Charlemagne to the Pharaohs?
Jonathan Mitchell
Pharaohs of Egypt, specifically Ramses II, Ptolemy I and Seti I. Can anyone
verify this or has anyone heard of this?
Jon
John Yohalem
Jonathan Mitchell wrote in message
<7rcanv$sno$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
No, but Charlemagne had a documented descent from Noah, as did most of his
contemporary monarchs. He certainly never in his life heard of Ramses or
Seti.
There are NO descents traceable to any of the pharoahs you name. In the
cases of Ramses II and Seti I, this has been true for 3000 years. In
Ptolemy's case, his issue has merely been extinct since the end of the first
century A.D., with the death of Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Mauretania,
daughter of Marc Antony.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Opera depends on the happy fiction that feeling can be sustained over
impossibly long stretches of time." -- Joseph Kerman
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I have read in a few places that Charlemagne has a direct line to the
> Pharaohs of Egypt, specifically Ramses II, Ptolemy I and Seti I. Can anyone
> verify this or has anyone heard of this?
There is no evidence that would support such a claim.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Todd [taf] often gets carried away by the majesty, self-fulfilling
certitude and power of his own inflated rhetoric.
That was at the crux of his cognitive problems in the sad affair of
"Countess Ida."
Woefully, he does not seem to have learned his lesson and taken pains
to write [and think] more carefully as a resultant of that pratfall.
He probably meant to say:
"I know of no evidence that would support such a claim."
or
"I've not seen any evidence that would support such a claim."
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Flavius Vegetius Renatus
[fl. circa 375 A.D.]
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
preserving peace." President George Washington [1732-1799], First
Annual Address [to both bodies of Congress], 8 January 1790.
Graham Milne <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:937093814.9752.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
>
> A bold statement!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Graham Milne
> Edrington House
> Foulden
> Berwickshire
> TD15 1UF
>
> Telephone
>
> Home: +44 (0)1289 386180
> Work: +44 (0)171 418 3541
> Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> news:37DAB3...@po.cwru.edu...
Graham Milne
Francisco Antonio Doria
>There is no evidence that would support such a claim.
>
>taf
I very respectfully disagree. But won't pursue the controversy; just see
my posts on methodological matters.
chico
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
>
> A bold statement!
Awaiting disproof . . . .
You can't trace Charlemagne earlier than the 4th century, even if you
accept the iffy connection to Ansbertus or the Riparian Franks. That
leaves only, what, ~800 years to be filled? Go for it.
taf
Leslie Mahler
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
Im sure that there are lots of imaginative people out there who know how
to
'fill in the blanks'. Funny how those types of people are generally
unable to
read documents from that period, and are often ignorant of the history
of the
era in question, but they are quite happy to accept a lineage from that
time.
However, once theyve drawn up a line to Egypt, that wont be enough, so
they'll have to conjure up a line to Sumer. I wonder what they'll add
after that?
Maybe Noah, going back to Adam, or perhaps they'll throw in some
founders from
Mu, or visitors from the Andromeda galaxy.
If they cant find any documents, they could always use 'mathematical
probability'.
Leslie
D. Spencer Hines
he did in the case of "Countess Ida."
Whether this is due to a basic educational or logical deficit is not
for me to say. But he does appear, in the vernacular expression that
is most apposite here, to have a _maggot in the brain_ when it comes
to this particular point of Genealogical and Historical Logic.
Todd stated categorically:
> > 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
This is an unscholarly, irrational and illogical statement. No one
can prove a negative of this sort. It is impossible for a Genealogist
to prove that NO evidence exists ANYWHERE for a certain genealogical
ascent.
The most he can say is:
"I have not seen any evidence that would support such a claim."
or
"Evidence proving this claim has not appeared in any of the
professional genealogical journals."
or
"I know of no evidence that would support such a claim and neither do
the leading professional genealogists who work in this field, because
I have asked them."
or something similar.
Nor can he shift the _Burden of Proof_ to Graham Milne, or anyone
else, to disprove the indefensible negative statement that Todd
himself has made.
No, the Burden of Proof for HIS OWN PROPOSITION remains on Todd A.
Farmerie's shoulders and he must either prove it, or admit that it has
been poorly formulated, retreat to his study and come up with a better
one.
There are no other honorable alternatives. Silence in the face of a
critique of this sort is not an honorable alternative.
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Flavius Vegetius Renatus
[fl. circa 375 A.D.]
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
preserving peace." President George Washington [1732-1799], First
Annual Address [to both bodies of Congress], 8 January 1790.
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:...
> Quite right.
>
> Todd [taf] often gets carried away by the majesty, self-fulfilling
> certitude and power of his own inflated rhetoric.
>
> That was at the crux of his cognitive problems in the sad affair of
> "Countess Ida."
>
> Woefully, he does not seem to have learned his lesson and taken
pains
> to write [and think] more carefully as a resultant of that pratfall.
>
> He probably meant to say:
>
> "I know of no evidence that would support such a claim."
>
> or
>
> "I've not seen any evidence that would support such a claim."
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> --
>
> "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Flavius Vegetius Renatus
> [fl. circa 375 A.D.]
>
> "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
> preserving peace." President George Washington [1732-1799], First
> Annual Address [to both bodies of Congress], 8 January 1790.
>
> Graham Milne <gra...@gmilne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:937093814.9752.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
> >
> > A bold statement!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Graham Milne
> > Edrington House
> > Foulden
> > Berwickshire
> > TD15 1UF
> >
> > Telephone
> >
> > Home: +44 (0)1289 386180
> > Work: +44 (0)171 418 3541
> > Todd A. Farmerie <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message
> > news:37DAB3...@po.cwru.edu...
>
> > > Jonathan Mitchell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have read in a few places that Charlemagne has a direct line
> to the
> > > > Pharaohs of Egypt, specifically Ramses II, Ptolemy I and Seti
I.
> Can
> > anyone
> > > > verify this or has anyone heard of this?
> > >
> > > There is no evidence that would support such a claim.
> > >
> > > taf
Doug Gentile
Todd stated categorically:
> > 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
This is an unscholarly, irrational and illogical statement.
No one can prove a negative of this sort. It is impossible for a
Genealogist to prove that NO evidence exists ANYWHERE for a certain
genealogical ascent.
The most he can say is:
"I have not seen any evidence that would support such a
claim."
I completely agree with you that it is impossible to prove the negative.
However, you are also the same person who berated me when discussing some
DFAs (Joseph of Arimathea among others) for stating that in the absence of
any proof, these legends continued to be hypotheses left to be proven. If I
recall, my education and cognitive skills were also questioned, because I
was not accepting the lack of evidence as proof of these legendary accounts
being fictional.
I harbor no ill feelings about this. I've gotten to where I kind of enjoy
the verbal parries and thrusts in this forum. It just seems to me like you
should pick a side and stick to it, otherwise you might appear like you are
being obstreperous for its own sake.
As an aside, it seems to me that Mr. Farmerie may actually be doing many of
the people who visit this forum a service by making such categorical claims,
scientifically indefensible or not. Not being a trained genealogist or
historian myself, it was initially difficult for me to know whose opinions I
should pay attention to. If, when I first joined the list, I asked about
some legendary genealogy, and received comments saying "I have not seen
evidence to support this," I might just assume that none of you knew any
more than I did, because I don't know your reputations, work, or expertise.
I might just think you were all amateurs like me, and continue to believe
the source from which I got the spurious genealogy. A novice, confronted
with a categorical rejection has to question the genealogy, and will
probably not publicize it further. The same novice, confronted with "I
haven't seen anything like that" might think that the people he asked were
the wrong people.
Respectfully yours,
Doug
D. Spencer Hines
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
--
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." Flavius Vegetius Renatus
[fl. circa 375 A.D.]
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
preserving peace." President George Washington [1732-1799], First
Annual Address [to both bodies of Congress], 8 January 1790.
Doug Gentile <Dgen...@mediafamily.org> wrote in message
news:5DB3959F593DD211BAA...@FS-ADMIN.fairview.org...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Todd stated categorically:
> > > 'There is no evidence that would support such a claim.'
>
> This is an unscholarly, irrational and illogical statement.
> No one can prove a negative of this sort. It is impossible for a
> Genealogist to prove that NO evidence exists ANYWHERE for a certain
> genealogical ascent.
> The most he can say is:
> "I have not seen any evidence that would support such a
> claim."
>
> I completely agree with you that it is impossible to prove the
negative.
Good. We have gotten that far, at least. Thank you.
> However, you are also the same person who berated me when discussing
some
> DFAs (Joseph of Arimathea among others) for stating that in the
absence of
> any proof, these legends continued to be hypotheses left to be
proven.
With respect, this appears to be a rather confused sentence. Please
quote precisely what you said and what I said and I'm happy to discuss
it with you. Your gloss is really not enough to pursue an intelligent
discussion on the matter. Pace.
Further, a DFA from Joseph of Arimathea is certainly not something
I've seen proved [N.B. Note the non-categorical nature of that
statement.] If someone has such proof, I'm delighted to consider it
on its merits --- no more, no less.
> If I
> recall, my education and cognitive skills were also questioned,
because I
> was not accepting the lack of evidence as proof of these legendary
accounts
> being fictional.
>
> I harbor no ill feelings about this. I've gotten to where I kind of
enjoy
> the verbal parries and thrusts in this forum. It just seems to me
like you
> should pick a side and stick to it, otherwise you might appear like
you are
> being obstreperous for its own sake.
Not in the least. I follow the evidence and the logic wherever they
may lead. I don't start out with preconceptions.
Again, with respect, but this is an amazing admission. It says that
if someone makes very stentorian, categorical, blustering statements
and sounds very confident --- even though he may be bluffing --- or
actually be a fraud or a charlatan --- that he is thereby more
credible.
The underlying logic of your proposition is that spin and hype DO work
on the novice and therefore should ALWAYS be employed by the
genealogical expert. Ruefully, it does often seem to work in
politics, I grant you.
If you actually believe that, I'm sure there are some folks on the net
who would love to sell you land in Florida and bridges in New York
City and some excellent common stocks.
Has it occurred to you that Todd may be right some of the time,
perhaps a good deal of the time, but careless and casual at other
times, when he is perhaps too lazy or too overconfident? The skillful
reader must learn to tell the difference. That's what critical
intelligence is all about.
Good Luck in Your Genealogical Efforts.
Me ke aloha pumehana,
Allan Martens Andersen
was in a Book Shop, where I bought me a Novel called "Zenobias liv" -
The life of Zenobia. This Zenobia has since been haunting my, as she was
probaly haunting many of her subject, when she was alive. She was a
bloodthirsty queen, as far as I can understand. This queen of Pamlyra,
named Zenobia, lived about 300 a.D. And she is supposed to be a
descendant as she herself claimed from the Cleopatra of Egypt, who again
is supposed to descend from the High Priests of Memphis, the descendants
probably of the early 12. dynasty Pharaohs who lived from 1971 B.C. and
there descendants in later dynasties. Sesostris or Sen Wosret is the
earliest Pharaoh I know of, who is in this lineage. On the other side,
Zenobia is supposed to have had descendants herself amongst the
senatorial families of Rome, search on rootsweb list-Archives go to the
Brazil-L list and searchs for the word "Ariarathes" in the year
1999 there you will find a Lineage, which goes the Charlemagne
ancestor Anrulf of Metz, through some senatorial families of Rome, but I
dont know if Zenobia is an ancestor there, but if we try hard, we may
able to find her together, somewhere. The whole idea about Zenobia comes
from Chris Bennett. In 1995 (rootsweb, 1995, "Egypt", the posting
Annotated Egyptian descent part 4 of 4) there you may find it all. The
line on Brazil L comes from Settipani, I have tried to get a hold of his
famous book LGA, so far with out lock, now we and everyone else know
what I know, let me know if you find anything.
Hej. Allan M. Andersen.
Jonathan Mitchell wrote:
>
> I have read in a few places that Charlemagne has a direct line to the
> Pharaohs of Egypt, specifically Ramses II, Ptolemy I and Seti I. Can anyone
> verify this or has anyone heard of this?
>
> Jon
--
MZ
Christian Settipani
comment about the affirmation that Charlemagne was a descendant of
Pharaohs :
I renounced to the Egyptian link as described in LGA many time ago.
Nitetis is not a good idea and the criticism of Chris Bennett is
perfectly accurate.
The only other way I can see for a link with Pharaohs is the Zenobia
connexion. It will suppose that :
1) One can find modern (or even ancient) descendant of Zenobia.
2) That Zenobia's claim to be a descendant of Cleopatra is a genuine
one.
3) The Cleopatra's mother is an Egyptian Memphite lady.
4) That the Memphis' priest have royal links.
Points 1-2) are discussed at lenght in my book on roman families.
Point 4) is a reasonnable assumption with that we know of this family.
But Chris Bennett has recently make a strong case against point 3). So
we are stopped for the moment.
About Charlemagne : his ancestry is only documented for the following
people:
Pippin (2); Berta (3); Carolus (4); Charibert (6); Pippin (8); Alpais
(9); Berta (13); Ansegisel (16).
Those others are virtually certain :
Chrothrud (5); Begga (7); Arnulf (32); Pippin (34); Idoberga (35)
So no proved DFA link. A possibility would be find for him by this way :
1) Arnulf is the son of a Bodogisel, and the nephew, great-nephew or
grandson of Gundulf, Arnulf's teacher and brother of (another)
Bodogisel.
2) This Gundulf, viceroy of Austrasia, is the nephew or cousin of
Gundulf, duke of Austrasia, Arnulf's predecessor as bishop of Metz.
3) this last Gundulf's is the son of Artemia, a noble Gallo-Roman,
perhaps sister of Leontius bishop of Lyon, and attested sister of
Sacerdos, bishop of Lyon, descendant of a patrician and father of an
Aurelianus. Artemia and Sacerdos could be the nephews of Leontius and
Aurelianus, whose mother Hiberia is the descendant of a patrician.
This is sufficient for their father, Hiberia's husband, is Ruricius of
Limoges, attested as a descendant of Anicii, a very great roman family,
with impressive connections in Roman and oriental aristocracies, and
probably to Cleopatra so well.
Points 1-2) will be discussed at lengh in a paper to appears soon in
"Onomastique et parenté". Point 3) was discussed in my paper "Ruricius,
eveque de Limoges", in Francia, 1991.
Let me say that the paper on Arnulf's ancestry was read in the presence
of many medievists, specialized in that period (so, people who are able
to read documents), notably K.F. Werner, R. Lejan, M. Heinzelmann, J.
Richard, A. Stoclet, J.-P. Brunterc'h, and, later, M. Parisse, and that
they find the arguments persuasive. No more,but no less.
CS
Leslie Mahler
My comments about the Andromeda galaxy were simply meant as sarcasm.
The problem I notice is that some people do not realize that a DFA is
only a
hypothesis, and that the ideas can change over time. But some have
treated it
as if it were finalized and completely proven. If such a lineage was
shown to
be solid, I think that most of us would gladly accept it. But until then
we must be
happy with what we have.
Mes sentiments distingues,
Leslie
John Yohalem
Can anyone trace for us Zenobia's descent from Cleopatra? I know she claimed
it.
(She was not particularly bloodthirsty, but she did revolt against Rome, and
the Emperor Aurelian became understandably impatient and deposed her.)
She had two sons by her husband, Odenathus. What became of them? Is there
any reliable descent traced from them?
And a comment on Charlemagne:
His descent quite a great ways was certainly traced in the Middle Ages --
back to Aeneas and to Noah and Adam. Almost all of it is spurious, but yes,
it's been done and can be traced.
Bet you whatever you like no one in the Middle Ages ever traced him back to
the Andromeda Galaxy.
Andromeda and Perseus -- well, of course.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Saepe fidelis"
Francisco Antonio Doria
>Monsieur Settipani:
>My comments about the Andromeda galaxy were simply meant as sarcasm.
As I've commented a few times, my wife is a shrink (and some people say
that I'm the perfect partner: they think I'm nuts ;-))
I wonder why this subjects arises so many strong emotional reactions. My
wife says that there is a symbolic connection between genealogy research
and some kinds of psychoanalytical investigation: the deeper one goes
into the past, the more repressed, painful, are the uncovered contents.
As an explanation, well, it's interesting. As good as any other.
Just an aside -
chico
Chris Bennett
John Yohalem <ench...@herodotus.com> wrote in message
news:7rptin$e...@news-central.tiac.net...
> Two queries:
> Can anyone trace for us Zenobia's descent from Cleopatra?
No. All we can say is that there are indications that her claim is
plausible -- Cleopatra's last known male descendant, Ptolemy of Mauretania,
married a Julia Urania, which is a rare name attested in Emesan nobility,
and that there appears to be links between Emesan and Palyrene nobility,
including the family of a certain Julius Aurelius Zenobius, who is
chronologically and onomastically plausible as Zenobia's father.
>
> She had two sons by her husband, Odenathus. What became of them? Is there
> any reliable descent traced from them?
One was Herennius (Hairan). There is a fragmentary inscription in Rome
naming a certain L. Septimia Patavinia Balbilla Tyria Nepotilla Odaenathiana
daughter of a Herennia Clea..... With names like this, the chances are
pretty good that these women are descendants of Zenobia's second marriage to
a Roman senator.
> And a comment on Charlemagne:
<snip>
> Bet you whatever you like no one in the Middle Ages ever traced him back
to
> the Andromeda Galaxy.
>
No, but with today's infinitely superior knowledge of the way that ancient
civilisation were really created by space-faring aliens we should be able to
rectify this unfortunate omission without much trouble!
Chris