Roman Ancestors for Gateway Ancestors ?

[Leo]

Wikipedia has biographies and when reading them in order they seem to produce a genealogical line and, if correct, this would take ancestry back to about 369 and give gateway ancestors Roman ancestry.

Flavius Afranius Syagrius
mentione 369 - 382
|
daughter
|
Tonantius Ferreolus
born ca.405 - aft.469
married Papianilla (niece of Emperor Avitus)
|
Tonantius Ferreolus
born ca 440/450 - died ca 511/517
married Industria
|
Ferreolus (de Rodez)
Senator of Narbonne
ca.485 - after 520
married Dode
|
five children : Ansbertus, Agilulf, Babon, Deatarius, Ragenfred

They have (amongst many more) the following Gateway ancestors as their descendants:
Sir Ralph Lane, Hon. George Percy, Christopher Batt, Capt. John West, Col.Edward Digges, Katherine St.Leger, Rev. John Oxenbridge, Katherine Neville, Sir Francis Wyatt, Rev. Hawte Wyatt.

Can anyone add, correct, cut or anything to the above lineage?

With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Steve Higley]

I don't think I'd ever trust Wikipedia as the quality of the research is anything from excellent to absurdly bad. However, this line has been looked at in the past. New England Historic and Genealogical Register (Volume 101, Page 109-112) Mémoires de l'Académie royale des sciences et belles-lettres depuis l'avènement de Fréderic Guillaume II au throne: avec l'histoire pour le même temps (volume 7, page 111) Mémoires de l'Académie royale des sciences et belles-lettres depuis l'avènement de Fréderic Guillaume II au throne: avec l'histoire pour le même temps by Académie royale des sciences et belles lettres (volume 7, page 104-105) Discours historique concernant le Mariage d'Ansbert et de Blithilde pretendue fille du Roy Clothaire I. ou II. divise en 2 parties by Louis Chantereau Le Febure Discours historique concernant le Mariage d'Ansbert et de Blithilde pretendue fille du Roy Clothaire I. ou II. divise en 2 parties by Louis Chantereau Le Febure And even some of these sources admit to the speculative nature of this line. v/r Steve
> From: can...@netspeed.com.au
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Roman Ancestors for Gateway Ancestors ?
> Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 17:21:27 +1000

> -------------------------------
> 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

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:21:27 +1000, "Leo" <can...@netspeed.com.au>
wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

>Wikipedia has biographies and when reading them in order they seem to produce a genealogical line and, if correct, this would take ancestry back to about 369 and give gateway ancestors Roman ancestry.

Wikipedia should not be considered as a source, but as a link
to sources. So, you should first check the sources for the
various links you found.


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

[lostc...@yahoo.com]

This would also give the modern era a link to the Merovingians, would it not? I have seen numerous references in the past to Afranius Syagrius as an ancestor to Charlemagne, but always assumed that nothing has been found that rises to the level of making it likely. Bronwen

[pj.evans]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:21:27 AM UTC-7, Leo wrote:

David H Kelley covered this line is NEHGR, volume 101 p 112, according to Ancestral Roots.

[Michel B. Lefebvre]

G.A. Moriarty, dans "The Plantagenet ancestry of king Edward III and queen
Philippa" (Mormon Pioneer Genealogy Society, 1985) traite de cette
généalogie.

Vous devriez aussi consulter les multiples volumes de "The prosopography of
the later Roman Empire" par A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale et J. Morris
(Cambridge University Press, 1971-1992) aux différents noms de personnages:
vous y trouverez toutes(? au moins jusqu'à la date de publication) les
références connues pour chacun.

Je demeure étonné que ce sujet s'avère nouveau pour des généalogistes
"érudits" LOL.

[taf]

On May 12, 12:21 am, "Leo" <can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> Wikipedia has biographies and when reading them in order they seem to produce a genealogical line and, if correct, this would take ancestry back to about 369 and give gateway ancestors Roman ancestry.

[snip most of line]

> Ferreolus (de Rodez)
> Senator of Narbonne
> ca.485 - after 520
> married Dode
>    |
> five children : Ansbertus, Agilulf, Babon, Deatarius, Ragenfred
>
> They have (amongst many more) the following Gateway ancestors as their descendants:
> Sir Ralph Lane, Hon. George Percy, Christopher Batt, Capt. John West, Col.Edward Digges, Katherine St.Leger, Rev. John Oxenbridge, Katherine Neville, Sir Francis Wyatt, Rev. Hawte Wyatt.
>
> Can anyone add, correct, cut or anything to the above lineage?

There seems to be a reasonable degree of consensus on the Ferreoli and
their link to Afranius (at least in overview). The problem comes when
you try to connect it to the Carolingians and the gateways you show.
Specifically, the connection between Ansbertus, a child in the last
generation, and the male line of the Carolingians is known to be
false. So, being a proponent of Descents from Antiquity, do you take
several generations of perfectly good genealogy and throw them out
because of a niggling detail like their failure to connect with the
rest of the pedigree? No, of course not. You instead look for
somewhere else you can put them. That is what has been done here,
with the suggestion that Ansbertus and the rest of the pedigree were
instead maternal ancestors of the Carolingians, without (as far as I
am aware) the slightest evidence that this was the case.

taf

[Steve Higley]

To those of us who are not "érudits", or who are new to medieval genalogy, everything is p[otentially new. Those "érudits" among us owe it to the future of these worthwhile studies to encourage novices to become more "savant".
> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:36:53 -0400
> From: mblef...@globetrotter.net
> Subject: Re: Roman Ancestors for Gateway Ancestors ?
> To: can...@netspeed.com.au; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com

[CE Wood]

From that article:

"The pedigree of the ancestors of the Karolingians to the family of
Ansbert the Senator still requires elucidation. The writer cannot
believe with M. Depoin that this is entirely an invention of the late
ninth century. For one thing, the name of a son of Carloman the
younger, Siagre, born ca. 770, is identical with that of Afranicus
Syagrius, Roman consul 381 A.D. This does not, however, necessarily
indicate that the Carolingians were paternally descended of Afranicus
Syagrius. M. Chaume has shown that Rotru, wife of Karl Martel, was
almost certainly a descendant of Ansbert the Senator. Unfortunately,
neither M. Depoin nor M. Chaume hs gone into the origins of
Ansbert....

The 'Historia Fundationis Monasterii Glanderiensis' mentions that
Blithilde, the daughter of Clothaire I (Flothatius) married Ansbert
the Senator."


CE Wood

[Don Stone]

On 5/13/2012 8:45 AM, pj.evans wrote:
> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:21:27 AM UTC-7, Leo wrote:
>> Wikipedia has biographies and when reading them in order they seem to produce a genealogical line and, if correct, this would take ancestry back to about 369 and give gateway ancestors Roman ancestry.
>>
>> Flavius Afranius Syagrius
>> mentione 369 - 382
>> |
>> daughter
>> |
>> Tonantius Ferreolus
>> born ca.405 - aft.469
>> married Papianilla (niece of Emperor Avitus)
>> |
>> Tonantius Ferreolus
>> born ca 440/450 - died ca 511/517
>> married Industria
>> |
>> Ferreolus (de Rodez)
>> Senator of Narbonne
>> ca.485 - after 520
>> married Dode
>> |
>> five children : Ansbertus, Agilulf, Babon, Deatarius, Ragenfred
>>

>> [snip]

> David H Kelley covered this line is NEHGR, volume 101 p 112, according to Ancestral Roots.

The 8th edition (2004, reprinted in 2008) of _Ancestral Roots_ has an
updated version of this descent supplied by Kelley (Line 180). It
basically agrees with what Leo has above. The update to Kelley's 1947
(vol. 101) _Register_ article comes later:
Ansbertus, m. perhaps Bilichilde
|
Arnoaldus, Bishop of Metz
|
Dode (Clothilde); m. St. Arnulf.

-- Don Stone

P. S. There's no need to post to soc.genealogy.medieval and also to Cc
GEN-MEDIEVAL. Because of the gateway between these two, a message sent
to either one will usually appear in the other (unless suppressed as
junk mail, for example). See
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/faq.htm#GN1.

[Don Stone]

On 5/13/2012 12:33 PM, taf wrote:
> On May 12, 12:21 am, "Leo"<can2...@netspeed.com.au> wrote:
> [snip most of line]
>> Ferreolus (de Rodez)
>> Senator of Narbonne
>> ca.485 - after 520
>> married Dode
>> |
>> five children : Ansbertus, Agilulf, Babon, Deatarius, Ragenfred

> There seems to be a reasonable degree of consensus on the Ferreoli and
> their link to Afranius (at least in overview). The problem comes when
> you try to connect it to the Carolingians and the gateways you show.
> Specifically, the connection between Ansbertus, a child in the last
> generation, and the male line of the Carolingians is known to be
> false. So, being a proponent of Descents from Antiquity, do you take
> several generations of perfectly good genealogy and throw them out
> because of a niggling detail like their failure to connect with the
> rest of the pedigree? No, of course not. You instead look for
> somewhere else you can put them. That is what has been done here,
> with the suggestion that Ansbertus and the rest of the pedigree were
> instead maternal ancestors of the Carolingians, without (as far as I
> am aware) the slightest evidence that this was the case.
>
> taf

What is happening here is that we have an early 9th-century set of
sources from Metz (based on a common archetype edited around 785) that
state that St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz (ancestor of Charlemagne), is the
son of Arnoald, an earlier Bishop of Metz. Another 9th-century set of
sources from Saint-Wandrille state that St. Arnulf is the son of
Bodogisel, vir inluster. These two conflicting groups of sources cannot
both be right. In fact, one may set may be a deliberate forgery. While
a modern forgery may not be of much interest, an ancient forgery is
worth studying. It is appropriate to ask what individual or
organization produced the forgery, what their goal was, what information
they had access to, etc., etc. (For example, forged monastic charters
can be valuable sources of information, since a forgery is more
persuasive when it has a larger number of authentic elements in it.) It
is in this spirit that a large number of historians (e.g., Depoin,
Saltet, Jarnut, Weidemann, Kelley, Settipani) have analyzed these
documents relating to St. Arnulf.

In Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne (1989) Settipani devotes five pages to
discussing St. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, and his wife Dode, reviewing the
conclusions reached about these two by various modern historians
(primarily from France and Germany). Quoting from a translation of
Settipani by the late Marshall Kirk, "In the IXth century, and as far
back as the reign of Charlemagne, it seemed necessary to produce some
documents giving the genealogy of the new [Carolingian] dynasty. In
general, the historians haven't paid enough attention to the fact that
these genealogies divide into two totally distinct groups. The first
making of Saint Arnulf the son of one of his predecessors at Metz,
Arnoald, noble Gallo-Roman, while the second gives him as son of
Bodogisel, vir inluster. Very soon, the chroniclers sought, in a
concern for harmony, to meld the two versions, and to confound Arnoald
and Bodogisel, a confusion which becomes total in the XIIIth century."

Settipani reports in some detail on the 1986 analysis of Jarnut, who
classified the information in the Metz documents into several
categories: authentic, false, probable. (The "probable" category, for
example, included all the data "which favor neither the glory of the
Carolingians nor that of the bishop of Metz.") From his analysis Jarnut
concludes that the genealogies "were fabricated with the aid of
authentic materials -- charters, diplomas, testaments."

Settipani's conclusion about the various relationships is basically the
version given in the 8th edition of Ancestral Roots (cited in my
previous post), in which St. Arnulf's wife Dode is a daughter of
Arnoald, Bishop of Metz (Line 180), while St. Arnulf is a son of
Bodegeisel (Line 190).

Settipani's judgments on these issues get support in the books preface,
written by the late Szabolcs de Vajay: "One of his [Settipani's] very
sharp statements of opinion: the provenance of Saint Arnulf of Metz
(no. 32), last documented echelon of the "quasi-certain" filiation
[i.e., quasi-certain ancestors of Charlemagne]. Slashing a road through
the jungle, C. SETTIPANI opts for the "Frankish" thesis, while doing his
bit for the tradition of the "Gallo-Roman" thesis .... Here some points
are gained. [Then the next paragraph begins:] But let's also note --
why not? -- some more fragile propositions." Then, in a later
paragraph: " In opting for the "Bodogisel solution" versus the "Ansbert
solution," the inventory of paternal ancestors of Charlemagne inscribes
itself sharply in a Germanic context: the kings of Cologne, the
Agilolfings of Bavaria ... Now, through Dode (no. 33), the Gallo-Roman
Ansbertins are nevertheless recovered, thus justifying the double
tradition of the origins, in comparison with the descendants, of the
couple. The study of these senatorial Aquitanians also opens new
horizons. One finds oneself amidst the elite of Gaul -- with the
Syagrii, notably -- passing rapidly to the lower Roman Empire, whence,
then, a thousand roads -- oh, how hypothetical, without being, for all
that, implausible -- open upon antiquity."

Yes, so far as I know, there is no ancient source that explicitly claims
that Dode is a daughter of Arnoald, Bishop of Metz, but that doesn't
mean that it is inappropriate (or demonstrates lack of integrity) to
tentatively assign her as Arnoald's daughter, based on the analysis of
the texts of the various ancient documents.

-- Don Stone

[Grady Loy]

Dear Don:

Interesting thread. I think the questions of how the Carolingians got their
genealogical wires crossed have been expertly handled by others. I will say
that since the issue of forgery was discussed, granted there had been
destruction of materials at monasteries in the south (Arab Raids) and again
in Aquitaine (when the Carolingians reasserted Frankish authority in the mid
8th century) but the two things I have a hard time accepting are that at
that time it was already not known who Arnulf's family were (the Arnulfings
held the see of Metz for some time and that was where Paulus Diaconus wrote
his history of the Bishops of Metz) considerable other materials had
survived at that point (for example the letter collections of Desiderius,
Sidonius, Ruricius and Avitus among others) some and perhaps most of which
no longer survive and there were Roman families still in existence who would
remember whether the family that had effectively ruled Francia for a century
were related to any of them. So the poster raises an important point. It
is important in forgeries of such ancient date to know who the forgers were,
what they hoped to gain by the forgery, and that a state of sufficient
general ignorance existed so that people did not laugh behind the monarch's
back. In Britain, when Roman civilization disintigrated, the non Saxon
ruling houses not only tied themselves genealogically to Magnus Maximus and
the usurper Constantine, they invented genealogies back to Julius Caesar,
Augustus, the Emperor Constantine and I think once I even saw Marc Anthony.
The motivation and state of public knowledge are obvious. It is less
obvious why the Carolingians would aspire to descend from a family that had
never been emperor, that had only just been consul and even at their highest
point were nowhere near one of the leading families in the empire? If one
is going to forge one should forge one's way back to Theodosius or
Constantine and thence (as Constantine apparently did) to the Antonines
(Claudius Gothicus and thence to the Gordians) and Flavian emperors. Why did
the Carolingians not rely on Venantius Fortunatus poem and have themselves
descend from the Anicii through the Ruriciids at least? Unless, strange as
it seems they were actually descended from this family (There is a
historical snippet somewhere to the effect that Carloman had a cousin in
Provence named "Syagrius". I note also that Abbo of Novalesa who had a lot
of Syagrian (and almost certainly Ferreolan) blood was also quite close to
the Carolingians.) That does not mean that the theories are correct but it
does mean that the question which I think has been asked by Kelley and
Settipani among many others is "Doesn't it look like they really believed
they were descended in part from this respectable but not really earth
shattering Gallo Roman family?" and "How likely is it that they were
entirely wrong?"

The "pedigree" deducible from Wikipedia should be appoximately thus

Flavius Afranius Syagrius (consul)+ <>
"Syagria"+
Tonantius Ferreolus (Prefect)+
Tonantius (Ferreolus) (Senator)+
Ferreolus "of Rodez" *
Ansbertus *
Arnoald+

+ well attested
* less well attested.
<> Note that Settipani has proposed considerable further ancestry for
Flavius Afranius Syagrius in Continuite p. 373, p. 379 n. 6, p. 380

There is an added generation here (Ferreolus of Rodez) compared with the
Weiss pedigree but all things considered it appears necessary. The closest
I have been able to get to a copy of the Vitae Firmini is references in
Heinzelmann's prosopographie Gallische (1982) which talks of "Firminus et
Ferreolus" as "youths" visiting Ruricius. If (setting aside the Limoges
hypothesis for the moment) Ruricius is Tonantius Ferreolus II's brother and
Firminus his son, then it would be strange for Ferreolus the grandson
(future bishop) to come visiting Ruricius when both were boys. And there is
no mention of a brother Ansbertus for Firminus. Since as seems evident the
Ferreolus described here is Firminus brother (and probable father of
Ferreolus of Uzes) we have another generation. If one insists that Ansbert
has a son Ferreolus, he may well have. Ferreolus of Limoges who was a
little younger than Ferreolus of Uzes had to come from somewhere.

Since a question was raised about the progeny of Ferreolus of Nimes, former
Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, and how it has been handled in Wikipedia, I will
talk about that. The first four generations of the Ferreolan line
Syagrius->Tonantius Ferreolus II are given by Sidonius Apollinaris himself
in a letter to Tonantius Ferreolus I (the prefect) which was part of a
pubished collection of his letters that survives and with which many of you
are already familiar. There has not ever been much question about it. To
be utterly fair, there is a potential gap after Tonantius Ferreolus the
younger. He has for a long time been identified with "Ferreolus" who
married Industria at Narbonne and had children Ferreolus and Firminus. But
not everyone has agreed: Strohecker insisted it was not the same son.
Others (Hienzelmann(1982), and Mathisen(1979)) seem more open minded on the
possibility. Sidonius' expression suggests that Tonantius the younger (in
the 460's) had at least two brothers. Also I think (I will have to check)
that Tonantius the younger is not ever referred to explicitly as Tonantius
Ferreolus but perhaps only as Tonantius. So arguments have been made that
the Ferreolus who married Industria could have been one of his brothers (it
is not a big a matter for DFA purposes, one brother is as good as another
but for historical purposes it
may matter, a little anyway). There were almost certainly no cousins by the
name. The almost absolute absence of the names Tonantius or Ferreolus in
the records prior to Tonantius Ferreolus the prefect (OK there is a semi
legendary saint named Ferreolus in Vienne in the 3rd century and another
more legendary one at Besancon) strongly suggest he is the first to bear the
name, certainly in that family.

One could raise the question of whether this Ferreolus is a son or grandson
of the prefect. This Ferreolus appears of course in the life of Firminus
which I am told is not so early in its writing but talks of things we at
least cannot conceive at this late date of a reason for falsifying (if they
were
created in support of Carolingian origin myths, they would have mentioned
the Carolingians or at least the gateway ancestors. It does not do so to my
knowledge). The interesting thing about the Life is that it identifies a
Ruricius who was a Bishop and who it says Firminus succeeded. Since
Firminus was bishop of Uzes (near Avignon and Nimes) it was long assumed
(David Kelley cited the Gallia Christiana) that Ruricius was his precedessor
at Uzes. This is interesting because it provides an additional example of
another extremely rare and important Gallo Roman name "Ruricius". I have
only been able to find reference to earlier Ruricii in Ruricius Pomponius
who was on the losing side of the Battle at Milvian Bridge and the second,
the ranking Roman official in Tripolitania in Africa who was killed in some
sort of treachery in the 360's before the elder Theodosius went there and
restored order.

First Heinzelmann (1982) and then Settipani (1991) suggested that Ruricius
of Uzes was actually Ruricius of Limoges. Settipani went further to suggest
that the reason he was uncle to St Firminus was that his wife (Hiberia) was
likely a sister of Tonantius Ferreolus wife (Papianilla. both unmistakeably
attested in Sidonius' letters). Hence he would be great uncle to Firminus
and not uncle. The story is complicated. Given that the Ruricius in the
Life of Firminus was "pontifex and patricius" the latter term one that had
disappeared in Gaul with the demise of the empire and was not reestablished
until Theodoric of Italy took control of Provence from the Franks a little
after Ruricius of Limoges death (We assume he died. I suppose he could have
retired and moved to the Riviera but in Mathisen's excellent book on
Ruricius, it is evident from a letter by Bishop Sedatus of Nimes (506 or so)
to Ruricius that Ruricius was in critically bad health, had been for some
time and couldnot travel. Chronolgically, it can be shown that Ruricius of
Limoges was too early to have "fit" well into this story. So it is an
inspired idea and there is no question of ties between the family of the
prefect and Ruricius (See also letter of Apollinaris of Valence, nephew of
Sidonius Apollinaris, I think, to Avitus, another nephew, talking about his
cousins Ferreolus and Parthenius, the latter husband of Ruricius
granddaughter. And also observe that it was a Bishop Ferreolus of Limoges
that commissioned Venatius Fortunatus to write an epitaph to his
predecessors, and very likely relatives, at LImoges, Ruricius and Ruricius
Proculus) but for the moment, paying due respect to the merits of the
arguments of my betters and admittedly wisers, I still hold to the existence
of a separate Ruricius of Uzes.

Moving forward, the language of the Vitae suggested that Firmus had a
brother Ferreolus (we all know from Gregory of Tours that he had a nephew
Ferreolus who succeeded him). This brother (with the usual caveats about
people who might have existed but have not been attested) is likely the
father of Ferreolus of Uzes who died 581 (Gregory of Tours of course and for
a side of him and his participation in high Merovingian politics that is
fascinating and new to me, at least, read Bacharach's recent book on the
Jews of early medival europe) and forms the basis for "Ferreolus of Rodez"
in Wikipedia. Other places he wasi called Ferreolus of Narbonne. People
attach a label to distinguish him. We have no idea what he thought of
himself or whether he lived in Narbo (unlikely, the Goths will have been
sore at him) or Rodez or Clermont or where? To this point however, everyone
mentioned pretty certainly existed and drew breath. Ferrelus of Rodez is
the fifth generation - he is the Ferreolus who came with St Firminus to see
uncle Ruricius.

The Ferreoli held estates in the dioceses of Uzes, Nimes (Gard) and Rodez
bordering (at that time) Nimes. The estates at Uzes and Gard (Prusianum)
probably ended up under the control of the Bishop of Uzes which explains why
the Ferreoli held on to that see so tightly (After Bp Ferreolus death 581,
there was a nasty 3 way fight between relatives Jovinus, Albinus and
Marcellus to gain control (see below). Two of these men had been patricius
for Sigibert of Austrasia suggesting that the title of patricius for
Ruricius 50 years before may have been more than a fiction though it were
granted by Theodoric of Italy and not a Frankish king. Theuderic's (of
Austrasia) family and then Sigibert's maintained the relationship with the
Ferreoli
carefully as long as they continued to exist in recognizable form. It is
from this tie that the suggestion of one or more marriages to Austrasian
women gain credence. Ferreolus III was in all likelihood still in the area
controlled by the Visigoths in 520 that area still included Rodez (though
not Toulouse) and parts of Gascony. In 525 Austrasian King Theodoric, began
meddling in the Visigothic border regions to the day when Theodoric of Italy
would no longer support young Visigotic king Amalaric and Austrasia could
obtain everything (he thought) between the Alps and
Pyrenees. There were apparently some conspiracies involving Quintianus
bishop of Rodez and presumbly other magnates causing him (and them) to flee
to Frankish Auvergne around 525. Subsequent events suggest that Ferreolus
at some point joined the Frankish side though whether he fled with
Quintianus is unclear. Since this is about the time Ansbertus, and Agilulf
of Metz (who definitely did exist) would have been born, it
would appear that Ferreolus III had a germanic wife (else how Agilulf) This
was before the rise of the Agilulfings (who I think were the Faraniids back
then) and even further before the use of the name Agilulf became common
among them. The name first appears in history as that of a Visigothic
general (precise ethnicity uncertain) in the 5th cntury who rebelled and was
set up in Gallicia. I hardly think Agilulf descends from him but it has
always seemed likely to me that the first generation of germanic
intermarriage among the Ferreoli may have been with the Visigoths though
probaby not with a royal princess of any house. Remember that Brunhilda was
related by blood to one of the Burgundian bishops at the end of the 6th
century. There are Gothic Roman ties we cannot clearly see there. But a
daughter of Frankish Chlothar I marrying a well heeled Roman paterfamilias
in Septimania in 525 is about as unlikely a scenario as one can imagine.

As to Ansbertus, I do not see a problem with him existing and think him a
little unlikely to make up out of whole cloth but admittedly the sources are
less authoritative for his existence than for the Ferreoli to that point.
He even had a few namesakes floating around by the 7th century. He lieved
probably (if at all) in the period 525 to about 585 and everyone insists he
married a Blithilde or a Bilihilde who was (again) said to be a
daughter of Chlothar (This has more of the look of the forgery the
Carolingians are suspected of). Since Gregory of Tours cites no such
daughter (and
with all the trouble due to Gundovald the Pretender, Gregory is in rare form
in listing all of Chlothar's real children) Blithilde was not among them,
nor does anyone have a name like hers. The Walderada parentage story is
unlikely and the Radegund variant even more so). Bilihilde (if she existed)
was far more likely a relative of Vilicus Bishop of Metz (for the proposed
identity of the name element Villi or Willi and Billi see Keats Rohan in her
article on the different "Bilihildes" found in Anjou and Maine two to three
centuries later. Onomastique et Parente Dans l'Occient Medieval (2000) p.
59) This would be significant because it might explain how the "Ferreoli"
were able to occupy the important Austrasian see of Metz for 2 and arguably
3 generations in addition to the simple favor showed them by Theuderic,
Sigibert and Childebert II. Chronologically this makes considerable sense.

More on the relations of the later Ferreoli with the Franks: in 570,
Sigibert of Austrasia apparently captured or somehow came into a part of the
Visigothic held see of Nimes. Uzes was already occuppied by Ferreolus of
Uzes. Sigibert allowed the creation of a new diocese, Arisitum, in which he
placed Deotarius, a brother of Agilulf and Ansbert. Deotarius (as far as we
know) occuppied the see until 600 when he was replaced by his nephew and the
shadowy Ansbert's purported but (as Bishop) attested son Moderic (Munderic).
This see was reunited with Nimes when Septimania was recaptured from the
Arabs in 759. Sigibert also appointed Jovinus (sharing the name of
Tonantius Ferreolus the Prefect's probable father. Think "tonans". A story
for another time. The latter Jovinus himself was son of Aspasius Bishop of
Auch) patricius of Provence in 570 replacing him three years later with an
Albinus. When Ferreolus of Uzes died in 581, Jovinus and Albinus vied to
become Bishop there. Jovinus got the kings blessing (probably Guntram) but
Albinus in the mean time had had himself installed and consecrated. Jovinus
waited until Albinus died and then tried again, again armed with a royal
blessing he was again beaten out by Marcellus son of Felix (a senator of
Marseille) These men all appear to have descended from female lines (They
belong to other male lines than the Ferreoli) and it would appear that
although Jovinus had a good claim and the king's favor, he did not have the
affection of his flock (not to mention the current patricius Dynamius).
Determined at last to occupy the episcopal seat, Jovinus attacked Marcellus
and beseiged him but Marcellus bought him off (I suppose he gave him the use
of some of the lands that were almost certainly at the heart of the matter
as none of these men had been clerics by vocation) The picture after
Marcellus at Uzes becomes unclear.

It is possible that the Ferreoli were important in the formation of early
medieval Acquitanian aristocracy centered on Rouergue, Cahors and Limoges
but that discussion must await another day.

Ansbertus other son (who regardless of the father, did exist) was Arnold of
Metz. Paul the Deacon talks of him and he was a nephew of Agilulf who Paul
insists was of Senatorial (ie aristocratic Roman and probably Provencal)
lineage. Agilulf may also have been Gregory of Tours deacon that he sent to
Rome to meet Gregory. The name was rare and Tours and Poitiers were a
partisan stronghold of the Austrasians in the west of Gaul.

We are all well aware that Arnold is not Arnulf's father. It has been amply
noted that Dr. Kelley raised the possibility 65 years ago that one of Pepin
of Heristal' grandmothers was a daughter of Arnoald relying I think on the
fact that Iduberga, Pepin of Landin's wife, was said in an independent if
not terribly early source to be a sister of Moderic of Treves. Moderic was
of course eponymous with Moderic of Arisitum, brother of Arnold of Metz.
Moriarity elaborated a little based on his conversations with Dr. Kelley
when he put out his handwritten Ancestry of Edward III and Phillipa (Hope I
got
that right)

I will just add the note that Chaume thought based on notes of the Notitia
de Fundatione Monasterii Glanderiensis (Monastery at Metz) (The Origins of
the Duchy of Burgundy, Chaume 1977, partie II, 1, p.264, and partie I,
p.531, in French) that the grandfather of Nuestrian Mayor of the palace
Erchinoald was another Erchinoald who was son of Ansbertus. I have not been
able to obtain any copy of that document in any media and so can only rely
on Chaume's judgment. He placed a great deal of stock in that line of
descent but I will withold judgment until I can see what he was referring to
(probably some of you already know). If true, it would explain the
occurrence of the names Ansbert, Ferreolus and Syagrius in the Burgundy,
Nuestria border region and Eastern Nuestria. On the other hand if I read
Settipani rightly in his Capetien Ancestry, Chaume may have used things he
found in the Notitia and combined them by his own deductive reasoning and
then cited the Notitia as the source for the conclusion (specifically with
regard to reference to the Burgundian royal ancestry of Ricomer (prosapia
sigismundi) which is apparently nowhere cited in these documents though it
is cited in them for Erchinoald's putative brother (and Ricomer's putative
grandson) Adalard (Chaume p. 531; Settipani La Prehistorie de Capetiens p.
96 n.) So while this could be a very important descent for "Ansbert" I have
yet to see what it is based on.

Settipani revisited the issue after his Capetian Prehistory (there was a
chart that got a lot of our DFA enthusiasts stirred up) and he did it up
right in Onomastique et Parente Dans l'Occident Medieval (2000) pp. 185-229.
Dr. Kelley said to me on one of the rare occasions I was privileged to talk
to him that he accepted Settipani's reasoning and conclusion as to Arnulf's
wife being the connection to the Ferreolan line, though that did not
preclude his original conclusions and he had minor qustions about one or two
details in earlier generations. But they appeared to be in very general
agreement. I will say no more and leave a more definitive discussion of Dr.
Kelley's position to those several of you who knew him and his research much
better. One advantage of the Settipani hypothesis is that it keeps the see
of Metz within the family. Settipani's article also contains a wealth of
background information and references to original materials and potential
alternative hypotheses.

Since it is in French I fear those of the anglophone internet crowd who have
found it only pause long enough to type the chart information into their
trees and leave the considerable work and discussion of what is likely to be
legend and what not unread. (It is interesting to compare French and
English Wikipedia on Carolingian origins). That is both unfortunate and
ultimately risks being harmfully inaccurate. Nor do very many seem to be
concerned between the difference between certain knowledge and speculations
which the author himsef may fully expect to be improved upon in the future.

Hence in the internet I am just afraid poor Mr Settipani is for his
considerable and commendable pains finding his name worn out. I am no enemy
of DFA and certainly no enemy either of amateur genealogy - it is a healthy
and improving hobby when practiced honestly and not taken to excess- but I
will warn that Dr. Kelly and Mr. Settipani and some other equally worthy of
you may be getting a less of the reception than deserved in sections of
academia based on the historical usefullness and merit of the things you
have proposed because of a perception identifying you with a doubtlessly
well meaning, very eager (many of them friends), but less than adequately
critical amateur genealogical following that has grown up around certain of
their/your writings. And that so far as it is true is academias loss. The
better scholars have listened generally and benefitted. Anyway, I doubt it
can be helped.

I hope the foregoing is more help than harm. There are several of you that
are very good at this and I will not mind if you wish to point our errors or
overenthusiastic assumptions on my part. That is to my benefit and will be
regarded as a favor. I am not looking at original sources or using a spell
checker as I write and am in a rush so, agan, apologies. If I have referred
to anyone's original idea without mentioning them, please bring it to my
attention and I will acknowledge it. I am not making any statement in favor
of or against a DFA or for or against any one school of thought though I do
feel I remain in the debt of the Kelly group for their kindness over the
years.

Best Regards

Grady Loy

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Stone
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:36 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Roman Ancestors for Gateway Ancestors ?

On 5/13/2012 8:45 AM, pj.evans wrote:

> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:21:27 AM UTC-7, Leo wrote:
>> Wikipedia has biographies and when reading them in order they seem to
>> produce a genealogical line and, if correct, this would take ancestry
>> back to about 369 and give gateway ancestors Roman ancestry.
>>
>> Flavius Afranius Syagrius
>> mentione 369 - 382
>> |
>> daughter
>> |
>> Tonantius Ferreolus
>> born ca.405 - aft.469
>> married Papianilla (niece of Emperor Avitus)
>> |
>> Tonantius Ferreolus
>> born ca 440/450 - died ca 511/517
>> married Industria
>> |
>> Ferreolus (de Rodez)
>> Senator of Narbonne
>> ca.485 - after 520
>> married Dode
>> |
>> five children : Ansbertus, Agilulf, Babon, Deatarius, Ragenfred
>>

>> [snip]

> David H Kelley covered this line is NEHGR, volume 101 p 112, according to
> Ancestral Roots.

The 8th edition (2004, reprinted in 2008) of _Ancestral Roots_ has an
updated version of this descent supplied by Kelley (Line 180). It
basically agrees with what Leo has above. The update to Kelley's 1947
(vol. 101) _Register_ article comes later:
Ansbertus, m. perhaps Bilichilde
|
Arnoaldus, Bishop of Metz
|
Dode (Clothilde); m. St. Arnulf.

-- Don Stone

P. S. There's no need to post to soc.genealogy.medieval and also to Cc
GEN-MEDIEVAL. Because of the gateway between these two, a message sent
to either one will usually appear in the other (unless suppressed as
junk mail, for example). See
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/faq.htm#GN1.