Longest known patrilineal descent?
Bryan L. Ford
William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to me a
couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
descents that go back about a thousand years.
Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for the
longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
To avoid anyone from unnecessarily submitting her/his favorite agnate
lineage, let me warn that in all likelihood one should expect that the
longest of such lineages may very well go hundreds of years further back
than the longest matrilineals-- for reasons that should be clear, at
least to the contributors here. But, then again, maybe it is not so
clear. I hope that we shall soon see.
Please indicate identities of a half dozen or so initial generations,
and perhaps, if it is not deemed an inappropriate invasion of privacy, a
couple of examples of more recent members of such lineages. Please also
give reasonable citations/sources where those who may be interested can
pursue the details.
Thank you all in advance.
Sincerely,
Bryan L. Ford
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Dear readers/contributors to soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to me a
> couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
> descents that go back about a thousand years.
>
> Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for the
> longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
An obvious starting point is the Capets, who trace back firmly to Robert
the Strong, and if his identity with Rutpert of Wormsgau is correct, go
on back to the 7th century. Perhaps some of the Irish families can top
this.
taf
Leo van de Pas
One of the longest (Western) patrilineal descents have to be the Somerset
Family (Dukes of Beaufort) or many branches of the Stewart/Stuart family.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan L. Ford <Bryan...@orst.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:19 AM
Subject: Longest known patrilineal descent?
> Dear readers/contributors to soc.genealogy.medieval:
>
> William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to me a
> couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
> descents that go back about a thousand years.
>
> Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for the
> longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
D. Spencer Hines
Well, if we make a run from Charibert of Neustria to a male
great-grandchild of the late Henri d'Orleans, Comte de Paris [assuming
he has one] we would have about 44 agnatic generations.
Not too shabby --- if it pans out beyond Robert The Strong.
I covered most of this in an _Ahnenreihe_ on Henri, Comte de Paris ---
easily retrievable at Deja.com.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Probitas Laudatur et Alget" [Honesty is praised
and starves.], Decimus Junius Juvenalis (Juvenal) [c. 50 A.D.-- c.130
A.D.], _Satires, I, line 74_
Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
news:379A87...@po.cwru.edu...
> Bryan L. Ford wrote:
> >
> > Dear readers/contributors to soc.genealogy.medieval:
> >
> > William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to
me a
> > couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
> > descents that go back about a thousand years.
> >
> > Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for
the
> > longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
>
>
D. Spencer Hines
Fair enough. But I've yet to see really convincing proof for the
ascent to those 5th Century Irish "Kings" we keep hearing about.
Can you present it, or just hint at it?
Also, it's _Capetian_ not _Capetean_.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Probitas Laudatur et Alget" [Honesty is praised
and starves.], Decimus Junius Juvenalis (Juvenal) [c. 50 A.D.-- c.130
A.D.], _Satires, I, line 74_
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:379a9842...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:19:21 -0700, "Bryan L. Ford"
> <Bryan...@orst.edu> wrote:
>
> >Dear readers/contributors to soc.genealogy.medieval:
> >
> >William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to
me a
> >couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
> >descents that go back about a thousand years.
> >
> >Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for
the
> >longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
> >To avoid anyone from unnecessarily submitting her/his favorite
agnate
> >lineage, let me warn that in all likelihood one should expect that
the
> >longest of such lineages may very well go hundreds of years further
back
> >than the longest matrilineals-- for reasons that should be clear,
at
> >least to the contributors here. But, then again, maybe it is not so
> >clear. I hope that we shall soon see.
> >
> >Please indicate identities of a half dozen or so initial
generations,
> >and perhaps, if it is not deemed an inappropriate invasion of
privacy, a
> >couple of examples of more recent members of such lineages. Please
also
> >give reasonable citations/sources where those who may be interested
can
> >pursue the details.
> >
> >Thank you all in advance.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Bryan L. Ford
>
> This has been discussed on a number of occasions before, so you
might
> want to check the archives. (Try searching for things like "oldest
> male line" and obvious variations.) A number of Irish families can
> trace a direct male line descent back to Irish kings who ruled in
the
> fifth century, and they appear to be the winners (provided that you
> demand reasonable documentation). Among the currently reigning
> European monarchs, the king of Spain and the Grand Duke of Luxemburg
> (and perhaps others I am overlooking) would probably win with their
> Capetean descent, but those would still lose to the Irish lines.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
>
Stewart Baldwin
matthew harley
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
Does it follow, by the same logic that "proves" all Europeans are descended
from Charlemagne (c.f. Gordon Fisher's recent post), that the same
Charlemagne is descended from one or more of these 5th century Irish kings?
Matt Harley
Francisco Antonio Doria
>An obvious starting point is the Capets, who trace back firmly to Robert
>the Strong, and if his identity with Rutpert of Wormsgau is correct, go
>on back to the 7th century. Perhaps some of the Irish families can top
>this.
>
>taf
In Portugal and Brazil: not just the royals, but several untitled
branches of families agnatically descended from the royal house, as the
Sousas do Prado, for instance.
If you buy that line from the presores of Coimbra, it goes back to
Leowegild in the 6th century. The Barbosa family is descended from them,
and there may be several agnatic members of that lineage.
A final comment: the only known agnatic Acciaiolis (800+ years) are very,
very poor and live in Northeastern Brazil, mostly oblivious of their
family's past.
chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
Chris Bennett
a) Quraish, the tribe of the prophet Muhammed, traceable at least to the 3rd
century. The late kings Hussein of Jordan and Hassan II of Morocco were
both representatives of this line, or at least claimed to be so. Hussein's
branch of the family was prominent in Mecca since at least the 11th century;
the prominence of the Sharifians of Morocco is rather more recent. I do not
know if the earlier parts of the line have been subjected to critical
analysis.
b) The descendants of Confucius, i.e. traceable from at least the 5th
century BC. IIRC the current head of house is claimed to be the 77th or
78th generation from Confucius. I have never seen a study of this line. In
Chinese genealogy a patrilineal line is often extended by adoption, I do not
know if we have the records to know whether such adoptions have occurred in
this case.
Chris
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:001301bed64f$dbc47b80$57143bcb@leovdpas...
> Dear Bryan
> One of the longest (Western) patrilineal descents have to be the Somerset
> Family (Dukes of Beaufort) or many branches of the Stewart/Stuart family.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bryan L. Ford <Bryan...@orst.edu>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:19 AM
> Subject: Longest known patrilineal descent?
>
>
John Carmi Parsons
is true of the Japanese imperial line, though as these adoptions were made from
within the imperial clan (i.e., an emperor would adopt an agnatic male relative
as heir) and did not become public knowledge, the imperial line formerly
pretended to unbroken father-to-son succession from the goddess Amaterasu. This
claim, along with a good deal else, was abandoned by the Japanese monarchy
after WW2.
John Parsons
Francisco Antonio Doria
>or at least claimed to be so.
Chris, check the number of generations in both lines... and then let's
discuss the Miragaia stuff ;-)
More seriously: it's a very complicated issue, because it's undocumented
for a long, long stretch, and only carried in oral tradition. Anyway
according to my local expert on Arabic matters, a Maghrebin, King Hassan
II used to call the Braganza princes `cousins.'
Chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
Jeff Snavely
family, later FitzPatrick) b. July 3, 1884, d. June 1, 1970, whose claimed
patrilineal line goes all the way back to Adam and Eve!
John Hamby
I know that there are legendary ancestors, but I think they have
the longet extant line of any ruling family.
---
John S. Hamby
William Addams Reitwiesner
>On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 20:19:21 -0700, "Bryan L. Ford"
><Bryan...@orst.edu> wrote:
>
>>Dear readers/contributors to soc.genealogy.medieval:
>>
>>William Addams Reitwiesner was kind enough to recently indicate to me a
>>couple of examples (that he personally assembled) of matrilineal
>>descents that go back about a thousand years.
>>
>>Would anyone here be able and willing to identify candidates for the
>>longest patrilineal (agnate) descents yet to be firmly worked out?
>>To avoid anyone from unnecessarily submitting her/his favorite agnate
>>lineage, let me warn that in all likelihood one should expect that the
>>longest of such lineages may very well go hundreds of years further back
>>than the longest matrilineals-- for reasons that should be clear, at
>>least to the contributors here. But, then again, maybe it is not so
>>clear. I hope that we shall soon see.
>>
>>Please indicate identities of a half dozen or so initial generations,
>>and perhaps, if it is not deemed an inappropriate invasion of privacy, a
>>couple of examples of more recent members of such lineages. Please also
>>give reasonable citations/sources where those who may be interested can
>>pursue the details.
>>
>>Thank you all in advance.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Bryan L. Ford
>
>This has been discussed on a number of occasions before, so you might
>want to check the archives. (Try searching for things like "oldest
>male line" and obvious variations.) A number of Irish families can
>trace a direct male line descent back to Irish kings who ruled in the
>fifth century, and they appear to be the winners (provided that you
>demand reasonable documentation). Among the currently reigning
>European monarchs, the king of Spain and the Grand Duke of Luxemburg
>(and perhaps others I am overlooking) would probably win with their
>Capetean descent, but those would still lose to the Irish lines.
There's also the Hesse/Brabants, who go back about as far as the Capetians.
If Kelley's hypothesis about Edwin of Mercia is right, then certain obscure
Welsh families have a patrilineal line back about the same distance.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Does it follow, by the same logic that "proves" all Europeans are descended
> from Charlemagne (c.f. Gordon Fisher's recent post), that the same
> Charlemagne is descended from one or more of these 5th century Irish kings?
Certainly not. Charlemagne was only 250 years removed from these 5th
century Irish, and at a time before there was significant communication
between the lands in question (largely made possible by the conquests
and political organization of Charlemagne himself). Likewise it does
not follow that we are all descended from these 5th century Irish. The
insularity of the Irish meant that the descendants of their royalty did
not leave the island (except perhaps in a viking slave ship), with a few
exceptions, prior to the 12th century, giving Charlemage a 400 year head
start.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>Dear Bryan
>One of the longest (Western) patrilineal descents have to be the Somerset
>Family (Dukes of Beaufort) or many branches of the Stewart/Stuart family.
>Best wishes
>Leo van de Pas
The Stewarts can only be traced back in the direct male line to
roughly the year 1000, so they would hardly be in the running, as
there are numerous very well documented male lines that go back
further than that. The Somerset family (which descends in the direct
male line from the counts of Anjou and then the counts of Gātinais)
can't do much better unless you are willing to rely on undocumented
(and contraversial) conjectures. See, for example, Christian
Settipani's recent "Les comtes d'Anjou et leurs alliances aux Xe et
XIe sičcles", in "Family trees and the roots of politics" (Bury St.
Edmunds, Suffolk, 1997), 211-67, which would cut the line in the late
tenth century, and even if you decided to use Chaume's theories, his
genealogical chart consists of mostly dotted (i.e., conjectural)
lines.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Snavely) wrote:
All the old Irish lines have this fictional "Milesian" part which
eventually goes back to Adam and Eve, and quite a few other lines from
other countries also have phony genealogies going back to Adam and
Eve. If the above genealogy was written by someone who took these
claims seriously, then the ancestry from this lady back to the main
Mac Gilla Pátraic branch should also be questioned.
However, if you consider the "main" Mac Gilla Pátraic family, i.e.,
the one descended from the early medieval kings of Osraige (Anglicized
as Ossory), then the number of direct male lines which can "beat" it
is not large. My own detailed familiarity with this family (and the
primary sources used to document it) is limited to the pre-Norman
period (i.e., twelfth century and earlier). However, the Mac Gilla
Pátraic family appears frequently in the annals through the late
medieval period, and I would expect that at least SOMEBODY now living
could trace a well documented direct male line back to one of the
branches extant in late medieval times, although I have never checked
it.
From the twelfth century on back, EVERY generation of the "main" line
of the kings of Osraige appears in the contemporary Irish annals back
to Cú Cherca mac Fáeláin, king of Osraige, who died in the year 713,
making these generations very well documented. Also, the Annals of
Tigernach record the death of Fáelán, king of Osraige, in 660, and
this may have been the same person as the father of Cú Chercha. The
history of Osraige in the sixth and seventh centuries is
problematical. At some point (mid sixth century?), the people of
Osraige were temporarily conquered by members of another tribe known
as the Corco Loígde, who then ruled over the Osraige during the late
sixth and early seventh centuries. To make things more confusing,
some personal names appeared in both dynasties, allowing for plenty of
opportunities to incorrectly identify individuals having the same
name. Although there are still significant problems, the genealogy
could be valid as far back as Laignech Fáelad (six generations before
Cú Chercha in the most reliable version of the genealogy).
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Reitwiesner) wrote:
>
>There's also the Hesse/Brabants, who go back about as far as the Capetians.
>
>If Kelley's hypothesis about Edwin of Mercia is right, then certain obscure
>Welsh families have a patrilineal line back about the same distance.
In addition to depending on a questionable identification, doesn't
this also require some very conjectural reconstructions of the
ancestry of Edwin of Mercia to get back that far?
Actually, if the Welsh origin of Edwin of Tegeingl given by Bartrum
(also problematical) is correct, the line would descend in the direct
male line back to Rhodri Mawr, his father Merfyn Frych, and Merfyn's
father Gwriad, who lived in the late eighth century, which is pretty
good. (Gwriad's genealogy back to Llywarch Hen and Old King Cole is
probably a late invention.)
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
<cben...@adnc.com> wrote:
>Two longer non-Western patrilineal lines:
>
>a) Quraish, the tribe of the prophet Muhammed, traceable at least to the 3rd
>century. The late kings Hussein of Jordan and Hassan II of Morocco were
>both representatives of this line, or at least claimed to be so. Hussein's
>branch of the family was prominent in Mecca since at least the 11th century;
>the prominence of the Sharifians of Morocco is rather more recent. I do not
>know if the earlier parts of the line have been subjected to critical
>analysis.
I would have to question the statement that the line is "traceable at
least to the 3rd century". Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that
the traditional genealogy CLAIMS to go back to the 3rd century? Also,
all of the supposed Moslem genealogies from the present day back to
the time of Mohammed which I have seen contain large stretches of a
dozen or more generations which are names only, without any other
historical attestation.
>b) The descendants of Confucius, i.e. traceable from at least the 5th
>century BC. IIRC the current head of house is claimed to be the 77th or
>78th generation from Confucius. I have never seen a study of this line. In
>Chinese genealogy a patrilineal line is often extended by adoption, I do not
>know if we have the records to know whether such adoptions have occurred in
>this case.
I believe that this was discussed in the newsgroup a few years ago,
and that these "genealogies" were not descents of individuals, but
that the situation was more complicated than that.
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>How far back does the imperial family of Japan go?
>I know that there are legendary ancestors, but I think they have
>the longet extant line of any ruling family.
Like other coutries with a legendary history, it is difficult to tell
where the myth ends and the history begins. I have never studied the
Japanese line in any detail, but from what I have read, the records
become contemporary about the seventh century or so, but with
considerable suspicion of fakery in the earlier part. Still, I think
you are right that they have the longest direct male ruling line of
any of the present ruling families. (If you don't demand direct male
line descent, I think the prize would go to the line of the rulers of
Dál Riata - Scotland - Great Britain, which forms a continuous
genealogical and historical chain about 1500 years long.)
Stewart Baldwin
D. Spencer Hines
go to the line of the rulers of Dál Riata - Scotland - Great Britain,
which forms a continuous genealogical and historical chain about 1500
years long.)
Stewart Baldwin
Yes, Fergus of Dal Riata, who died circa 501, is the ancestor of
millions of folks living today. These folks can prove it. Just the
other day I was talking with a woman who is reportedly the 48th
great-granddaughter of Fergus and she had stellar proof. That's 50
generations from him to her. Her name is Tatiana. Erc, Fergus's
alleged Father, died in 474 --- some say.
_Fergus_, it's a good name. Everyone should have an ancestor named
_Fergus_ and a _Fulk [Foulques] too --- and a Rafal and a Jan and a
Vladimir and a Bogdan and a Dufus and a Boso and a Dudley.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 7/26/1999 1:17:45 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
<<From the twelfth century on back, EVERY generation of the "main" line
of the kings of Osraige appears in the contemporary Irish annals back
to Cú Cherca mac Fáeláin, king of Osraige, who died in the year 713,
making these generations very well documented. >>
Where would we find a copy of this descent?
Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor/ Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
_____________________HT COMMUNICATIONS____________________
PO Box 1401 Arvada, CO 80001 USA
Voice: 303-420-4888 Fax: 303-420-4845 e-mail: K...@AOL.com
Homepage: http://members.aol.com/TPConnect/Page2.html
Associated with: Thompson Starr International
[Films ... Representation ... Publishing ... Marketing]
Stewart Baldwin
>In a message dated 7/26/1999 1:17:45 PM, sba...@mindspring.com writes:
>
><<From the twelfth century on back, EVERY generation of the "main" line
>of the kings of Osraige appears in the contemporary Irish annals back
>to Cú Cherca mac Fáeláin, king of Osraige, who died in the year 713,
>making these generations very well documented. >>
>
>Where would we find a copy of this descent?
I have looked in vain for a good, well documented, modern account of
the kings of Osraige. Gearóid Mac Niocaill's "Ireland before the
Vikings" (Dublin, 1972), has an account up to king Fergal mac Anmchada
(d. 802) which includes a genealogical table, and volume 9 of "A New
History of Ireland" (Oxford, 1984) has a list of kings and a
genealogical table, both starting with Fergal's son and successor
Dúngal mac Fergail (d. 842), so putting those two sources together
would give you a good outline. However, neither of these sources
provides specific source citations. (Although many of the citations
are easily guessable for someone experienced at researching early
Irish history, a beginner would probably have a very hard time finding
documentation based on the information these sources provide.)
William Carrigan's "The History and Antiquities of the Diocese of
Ossory" (Dublin, 1905) is somewhat outdated, but still provides a good
account of the history of the kingdom. Back to the beginning of the
eighth century, the documentation is fairly routine, but before that
it is more complicated. I have managed to find primary source
documentation for most of the important material in the above
secondary sources, but there is still some of the early material for
the sixth and seventh centuries which I haven't yet seen.
Stewart Baldwin
Chris Bennett
> On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:19:42 -0700, "Chris Bennett"
> <cben...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> >Two longer non-Western patrilineal lines:
> >
> >a) Quraish, the tribe of the prophet Muhammed, traceable at least to the
3rd
> >century. The late kings Hussein of Jordan and Hassan II of Morocco were
> >both representatives of this line, or at least claimed to be so.
Hussein's
> >branch of the family was prominent in Mecca since at least the 11th
century;
> >the prominence of the Sharifians of Morocco is rather more recent. I do
not
> >know if the earlier parts of the line have been subjected to critical
> >analysis.
>
> I would have to question the statement that the line is "traceable at
> least to the 3rd century". Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that
> the traditional genealogy CLAIMS to go back to the 3rd century?
Perhaps I should have introduced the posting as "Two non-Western patrilineal
lines claimed to be longer than any of those discussed"
Yes, you are right, the traditional genealogy claims to go back to the 3rd
century, and indeed considerably further back, but the (brief and
tangential) discussions I have seen give it credence only to the third
century.
Also,
> all of the supposed Moslem genealogies from the present day back to
> the time of Mohammed which I have seen contain large stretches of a
> dozen or more generations which are names only, without any other
> historical attestation.
Agreed -- hence my comment about critical analysis (in the hope that someone
would point me at one....)
>
> >b) The descendants of Confucius, i.e. traceable from at least the 5th
> >century BC. IIRC the current head of house is claimed to be the 77th or
> >78th generation from Confucius. I have never seen a study of this line.
In
> >Chinese genealogy a patrilineal line is often extended by adoption, I do
not
> >know if we have the records to know whether such adoptions have occurred
in
> >this case.
>
> I believe that this was discussed in the newsgroup a few years ago,
> and that these "genealogies" were not descents of individuals, but
> that the situation was more complicated than that.
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.. As I recall, the discussion
got bogged down precisely on this point of adoption, with one party arguing
that there was that it was a Western-centric concept to make a distinction
between an adopted son and a biological one. No-one involved, unfortunately,
was able to point to a statement of the Confucian line.
Chris
John Yohalem
John Hamby wrote in message <379BA5BE...@cub.kcnet.org>...
>How far back does the imperial family of Japan go?
>I know that there are legendary ancestors, but I think they have
>the longet extant line of any ruling family.
Genealogies written long after the fact (there was no written language then)
claim that the early Emperors all reigned about a hundred years each, and
that the line was founded in the seventh century BCE. This is obviously
ridiculous. More recent accounts place its origins in the sixth century CE,
which puts it about contemporary with Dalriada and Capet.
But is the Japanese line in the male line only? The throne was only confined
to males in the tenth century -- there were often sovereign Empresses before
that (as is fitting in a family descended from a Goddess).
You know? I'm beginning to think there just weren't any males in certain
centuries....
Jean Coeur de Lapin
-- who has only recently learned that he is evidently NOT descended in
direct male line from the High Priest Aaron (fl. c. 1250 BCE) .... darn. But
as there was a 1713-year gap in that line anyway, I suppose it might have
been challenged here....
... still no Ferguses or Fulks, though.
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Opera depends on the happy fiction that feeling can be sustained over
impossibly long stretches of time." -- Joseph Kerman
Stewart Baldwin
<cben...@adnc.com> wrote:
>Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote
[snip]
>> I believe that this was discussed in the newsgroup a few years ago,
>> and that these "genealogies" were not descents of individuals, but
>> that the situation was more complicated than that.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by that statement.. As I recall, the discussion
>got bogged down precisely on this point of adoption, with one party arguing
>that there was that it was a Western-centric concept to make a distinction
>between an adopted son and a biological one. No-one involved, unfortunately,
>was able to point to a statement of the Confucian line.
I went to dejanews and dredged up an old post by Todd Farmerie that
discusses the matter, which is quoted below, and covers the main
points as I remembered them. Other postings in the same thread during
that month also cover this. They key point is that the "genealogy"
does not record individuals, and is therefore not a genealogy in the
sense that we usually discuss.
---------------------------------
quoted from archives at deja.com:
Subject: Re: Oldest Lineage In Europe ?
Date: 1997/04/14
Author: Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
Richard Tung wrote:
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu> writes:
> >
> >Here is the deal with these chinese lineages. What is preserved is a
> >descent of generational names (shared by every member of the particular
> >generation). The personal names of the lineage are not preserved, so
> >this is not a genealogy in the western sense.
>
> I don't know what books you've looked at, but the genealogies I seen
> have listed personal names.
Not books but straight from the mouths of several chinese friends.
One in particular could recite such a descent from memory for 15
generations to the founder of the village, then another 20+
generations to the founder of the villiage where his founder came
from, but could not even name his great-grandfather (in fact, it took
me some time to get him to understand the question). They were all in
agreement that such
descents, specifically including the Confucian descent, only included
the generational names (which are incorporated as one character of the
personal name). While printed genealogies that I have seen have
included full names for the immediate relatives of the Emporers, they
have made no attempt to present an extended lineage like the type
being discussed here.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 02:28:19 GMT, wr...@erols.com (William Addams
> Reitwiesner) wrote:
> >
> >There's also the Hesse/Brabants, who go back about as far as the Capetians.
> >
> >If Kelley's hypothesis about Edwin of Mercia is right, then certain obscure
> >Welsh families have a patrilineal line back about the same distance.
>
> In addition to depending on a questionable identification, doesn't
> this also require some very conjectural reconstructions of the
> ancestry of Edwin of Mercia to get back that far?
There are three hypothetical points in this descent. The first is the
much discussed identity of Edwin of Tegeingl with Edwin of Mercia.
Edwin of Mercia can then be traced back three generations. At this
point an identity is made between Aelfwine, father of Leofwine and a
prominant son of an Ealdorman Aelfhere (IIRC). Here I am inclined to go
along with Kelley. This adds a couple more generations to Eahlmund. He
then hypothesizes a connection between Eahlmund and Aethelwold, the
rebel son of Aethelred I. This one is strung together with crazy glue
and duct tape. If you buy it, though, then most would accept a line
from here back to Cerdic.
taf
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 7/26/1999 9:27:17 PM, cben...@adnc.com writes:
<< it was a Western-centric concept to make a distinction
between an adopted son and a biological one. No-one involved, unfortunately,
was able to point to a statement of the Confucian line.>>
This aspect is interesting. To a genetic purist, an adopted child does not
carry the gene pool of his adopted parents. However, in many cases, they
carry the tangible benefit of upbringing and opportunity. This must be one
reason why the Chinese and Japanese include them in their ancestral lines.
Another reason could be the philosophical belief that we are all one being
under our flesh and bone exteriors and it is but an illusion that we are the
many, when we are in truth the many faces of the dreaming godhead.