Lovenbalk descent
M.Sjostrom
who was mother of Anne Jonsdatter af Torstedlund, of the house of the Viffert ????
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00303403&tree=LEO
Her father, Jon Viffertsen af Torstedlund, was married twice.
Sofie Jensdatter af Aunsbjerg was one wife, but the other wife (married c 1457) was Kirsten Christensdatter af Linderum, and having the information that Kirsten Christensdatter was widow after lord Jon, Sofie must have been the first wife, who thusly deceased already in 1450s...
Anyway, seeing that Sofie Jensdatter's father was not attested living after 1438, and was already elderly in 1430s; Sofie should have been born in early decades of 1400s, which is consistent with her being the first wife and giving birth in 1450s or earlier. Sofie's any possible birth date almost rules out any possibility of her having been lord Jon's wife only after lady Kirsten.
Anne Jonsdatter af Torstedlund married a man (Sehested, lord of Vellinhoj) who obviously was born only in late 1400s. Such as, in 1470s or so. Difficult to believe that such gentleman's wife would have been born in 1450s or earlier.
the chronology of Anne Jonsdatter af Torstedlund makes it difficult to believe that she were daughter of the first marriage, birthed by Sofie
So, this means that descendants of Anne Jonsdatter should give up a pretension that they have, via her, a Lovenbalk royal bastard descent.
[not that anyone should be particularly keen on a Lovenbalk descent anyway, because the alleged royal bastard, Erik Christoffersen, is not found in any contenmporary documentation, and thusly his historicity is -charitably said- weak.]
Finn Holbek
Thomes Thomesen (Sehested) has personal authority in 1482. he's not born
this year. He referred from 1482 to 1522 and hes wife, Anne Viffert, is
dead bef. 1495. We know that their son was a kid in 1504 and died 15. Nov.
1555.
None of this prevents Anne to be the daughter of Sophie Løvenbalk
(Danmarks Adels Aarbog 1954:II:19 - about Sehested Family)
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/getperson.php?personID=I9577&tree=2
about Løvenbalk:
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/showmedia.php?mediaID=1587
My pages is in Danish but supports English.
Translate the danish notes: http://translate.google.dk/?hl=da
Kind regards
Finn Holbek
M.Sjostrom
I see there exist today descendants of Anne Jonsdatter af Torstedlund, who are not willing to give up their pretension that their ancestress descended from royalty.... This pretension lingers, in spite of the serious unlikelihood that the royal scion could ever chronologically fit to give birth to their ancestress...
It's somehow funny to see that despite of the fact that those pages actually recognize Jon Viffertsen's second marriage (in 1450s) and the correct widow of his, still the same pages try to maintain that the first wife would have lived until 1490s... Any rational observer would admit Sofie Jensdatter af Aunsbjerg to have deceased before 1452.
IF Finn Holbek's archives have details correctly, then we know:
Jon Viffertsen acquired in 1452 a property obviously in right of his second wife, Kirsten Christensdatter. (And, Kirsten Christensdatter is recorded as having survived her husband Jon, being his widow in 1495.)
Jon Viffertsen's marriage with Kirsten Christensdatter must have taken place before 1452.
There is no sense whatsoever for Jon Viffertsen to have a property in right of the later wife IF he was still in 1452 married with his (living) first wife... I mean, the later marriage could then not have even yet taken place...
As opposed to writing of Mr Holbek here, Thomes Thomesen af Vellinhoj survived at least until 1552, when he still is active in some deed...
The unlikelihood comes, in very sufficient measure, from a fact that it is highly unlikely that a man still living in 1552, had married (and had his heirs with) a woman who would have been born in a marriage which ended before 1452.
Additionally, a heir still a child in 1504, would NOT be at all likely to be born of a lady who must have been born before 1452.
A lady born before 1452, would likely to have been married and birthed at least some heir already before, say, 1485.
The likelihood for Kirsten Christensdatter having been the real mother of Anne Jonsdatter is, simply, so much higher.
---------
In Scandinavian inheritance system, the death of Kaarina Jonintytär (which took place near Raasepori, Finland, in 1468), herself a daughter of Jon Viffertsen birthed by Sofie Jensdatter af Aunsbjerg,
made Kaarina's some Aunsbjerg inheritances to devolve to her half-siblings, children of Jon Viffertsen born of Kirsten Christensdatter.
Therefore it is not at all unexpected that a half-sibling (or her heirs) of the late Kaarina, was later holding some Aunsbjerg inheritance portion.
And, such collateral inheriting is a reason why some blood heir(s) of the Aunsbjerg may make a judicial conflict out of such inheritance question.
I assume that some Aunsbjerg land being in the Sehested family, has made some too-simple genealogists to believe -against unlikelihoods- that the Sehested actually would have been descendants of the Aunsbjerg.
Such indeed, are reasons for many unwarranted wishful thinking in genealogies...
However, such inheritance portion has a clear explanation in the facts of the drowned lady Kaarina's left inheritance, and do not mean a direct descent from the Aunsbjerg.
--------------------------------------------
Slægten Løvenbalk. †
Ifølge et gammelt Sagn, hvis Rigtighed ikke drages i Tvivl, randt der kongeligt Blod i denne Slægts Aarer, idet dens Stamfader skulde være en Søn af Kong Christoffer II. i en illegitim Forbindelse med en Jomfru af de gamle Lunge'r. Vaabnet, en blaa Løve gaaende over to blaa Bjelker i Guld-Felt og paa Hjelmen en halv blaa Løve, kunde ogsaa tale for Sagnets Rigtighed.
Hr. Erik Eriksens Sigil fra 1486 har nærmest været Forbillede for hosstaaende Afbilding. En mærkelig Afvigelse i Vaabnet findes paa Hr. Stig Pedersen Krognos Gravsten fra Begyndelsen af det 15. Aarh. i Lund Domkirke, Blandt hans Ahnevaaben findes nemlig de Løvenbalkers Vaaben med Løven opreist foran tre Bjelker.
Slægtvaabnet har aabenbart givet Anledning til Slægtnavnet, der dog først kom i Brug i Slægtens allersidste Generation, i første Halvdel af det 16. Aarhundrede.
Det fortælles stundom, at den bekjendte Reformationspræst Broder Thøger Jensen var af Løvenbalkernes Slægt og Broder eller Søn! af Mogens Jensen til Avnsbjerg! For den sidste Paastands Vedkommende er Urigtigheden selvindlysende, men den hele Fortælling turde ene bero paa en Misforstaaelse, opstaaet ved, at Løvenbalk-Vaabnet stod paa Skriftestolen i Viborg Domkirkes Kapel, og at Hr. Jens Nielsen Løvenbalks Gravsten paa Graabrødrekirkegaard er bleven forvexlet med Broder Thøgers
----
Thomes Thomesen
i Vellingshøj, nævnt 1482 og 1552 - Beseglede 1482 til Vitterlighed med Faderen, stod 1520 takseret for 200 Gylden, tilbød Kongen en Hjælp på 16 Gylden og havde 5 Læster Korn til Indgæld, takseredes 1525 til at stille 2 Glavind blandt Adelen i Vendsyssel, skrev sig 1526 af Ullerupgaard (Hillerslev H.) og var Medudsteder af et Vidne af Horns Herredsting, deltog 1532 som Ridemand i en Markeskelsforretning mellem Hestbæk, Rydbjerg og Yttrup Mark og andre Syns- og Markskelssager, nævnes 1536 i den store Reces, skrives 1537 og 1538 af Vellinghøj, men 1539 atter til Ullerupgaard, levede her endnu 1552, da han blev sagsøgt af Erik Skram for Arvegods efter Hr. Jens Nielsen Løvenbalk, det oplystes da, at han havde Ullerup i Forlehning af Niels Skeel, men at Vellinghøj var hans rette "Broskiel"; var samme Aar Medudsteder af den Jyske Adels Vedtægt om at holde Landemøde.
Jon Viffertsen (died before 1493)
til Torstedlund, nævnes 1443, sluttede 1448 et Forlig med Kong Christern I, hvorved Kongen fik en Gaard i Astrup og han Gamlevads Møllested i Hindsted H., fik 1452 tildømt Lindumgaard (Vennebjerg H.) efter Christen Jensen (Taarnskytte), gav 1467 Gods til Helligaandshuset i Aalborg for sin Husfrue Kirsten Christiernsdatter og deres Forældres Sjæle
Kirsten Christensdatter af Linderum (survived to 1495...)
* 1495 skifte med sønnerne og Mattis Jonsen eller Jon Viffertsen
M.Sjostrom
Finn Holbek
At all, this is not impossible:
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/pedigree.php?personID=I9574&tree=2&parentset=0&display=box&generations=4
If you want to suggest changes to DAA contact:
http://www.adelsforeningen.dk/Kontakt.htm
Kind regards
Finn Holbek
M.Sjostrom
"If you want to suggest changes to DAA contact:"
------
intriguing attitude.
M.Sjostrom
In my view, it's just wishful thinking to keep up a claim that Anne Jonsdatter af Torstedlund would have been birthed by Sofie Jensdatter af Aunsbjerg (who in reality deceased already before 1452, because her widower already in 1452 lawsuited for a property of his later wife's inheritance).
--------------------------
Anne Jonsdatter Viffert Anne Jonsdatter Viffert[1]
Kvinde - 1495
ForsideForside SøgSøg UdskrivUdskriv Log ind - Bruger: AnonymLog ind Tilføj bogmærkeTilføj bogmærke
* Egne data
* Aner
* Efterkommere
* Slægtskab
* Tidslinje
* GEDCOM
* Foreslå
Personlig information | Medie | Kilder | Alle | PDF
*
Køn Kvinde
Død Før 1495 Vellinghøj Find alle personer med begivenheder på dette sted
Person-ID I9577 Skeel, Holbek, Santasilia and Muckadell
Sidst ændret 29 Apr. 2008
Far Jon Viffertsen Viffert, d. Før 14 Sep. 1493
Mor Sophie Jensdatter Løvenbalk, d. 1493
Familie-ID F4710 Gruppeskema
Familie Thomes Thomesen (Sehested), d. Eft. 1552
Børn
> 1. Jens Thomesen (Sehested), d. 15 Nov. 1555, Holmgaard, Skodsborg Find alle personer med begivenheder på dette sted
Familie-ID F4708 Gruppeskema
*
Billeder
Coat of arms - Viffert Coat of arms - Viffert
DAA 1901, Webmaster scan 2006-2008, Skeel edit i paint
--------------------------------------------
M.Sjostrom
nice that Finn has made changes to Sofie Jensdatter's entry in his internet genealogy on 29 December 2008 (= today),
but the corrections now present are imo not enough.
The claim unfortunately still lingers there that -despite of its unlikelihood- Sofie had birthed also a daughter Anne Jonsdatter.
It's much more plausible that Anne Jonsdatter was born in 1460s.
By the way, the baptismal name Anne was in attested use in Kirsten Christensdatter af Linderum's birth family: it appears to have belonged to Kirsten's sister, for example.
------------------------
Sophie Jensdatter Løvenbalk[1]
Kvinde - 1457
ForsideForside SøgSøg UdskrivUdskriv Log ind - Bruger: AnonymLog ind Tilføj bogmærkeTilføj bogmærke
* Egne data
* Aner
* Efterkommere
* Slægtskab
* Tidslinje
* GEDCOM
* Foreslå
Personlig information | Medie | Kilder | Alle | PDF
*
Køn Kvinde
Complete *
Død Før 1457
o estimated date
Person-ID I12705 Skeel, Holbek, Santasilia and Muckadell
Sidst ændret 29 Dec. 2008
Far Jens Nielsen Løvenbalk, d. Mellem 1430 og 1438
Mor Ne (delt Skjold)
Familie-ID F7729 Gruppeskema
Familie Jon Viffertsen Viffert, d. Før 14 Sep. 1493
Børn
> 1. Karen Jonsdatter Viffert, d. 1468, druknede ved Rasaborg i Finland Find alle personer med begivenheder på dette sted
> 2. Anne Jonsdatter Viffert, d. Før 1495, Vellinghøj Find alle personer med begivenheder på dette sted
> 3. Mattis Jonsen Viffert, d. Mellem 27 Okt. 1505 og 26 Sep. 1507, Torstedlund Find alle personer med begivenheder på dette sted
Familie-ID F4710 Gruppeskema
*
Billeder
Coat of arms - Løvenbalk Coat of arms - Løvenbalk
DAA 1903, Webmaster scan 2006-2008
Historier Slægten Løvenbalk †
--------------------------
Finn Holbek
Aarbog", not casual discussion forums. You have to get your amendments
included here.
Personally I do not think you're right, - but that is such to do it.
My royal lineage is more recent than Løvenbalks <;o)
Finn Holbek
- the death year of Sophie L. 1493, was NOT in DAA 1893 (maybee it was from
the roskilde pages) - it is now changed to est. bef 1457. The rest of the
information is direct from DAA. 1893, 1901 and 1957.
Kind regards
Finn
M.Sjostrom
"....research permits in Denmark..."
-------
again, an intriguing concept: 'permit'
So, genealogical research outside the Danmarks Adels Aarbog publication is *not* permitted in Denmark, in Finn's world....
Funny, I have believed that the said publication and its publisher are just a private-law association, in other words comparable with an enterprise; and nothing to do with granting permits or not permitting...
Finn Holbek
http://dis-danmark.dk/forum/index.php
M.Sjostrom
The DAA information on the question of which of the marriages of Jon Viffertsen produced which of his children, has been in 1901 DAA.
1957 and 1893 appear irrelevant for that question.
I must underline, for benefit of general audience, that DAA series is known to contain *lots* of mistakes and too much bad genealogy.
Particularly I must underline that the earliest decades of DAA editions (such as yet in early 1900s) are practically notorious for notoriety.
In those early decades, DAA published a lot of so-called traditional genealogies, and a lot of genealogical conjectures as uncautioned 'truth'. Very many of medieval lineages presented in those editions, are at places (crucial places which may break an entire lineage) nothing more than wishful thinking.
Those earliest decades of DAA genealogies display am obvious defect of not using systematical near-contemporary sources.
Later DAA editions then have had a huge number of corrections to those, but not systematically. Already the existence of a lot of later-published corrections is evidence that earliest-decades DAA genealogies are just worth some sort of guide paths, not verified lineages.
In now *recent* decades, DAA has published much-better-quality medieval genealogy articles. Such recent genealogies are better worth trust.
However, the Viffert family, and this question particularly of Anne Jonsdatter's maternal ancestry, have not been treated in DAA editions since first decades of 1900s.... there in a genealogy which does not show systematical, thoughtful use of contemporary facts.
--------------------------
There are pompous persons who think that a genealogical point is not true unless some nobility-institution authority has officially accepted it.
And there are pompous, inherently inertic nobility institutions....
However, for the information of pompous ones,
the general pattern of genealogies published by nobility institutions has been that they sooner or later give attention to pieces of better genealogical research. There is of course a huge inertia - already because nobility institutions do not publish revised genealogies all the time, but it usually waits for a collection or an occasion to do
but also because of inherent pomposity (traditional genealogies are defended quite long by some of vested interest).
Spanish nobility and heraldry institutions are notorious of such.
Still, nobility institutions publish now and then better genealogies. better quality comes in a way that their author(s) collect corrected points from genealogical research (of others).
Not in the pompously-thought opposite way that genealogy is official and *true* when it is the last one the institution has published...
---
Medieval genealogy has, because of certain dedicated researchers, been at quite high quality in Sweden in the recent half a century.
And, intriguingly, Swedish genealogists nowadays and recently give very unflattering comments about the quality and reliability of Danish medieval genealogies. It really has looked like Danish genealogy has not achieved as high quality for Middle Ages.... which obviously is a challenge, and a void to be filled by competent researchers.
---
How much worth should be given to webpages which obviously aim for repetition of DAA genealogies (including faulty ones, old ones from epoch when wishful thinking and flattering roots were yet published as genealogies), not giving heed to even obvious corrections....
Finn Holbek
1906 page 502; 1911 page 574; 1915 page 606; 1923 page 552; 1931 page 159;
1934 page 277. None of these fixes regards Jon Viffertsens children.
From DAA 1954:II:19- 8. a. ff.: about Thomes Thomesen (Sehested),
from page 20: - marr. Anne Jonsdatter Viffert (P.: Jon Viffertsen til
Thorstedlund and Sophie Jensdatter Løvenbalk) d. possibly bef. 1495 (She
marr. 1 Jep Bildt, d. bef. 1493)
The family released Sehested 1. in 1911 and 2. complete revised version in
1954 from page 13 - with corrections in 1956 page 39; 1958-59 page 61, 1962
page 54; 1972-73 page 31. None of these fixes changes Thomes Thomesens
parrents.
DAA - Index:
http://finnholbek.dk/DAA/index.htm#S
- If you want to suggest changes to DAA please contact:
http://www.adelsforeningen.dk/Kontakt.htm
Jared & Christina Olar
inertia, carrying on what had always been accepted as correct because it had
not yet occurred to anybody to look closer.
Jared L. Olar
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
M.Sjostrom
as to many nobility institutions, it's experiantially -for over a century- known that it is also 'pomposity'.
Some genealogical publications prepared under auspices of some nobility institutions have -documentedly- suffered from desires of some leaders of the institution.... An author or authors were asked to refrain from airing some points.
Not all nobles are such however: I have seen ALSO delightful examples of nobles and noble genealogists who display clear desire to find their true roots and discard myths and unsupported concoctions.
Although I have not claimed that 'pomposity' is always a necessary part of reasons why better-quality genealogies have delayed, still I think it has very often played some part when nobility institutions.
-----
By the way, having seen how thoroughly and systematically the medieval high nobility of Sweden has been researched and captured to good-quality genealogical publications already,
I am somewhat surprised that Scottish and English high nobility seems to have lots of lacunae. Particularly, their daughters and wives somewhat often appear to be unsatisfactorily charted. Property devoluments (dowers, dowries, cognatic inheritances) and marriage dispensations, for example, as well as younger sons, appear to be not systematically studied.... How can this be ?
It seems that somewhat often, the SP or the CP is said to just 'say' that this or that lady was of this or that family,... then, a basic reading of a dispensation or a simple view on what properties were dealt with in the marriage or by their issue, demonstrate that CP or SP has it wrong, and inexplicably wrong.
----------------------------------
I am quite convinced that even some danish genealogists occasionally take note of what is discussed here.
And the genealogist of the DAA (if such officer position even exists) would of course glean valuable data from these discussions.
---------------------
By the way, Mr Holbek is funny in eagerly providing the contact to Danske Adelsforeningen.
The contact info gives two addresses:
the latter is their such official who takes explicitly care only of issues of enrollment (membership) in their association. Not obviously one to be their genealogist.
the upper contact is that association's chairman. And mentioned as contact for general affairs. I sincerely doubt that the chairman of a nobility institution does genealogy work...
The institution's that webpage does not provide any information about genealogist of theirs, or editor of their Aarbog. It almost is suspect whether they even have a genealogist in their service...
[knowing that several other nobility institutions are very openly 'advertising' that they have a genealogist or even a genealogical department, providing all sorts of precise contact info to such...]
Perhaps it's just that their Aarbog's editor does not want to be any sort of public figure... anyway, contact info to such editor is sadly missing.
What I have seen of recent *historical* genealogies of better quality published in DAA, they appear always to be separate articles, authored by some researcher or other, seemingly as such detached from the institution itself.
And the present-tense genealogies in recent Aarbogs, i.e listings of current generations of their membership, do not mean any competence in medieval genealogy: those parts are like a matricle, and much of the data is presumably received from the families themselves.
So, is it really worth anything to push here that contact info page ???
Rather, would it be tad more valuable if the genealogist (if such exists) of DAA is alerted to follow,or even participate, in this discussion.
Finn Holbek
mr. Reventlow know more about this case: http://reventlow.dk/reventlow.php
M.Sjostrom
the link to the Reventlow database is actually very empty of content. Certainly an allegation 'more about' is unwarranted.
Namely, count Reventlow's database, such as it presently displays, has NO 'notes' in the entries of either
Anne Jonsdatter
http://reventlow.dk/cgi-bin/igmget.cgi/n=reventlow?I47
or
Sofie Jensdatter
http://reventlow.dk/cgi-bin/igmget.cgi/n=reventlow?I14856
In other words, no explanation there what are near-contemporary facts to assign any filiation, maternity or daughterhood between them.
Actually, as it today stands, the Reventlow database does not even show that the database-owner were aware that Jon Viffertsen had also another wife.
This link-pushing to Reventlow database tastes like a repetition of the already-seen pushing of the very same DAA 1901 filiation.
It does not grow better, firmer or more proven, however often it gets repeated.
Whereas the pushing, in variety of forms and pleading varyingly whomsoever's authority, the very same original claim or mistake repeatedly, actually gives an impression very similar to that of certain Spanish and other genealogies (or delusions), which are defended to bleeding death... (yeah, surely los condes de Clonard descend from queen Isabel II, and surely Anne Jensdatter descends from king Christopher II... bwahaha)
If a term is desired for the phenomenon, I would coin it as 'quixotic genealogies'. Hmm. The quixotic genealogy of Anne Jonsdatter and the Sehesteds....
------
so, Finn Holbek, you do claim that Anne Jonsdatter was daughter born of Sofie Jensdatter. Do you have any near-contemporary proof for that specified filiation ?
Please present it.
[a hint: a publication in 1901 is not 'near-contemporary' with a filiation in mid-1400s]
---
---
btw, where doeth come a delusion that I do not understand written danish at all ????
M.Sjostrom
by the way, count Reventlow's collection reveals his thoughts on the likely birth dating of Anne Jonsdatter:
SURNAME: Viffert
GIVEN NAME: Anne
SEX: F
BORN: ABT 1475 Torstedlund, Aarestrup,Aalborg,Danmark
DEAD: BEF 1495 Vellinghøj
AFN: 14862
RELATIONSHIP:
12 x Great Grand Mother
RECORD LAST UPDATED: 23 Jul 2008
--------------------------
of course, this is just an estimate. And I would rather be willing to estimate it closer to 1460s.
However, as independent estimate (certainly it does not come from me!), Reventlow's view that Anne Jonsdatter were born in about 1475, is telling.
And fatal to the pretension itself.
----------------
Sofie Jensdatter's birth is also estimated by count Reventlow:
SURNAME: Løvenbalk
GIVEN NAME: Sophie Jensdatter
SEX: F
BORN: ABT 1420 Aunsbjerg
DEAD: Torstedlund
RELATIONSHIP:
13 x Great Grand Mother
RECORD LAST UPDATED: 23 Jul 2008
----
I would rather assess it closer to 1410s. Because the father is mentioned as elderly.
Anyway, a woman herself born in 1420 birthes a daughter in 1475, pretty impossible.
These estimates from Reventlow already reveal the chronological implausibility of the pretension here under discussion.
Mr Holbek already said: "....Reventlow knowS more about this case..."
Finn Holbek
Danish?
for further discussion ask: c...@reventlow.dk
M.Sjostrom
Mr Holbek, please cease with your latest delusion, that of alleging that I do not read Danish at all.
I observe that you are repeating that allegation, like you wrote yourself: 'again'. Such is not acceptable.
----
for the record: Mr Holbek's claim "you do not read Danish" is not true.
I have no idea why Mr Holbek is repeating it.
cdrev...@gmail.com
M. Sjostrom has written to me, drawing my attention to this debate
between him and you Finn Holbek. Finn and I often have been in
contact with each other trying to establish wether different members
of the danish nobility was related to each other. So my reply is also
a followup on a more private correspondence between Finn and myself on
more or less the same subject.
I totally agree that the quality of the DAA during the first many
years of its existence was not very good. There have been a huge
amount of errors - and many needs still to be corrected. This is a
fact known to many and this is nothing to argue about. You might want
to take a look at this http://www.dis-danmark.dk/forum/read.php?1,359369
with a similar discussion of errors in DAA - also in the Viffert
family. In this debate is also a reference to the much disputed royal
link between Christian 2 of Denmark and jomfru Lunge.
The links, Finn has provided to Danmarks Adelsårbog / Danmarks
Adelsforbund are the correct ones (at least these are the public
adresses) I am however - as many other members of the danish nobility
- correspondent to the yearbook (on the Reventlow-family) and we are
constantly trying to make the new editions as correct as possible. The
deadline for the coming edition (summer 2009) is now closed and I have
suggested some corrections among others a correction to the yearbook
of 1931 and 1936 covering some obvious errors in the Pogwish and
Brockdorff families. Everybody can submit their findings of errors to
the editor and I know that this will be taken up positively. As far as
I know the editor works together with reseachers from the institute of
History from the University in Odense, Denmark in order to secure that
the corrections made are correct!! I trust that this is OK - for me it
is, anyway.
If I go a little but deeper into the matter of who is the mother of
Anne Jonsdatter Viffert I am glad that you have noticed, M. Sjöström,
that I've tried to make - at least what I belived to be - an
intelligent guess of her date of birth etc. I agree with you that my
suggestions are tentative and yours might be as correct as mine. I'm
rather convinced that you are correct in your suggestion of Kirsten
Christensdatter Tårnskytte being her mother - I've not yet found any
exact proof to this fact, but I agree with you, that this probably is
correct. This conclusion is based of the actual dates and data that
I've been able to find this evening via the internet (mostly via
Landbohistorisk Selskab, Adkomstregistrering and similar primary
sources) I do not consider www.gravstenogepitafier.dk as a primary
source (because of a few errors I've found here, but it is a rather
good site, though)
Chr. Reventlow
Jared & Christina Olar
they're a century old. There's been quite a lot of advances and
improvements since those works were published. You just need to know where
to look, and that's not really a simple task. I'd be careful about painting
with too broad a brush -- I doubt there is any greater number of lacunae in
the genealogies of Scottish and English nobility than there are in noble
Swedish medieval genealogies. Sometimes the reason why a genealogy hasn't
been systematically studied is because there just aren't any records to
speak of available to study, much like Sweden's original records prior to
circa 1300.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Finn Holbek
Mange tak for det konstruktive indlæg i 'debatten' med hr. Sjöström.
I beskrivelsen af Knud Bildt er jeg faldet over flg. note: "førte 1546
proces med sin brodersøn Malte Jensen (Sehested) om dennes værgemål..."
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/relationship.php?generations=28&altprimarypersonID=&savedpersonID=I9572&secondpersonID=&tree=2&primarypersonID=I30853
Hvis det er en formulering fra nedskrevne sagsakter (DRB) el. lign., kunne
det indikere at Anne Viffert faktisk er mor til Jens Thomesen, da Malte
Jensen S. efter mit skøn ellers ville være beskrevet som "søn af sin
stiftbroder", eller noget i den retning, men det må selvfølgeligt være op
til en fagmand at vurdere det.
Med ønske om god slægtsforskning i det nye år
--
Venlig hilsen - Kind regards
Finn Holbek
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/
M.Sjostrom
Interesting the way how Mr Holbek reacts:
Holbek (who in that and earlier wrote English) pleaded the authority of count Reventlow; Reventlow wrote to the effect that he regards Holbek's lineage pretension *probably incorrect*;
then Holbek starts to write in Danish here.
However, I understand fairly well what mr Holbek there utters in Danish.
Mr Holbek appears to have misgivings about the debate he earlier eagerly participated.
Of course, that sort of conduct could be expected when a 'debater' like Mr Holbek, had in vain tried to defend the truthfulness what ends up as probably incorrect.
Finn Holbek
cdrev...@gmail.com
To mr M.Sjöström
What an extraordinary unpleasant way of debating you are performing.
There is no point in flaming people like that. This only leads to the
fact that your arguments, how ever relevant they might be, cannot be
taken seriously. I will therefore close my participating in this
debate.
Chr. Reventlow
steen....@danbbs.dk
> There is no point in flaming people like that. This only leads to the
> fact that your arguments, how ever relevant they might be, cannot be
> taken seriously. I will therefore close my participating in this
> debate.
I fully agree.
Concerning the year 1452 that you use in your argument above, I wander
if you mean 1462?
In 1452 Christiern Jensen Taarnskytte (the father of Jon's wifte
Kirsten Christiernsdatter) claimed his rights to Linderumgård by
lovhævd (had it registered by the court) - in spite that he had lost
his papers showing this right.
1461 he got a sentence from a royal commision court that he indeed
owned the part of Linderuumgård that he had from his fathers mother.
ref: Klitgaard: Bidrag til Linderumgaards ældste historie. printed in:
Saml Jydsk Hist og Top 3'rk VI'bd. 1908-10.
1462 he is dead, as his son-in-law Jon Viffertsen (Viffert) repays
some money he had borrowed.
ref: Repertorium diplomaticum regni Danici mediævalis 2'rk 1'bd nr
1264.
In 1462 Jon Viffertsen (Viffert) gets a court sentence that he and co-
heirs now have Linderumgård after Christiern Jensen Taarnskytte.
This leaves time for Anne Jonsdatter (Viffert) to be born by Sophie
Jensdatter (Løvenbalk) around 1455-60.
Anne's husband Thomes Thomesen (Sehested) is mentioned 1482-1538, and
in 1482 he is likely to be at least 25 years - the age where one could
trade land - since he seals his fathers gift of land to a hospital. So
we see him through 56 years, and that is a very long time for one
person! If the age was 25 in 1482 he lived for at least 81 years -
outstanding at that time. So he is must be born also around 1455.
In DAA 1954 (the table Sehested) has that in 1552 he was charged by
Erik Skram for herited property after Jens Nielsen (Løvenbalk) (father
of Sofie above). In my opinion this demonstrates the Løvenbalk
heritage. However the year must be wrong, since he must have been dead
for years at that time. I have tried to find this occasion in the
printed sources - but I found nothing, so I cannot give a better year.
P.S. I'm not very snobbish about my thin royal heritage. I'm not
sitting in Amalienborg Palace today, so for my branch of the family it
has just gone downhill over the time......
--
Best regards
Steen Thomsen
=============================================================
Steen Thomsen http://www.danbbs.dk/~stst/
Frederikssundsvej 128 H st-th
DK 2700 Brønshøj
Danmark
Tlf: +45 3880 0202 steen.thomsen you-know-what danbbs.dk
=============================================================