A completely bogus Danish line?
Kate Stromsted
with Marine Tygadotter Lunge, said to have been the mother of Hillevi
Axelsdotter Brahe and the grandmother of Knut Bengtsson, husband of Kristina
Eriksdotter Gyllenstierna according to Aldre Svenska Fralseslakter.
1. Marine Tygadotter Lunge
2. Tyge Ovesen Lunge
3. Anne Nielsdatter Kabel
4. Ove Jacobsen Lunge
5. Maren Tygesdatter Basse
10. Tyge Basse
11. Cecilie Jensdatter Grubbe
22. Jens Jensen
23. NN Pedersdatter
46. Peder Ludvigsen
47. Cecilie Henriksdatter
92. Ludvig Albrechtsen
93. Elsebe Pedersdatter
94. Henrik Albertsen
95. Margrethe Jensdatter Sjaellandsfar
184. Albrecht, Count of Eberstein
185. Marianne Esbernsdatter Udsen
188. Same as 184
189. Same as 185
This line was initially presented on a website,
www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavler, which has proven mostly reliable in the
past when compared to Elgenstierna and ES. Other websites featuring this
line indicate that it appears in Danmarks Adels Aarbog.
Kate
Kate Stromsted
cluttered. Here is what I have from www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavler:
1. Marine Tygadotter Lunge b. Nielstrup 1430 d. After 1520
2. Tyge Ovesen Lunge b. About 1399 Nielstrup d. August 25, 1460
3. Anne Nielsdatter Kabel
4. Ove Jacobsen Lunge b. 1369 Hojstrup d. August 25, 1460 (same date as son;
91 yrs. old...seems odd)
5. Maren Tygesdatter Basse d. at latest 1458
10. Tyge Basse d. (tidligst?) 1408
11. Cecilie Jensdatter Grubbe d. latest 1369
22. Jens Jensen
23. NN Pedersdatter b. about 1340 d. after 1412
46. Peder Ludvigsen b. before 1328 d. after 1374
47. Cecilie Henriksdatter
92. Ludvig Albrechtsen b. before 1289 d. 1328 buried Grabrodreklostret
Viborg
93. Elsebe Pedersdatter d. after 1333
94. Henrik Albertsen b. before 1307
95. Margrethe Jensdatter Sjaellandsfar d. after 1327
184. Albrecht, Count of Eberstein b. about 1230 d. 1289 Lubeck
M.Sjostrom
I warn to rely much on any Roskildehistorie trees.
while they often have much historical truth in them, I
have on several occasions came across with some
completely problematic points in lineages in that
material. Even such that a careful person would have
seen that the chronology cannot hold water. I tend to
think that those who have written those trees to
Roskildehistorie, have had often some 'brain farts'
when doing the work there.
(I presume they actually have just copied DAA
materials to fancy graphics...)
Because of such occasional problems, anything in those
tables should not be relied too much, but to check
from more careful and more reliable secondary
material.
The Roskildehistorie author has, imo, made a dog's
dinner reguarly of filiations of persons whose father
married more than once. Do not rely on any maternity
there indicated, if the father had several wives. And
have a sound suspicion towards even those tables where
the father shows to have had only one wife - the good
author may simply have omitted some other wife from
that place...
Then, speaking about DAA series, an obvious source of
that material and obvious source of almost any Danish
noble genealogy:
beware.
There are good genealogies and not so good genealogies
in the DAA series.
I remind that DAA has been getting published along
over a hundred years now. Plenty of different
genealogists have contributed. The quality CANNOT be
even.
a general observation: in recent decades, DAA old
genealogy articles (= those which are as appendixes)
have been of high quality.
But in earlier decades, there has been found to be
lots of problems.
For example, many unfounded, but traditionally
believed (family legends) genealogies have found their
way to DAA yearbooks of 1800s and first decades of
1900s.
They actually seem to have almost a regular lack of
source critical approach - which disturbs reliability
particularly in their medieval portions, I think.
(Obviously, not everything in them is wrong - some
parts of some lineages are so well known that not even
a family lore gullible genealogist of 1800s has been
able to make complete dog's dinner out of them.)
The problem is, you never know what is solid and what
less so, in them.
At least, not if you haven't wide knowledge of related
histories and some sixth sense in digging up the good
parts...
so, my advice is to use Roskildehistorie tables only
as explorative map exercises, then go to check DAA
yearbooks. Of DAA, try to find articles in decades
after 1910s (and, preferably, latest decades if
possible).
Use oldest DAA material only as some sort of rough
guide for exploration.
And dismiss practically all lineages of early-decades
DAAs as much as they present lineage before, say,
1400. There is much higher likelihood that even oldest
DAA yearbooks have not managed to make total dog's
dinner out of 1400s-1600s genealogies;
but I say there is a high likelihood to support my
presumption that oldest DAA genealogies, parts prior
1350 or 1400, represent more something like family
lore and wishful thinking, than solid lineages of
historically attested persons.
all that said,
the AT you presented -while I have not (yet) checked
those details from, for example, DAA-
looks like there could be some solid parts too, not
everything needs to be total bogus.
and remember, not even the noble Danes did generally
use noble surnames before c1530, the point when King
Frederick I ordered his nobility to take surnames.
You shouldn't believe too much in those surnames
presented all around in the internet.
also, to mention a reminiscence: Some article(s) I
have now only a distant reminiscence about, iirc have
shown that there has been some bogus in some people's
claims to have descended from counts of Everstein in
Denmark.
As far as I gather, counts were attractive to be
descended from, and such invented genealogies
seemingly flourished in later centuries; but more
rigorous research then showed that one or a few female
linkages in such do not hold water (in the sense of
historical attestability) or is even a fabrication.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Kate Stromsted
data to publications; as you say, some data proved inaccurate. The
inaccuracies I came across were almost entirely in older lines. It's
understandable that DAA's reliability is variable; I'd assume fantastic
connections made it into twentieth century issues as well. Apparently a
1925 DAA indicated that one of the earlier Gyldenstierne/Gyllenstiernas was
the son of Erik Langben, a grandson of King Abel of Denmark. I've never
heard of this connection anywhere else, and it's probably wrong. I'm not
sure what to think about the Eberstein line, either.
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Finn Holbek @
Danmarks Adels Aarbog (DAA).
Many users of DAA forget the later corrections; you can se the index her:
http://finnholbek.dk/DAA/index.htm
The line to Abert Eberstein is almost correct, but the surname "Udsen" of
hes wife Marine, must be one of Finn Gaunaas idears.
or
Kind regards
Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/index.php
http://gw2.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=fholbek
Finn Holbek @
Vi danskere er nu heller ikke altid helt enig i svenskernes fremstilling af
tingene ;o))
Som sagt andetsteds så glemmer de fleste brugere af DAA at tjekke for
rettelserne, og flere af slægterne er lavet om både 2 og 3 gange, så jeg
mener bestemt at værket skal tages seriøst.
http://finnholbek.dk/DAA/index.htm
Vi er helt enige om problemerne med roskilde.dk
Mvh. Finn Holbek
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/index.php
http://gw2.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=fholbek
Finn Holbek
"Kate Stromsted"
> 1925 DAA indicated that one of the earlier Gyldenstierne/Gyllenstiernas
> was
> the son of Erik Langben, a grandson of King Abel of Denmark. I've never
> heard of this connection anywhere else, and it's probably wrong.
This is not correct, actually DAA says the opposite:
Gyldenstierne is in DAA 1926, and in the part II, page 3 you can read this:
"Older uncritical sources let the family decendend from someone called
"Erik Langeben"...etc."
(I've got the most of the books)
Kind regards
Finn
Kate Stromsted
Thanks very much for the clarification. I didn't think the Gyldenstierne
line could be right, but it was good to verify. I appreciate the commentary
on the Eberstein line as well.
Kate
Finn Holbek
The version on Rosikilde has certainley nothing to do with DAA.
You don't know the books at all?
Finn
http://finnholbek.dk/genealogy/