Help needed: Christian I's ancestry
Jared L. Olar
In the archives, a post from Professor Baldwin, dated 15 March 1996 and
entitled "Re: Possible line from Tostig?", includes a pedigree chart that
shows the ancestry of King Christian I of Denmark and Norway tracing back
to the earlier kings of Norway and Sweden. Prof. Baldwin said he derived
the lineage from Europaische Stammtafeln. I'm writing a little paper in
which I will need to cite the band and tafel numbers of ES for this
lineage. However, Prof. Baldwin has told me that he does not have ready
access to ES at this time.
Would anyone here be able to provide me with the precise ES
bibliographical cites for this lineage?
You may reply to me off list.
Thanks!
Jared Olar
P.S. Here is the URL for the archived message to which I refer above
(Warning, my email program has a bad habit of inserting a superfluous
space into lengthy URLs.):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Tostig&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4iai1t%2
4csj%40ns.campus.mci.net&rnum=2
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
A Tsar Is Born
""Jared L. Olar"" <ardg...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:20031114.200355.-...@juno.com...
> Greetings all:
>
> In the archives, a post from Professor Baldwin, dated 15 March 1996 and
> entitled "Re: Possible line from Tostig?", includes a pedigree chart that
> shows the ancestry of King Christian I of Denmark and Norway tracing back
> to the earlier kings of Norway and Sweden. Prof. Baldwin said he derived
> the lineage from Europaische Stammtafeln. I'm writing a little paper in
> which I will need to cite the band and tafel numbers of ES for this
> lineage. However, Prof. Baldwin has told me that he does not have ready
> access to ES at this time.
>
> Would anyone here be able to provide me with the precise ES
> bibliographical cites for this lineage?
ES I.83 gives the Counts of Oldenburg to Christian I and the following pages
give his descendants in the male line until they became Kings of Sweden, the
Glucksborg kings of everywhere, and the Tsars of Russia, whereupon you must
switch to ES II.
ES II. gives all the Kings of Norway, Sweden and Denmark to 1375. (Erik VII
is to be found under Pomerania; Christopher III under Wittelsbach.) Piecing
these together through various Schauenburgs and Honsteins and Mecklenburgs
is then up to you. I've seen several different versions. I think the most
direct goes through Erik V's daughter, Richiza (or Rixa), who married
Niclotus II of Werle.
But ES, as you may know, does NOT give intervening generations through the
female line, no matter how helpful these might be; it is strictly
patriachal.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Phil Moody
searched the rootsweb archive, and found it.
http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/G/GEN-MEDIEVAL+1996+10702050011+F
I will paste the business end of Mr. Baldwin's post:
Quote:
By the way, even if the affiliation between Tostig and Skuli is
accepted as true, there don't seem to be any early British families
which could take advantage of the line. As far as I know, the
earliest descendant to bring the line back to the British Isles was
Margaret of Denmark, wife of king James III of Scotland. For those
who are interested, here is how she descended from the elder Skuli.
[Up to Hakon IV is from Heimskringla, and after that comes from Prince
Isenburg's earlier version of Europaischen Stammtafeln, since I don't
have access to the newer version.]
Skuli, perhaps [but perhaps not] a son of Tostig
md. Guthrun, daughter of Nefsteinn
|
Asolf of Rein
md. Thora, daughter of Skopti, son of Ogmund
|
Guthorm of Rein
md. [unknown]
|
Bard of Rein
md. twice
|
Skuli, powerful Norwegian Jarl, and friend of Snorri
md. [unknown]
|
Margaret, d. 1270
md. 1225 Hakon IV (b. 1204, d. 1268), king of Norway
|
Magnus VI (b. 1238, d. 1280), king of Norway
md. 1261 Ingeborg, daughter of Erik IV, king of Denmark
|
Hakon V (b. 1270, d. 1319), king of Norway
md. 1299 Eufemia, daughter of Wislaw III, prince of Rugen
|
Ingeborg of Norway (b. 1301)
md. 1312 Erik of Sweden (d. 1318), duke of Sudermannland [sp?]
|
Eufemia (b. 1317)
md. 1336 Albrecht I (b. 1318, d. 1379), duke of Mecklenburg
|
Ingeburg of Mecklenburg
md. 1366 Heinrich II, count of Holstein
|
Gerhard VI, count of Holstein
md. 1391 Elisabeth, daughter of Magnus II, dike of Braunschweig
|
Hedwig of Holstein, d. 1436
md. 1423 Dietrich (d. 1440), count of Oldenburg
|
Christian I (b. 1425, d. 1481), king of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden
md. 1449 Dorothea, daughter of Johann, margrave of Brandanburg
|
Margaret of Denmark
md. James III, king of Scotland
|
V
---------------------------------
Stewart Baldwin
End Quote:
PLM: I have two questions concerning this line. I note Mr. Baldwin used an
early edition of ES; so I am curious to know the the latest edition contains
this same information:
"Ingeborg of Norway (b. 1301)
md. 1312 Erik of Sweden (d. 1318), duke of Sudermannland [sp?]
|
Eufemia (b. 1317)
md. 1336 Albrecht I (b. 1318, d. 1379), duke of Mecklenburg"
The reason I am curious is because Peter and Birgit Sawyer write in _ Medieval
Scandinavia: From Conversion to reformation circa 800-1500_, Pub. University
of Minnesota Press, © 1993 (my copy is the fifth printing, 2000), have on
their chart on page 73 - that Euphemia married Albrekt (II) of Mecklenberg,
and they had Albrekt (III) of Mecklenberg (king of Sweden 1383-89, d. 1412),
and Henrik (who is the maternal grand-father of Erik of Pomerania, by Erik's
mother Marie.)
So, did Euphemia marry Albrekt (I), or (II) of Mecklenberg?
The second question is merely for my benefit:-) I am curious to know the
ancestry of Eufemia, daughter of Wislaw III, prince of Rugen (Wizlaw of
Rügen)?
Cheers,
Phil
"A Tsar Is Born" <Atsarisb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QMitb.37424$bQ3....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
david hughes
King Christian I of Denmark, through the Dutch counts of Oldenburg
from Elimar (Egilmar), who inherited Oldenburg from his wife, Rixa.
Elimar was the son of Helyas "The Swan-Knight", a celebrated hero of
the First Crusade, the son of Warin of Lorraine.
There are three theories of the parentage of Warin of Lorraine, which
are: (a) that he was the son of Otto of Lorraine, the son of Charles
of Lorraine (d994), the Carolingian heir; or (b) that he was the son
[or grandson] of Otto, Count of Chiny [Warcq], the son of Albert "The
Pious", Count of Vermandois, etc., who were Carolingians in the
male-line descended from Charlemagne; and, (c) that Warin of Lorraine
may be identified with "Lohengrin" of medieval romance, an epic
figure, the son of Otto of Lillefort, the "descendant" [not "son"], of
Parzival, who was himself descended from a long line of "Grail-Kings",
who descended from Joseph of Arimathea, the uncle of The Virgin Mary,
so the story goes.
see alternate ancestries at
http://www.geocities.com/royalty_worldwide/index.html
part 3, genealogical table[s] "y"
Todd A. Farmerie
> Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, descends in the male-line from
> King Christian I of Denmark, through the Dutch counts of Oldenburg
> from Elimar (Egilmar), who inherited Oldenburg from his wife, Rixa.
> Elimar was the son of Helyas "The Swan-Knight", a celebrated hero of
> the First Crusade, the son of Warin of Lorraine.
That person X is identical to the 'Swan Knight' is a claim made
of many people.
> There are three theories of the parentage of Warin of Lorraine, which
Is there any actual evidence for any of them, or is this just a
case of enthusiasm getting the better of judgement.
> are: (a) that he was the son of Otto of Lorraine, the son of Charles
> of Lorraine (d994), the Carolingian heir; or (b) that he was the son
> [or grandson] of Otto, Count of Chiny [Warcq], the son of Albert "The
> Pious", Count of Vermandois, etc., who were Carolingians in the
> male-line descended from Charlemagne; and,
Gee - the only two male lines of descent from Charlemagne, and
they claim both of them.
> (c) that Warin of Lorraine
> may be identified with "Lohengrin" of medieval romance, an epic
> figure, the son of Otto of Lillefort, the "descendant" [not "son"], of
> Parzival, who was himself descended from a long line of "Grail-Kings",
> who descended from Joseph of Arimathea, the uncle of The Virgin Mary,
> so the story goes.
And if we can't trace from an authentic hero, mythical ones will
have to do.
> see alternate ancestries at
> http://www.geocities.com/royalty_worldwide/index.html
> part 3, genealogical table[s] "y"
To call these ancestries is to imply that the pages on this site
have any basis in historical reality. From what I see, in the
first section, probably no more than 30% of the people listed on
the pages even existed at all, and there is not a genealogical
forgery, fraud or myth that does not appear. These pages should
be used for entertainment purposes only - for example, I got a
laugh out the "1st King of America", son of Poseidon (Neptune).
taf
david hughes
I have noticed from postings on this website that you seem to have
something to say about everything, all negative nothing positive. and
your ignorance of certain subjects is unbelievable, but I bet you
think you are smart and probably have convinced others into thinking
so too. I was told to expect one of the "three stooges" to mouth off
at my posting, and one of the names was yours. I guess the other two
will chime in before long. why are you always criticizing other
people's work? are you attempting to build yourself up by putting
others down? are you that pathetic a person? what exactly is your
problem? and, who are you anyway? do you have a website?; have you
written a book?; any journal articles? what have you produced?
anything at all? I can't find any work you have done. the only thing
you appear to do is criticize and put down other people's work, while
passing yourself off as some sort of scholar. you are certainly not a
scholar though you pretend to be. nor are you recognized as one by any
academics i know. how long do you think you can continue this charade
before you are exposed for what you really are? a French prince
attending college in this country recently told me in an e-mail that
he visits such websites as google royalty all-talk but never
contributes to the discussions because of "know-it-all" critics such
as you, and gave your name! it appears that you have made yourself a
reputation, but not a flattering one to be sure. you discourage
people from contributing to this website. I am sure that it is not
what the creators of this website had in mind when they made it. you
are out of step of the spirit in which this website was created. stop
wasting people's time with your uninformed opinions you little pimple
of a person!; and, get some professional help!
pig...@fuckyou.co.uk
Todd's genealogical credentials can be demonstrated by his articles in, for instance, The
American Genealogist (the current issue, for instance). His non-genealogical academic
credentials are easily found.
And your webpage, "http://www.geocities.com/royalty_worldwide/index.html", is a farrago of
crap.
Dolly Ziegler
Farmerie to be knowledgeable and straightforward. Also patient about
correcting some of the bogus lineages plucked from books or websites
and posted by innocent readers. Perhaps that's why you see him as
"negative."
I believe Todd Farmerie has published articles in the first-rate journals,
though I doubt he will list them for you.
I suppose this response to your rant will just establish me as another
stooge. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland
John Steele Gordon
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> wrote in message
news:c57e4f24.03111...@posting.google.com...
> Todd Farmerie...do you believe yourself to be an expert on everything?
what exactly is your
> problem? and, who are you anyway? do you have a website?; have you
> written a book?; any journal articles? what have you produced?
> anything at all? I can't find any work you have done.
Then you didn't look very hard. Try
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/authors/works2.htm for starters.
Then you could go to Google and search on "Todd A. Farmerie" (include the
quotes). It will give you about 1,250 references.
His latest journal article is in the just-out July 2003 edition of The
American Genealogist.
Try doing your homework first before you rant.
JSG
Betty Owen
I have been on this list for years. I think this jealous behavior... I just
ignore it..
Taf as always is gracious and helpful...
Betty
Richard Smith
If you had read Todd's posts over the years you would have found that he is
a knowledgeable skeptic who has sought to elevate the practice of genealogy
by debunking the myth and manufactured material, claiming to be genealogy,
which has been loaded on to the internet.
In doing so, he has kept me from error in several cases.
For that I am truely greatful.
Richard Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Don Stone
> Todd Farmerie...
[snip]
> who are you anyway? do you have a website?;
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~farmerie/
which can be found via Google: Farmerie [AND] (genealogy OR genealogical).
> have you written a book?; any journal articles? what have you produced?
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/authors/works2.htm#Farmerie
David -- you clearly have a different viewpoint from Todd. If you'd like to
persuade others of the validity of your viewpoint, you are more likely to
have success if you put your energies into articulating and defending this
viewpoint than if you put your energies into an ill-informed attack on an
individual who is critical of your approach.
-- Don Stone
Reedpcgen
[snip of long rant]
In checking a web site generated by this man, we find that the Stewarts, Houses
of Oldenburg and Cleve, St. Patric, the Welsh, etc., are directly traced back
into Biblical lineage:
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/davidicdynasty.wps.htm
We even have the direct Jewish ancestry of Pierre de Leon claimed (here is a
segment:)
[QUOTE:]
the three sons of the Exilarch (76A) David IV/II [39/44] (above) were
(77A) Hizkiah, the future [45/47] Exilarch Chizkiya III, reigned 1092-94 &
1096-99, see
(77B) Baruch, born in Spain, moved to Italy, changed his name to Benedictus
Christianus on his conversion to Christianity [baptized by the pope], father of
(78) Leo, a Roman senator (d1111), the father of (79) Pierre de Leon (d1128),
the father of (80) three sons & a daughter
[END QUOTE]
And we have the Paleogos family included:
[QUOTE:]
the descent-line of (70A) Nabal (above) is
(71) John, took surname Paleologus, was the ancestor of the Paleologi Family of
Byzantium, which family married into the imperial house at Constantinople and
eventually, very ironically, inherited the very empire that had overthrown his
ancestors’ kingdom [note: this occasion is not un-paralleled in history; for
another example would be when the Tudors, descended from the royal house of
Wales, which was dispossessed on the conquest of Wales by England under the
Plantagenets, were to later overthrow the Plantagenets and take possession of
the very kingdom which had earlier conquered theirs], begot
[END QUOTE]
And a connection in Spain:
[QUOTE:]
the descent-line from (83C) Yosef (above), to British Royalty is:
(84) Shlomo Ha-Zaken (d1299), the father of
(85) Gedaliah, the father of
(86) Paloma = Fadrique (d1358), the brother of King Enrique II of Castile, the
parents of
(87) Alfonso; = Juana de Mendoza, the parents of
(88) Fadrique (d1473); = Mariana of Cordova, the parents of
(89) Juana = Juan II, King of Aragon, the parents of
(90) Fernando II/V of Aragon = Queen Isabella I of Castile
[END QUOTE]
Which might go a long way in explaining that when this person posted the long
direct male ancestry of the Lougher family:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c57e4f24.0306301433.3aaec46a%40postin
g.google.com&output=gplain
whihc was criticized by Todd, he should reply with such a caustic attack here.
Paul
Sally Laine
Farmerie's postings over the years. Taf has always been helpful when needed
and thank heavens tries to scotch some of the more outrageous, spurious
lineages.
Sally
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dolly Ziegler" <d...@bcpl.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
R. Battle
> Thanks Dolly for putting into words what I have noticed about Todd
> Farmerie's postings over the years. Taf has always been helpful when needed
> and thank heavens tries to scotch some of the more outrageous, spurious
> lineages.
<snip>
If I could add my $.02, I find it remarkable that some people think that
posting spurious information is somehow superior to scotching that
information. In the past there have been some posters (or at least one)
who stated that genealogists who prove newly-discovered connections are
superior to those who disprove previously-accepted connections. This was,
of course, fallacious, since both examples of genealogical scholarship
further the quest for genealogical truth (and rarely is a scholar
involved in just one of the previously-mentioned types of proof). To
take this even further by claiming that people who (re)produce false
connections are superior to those who disprove such connections is
completely outrageous.
-Robert Battle
Reedpcgen
>who stated that genealogists who prove newly-discovered connections are
>superior to those who disprove previously-accepted connections.
The utter irony of this view is that those who have published the most new
origins are the same individuals who were disproving the most claims.
Perhaps it could be that higher genealogical standards were being followed in
both? ;-)
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
with the author, and the opinions expressed are solely his. Any
personal responses should be directed to him.]
-------- Original Message --------
From: "Carpenter, Charles" <CARP...@pepperlaw.com>
Subject: RE: Help needed: Christian I's ancestry
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:12:38 -0500
I tried to send this in response, but it keeps getting bounced.
Can you post it to Gen-Med?
http://www.nlpb.de/04-pub/04-pub-pdf/Oldenburg/OldenburgKap2.pdf
This link goes to what looks like a fairly comprehensive look at
the history of early Oldenburg. As related by Mr. Hughes, the
counts of O. descend from Egilmar I, who died ca. 1108. As not
related by Mr. Hughes, Egilmar's origins are not known. See p.
48 ("Die Herkunft der 'Egilmaringe' ist noch immer ungeklaert").
I'm not sure I would call Oldenburg "dutch" either.
I would be interested to hear educated commentary on whether
Egilmar's apparently close relationship with the Billungs fits
with a Lorraine descent as offered by Mr. Hughes. Is it more
likely, if one is to follow legends, that Egilmar descends from
Witukind than from Charlemagne?
I note that in my Britannica, in describing the legends that grew
up around Godfrey of Bouillon, an actual participant in the first
crusade, it is said that he was the grandson of Helias, knight of
the swan. We know that one of Godfrey's grandfathers was Duke
Godfrey II of Lower Lorraine. We know that the other was Eustace
I, count of Boulogne. The latter died nearly 50 years before the
first crusade, the former more than 25 years before.
Some may find this shocking, but it appears that the legends may
not be perfectly accurate representations of history.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd Farmerie...do you believe yourself to be an expert on
everything?
Does one have to be an expert to regard a pedigree in which a man
is unknowingly made to be his own great grandfather as being
somehow flawed? Does one have to be an expert to recognize that,
when the same individual is given (without any indication of
uncertainly) two completely different male-line pedigrees, at
least one of them fails to reflect reality? No. (It does help -
one who lacks at least a modicum of expertise may not recognize
that these have been done.) A British woman named Goldborough?
please! (Fenchurch, maybe, but not Goldborough). Wives listed in
every generation of Anglo-Saxon lineages where the only surviving
historical records contain strings of names in male-line-only
descents? Banquo inserted between Flaald son of Alan and his
father Alan (even with the caveat that he is "omited in some
pedigrees" - did you consider the possibility that the authors of
those pedigrees might have good reason to omit him, for example
that Flaald son of Alan was aptly named)? I could go on and on
and on. To see such a collection pointed to as if it had some
basis in reality and not point out that this is far from the case
would be irresponsible.
> I have noticed from postings on this website that you seem to have
> something to say about everything, all negative nothing positive.
[snip, a whole lot of words used to ask 'who do you think you are
to question me?']
> I am sure that it is not
> what the creators of this website had in mind when they made
it. you
> are out of step of the spirit in which this website was created.
Hmmm. Is such certainty well founded?
That being said, I see you failed to answer the one specific
question that I asked (which, fortunately, takes us back to
genealogy), so I will repeat it and amplify.
Is there the least shred of evidence supporting the descent of
the Oldenburgs from either of the Carolingian lines (or from the
mythical german and french poetic legends)? On what basis is the
connection suggested? How does this evidence favor one vs. the
other? (The two Carolingian lines certainly had distinct power
bases, so one would expect the evidence to point, or at least
trend, one way or the other.) More simply, where did each of the
three descents on the web page come from - what is their source?
taf
david hughes
"where did each of the three descents on the web page come from - what
don't know something...that was my contention in my recent
post...Toad, you are not worth my time, however, if anyone else wants
the answers to the questions that Toad Farmerie raises I would be more
than happy to provide them as well as the bibliography where this
information derives. contact me at my home e-mail address, for I don't
visit this website everyday
David Hughes
GRHa...@aol.com
I would be more
than happy to provide them as well as the bibliography where this
information derives. contact me at my home e-mail address, for I don't
visit this website everyday
Why not put it on the website here and everybody can utilize the
information rather than making each person request it? This is the manner in which a
"good" genealogist would act.
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
Kelsey J. Williams
>
<snip>
> see alternate ancestries at
> http://www.geocities.com/royalty_worldwide/index.html
> part 3, genealogical table[s] "y"
My Dear Mr. Hughes,
Your website, although containing some general outlines of various
genealogies, is most regrettably lacking when it comes to some
important specifics. As an example I would point to your Table 3A
where you have King Lear descended in an unknown number of generations
from Lloeger, son of Brut. Even the most cursory examination of the
relevant primary sources would reveal that Lear was son of Bran ap
Iwnn (d. 492/491 B.C.) by Fiachra Mawr, daughter and heiress of Hwell,
Prince of Annwn [1].
The pedigree of the Princes of Annwn has already been covered by
several reliable secondary sources [2]. Suffice it to say that you
have also omitted the well-known marriage between Hwell Gwynniach
(gr-gr-gr-gr-grandfather of Fiachra Mawr) and Arwen III, heiress and
Queen in her own right of Arnor & Gondor [3]. Arwen was of course
descended from Aragorn II, King of Gondor and Arnor, about whom a
rather fanciful trilogy of books was written forty or fifty years ago.
I trust that you will see to it that your charts are updated.
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
Sources:
[1] H. W. Jones (ed.), _Annales Cambriae: Alter Antiquitae_ (Oxford,
1914), pp. 17, 21-22.
[2] Elena Vintegris, _Genealogies from the Mabinogion_ (New York,
1972).
[3] Peter T. Griffiths (ed.), _Tywech innwn Gwynniach verch Tuan: The
Chronicles of the Ancient Britons_ (London, 1954), p. 361.
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
> Toad Farmerie writes:
> "where did each of the three descents on the web page come from - what
> is their source?" well, Toad, I am glad you finally admit that you
> don't know something...that was my contention in my recent
> post...Toad, you are not worth my time, however, if anyone else wants
> the answers to the questions that Toad Farmerie raises I would be more
> than happy to provide them as well as the bibliography where this
> information derives. contact me at my home e-mail address, for I don't
> visit this website everyday
> David Hughes
>
taf may have a problem with the difference between 30% and 1/3, but when it
come to genealogy, what he does not know about the subject is not worth
knowing, so I for one will turn down your kind invertation.
Adrian
Reedpcgen
Since you do still visit this site, perhaps you could just address one specific
statement I found at your site:
What source gives the origin and Jewish ancestry of Leo, given as father of
Pierre de Leon?
As there is descent from them given in sources like Turton, it would be quite
interesting to have something that could be analyzed.
Paul
david hughes
---------------------------------------
you wrote: These pages should
laugh out the "1st King of America", son of Poseidon (Neptune).
compare native American Indian legends and the Greek classic Plato; or
my article "Ancient Britain" posted at
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/ancientbritain.wps.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:
Does one have to be an expert to regard a pedigree in which a man
is unknowingly made to be his own great grandfather as being
somehow flawed?
could you specify to whom you are referring
------------------------------------------------------------
Does one have to be an expert to recognize that,
when the same individual is given (without any indication of
uncertainly) two completely different male-line pedigrees, at
least one of them fails to reflect reality? No.
I give alternative ancestries to the Stuarts, the Habsburgs, and at
least another dynasty, because that is what the sources give. For
example, between three and five theories are given of the origins of
the Habsburgs; and, I do not know which theory of descent is correct,
so I give all of the theories of descent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
your wrote:
one who lacks at least a modicum of expertise may not recognize
that these have been done.) A British woman named Goldborough?
please! (Fenchurch, maybe, but not Goldborough).
what's going on here? Fenchurch indeed is a good British name, but
Goldborough is not British but Anglo-Saxon. you should know better,
because she appears in the Sussex chart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
your wrote:
Wives listed in
every generation of Anglo-Saxon lineages where the only surviving
historical records contain strings of names in male-line-only
descents?
where've you been?; there is a bunch of articles in journals out there
by scholars who give wives to various Anglo-Saxon figures. I know it
is conjecture, but if their arguments are good enough I think their
work should not be left in journal-articles so I have recorded their
findings in my work, but surely too you must be aware that medieval
historians gave wives to various Anglo-Saxon figures also
------------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:
Banquo inserted between Flaald son of Alan and his
father Alan (even with the caveat that he is "omited in some
pedigrees" - did you consider the possibility that the authors of
those pedigrees might have good reason to omit him, for example
that Flaald son of Alan was aptly named)?
please note that the name "Banquo" is in brackets [ ], which means
in the genealogies I have posted on the web that the person in the
brackets is "traditional" (Shakespeare's MacBeth) and does not appear
in the historical record. I am well aware that Flaald's father was
Alan, but I just could not break myself from making a reference to the
Banquo tradition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:
I could go on and on
and on.
please don't
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you wrote:
Is there the least shred of evidence supporting the descent of
the Oldenburgs from either of the Carolingian lines (or from the
mythical german and french poetic legends)? On what basis is the
connection suggested? How does this evidence favor one vs. the
other? (The two Carolingian lines certainly had distinct power
bases, so one would expect the evidence to point, or at least
thanks, that gives me an excellent idea for a journal article
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David
Todd A. Farmerie
> Todd,
Oh, I see you have rediscovered its correct spelling - I had not
heard the other since elementary school, and was amused to see it
used by someone out of grade school.
> I have a few minutes; I'll answer some of your questions:
> ---------------------------------------
> you wrote: These pages should
> be used for entertainment purposes only - for example, I got a
> laugh out the "1st King of America", son of Poseidon (Neptune).
> reply:
> compare native American Indian legends and the Greek classic Plato; or
> my article "Ancient Britain" posted at
> http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/ancientbritain.wps.htm
At least it is illuminating as to the kind of mindset behind such
claims. The number of statements of fact therein that have no
evidence to support them is collosal, and these are all strung
together to make for a good story, but this Emperor has no
clothes. There is no archaeological evidence that a single
European person set foot on the North American continent before
the arrival of the vikings. The whole paragraph about the events
in North America is nothing but speculation layered on
speculation layered on speculation, with no foundation to rest
upon. I was particularly amused by the reference to Mystery Hill,
which has every appearance of being an 18th century farm, unless
you are really desparite to have it be something else (or unless
you are Barry Fell, which may be the same thing). And not that
you will probably care, but the suggestion, completely
unsupported by evidence, that the Mound People and Aztecs and
every other civilization in America were really European
immigrants has at its center a European hyperdiffusionism based
on the 19th and early 20th century racist assumptions that the
Amerindians were incapable as a people of having the ability to
develop civilizations on their own.
Such arguments that person X in this culture has a name vaguely
similar to god Y in that culture, who has a story about him
similar to myth Z in yet another culture, so they must all be the
same historical figure, are common, but display a certain lack of
critical analysis - the failure to even contemplate the
possibility that the similarities are coincidental, and that the
legends are nothing but myth to begin with. It is based on a
logic that starts with the more or less reasonable hypothesis
that some legends might have vaguely derived from a forgotten
historical event, but then uses this to assume that every legend
must be true, and are only inaccurate to the extent that the
inaccuracies might interfere with connecting them with each other
to produce The Big Picture - a concept flawed in the very
assumption that there is a big picture, and that all of these
cultural legends have any common basis. Certainly though, a
discussion of this phylosophy is pointless, as there is no ground
for agreement between the two polar opposite positions on the matter.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Does one have to be an expert to regard a pedigree in which a man
> is unknowingly made to be his own great grandfather as being
> somehow flawed?
> reply:
> could you specify to whom you are referring
Ragnar Lothbrok. However, it is sort of a moot point, like
complaining that someone has the tooth fairy twice in their
pedigree. Still, its the thought that counts.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Does one have to be an expert to recognize that,
> when the same individual is given (without any indication of
> uncertainly) two completely different male-line pedigrees, at
> least one of them fails to reflect reality? No.
> reply:
> I give alternative ancestries to the Stuarts, the Habsburgs, and at
You intentionally give alternative ancestries for them. You
accidentally give alternative ancestries to AEthelstan Half-King.
It looks like you didn't recognize the two as being the same
person, which raises additional doubts as to the process by which
the pedigrees were compiled.
> least another dynasty, because that is what the sources give. For
> example, between three and five theories are given of the origins of
> the Habsburgs; and, I do not know which theory of descent is correct,
> so I give all of the theories of descent.
Did you give any effort to excluding any of these? Did you give
such an effort to evaluating any of the pedigrees shown.
Obviously, in the case of the five, four must be wrong, but what
makes you think that if four people invented an ancestry, the
fifth didn't as well? That being the case, why would you show
all of them, rather than none. The goal seems to be that of the
name-collector, for whom critical analysis that may result in the
removal of names, however falsely included, is anathema.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> your wrote:
> one who lacks at least a modicum of expertise may not recognize
> that these have been done.) A British woman named Goldborough?
> please! (Fenchurch, maybe, but not Goldborough).
> reply:
> what's going on here? Fenchurch indeed is a good British name,
No, it's not. It is a London underground station, used as a
personal name by Douglas Adams in one of his books. I am unaware
of a single British given name (British as in relating to the
culture associated with the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants, not
moderns) with the element -church in the name. Can you cite any?
> but
> Goldborough is not British but Anglo-Saxon. you should know better,
> because she appears in the Sussex chart.
My mistake. Let me rephrase. An Anglo-Saxon woman named
Goldborough? please!
Cite for me a single Anglo-Saxon document wherein there is an
individual with either the element Gold- or -borough in their
given name (you know, like AEthelbald is AEthel- and -bald - bold
prince).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> your wrote:
> Wives listed in
> every generation of Anglo-Saxon lineages where the only surviving
> historical records contain strings of names in male-line-only
> descents?
> reply:
> where've you been?; there is a bunch of articles in journals out there
> by scholars who give wives to various Anglo-Saxon figures.
Citations, please (although in our last 'discussion' you cited
Molly Miller as evidence for something she never mentioned, so I
am not optimistic).
> I know it
> is conjecture,
The _origin_ of a wife is conjecture. When the records name no
females at all, her name is entirely arbitrary - calling it
conjecture gives it more legitimacy than it can possibly aspire to.
Anyhow, at one point you have what are clearly alternative
conjectures used to explain the same phenomenon, and you have
shown them both, when if one is true, the other has no
argumentative validity, and vice versa (in common parlance, you
can't have your cake and eat it too).
> but surely too you must be aware that medieval
> historians gave wives to various Anglo-Saxon figures also
This could be read two different ways - that Anglo-Saxon
historians named some wives, which is true, but they did not name
the mother, grandmother, or greatgrandmother of Egbert, as you
have done, and because they didn't, there is no valid reason to
assign a name at this late date. The other way of reading this
is that (later) medieval historians gave (as in 'arbitrarily
assigned') names for the wives of Anglo-Saxons of centuries
earlier, the same way that they gave them all arms. This is
true, but irrelevant.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Banquo inserted between Flaald son of Alan and his
> father Alan (even with the caveat that he is "omited in some
> pedigrees" - did you consider the possibility that the authors of
> those pedigrees might have good reason to omit him, for example
> that Flaald son of Alan was aptly named)?
> reply:
> please note that the name "Banquo" is in brackets [ ], which means
> in the genealogies I have posted on the web that the person in the
> brackets is "traditional" (Shakespeare's MacBeth) and does not appear
> in the historical record. I am well aware that Flaald's father was
> Alan, but I just could not break myself from making a reference to the
> Banquo tradition.
So, knowing it was false, you included it anyhow. This forces me
to ask what it would take to cause you to remove a name, or is
any removal of a name an irreparable loss to the collection.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> I could go on and on
> and on.
> reply:
> please don't
No, if there are further errors, you would rather they remain on
your pages rather than being pointed out so they can be corrected.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Is there the least shred of evidence supporting the descent of
> the Oldenburgs from either of the Carolingian lines (or from the
> mythical german and french poetic legends)? On what basis is the
> connection suggested? How does this evidence favor one vs. the
> other? (The two Carolingian lines certainly had distinct power
> bases, so one would expect the evidence to point, or at least
> trend, one way or the other.) More simply, where did each of the
> three descents on the web page come from - what is their source?
> reply:
> thanks, that gives me an excellent idea for a journal article
Thanks? You mean the concept of using the evidence to evaluate
the likelihood of the various possibilities hadn't occured to you?
Does your lack of an answer mean that you are again going to duck
the question that I asked, as to whether any evidence exists to
support any of the possible Oldenburg ancestries?
taf
norenxaq
> subject is not worth
> knowing,
nobody is that much of an expert to be worshipped in the way you are implying.
Igor Sklar
> david hughes wrote:
> > Todd,
>
> Oh, I see you have rediscovered its correct spelling - I had not
> heard the other since elementary school, and was amused to see it
> used by someone out of grade school.
How do you know that your opponent is out of grade school? For my
part, I'm not sure about it at all.
regards
Phil Moody
> nobody is that much of an expert to be worshipped in the way you are
implying.
PLM: Thank you for making this much need statement of fact. Before this thread
turned to rubbish; I had asked a couple of genealogical questions, which have
gone un-answered. I wrote:
Quote:
PLM: I have two questions concerning this line. I note Mr. Baldwin used an
early edition of ES; so I am curious to know the latest edition contains this
same information:
"Ingeborg of Norway (b. 1301)
md. 1312 Erik of Sweden (d. 1318), duke of Sudermannland [sp?]
|
Eufemia (b. 1317)
md. 1336 Albrecht I (b. 1318, d. 1379), duke of Mecklenburg"
The reason I am curious is because Peter and Birgit Sawyer write in _ Medieval
Scandinavia: From Conversion to reformation circa 800-1500_, Pub. University
of Minnesota Press, © 1993 (my copy is the fifth printing, 2000), have on
their chart on page 73 - that Euphemia married Albrekt (II) of Mecklenberg,
and they had Albrekt (III) of Mecklenberg (king of Sweden 1383-89, d. 1412),
and Henrik (who is the maternal grand-father of Erik of Pomerania, by Erik's
mother Marie.)
So, did Euphemia marry Albrekt (I), or (II) of Mecklenberg?
The second question is merely for my benefit:-) I am curious to know the
ancestry of Eufemia, daughter of Wislaw III, prince of Rugen (Wizlaw of
Rügen)?
End Quote:
PLM: I would have thought Prof. Stewart Baldwin, FASG would been interested in
resolving this discrepancy, since an authoritative historical reference
contradicts the information he previously posted, but apparently not.
Furthermore, I know Todd has the Peter and Birgit Sawyer reference I cited;
because he has made reference to it in the past, but he has no desire to
correct this very important genealogical error.
So, Mr. Hughes replies to this thread with a post that does not address either
Jared Olar's request for help, nor mine, but rather Todd chose to address Mr.
Hughes nonsense, and mine and Jared's post have been forgotten and neglected.
Hopefully, this pissing contest between Mr. Hughes and Farmerie can be put
aside long enough; so we can resolve an important genealogical issue, that
being the identity of Euphemia's spouse, Albrekt (I), or (II) of Mecklenberg.
Cheers,
Phil
ADRIANC...@aol.com
writes:
> > > when it come to genealogy, what he (Farmerie) does not know about the
> > > subject is not worth
> > > knowing,
> >
> > nobody is that much of an expert to be worshipped in the way you are
> implying.
> >
>
I keep forgetting that there are some on this list who do not recognise
tongue in cheek remarks, so I apologise for misleading those people.
Adrian
david hughes
Toad, you are not worth my time, but this is just too easy!
-----------------
your silly self wrote:
At least it is illuminating as to the kind of mindset behind such
claims. The number of statements of fact therein that have no
evidence to support them
reply:
yes they do, you stupid thing. a bibliography of the sources is
offered at the end of the article upon request.
----------------
you wrote:
There is no archaeological evidence that a single
European person set foot on the North American continent before
the arrival of the vikings.
reply:
what Europeans? you are not only stupid but you can't read either. if
you had read the article you would have read that the so-called
"ancient maritime-people" originated in North-West Africa, not Europe
---------------
you wrote:
The whole paragraph about the events
in North America is nothing but speculation layered on
speculation layered on speculation, with no foundation to rest
upon. I was particularly amused by the reference to Mystery Hill,
which has every appearance of being an 18th century farm, unless
you are really desparite to have it be something else (or unless
you are Barry Fell, which may be the same thing).
reply:
what is your documentation that Mystery Hill is an 18th century farm.
it is my understanding that its origin is still open to speculation……I
see you are using the "amusement" tactic…uhm, interesting, I suspected
that
you were a proud & pompous person, and now I am sure of it by your use
of this tactic over and over…you must be a loathsome, repugnant, &
disgusting person.
---------------------------------
your proud self wrote:
And not that
you will probably care, but the suggestion, completely
unsupported by evidence,
reply:
yes, there is you unread, ignorant thing
---------------
you wrote:
that the Mound People and Aztecs and
every other civilization in America were really European
immigrants has at its center a European hyperdiffusionism based
on the 19th and early 20th century racist assumptions
reply:
I never said the Mound People were European. I said they were descents
of the ancient maritime people who originally came from North-West
Africa. Can you not read, or are you trying to twist words to
represent me saying something that I did not say? I think you are,
which would make you a deceiver.
------------------------------
you wrote:
Does one have to be an expert to regard a pedigree in which a man
is unknowingly made to be his own great grandfather as being somehow
flawed?
then I asked:
could you specify to whom you are referring
the you wrote:
Ragnar Lothbrok. However, it is sort of a moot point, like
complaining that someone has the tooth fairy twice in their
pedigree.
reply:
shows how much [or little] you know. you are unbelievable. the name
"Ragnar" is common in Viking genealogies. Ragnar Lothbrok and his
descendant Ragnar "The Raven" are two different people, you imbecile.
see my article "Viking Age Britain" at
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/vikingage.wps.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Does one have to be an expert to recognize that,
> when the same individual is given (without any indication of
> uncertainly) two completely different male-line pedigrees, at
> least one of them fails to reflect reality? No.
> reply:
> I give alternative ancestries to the Stuarts, the Habsburgs, and at
> least another dynasty, because that is what the sources give. For
> example, between three and five theories are given of the origins of
> the Habsburgs; and, I do not know which theory of descent is correct,
> so I give all of the theories of descent.
your response:
Did you give any effort to excluding any of these? Did you give
such an effort to evaluating any of the pedigrees shown.
Obviously, in the case of the five, four must be wrong, but what
makes you think that if four people invented an ancestry, the
fifth didn't as well? That being the case, why would you show
all of them, rather than none. The goal seems to be that of the
name-collector, for whom critical analysis that may result in the
removal of names, however falsely included, is anathema.
reply:
why should I eliminate any, for people may be interested in the
various theories of descent, but you would be dogmatic about which is
right and which is wrong…
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> one who lacks at least a modicum of expertise may not recognize
> that these have been done.) A British woman named Goldborough?
> please! (Fenchurch, maybe, but not Goldborough).
> reply:
> what's going on here? Fenchurch indeed is a good British name,
No, it's not.
reply:
yes it is stupid. Fenchurch is a good British [i.e. Welsh] name
----------------------------------------------
you wrote:
I am unaware
of a single British given name (British as in relating to the
culture associated with the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants, not
moderns) with the element -church in the name. Can you cite any?
then, I replied:
> Goldborough is not British but Anglo-Saxon. you should know better,
> because she appears in the Sussex chart.
then, you wrote:
My mistake. Let me rephrase. An Anglo-Saxon woman named
Goldborough? please!
Cite for me a single Anglo-Saxon document wherein there is an
individual with either the element Gold- or -borough in their
given name (you know, like AEthelbald is AEthel- and -bald - bold
prince).
reply:
see: Woolf, Henry B. "The Old Germanic Principles of Name-Giving", by
Henry B. Woolf (1939).
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Wives listed in
> every generation of Anglo-Saxon lineages where the only surviving
> historical records contain strings of names in male-line-only
> descents?
> reply:
> where've you been?; there is a bunch of articles in journals out there
> by scholars who give wives to various Anglo-Saxon figures.
---------------------------------------------
you wrote:
Citations, please (although in our last 'discussion' you cited
Molly Miller as evidence for something she never mentioned, so I
am not optimistic).
reply:
oh my, you must be desperate here grasping at straws
-----------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Banquo inserted between Flaald son of Alan and his
> father Alan (even with the caveat that he is "omited in some
> pedigrees" - did you consider the possibility that the authors of
> those pedigrees might have good reason to omit him, for example
> that Flaald son of Alan was aptly named)?
> reply:
> please note that the name "Banquo" is in brackets [ ], which means
> in the genealogies I have posted on the web that the person in the
> brackets is "traditional" (Shakespeare's MacBeth) and does not appear
> in the historical record. I am well aware that Flaald's father was
> Alan, but I just could not break myself from making a reference to the
> Banquo tradition.
-------------------------
you wrote:
So, knowing it was false, you included it anyhow.
reply:
there you go putting words in my mouth, the word is "questionable" not
"false"…that is why the name is in brackets [ ] you thick-headed
simpleton
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> I could go on and on
> and on.
> reply:
> please don't
then, you wrote:
No, if there are further errors
reply:
I certainly don't pretend that I don't make errors, but you are
certainly not qualified to point them out to me.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> you wrote:
> Is there the least shred of evidence supporting the descent of
> the Oldenburgs from either of the Carolingian lines (or from the
> mythical german and french poetic legends)? On what basis is the
> connection suggested? How does this evidence favor one vs. the
> other? (The two Carolingian lines certainly had distinct power
> bases, so one would expect the evidence to point, or at least
> trend, one way or the other.) More simply, where did each of the
> three descents on the web page come from - what is their source?
> reply:
> thanks, that gives me an excellent idea for a journal article
then you wrote:
Thanks? You mean the concept of using the evidence to evaluate
the likelihood of the various possibilities hadn't occured to you?
Does your lack of an answer mean that you are again going to duck
the question that I asked, as to whether any evidence exists to
support any of the possible Oldenburg ancestries?
reply:
no, I didn't think about making it into an article until you brought
it up. that is what I will do, so I will answer that question in my
forthcoming article…
--------------------------------------
any more questions you unintelligent, mindless, dim-witted nincompoop
--------------------------------------
David Hughes
Todd A. Farmerie
> I had asked a couple of genealogical questions, which have
> gone un-answered. I wrote:
[snip]
> So, did Euphemia marry Albrekt (I), or (II) of Mecklenberg?
>
> The second question is merely for my benefit:-) I am curious to know the
> ancestry of Eufemia, daughter of Wislaw III, prince of Rugen (Wizlaw of
> Rügen)?
> Furthermore, I know Todd has the Peter and Birgit Sawyer reference I cited;
> because he has made reference to it in the past, but he has no desire to
> correct this very important genealogical error.
You are operating under two misconceptions. The first is that I saw the
questions. I read your post on Google, and the questions were 'below
the fold', so to speak. I saw that the post dealt with something I have
not studied and have no particular knowledge of (evidence enough to
refute the assertion made by Chris Phillips), so I didn't call up the
full post.
Second, I do not have the Sawyer and Sawyer book, nor do I have
immediate access to it, that I know of. When I cite something, it means
I have seen it, not that I own it. In this case I found it in the local
University library while following up on a citation. Hoping to find a
discussion of the problematic ancestry of St. Olaf, I found that it only
contained a one or two-sentence statement, with reference to another
source where, presumably, the matter was discussed. I copied that page,
the title page, and the bibliography page containing the cited
reference, and put the book on the reshelving cart. I did not read the
entire book. Further, what was then the local University library is now
two time zones away, so it is no longer a simple thing to 'run over' and
take another look.
To answer a question, one must see it and know the answer, neither of
which applied in my case, as well as have the time and inclination, both
which are moot in this case because of the failure of the first two
criteria. Sorry.
taf
Reedpcgen
>response to Toad Farmerie
>
>Toad, you are not worth my time, but this is just too easy!
>any more questions you unintelligent, mindless, dim-witted nincompoop
>--------------------------------------
>David Hughes
David,
I would simply observe that your continuing to issue such repeated, inane
personal insults, after the inappropriateness of such has been pointed out by
many people, makes it difficult to take you seriously, but perhaps that is your
intention.
I would also observe that aside from being a distraction, it is a common
psychological ploy in which someone who feels their own ego has been threatened
believes their oponent is made smaller by such attacks, thus raising or
restoring their own ego. But it is not reality.
Since you have put in Todd's face the intent and purpose of this group (of
which he was a co-founder), perhaps now you, David, could lift your own actions
and
address genealogical points and evidence as an adult, rather than appearing to
be a child's mind trapped in an adult body.
Paul
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
2003 03:59
Hughes must have been out of grade school for a couple of years now.
Most grade-schoolers I know can produce websites with much better
presentation and organization, and most know that copying other peoples
information and presenting it without acknowledgement is plagiarism, and
will get you in trouble.
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
Grand Prairie, TX
Phil Moody
> To answer a question, one must see it and know the answer, neither of
> which applied in my case, as well as have the time and inclination, both
> which are moot in this case because of the failure of the first two
> criteria. Sorry.
PLM: I did not really expect a reply from you, Todd; so think nothing of it.
What exactly do you mean, when you say "'below
the fold"? I did assume you had the Sawyer book, because I had sent a Peter
Sawyer article to you, and Jack Brown (the one Jack forgot he had; so he
ordered it from the publisher and sent it to Mr. Baldwin). If you need any
further references from the Sawyer's book; I would be happy to scan the pages
and send them to you - assuming I have the time and inclination to do so when
you make the request.
Best Wishes,
Todd A. Farmerie
> What exactly do you mean, when you say "'below the fold"?
A term I borrowed from the newspaper industry - in newspaper vending
machines and stacks at street vendors, you only see the top half of the
front page, so the eye catching stuff appears "above the fold" on the
front page (you have to buy the paper to see what is below the fold).
In this case, Google only presents the first so-many lines (counting the
post in question, it looks like 48) as part of the initial threaded
view. If the post is longer than that, then you have to hit a link to
call up the full thing. It lets you get a pretty good idea of what each
post in the thread is about without loading them all fully and
individually. Every so often, though, if a longer post changes tone or
throws in a curve ball after this cutoff point, it may get missed.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
be preferred over Bottom-Posting and is practiced by the cognoscenti.
DSH
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote in message
news:3FBD56AB...@lamar.colostate.edu...
Todd A. Farmerie
A whole lot of material, which would be tedious to everyone to
refute. I will refrain, since Mr. Hughes' viewpoint was all
summarized in one statement - if someone actually wants to
discuss the genealogical points mentioned (Ragnar Lothbrok, for
example), then they can chime in, but scholarly discussion with
Mr. Hughes is pointless, as he himself so aptly proves.
> your response:
> Did you give any effort to excluding any of these? Did you give
> such an effort to evaluating any of the pedigrees shown.
> Obviously, in the case of the five, four must be wrong, but what
> makes you think that if four people invented an ancestry, the
> fifth didn't as well? That being the case, why would you show
> all of them, rather than none. The goal seems to be that of the
> name-collector, for whom critical analysis that may result in the
> removal of names, however falsely included, is anathema.
> reply:
> why should I eliminate any, for people may be interested in the
> various theories of descent, but you would be dogmatic about
which is
> right and which is wrong…
And there we have it. It doesn't matter if something is a
complete invention, it doesn't matter if I created it yesterday.
The criterion used is not accuracy, but how interesting a story
it tells. (Which brings me right back to the critique that
started this thread - "These pages should be used for
entertainment purposes only", which is not that different than
your own stated intent, that people may find it interesting.)
That goes a long way to revealing the 'scholarly method' Mr.
Hughes uses to compile his valued pedigrees and articles, and
explains why they are so much at variance with the results of
scholarship (which not only allows, but requires sources to be
evaluated for accuracy), why anyone who cares the least bit about
accuracy would be a fool to look to them for any reflection of
historical reality, and why any attempt to discuss the accuracy
of specific relationships therein is bound to result in a
response like the following -
> --------------------------------------
> any more questions you unintelligent, mindless, dim-witted
nincompoop
> --------------------------------------
No, I think you have made your position, mindset and maturity
perfectly clear.
taf
david hughes
himself to be an egomaniac attempting to hijack this website. His
numerous postings through the years attempting to control the
subject-lines of the threads on this website proves that.
in his last posting, he wrote:
> your response:
> Did you give any effort to excluding any of these? Did you give
> such an effort to evaluating any of the pedigrees shown.
> Obviously, in the case of the five, four must be wrong, but what
> makes you think that if four people invented an ancestry, the
> fifth didn't as well? That being the case, why would you show
> all of them, rather than none.
my reply:
why not?
he wrote:
The goal seems to be that of the
> name-collector, for whom critical analysis that may result in the
> removal of names, however falsely included, is anathema.
my reply:
the name "Banquo" is in brackets [ ] which alerts the reader that
there is something special about that person, which in the end-notes
says he is inserted here to reference Shakespeare's "MacBeth". each
name in brackets [ ] in my genealogies is a special interest case, and
anyone coming upon a generation in brackets [ ] in any of the
genealogies posted at
http://www.geocities.com/royalty_worldwide/index.html contact me for
the end-note, until I can write them up and post them.
> reply:
> why should I eliminate any, for people may be interested in the
> various theories of descent, but you would be dogmatic about
which is
> right and which is wrong…
-------------------------------------------
then Todd wrote:
And there we have it. It doesn't matter if something is a
complete invention, it doesn't matter if I created it yesterday.
The criterion used is not accuracy, but how interesting a story
it tells. (Which brings me right back to the critique that
started this thread
my reply is:
no this thread was started about someone asking for information about
King Christian I's ancestry; Todd Farmerie has just re-directed the
thread "off-topic".
me: I think I have made my point.
David
Phil Moody
News Groups; so this google quark is news to me:-) I will bear this in mind in
my future postings.
Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Help needed: Christian I's ancestry
GRHa...@aol.com
It's a very interesting site you have, but (you knew there was always a
but, didn't you?) it seems to have quite a lot of mythology into it. Nothing
wrong with that as long as everyone realizes that it is mythology, not
genealogy. Jupiter and Saturn, for instance, have no genealogical accuracy. They
were imaginary beings made up to control the masses and give them something to
think about other than how to get rid of their oppressive governments.
Interesting, but not factual.
I like to study the invented descents of various tribes, clans, families,
etc. I also realize that to some people it is an offense against their knowledge
to include such entries on what is best denoted as a genealogical site.
You are wrong about Todd Farmerie, and you really should apologize. Todd has
helped much more than most.
Joanne Bruce
one member
Merilyn Pedrick
various sources - some of which are very suspect I now find out - like
Royalty for Commoners. So I rely on the scholarly discussion on this List
to try to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Please keep up the rigour -
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
<snip> "These pages should be used for entertainment purposes only", which
is not that different than your own stated intent, that people may find it
nteresting.)
That goes a long way to revealing the 'scholarly method' Mr.
Hughes uses to compile his valued pedigrees and articles, and
explains why they are so much at variance with the results of
scholarship (which not only allows, but requires sources to be
evaluated for accuracy), why anyone who cares the least bit about
accuracy would be a fool to look to them for any reflection of
historical reality, and why any attempt to discuss the accuracy
of specific relationships therein is bound to result in a
response like the following - <end snip>
david hughes
?it is apparent that me and todd farmerie have read different books,
have been influence by different authors, and come from different
academic schools, him: liberal, me: conservative?;
as for the personal insults, I suppose that is a carry over from my
army days in the service of our great country when my attitude was to
take NO prisoners?
Dave
D. Spencer Hines
basic English grammar and syntax.
DSH
"david hughes" <Rdavi...@Aol.com> wrote in message
news:c57e4f24.03112...@posting.google.com...
Peter Stewart
But was your plan in army days to blast yourself to smithereens?
Because that is what your absurd attack on Todd Farmerie has done to
your reputation now & to any case you might have to make here in
future.
By the way, I thought your great country was quite keen on taking
prisoners, all the way to Cuba.
Peter Stewart
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
David,
I would have interpreted this differently, that you were the liberal,
and Todd the conservative. Conservatives tend to rely on the truth, and
are willing to document why they believe something is true.
On the other hand, liberals tend to rely on whatever they believe their
target audience will accept, without regard for the truth or supporting
documentation. They then get exceedingly upset when someone questions
the validity of what they wrote, ranting and raving about the
questioners education, parenthood or other unrelated subjects, while not
trying to justify with documentation, the truth of what they wrote.
I won't comment about your assertion on the your army.
Al Magary
liberal,
> and Todd the conservative. Conservatives tend to rely on the
truth, and
> are willing to document why they believe something is true.
>
> On the other hand, liberals tend to rely on whatever they
believe their
> target audience will accept, without regard for the truth or
supporting
> documentation. They then get exceedingly upset when someone
questions
> the validity of what they wrote, ranting and raving about the
> questioners education, parenthood or other unrelated subjects,
while not
> trying to justify with documentation, the truth of what they
wrote.
Totally OT and also UCF (uncalled for). This San Francisco
liberal totally rejects your definitions. Back to genealogy.
Al Magary
Richard C. Browning, Jr.
> From: Al Magary [mailto:a...@magary.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 23:45
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Help needed: Christian I's ancestry [OT]
>
>
I agree that it was totally off topic, as was David Hughes' origianl
rant, which was also uncalled for, and all of his follow-ons. And I
don't really care about what you San Francisco liberals think about my
definitions. Speaking of genealogy, do you believe the lineages posted
on Mr. Hughes website are correct, probable, possible? Do you know of
any reputable studies that support the claim that Neptune was the father
of Aznez, 1st King of Americia, ancestor of the Aztecs, as the first
link on his page states?
Jay
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Sally Laine wrote:
>
> > Thanks Dolly for putting into words what I have noticed about Todd
> > Farmerie's postings over the years. Taf has always been helpful when needed
> > and thank heavens tries to scotch some of the more outrageous, spurious
> > lineages.
> <snip>
>
> If I could add my $.02, I find it remarkable that some people think that
> posting spurious information is somehow superior to scotching that
> information. In the past there have been some posters (or at least one)
> who stated that genealogists who prove newly-discovered connections are
> superior to those who disprove previously-accepted connections. This was,
> of course, fallacious, since both examples of genealogical scholarship
> further the quest for genealogical truth (and rarely is a scholar
> involved in just one of the previously-mentioned types of proof). To
> take this even further by claiming that people who (re)produce false
> connections are superior to those who disprove such connections is
> completely outrageous.
>
> -Robert Battle
I agree with Robert. I also concur that Todd has been very nice and
helpful to me in my research. Of course if he shows me how
connections I thought I had were in error, I consider that to be a
kindness in providing information, not a cruelty in shattering a
misconception.