snip>
Sorry, I still don`t believe there is any such person as Charlemange.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Arthur Murata
not to legitimate them as genealogical references but to
simply note these as examples where gods were "made into"
flesh and blood men. The point is well taken that the
reverse could have been true as well. And let us remember
that the ancient bards could not just tell the news through
song and walk away; they had to entertain and "enlighten"
their benefactors and I suppose that would include having
"uncovered" genealogical gems for their forebears that
would further legitimize their positions (after the fact of
conquest or election). Or, as my mother would probably say
at this point, "Thor" "Woden" "Adam" and "Noah" were not
even really gods, much less historical men. She likes to
say, in her devout but not fundamentalist Roman Catholic
way, that these are names which stand for groups of people
and their exploits are allegories for genuine migrations.
Best, Bronwen
Vickie Elam White
>So, who are the Descendants of Charlemange? I have not been able to get
>between Henry IV of France and Charlemagne.
Part of your problem might be that you are working from
Charlemagne forward when you should be working backward
in time from yourself to Charlemagne.
Vickie Elam White
Brynjulf Langballe
"Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> skrev i melding
news:3bbb8f96....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:23:26 GMT, "David A. Blocher"
> <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> >> > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> >> > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> >> > King of Thrace!
> >
> >but the actual version (the King of Thrace) is in my
> >genealogical database
>
> question to be your ancestor, it would be necessary for him to have
> actually existed (for starters). However, "King Thor of Thrace" is a
> COMPLETELY FICTIONAL character, who was completely made
> up out of whole cloth more than a thousand years after his alleged
> existence (and the generations leading to him are also purely
> mythical for MANY generations). This mythical personage has no
> place in any database that alleges to give real information about
> real people.
You should keep in mind that Tor is probably not a personal name but a
Scandinavian term for high king, just as Odin is in old Slavic language.
One actual king in the area of Macedonia/Trace can probably be recognized
with names: Alexander, Ale, Alerex, Oller-Othin, Bergelmir, Haddbrodd,
Othmar and Tor. Actual reading: Volsungsaga, Elder Edda (Loketrętta and
Trymskvida), Younger Edda (Gylvaginning), Chronica Hungarorum, Tacitus,
Plinius, Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury.
Brynjulf Langballe, Norway
Arthur Murata
one's own origin is in the realm, now, of palaeoarchaeology
and archaeology itself involves the attempt to reconstruct
cultures that are likely to NOT be that of the
archaeologist.
That nitpicking aside, however, I would just like to make
the point that genealogy has always functioned as a way by
which people could recognize others as being of one or
another group in relation to their own. In small-scale
societies, which means almost everyone until relatively
recently, it is a matter of considerable importance for
everyone, not just the heads of state, to be able to recite
their genealogy - often for many more generations than we
literate folks are able to do. In regard to cultural
complexity, for example, if one were to use genealogy as
the criterion for determining if a society is "advanced" or
"primitive", the most "advanced" people in the world would
probably be the Melanesians of New Guinea and the Nationals
(Aborigines) of Australia.
Among those peoples, you needed to be able to say exactly
who you were relative to any other person or group or risk
being labeled an "outsider" which could be a great risk
indeed. Genealogy in this example serves a much more
fundamental interest than being able to justify a
particular leader. Pedigrees were of equal importance; the
critical factor was that they had to be KNOWN and RECOUNTED
generation after generation without alteration. I suspect
that these ritual recitations are far more accurate than
the documentary and/or scriptural scraps of paper that we
use as evidence for our own pedigrees.
If you are interested in a marvelous book on this kind of
topic, look at Edmund Carpenter's "My What a Blow That
Phantom Gave Me!" which was published some years ago but
undoubtedly continues to haunt library shelves.
Good thoughts to all, Bronwen Edwards
--- "Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." <vcti...@dcn.davis.ca.us>
wrote:
norenxaq
>
> Among those peoples, you needed to be able to say exactly
> who you were relative to any other person or group or risk
> being labeled an "outsider" which could be a great risk
> indeed. Genealogy in this example serves a much more
> fundamental interest than being able to justify a
> particular leader. Pedigrees were of equal importance; the
> critical factor was that they had to be KNOWN and RECOUNTED
> generation after generation without alteration. I suspect
> that these ritual recitations are far more accurate than
> the documentary and/or scriptural scraps of paper that we
> use as evidence for our own pedigrees.
And yet, too often these traditional genealogies are dismissed out of hand
because they are not written down and subjected to the same examination those
that are written would be
Chris Bennett
"Brynjulf Langballe" <b-...@online.no> wrote in message
news:GVrv7.10379$tu6.2...@news1.oke.nextra.no...
>
> "Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> skrev i melding
> news:3bbb8f96....@news.mindspring.com...
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:23:26 GMT, "David A. Blocher"
> > <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
> > >> > I still have a few people that complain to me stating that Thor
> > >> > is the son of Odin, not of Memno. They are going by the
> > >> > Mythical version of Thor, God of Thunder; not the actual Thor,
> > >> > King of Thrace!
> > >
> > >The mythical version is not in my genealogical database,
> > >but the actual version (the King of Thrace) is in my
> > >genealogical database
> >
> > You are completely missing the point. In order for the individual in
> > question to be your ancestor, it would be necessary for him to have
> > actually existed (for starters). However, "King Thor of Thrace" is a
> > COMPLETELY FICTIONAL character, who was completely made
> > up out of whole cloth more than a thousand years after his alleged
> > existence (and the generations leading to him are also purely
> > mythical for MANY generations). This mythical personage has no
> > place in any database that alleges to give real information about
> > real people.
>
> You should keep in mind that Tor is probably not a personal name but a
> Scandinavian term for high king, just as Odin is in old Slavic language.
But Thrace is at the opposite end of Europe from Scandinavia, so why is this
relevant?
> One actual king in the area of Macedonia/Trace can probably be recognized
> with names: Alexander, Ale, Alerex, Oller-Othin, Bergelmir, Haddbrodd,
> Othmar and Tor. Actual reading: Volsungsaga, Elder Edda (Loketrætta and
> Trymskvida), Younger Edda (Gylvaginning), Chronica Hungarorum, Tacitus,
> Plinius, Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury.
Rather more relevant actual reading is Lars Hemmingen, By Word of Mouth:
The Origins of Danish Legendary History. Studies in European Learned and
Popular Tradition of Dacians and Danes before AD 1200.
This work shows that much of legendary Danish history is actually an
absorption of the history of the Goths ultimately caused by the use of the
name "Dacia" to refer to Denmark and a region of South East Europe
(originally modern Rumania). While I don't know exactly how king Thor
enters into the picture (and I eagerly await Mr Blocher's account), I rather
suspect it is related to this process somehow. One thing we can be pretty
sure of: there weren't no Scandanivian Thors in Thrace.
Chris
Arthur Murata
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
Who would be the next in line if the heirs male of Louis Philippe died out,
(admittedly not likely)? By my reckoning, one would need go back to Louis
VI to find another extant, legitimate male line.
Reedpcgen
>The Ancient Tradition continues, is well known and is
>expounded today. It is the Key purpose given by
>The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
>for constructing Temples and doing genealogy
>research
Yes, BUT this research is to be conducted along scientific methods and
historical criticism.
There was even an article by Bob Gunderson (former director of the Medieval
Families Identification Unit), published in an official journal of the LDS
Church which states that none of the "traditional" lines are factual, nor can
ancestry at this point be traced back accurately to Biblical times. The whole
point of publishing the article (at specific request of the LDS leadership) was
to warn LDS members off of blindly following those long endless genealogies
based on fable and tradition.
Good intentions are wonderful, but they still do not get you around having to
do accurate research based on documentary evidence.
Paul
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Wall" <Gra...@greywall.demon.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, 04 October, 2001 1350
Subject: Re: Descendants of Thor
> In message <3BBB9E76...@home.com>
> "David A. Blocher" <bloc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Thor came long before Charlemange,
> <snip>
> > There is a statue of Charlemange erected in Paris, France of
Charlemange
> > and he seems to be well documented.
> <snip>
>
> Sorry, I still don`t believe there is any such person as Charlemange.
> --
Considering the effects of the mange, couldn't Chrlemange be the same as
Charles the Bald?
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> And yet, too often these traditional genealogies are dismissed out of hand
> because they are not written down and subjected to the same examination those
> that are written would be
But likewise too often, old genealogies are called "traditional"
simply because they are old. This then leads to this umbrella of
"spoken but not written down" being used to validate what is in
reality nothing more than late invention. The problem is that
you can't tell the difference when all you have is a list of
names, so you are left with choosing between including many false
pedigrees just so that you won't exclude an occasional valid one,
or else risk dropping a few legit but entirely undocumented ones
in order not to include a whole lot of them that are garbage.
The latter is safer, but much less interesting.
taf
norenxaq
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> norenxaq wrote:
> >
> > And yet, too often these traditional genealogies are dismissed out of hand
> > because they are not written down and subjected to the same examination those
> > that are written would be
>
> But likewise too often, old genealogies are called "traditional"
> simply because they are old.
unfortunately true
> This then leads to this umbrella of
> "spoken but not written down" being used to validate what is in
> reality nothing more than late invention.
to avoid this, one needs to have an understanding of how these genealogies were
used in a given society. If they are lists only without a cultural context then
one's suspicions can perhaps be justified.
> The problem is that
> you can't tell the difference when all you have is a list of
> names,
if this is indeed all one has. Quite often though there are stories associated
with these names giving them importance to those hearing them. Also, within many
Polunesian societies, these genealogies (in particular, the royal and noble ones)
were considered sacred. Which would add import to getting them right
> so you are left with choosing between including many false
> pedigrees just so that you won't exclude an occasional valid one,
> or else risk dropping a few legit but entirely undocumented ones
> in order not to include a whole lot of them that are garbage.
Why choose at all? I would label these descents as traditional and leave it to
others to determine whether they are valid. This is something an anthropologist
would be doing as he studies these genealogies as a part of the culture he is
investigating. On a related issue, should we as foreigners be telling other
cultures that their traditional lines of descent are invalid because they don't
match our criteria?
>
> The latter is safer, but much less interesting.
>
indeed
>
> taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On a related issue, should we as foreigners be telling other
> cultures that their traditional lines of descent are invalid because they don't
> match our criteria?
We should be telling ourselves that they are invalid because they
don't match our criteria.
taf
Graeme Wall
de-p...@swbell.net (Dewayne E Perry) wrote:
> folks,
>
> you are all making much ado about very little: this is about charlemange,
> commonly called charles the mangy, not charlemange, commonly called charles
> the great.
>
Oops <g>
Graeme Wall
smo...@peoplepc.com (Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne) wrote:
[snip]
> Examples: The Taliban; the Moral Majority, (so-called); the CIA; the NaZis
> .
GODWIN
William Addams Reitwiesner
There is no junior, extant, legitimate male line. The only more junior
line than the Bourbons (including the Spanish lines, Conde, Conti, and the
modern-day Orleans) was the (French) Courtenays, who went extinct in the
male line in 1733.
Arthur Murata
would seem that Charlemagne's direct descendant, Charles
the Bald, might have inherited other traits from
Charlemagne's maternal side: is not his mother sometimes
called "Bertha of the Big Foot"? I would presume the mange
to be from the paternal side. Bronwen :}
--- Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne <smo...@peoplepc.com>
wrote:
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Meanwhile, I have corrected at least 200 errors and added at least 500
>names to my database, so it is now much different from what it was three
>days ago.
When you do your next set of corrections, perhaps you could take a look at
this:
===================
from http://www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg13.htm#938
>James V King Of SCOTLAND [Parents] was born on 10 Apr 1512 in , Linlithgow,
>West-Lothian, Scotland and was christened in , , West-Lothian, Scotland. He
>died on 14 Dec 1542 in Falkland, Fifeshire, Scotland and was buried in Jan
>1543 in Holyrood House, Edinburgh, Mid-Lothian, Scotland. James married
>Marie Princess Of LORRAINE-GUISE in 1538 in St Andrew's, Fifeshire, Scotland.
>
> Other marriages:
>
> FRANCE, Madeleine, Princess Of
> SHAW, Elizabeth
> ERSKINE, Margaret
> CARMICHAEL, Elizabeth
> STEWART, Elizabeth
> BETHUNE, Elizabeth
> ELPHINSTONE, Euphemia
> BARCLAY, Christina
> KENNEDY, Jane
> SCOTLAND, Mrs-James V, Concubine Of
> SCOTLAND, Mrs-James V, Concubine Of
>
>===================
James V was married only twice, first to Madeleine of France, and second to
Marie of Guise. Yet you say that all these other women were married to
James V. They were not. Please correct this page (and your other pages
that refer to these fictitious marriages).
Sam Sloan
I use PAF 4.0 and the way it works is that if a man and a woman have a
child together, then they were married.
I am not an LDS member, but I presume that this is a doctrine of the LDS.
I visited the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City in 1991 and I
purchased PAF 1.0 at that time. During the lecture that gave to all persons
who were acquiring the LDS program, I specifically asked about this point,
and this is what they said.
Although there are many other programs, I feel that PAF is the best (and it
is also free) and I cannot change their program. There is simply no
provision in their program for designating an illegitimate child.
Sam Sloan
D. Spencer Hines
Solution:
Get a better Genealogical Program.
Family Origins 10.0 is excellent.
Flash and I both use it.
You are given the option of specifying whether the man and woman who are
the parents of the child are married or not. You can also write
extensive notes on individuals and facts.
A program that won't allow you to do that is ridiculous.
Deus Vult.
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout
in the milk." ---- Henry David Thoreau [1817-1862] -- Journal -- 11 Nov
1854 --[1906]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
writing.
------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3.0.6.32.2001100...@ishipress.com...
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
"dismissed out of hand". Many of these
ritual recitations" appear to be represented
in the single line beginnings of many a
medieval pedigree; for which no documentary
or "scientific" evidence was preserved.
-----------------------------------------------------
norenxaq wrote:
>>
>>Among those peoples, you needed to be able to say exactly
>>who you were relative to any other person or group or risk
>>being labeled an "outsider" which could be a great risk
>>indeed. Genealogy in this example serves a much more
>>fundamental interest than being able to justify a
>>particular leader. Pedigrees were of equal importance; the
>>critical factor was that they had to be KNOWN and RECOUNTED
>>generation after generation without alteration. I suspect
>>that these ritual recitations are far more accurate than
>>the documentary and/or scriptural scraps of paper that we
>>use as evidence for our own pedigrees.
>>
>
norenxaq
"Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." wrote:
> Traditional genealogies are not always
> "dismissed out of hand". Many of these
> ritual recitations" appear to be represented
> in the single line beginnings of many a
> medieval pedigree; for which no documentary
> or "scientific" evidence was preserved.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
indeed. However, many of those currently studying genealogy want documented
evidence before accepting anything. Oral tradition, by its very nature lacks this
and thus tends to be viewed negatively
In the quest for proof, based on scientific criteria, have we lost the cultural
significance these lines served to those who devoted time and effort to memorize
them and what they meant to their society?
Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr.
method" that will sustain unbiased historical criticism?
Bob Gunderson's words are recorded at
Ancestor Roots Information: OneSource Genealogy
and Family History Searchable Databases -
Gateway Links to Antiquity.
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/database.htm#antiquity
Bob Gunderson's words and an evaluation
of LDS genealogy and family history
resources was done in 1985, by
Alex Shoumatoff, The New Yorker author
http://www.newyorker.com/
of The Mountain of Names.
[According to sociologists, fewer and fewer
of us nowadays can summon up the names
of our great-grandparents. But, as
Alex Shoumatoff demonstrates in this vastly
readable and informative book, throughout history
human beings have had memories of deceased
forebears that kept them alive for generations
long after their death. Despite an increasingly
hazy recall, we are still fascinated by our own roots.
This fascination, plus a passionate interest in
his own lineage, drove Shoumatoff to explore
where our present-day longing for community
and a sense of belonging---amid rising divorce
rates and proliferating step families---may lead us.
He investigates family traditions and ancient
customs all over the modern world, and discovers:
an Indonesian village elder who can orally trace
back seventy generations on his own family tree;
the intricacies of Japanese naming practices;
and rules of inheritance among aristocracies
from China to Scotland. He even examines the
increased courtship range that was afforded
young rural males with the advent of the bicycle.
In his exciting conclusion Shoumatoff encounters
Mormon researchers collating the family name of
every person who has ever lived, hoping to trace
the family tree of the entire human race. From
the pinnacle of this "mountain of names",
Shoumatoff surveys the whole of human history,
explaining that to discover our ancestors is to
rediscover our own selves.] SEARCH www.bn.com
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6A0W3XH0G3&mscssid=&sourceid=00346648524536661043&bfdate=10%2D07%2D2001+01%3A55%3A37&isbn=0765524732
Format: Paperback, 318pp.
ISBN: 0765524732
Publisher: Kodansha America, Inc.
Pub. Date: May 1995
"Biblical times" are noted {in the story that
Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh. [18] Utnapishtim,
sometimes called the "Sumerian Noah", told
Gilgamesh how the gods had become angered
with humanity and decided on the Flood as one
means to exterminate it. A sympathetic god
warned Utnapishtim and told him to build a boat
and board it with his family, relatives, craftsmen,
and the seed of all living creatures (71). After
six days of tempest and flood, Utnapishtim's
boat grounded on a mountain. He released a
dove and a swallow, both of which returned to him.
Then he released a raven which did not return;
Utnapishtim and his family came down from
the mountain. When the disgruntled gods are
finally reconciled with the re-emergence of humanity,
Utnapishtim and his wife are taken by the god Enlil
to live in the blessed place where Gilgamesh found
him "in the distance, at the mouth of the rivers"(72).}
Middle Eastern Mythology
http://www.virtualscape.com/rbedrosian/Memyth.htm
The Ancient Tradition suggests that all mythology
is deviant telling from original recorded sources
that "turns the world upside down", beginning
with the common ancestor Noah.
EXAMPLE: The Tau Cross
"The Gauls came to use the Tau or T cross
to stand for the hammer of Thor who was not
only an engine of destruction but, as with
a storm, an instrument of life and fecundity.
With the Egyptians, the two headed mallet
became, in the hieroglyphs, the Latin cross
with the meaning of crusher or avenger
(see de Harlez Le Culte de la croix
avant le christianisme, La Science catholique,
15 Feb 1890, p. 163)."
http://www.logon.org/english/s/p039.html
Respectfully yours,
Tom Tinney, Sr.
Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~vctinney/ <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/%7Evctinney/>
"Free Coverage of the Genealogy World in a Nutshell"
Who's Who in America, Millennium Edition [54th] -
Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, [both editions]
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> Polynesian societies, these genealogies (in particular, the royal and
noble ones)
> were considered sacred. Which would add import to getting them right
>
& Goidelic! & West African! the Goidels had the _Seannachi_, and the West
Africans the _griots_.
> > so you are left with choosing between including many false
> > pedigrees just so that you won't exclude an occasional valid one,
> > or else risk dropping a few legit but entirely undocumented ones
> > in order not to include a whole lot of them that are garbage.
>
> Why choose at all? I would label these descents as traditional and leave
it to
> others to determine whether they are valid. This is something an
anthropologist
> would be doing as he studies these genealogies as a part of the culture he
is
> investigating. On a related issue, should we as foreigners be telling
other
> cultures that their traditional lines of descent are invalid because they
don't
> match our criteria?
>
> >
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
out,
> >(admittedly not likely)? By my reckoning, one would need go back to
Louis
> >VI to find another extant, legitimate male line.
>
> There is no junior, extant, legitimate male line. The only more junior
> line than the Bourbons (including the Spanish lines, Conde, Conti, and the
> modern-day Orleans) was the (French) Courtenays, who went extinct in the
> male line in 1733.
>
>
> --
What of the Courtenays of Devon? Are they included here? Are the
descendants of Louis Philipppe the last of the Capetians w/aclaim to the
French throne?
Reedpcgen
>
>Do you consider the Ancestral File a "scientific
>method" that will sustain unbiased historical criticism?
>Bob Gunderson's words are ...
Do I consider Ancestral File a "scientific method"...?
Are you serious, and what was your point?
Bob Gunderson's words stand as they are, accurately, and in good form. They
are accurate, intelligent, and correct.
There will be a new data base that supersedes Ancestral File, has notes, and is
restricted in the way we intended in the beginning when Ancestral File was
created in the first place.
What is your point, and where are you going?
Paul
William Addams Reitwiesner
>> >Who would be the next in line if the heirs male of Louis Philippe died
>out,
>> >(admittedly not likely)? By my reckoning, one would need go back to
>Louis
>> >VI to find another extant, legitimate male line.
>>
>> There is no junior, extant, legitimate male line. The only more junior
>> line than the Bourbons (including the Spanish lines, Conde, Conti, and the
>> modern-day Orleans) was the (French) Courtenays, who went extinct in the
>> male line in 1733.>
>
>What of the Courtenays of Devon?
Different male line.
>Are they included here?
No.
>Are the descendants of Louis Philipppe the last of the Capetians w/a claim
>to the French throne?
Yes.
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Thank you for your letter, but this raises an important point:
>
>I use PAF 4.0 and the way it works is that if a man and a woman have a
>child together, then they were married.
>
>I am not an LDS member, but I presume that this is a doctrine of the LDS.
>
>I visited the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City in 1991 and I
>purchased PAF 1.0 at that time. During the lecture that gave to all persons
>who were acquiring the LDS program, I specifically asked about this point,
>and this is what they said.
>
>Although there are many other programs, I feel that PAF is the best (and it
>is also free) and I cannot change their program. There is simply no
>provision in their program for designating an illegitimate child.
Which genealogical software you use is not particularly relevant. The
point I'm trying to make is that what you have placed on your website is
factually inaccurate. It doesn't matter what PAF does, or what the
practice of the LDS is, what matters is what your website says.
Your first message to this group said in part:
>From: s...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
>Subject: Royal Family of Europe
>Message-ID: <3bb83ec...@ca.news.verio.net>
>Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:19:58 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.191.119.110
>
>I have gone on a binge of making family trees lately and I have just
>made a family tree of all or almost all of the Royal Families of
>Europe combined.
>
>One would have thought that many people had done this and that this
>was commonly available. I certainly did. However, I could not find any
>such thing anywhere on the Internet. Of course, there were a few bits
>and pieces here and there, but I could not find anything satisfactory
>for serious research.
If you're trying to imply that your site is being made available to the
rest of the world for our serious research, then you'll have to remove the
obvious factual errors.
>Please do blame me entirely for any mistakes.
I tried to, but you shifted the blame to your software :)
You may have heard the phrase about "the tail wagging the dog"? Publishing
information that you know to be factually inaccurate, and doing so only
because of the limitations of the software you're using, is an example of
this.
Leo van de Pas
Courtneys and therefor are not in line for the French throne.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne <smo...@peoplepc.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Descendants of Charlemange & Thor
> > >Who would be the next in line if the heirs male of Louis Philippe died
> out,
> > >(admittedly not likely)? By my reckoning, one would need go back to
> Louis
> > >VI to find another extant, legitimate male line.
> >
> > There is no junior, extant, legitimate male line. The only more junior
> > line than the Bourbons (including the Spanish lines, Conde, Conti, and
the
> > modern-day Orleans) was the (French) Courtenays, who went extinct in the
> > male line in 1733.
> >
> >
The...@aol.com
Hello Ford, Leo, William et al.,
The Capetian Courtenays and the Courtenays of Devon share(d) common
ancestry in their descent from the seigneurs de Courtenay; one Joscelin de
Courtenay (fl. ca. 1100) was the father of his heir Miles de Courtenay, and
of Joscelin de Courtenay, a participant in the 1st Crusade and made Count of
Edessa in 1118 [by his cousin Baldwin, later Baldwin II of Jerusalem]. This
latter line has an interesting history of its own - I recommend Runciman's
History of the Crusades as an extremely good and accurate [though not 100% as
we know] read.
The problem as to the French succession, the Capetian Courtenays descend
from the marriage of Elizabeth de Courtenay to Peter [Pierre], younger son of
Louis VI of France and recipient of the seigneurie de Courtenay, through an
act of royal confiscation as I recall. Therefore these Courtenays [including
the Latin Emperor of Constantinople Pierre de Courtenay (d. 1219) ] had a
male-line descent from Hugh Capet, a requirement for succession to the French
throne [at least as enforced since the 14th century, arguments for Edward III
and his descendants aside.....]
The Courtenays of Devon descend from Renaud de Courtenay (d. 27 Sept
1194), brother of Elizabeth [above] who acquired his most significant English
holding, that of Oakhampton, co. Devon, through marriage to the heiress
Hawise de Curci.
Hence, no (useful) (English) Courtenay claim to the French throne.
Hope this helps.
John