Discussion:
Possible Davidic and Gupta Descent to Russian Nobility
(too old to reply)
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 10:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.

Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
Yazdegerd II of Persia
Hormisdas III of Parthia
Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
Dachi of Iberia
Bakur II of Iberia
NN (male)
Parsman VI of Iberia
NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
Smbat V Bagratuni
Vasak Bagratuni
Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
Smbat Bagratuni
Ashot IV Bagratuni
Bagrat of Taron
Tornik of Taron
Aponagem
Tornik
NN Tornikos
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-01 12:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
Yazdegerd II of Persia
Hormisdas III of Parthia
Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
Dachi of Iberia
Bakur II of Iberia
NN (male)
Parsman VI of Iberia
NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
Smbat V Bagratuni
Vasak Bagratuni
Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
Smbat Bagratuni
Ashot IV Bagratuni
Bagrat of Taron
Tornik of Taron
Aponagem
Tornik
NN Tornikos
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
There are so many bad links, I don't know where to start. There is zero percent chance of the line above being accurate and it should just be thrown out whole.
--Joe C
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 14:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
Yazdegerd II of Persia
Hormisdas III of Parthia
Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
Dachi of Iberia
Bakur II of Iberia
NN (male)
Parsman VI of Iberia
NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
Smbat V Bagratuni
Vasak Bagratuni
Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
Smbat Bagratuni
Ashot IV Bagratuni
Bagrat of Taron
Tornik of Taron
Aponagem
Tornik
NN Tornikos
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
There are so many bad links, I don't know where to start. There is zero percent chance of the line above being accurate and it should just be thrown out whole.
--Joe C
Dear Joe, could you please indicate the wrong links and explain them.
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 14:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
what is the primary source for this marriage and her father?

thank-you
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 14:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
what is the primary source for this marriage and her father?
thank-you
That marriage comes from the research of T Stanford Mommaerts and is also mentioned in an ancient persian tale availabe in https://books.google.pt/books?id=CaVEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=sapinud&source=bl&ots=eAhaePLvYT&sig=AWt5m8w29bQSQneoKIGHFvFQP5A&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyprCnrbVAhUGmBoKHdnbDIoQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=sapinud&f=false. Some of this information was given to the newsgroup in the 2000s by Matthew Rockefeller.
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 14:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
what is the primary source for this marriage and her father?
thank-you
That marriage comes from the research of T Stanford Mommaerts and is also mentioned in an ancient persian tale availabe in https://books.google.pt/books?id=CaVEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=sapinud&source=bl&ots=eAhaePLvYT&sig=AWt5m8w29bQSQneoKIGHFvFQP5A&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyprCnrbVAhUGmBoKHdnbDIoQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=sapinud&f=false. Some of this information was given to the newsgroup in the 2000s by Matthew Rockefeller.

I do have the shahnameh and found it there. I was hoping for a different source hence the question. how does one get from shangul, the indian king in the shahnameh relevant to the above to kumeragupta?
also, rockefeller was later revealed as extremely untrustworhy
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 14:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
Exilarch Nathan II
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
what is the primary source for this marriage and her father?
thank-you
That marriage comes from the research of T Stanford Mommaerts and is also mentioned in an ancient persian tale availabe in https://books.google.pt/books?id=CaVEBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=sapinud&source=bl&ots=eAhaePLvYT&sig=AWt5m8w29bQSQneoKIGHFvFQP5A&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyprCnrbVAhUGmBoKHdnbDIoQ6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=sapinud&f=false. Some of this information was given to the newsgroup in the 2000s by Matthew Rockefeller.
It is also mentioned in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay in 1977 in page 91 with her as sister of the Indian King Shangal although a tradition would instead make her of the second Kumara Gupta who is an obscure king.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 15:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The fraud calling himself erroneously "Matthew Rockefeller" was disrobed by myself with help from some members of this group.

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matthew_Rockefeller
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 15:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
The fraud calling himself erroneously "Matthew Rockefeller" was disrobed by myself with help from some members of this group.
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Matthew_Rockefeller
I already know about that but although Matthew is not a good source for his recent ancestry I don't think we should doubt his ideas about the ancient Persian Kings which he retreated from T Stanford Mommaerts. And perhaps there is a very very remote possibility that Margaret's recordings were erased by the Rockefellers given that she married a man of Arab origin.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 15:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Several years ago there were discussions in this newsgroup about possible Davidic descents to European Nobility. I found one that I think is plausible and leads to Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev who is ancestor of nobles of Russia and Europe and I also found a Gupta descent. In this descent the ancestry of the mother of Constantine IX Monomachos and the ancestry of Sapinud Gupta come from the work of T Stanford Mommaerts expert in asian genealogies. Comments on the line are welcome.
As has already been pointed out, there are far too many weak links here
to take the line seriously. A couple of obvious "red flags" her would
be the appearance of several individuals who "name" is NN, and the
(apparent) lack of documentation. I have inserted some indications
below where I think that the lines should be cut. I am not that
familiar with Byzantine genealogy, but I suspect that there should be
additional cuts there. It has been some time since I looked at the
Bagratids, but I know that there are also problems with at least some of
the Bagratid links given below.
Post by Paulo Canedo
Exilarch Nathan II
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Paulo Canedo
Sashandukt married Yazdegerd I of Persia
Bahram V of Persia married Sapinud Gupta daughter of Emperor Kumara Gupta I Mahendratiya of India
I would regard this supposed marriage as a" red flag."
Post by Paulo Canedo
Yazdegerd II of Persia
Hormisdas III of Parthia
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Paulo Canedo
Balendukth married Watchang I of Iberia
Dachi of Iberia
Bakur II of Iberia
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN (male)
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Paulo Canedo
Parsman VI of Iberia
--------------------------------------------------
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN married Smbat IV Bagratuni
Varaz Tirots II Bagratuni
Smbat V Bagratuni
Vasak Bagratuni
Ashot III the Blind Bagratuni
Smbat Bagratuni
Ashot IV Bagratuni
Bagrat of Taron
Tornik of Taron
Aponagem
Tornik
Probably several weak links in this region
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN Tornikos
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
Such lines need to be proven link-by-link. So, before trying to discuss
the above line as a whole, you should pick one or more of the above
objections, and explain why you think that the link is correct.
Stewart Baldwin
About Balendukht the scholars seem to agree with her being daughter of Hormisdas III at least the link is given in Volume 2 of The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 15:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Paulo if you are going to become delusional, no one is going to listen to you.

I clearly showed through numerous contemporary newspaper articles that such a thing did *not* happen.

I suggest you stick to your fantasy lineage and try to show it's accuracy or decide that you are wrong.

Matthew had a clear agenda to proclaim himself heir to all the thrones of the globe and you should recognize that such a psychotic person has no validity in any claims they make whatsoever.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 15:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Paulo if you are going to become delusional, no one is going to listen to you.
I clearly showed through numerous contemporary newspaper articles that such a thing did *not* happen.
I suggest you stick to your fantasy lineage and try to show it's accuracy or decide that you are wrong.
Matthew had a clear agenda to proclaim himself heir to all the thrones of the globe and you should recognize that such a psychotic person has no validity in any claims they make whatsoever.
I was undecided if I should have written the last part of the post because I know it isn't possible. I only pointed this out because Matthew seemed to believe at least in his supposed maternal descent of Charles II of England he asked a question on the topic.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 15:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let's leave Mr Nutty Nutcase on the side, and stick to this topic.

I would advise that your very first link is rather unlikely.

What political benefit would a Shah have to marry a daughter of a Jewish political nobody.

You should look into the *basis* for such a claim, and I think you will find it seriously wanting in any credible evidence.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 15:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Let's leave Mr Nutty Nutcase on the side, and stick to this topic.
I would advise that your very first link is rather unlikely.
What political benefit would a Shah have to marry a daughter of a Jewish political nobody.
You should look into the *basis* for such a claim, and I think you will find it seriously wanting in any credible evidence.
The link is given by http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bahram-05 who quotes Page 74 of Provincial Capitals by Markwart. It would make sense since Yazdegerd I was very tolerant of Jews.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 16:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You are correct in the source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

However, my objection still stands.
Being tolerant of a religious minority is not the same as deciding that a daughter of that minority would make a good political match for you as Shah or heir.

That's the problem here.

Writing down a legend, 1500 years after it supposedly happened, is not a source.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 17:01:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
You are correct in the source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
However, my objection still stands.
Being tolerant of a religious minority is not the same as deciding that a daughter of that minority would make a good political match for you as Shah or heir.
That's the problem here.
Writing down a legend, 1500 years after it supposedly happened, is not a source.
In a post of 2005it daid
In a recent sketch of the Sasanian dynasty of Persia, Soshandukht,
daughter of a Jewish leader, was included.
There is good and useful information on her in the "Jewish Encyclopedia"
(not to be confused with the also useful "Encyclopedia Judaica"). See thearticles entitled "Pahlavi Literature", "Persia", and "Exilarch". See also
the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Yazdegerd" for background
information on her husband. (He was a liberal who allowed religious
freedom, and was therefore condemned by the Zoroastrian priesthood.)
From material discussed in the JE articles I have concluded that
Soshandukht (also sometimes given as Gasyandukht, Sashandukht, Susan,
Shoshan-dukht, and probably other transliterations) was indeed a Jewish
wife of Yazdegerd I and mother of Bahram V "Gor".

So although the case is not perfect it is growing.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 17:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
You are correct in the source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
However, my objection still stands.
Being tolerant of a religious minority is not the same as deciding that a daughter of that minority would make a good political match for you as Shah or heir.
That's the problem here.
Writing down a legend, 1500 years after it supposedly happened, is not a source.
In a post of 2005 it says:
"In a recent sketch of the Sasanian dynasty of Persia, Soshandukht,
daughter of a Jewish leader, was included.
There is good and useful information on her in the "Jewish Encyclopedia"
(not to be confused with the also useful "Encyclopedia Judaica"). See thearticles entitled "Pahlavi Literature", "Persia", and "Exilarch". See also
the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Yazdegerd" for background
information on her husband. (He was a liberal who allowed religious
freedom, and was therefore condemned by the Zoroastrian priesthood.)
From material discussed in the JE articles I have concluded that
Soshandukht (also sometimes given as Gasyandukht, Sashandukht, Susan,
Shoshan-dukht, and probably other transliterations) was indeed a Jewish
wife of Yazdegerd I and mother of Bahram V "Gor"."

So although the case is not perfect it is growing.
Peter Stewart
2017-08-01 22:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
You are correct in the source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
However, my objection still stands.
Being tolerant of a religious minority is not the same as deciding that a daughter of that minority would make a good political match for you as Shah or heir.
That's the problem here.
Writing down a legend, 1500 years after it supposedly happened, is not a source.
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.

Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?

To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted? Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?

Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
2017-08-03 16:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may
come to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with
that? Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become
generally accepted? Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is
there some actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that
I am missing?
To take your "stitching" analogy further, doing genealogy necessarily
involves stitching individuals together. In many cases, finding the
necessary evidence to stitch two individuals together requires stitching
several others into the scheme. So, in one sense, the idea of trying to
find a DFA is really just a matter of scale.

Since genealogy is a hobby for many (including myself), the hobby
analogy is also useful. Many hobbies involve trying to collect
"complete sets" of something (coins, stamps, etc.), so genealogy has
sometimes been described as collecting ancestors. Many genealogists
(including myself) try to find information on as many ancestors as
possible (with greatly varying individual standards of evidence), and it
annoys me greatly that I will probably never be able to "collect" a
"complete set" of great-great-grandparents. (I am at 15 of 16, but
number 16 is an unnamed father in an illegitimate birth. DNA offers a
slim hope there, but I am not holding my breath.) Another aspect of this
is trying to get as far back as possible in one or several lines. (I
have pre-1600 lines through 7 of my 8 great-grandparents and pre-1500
lines through two of them, but so far no pre-1400 lines.) The DFA
question is just this idea pressed to its limits.

So, I think it is a natural and interesting question to ask how far back
a continuous line can be documented from the present, and it should not
be surprising that many are interested in such questions. Assuming
reasonable evidence, I think that the answer to this would be the sixth
century (birth of bishop Arnulf of Metz), or a bit earlier if you
accepted some of the better attested Irish lines. In my opinion, the
main problem with the DFA question (best stated as "Can a line be traced
back continuously from the present to the first century BC with good
documentation?) is not the question itself but the fact that instead of
giving the obvious answer ("No, as least with currently known
evidence."), many have unconsciously (or perhaps even consciously)
converted the question into something like "How much must I lower my
standards of 'proof' until I can get a positive answer to the
question?" (If I accepted "written down somewhere" as my standard of
proof, I would have many lines of ancestry going back to ancient times
instead of being stuck in the fifteenth century.)

Stewart Baldwin
wjhonson
2017-08-03 16:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For anyone who would like to connect all these fictitious lineages together I would recommend "Bloodlines of the Holy Grail" by Gardner.

It is mostly garbage, but it does put all (or most?) of these lineages together in one volume.

It is also hilarious for it's bald face lies. I suppose no worse that way than Irish Pedigrees... just much grander in its scope.

The odd thing about Gardner is the idea that *if* these Bloodlines are really "of the Holy Grail" than that essentially means that *everyone* is part of the worldwide conspiracy, which sort-of invalidates his main point.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-03 17:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may
come to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with
that? Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become
generally accepted? Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is
there some actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that
I am missing?
To take your "stitching" analogy further, doing genealogy necessarily
involves stitching individuals together. In many cases, finding the
necessary evidence to stitch two individuals together requires stitching
several others into the scheme. So, in one sense, the idea of trying to
find a DFA is really just a matter of scale.
Since genealogy is a hobby for many (including myself), the hobby
analogy is also useful. Many hobbies involve trying to collect
"complete sets" of something (coins, stamps, etc.), so genealogy has
sometimes been described as collecting ancestors. Many genealogists
(including myself) try to find information on as many ancestors as
possible (with greatly varying individual standards of evidence), and it
annoys me greatly that I will probably never be able to "collect" a
"complete set" of great-great-grandparents. (I am at 15 of 16, but
number 16 is an unnamed father in an illegitimate birth. DNA offers a
slim hope there, but I am not holding my breath.) Another aspect of this
is trying to get as far back as possible in one or several lines. (I
have pre-1600 lines through 7 of my 8 great-grandparents and pre-1500
lines through two of them, but so far no pre-1400 lines.) The DFA
question is just this idea pressed to its limits.
So, I think it is a natural and interesting question to ask how far back
a continuous line can be documented from the present, and it should not
be surprising that many are interested in such questions. Assuming
reasonable evidence, I think that the answer to this would be the sixth
century (birth of bishop Arnulf of Metz), or a bit earlier if you
accepted some of the better attested Irish lines. In my opinion, the
main problem with the DFA question (best stated as "Can a line be traced
back continuously from the present to the first century BC with good
documentation?) is not the question itself but the fact that instead of
giving the obvious answer ("No, as least with currently known
evidence."), many have unconsciously (or perhaps even consciously)
converted the question into something like "How much must I lower my
standards of 'proof' until I can get a positive answer to the
question?" (If I accepted "written down somewhere" as my standard of
proof, I would have many lines of ancestry going back to ancient times
instead of being stuck in the fifteenth century.)
Stewart Baldwin
What about the Confucius line in China isn't it well documented?
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-03 17:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
What about the Confucius line in China isn't it well documented?
it is
wjhonson
2017-08-03 17:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
What about the Confucius line in China isn't it well documented?
it is
Change *is* to *is not* and you're correct

n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-03 17:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
It is also mentioned in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay in 1977 in
page 91 with her as sister of the Indian King Shangal although a tradition would
instead make her of the second Kumara Gupta who is an obscure king.
what is the author and title?

thank-you
taf
2017-08-01 17:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
Even the most recent part of the descent isn't directly attested. It is reasonable that the wife of Vsevolod was a kinswoman of Constantine Monomachos, but a good bit was written by his near-contemporaries about Constantine's amorous escapades, and no such daughter is mentioned. Indeed, I don't think there is any source for 'Irina' at all, just the byname of Vsevolod's son.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-08-01 23:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
Even the most recent part of the descent isn't directly attested. It is reasonable that the wife of Vsevolod was a kinswoman of Constantine Monomachos, but a good bit was written by his near-contemporaries about Constantine's amorous escapades, and no such daughter is mentioned. Indeed, I don't think there is any source for 'Irina' at all, just the byname of Vsevolod's son.
This is right, the name Irina is imaginary and we don't know the name
(or with certainty the father) of Vladimir Monomakh's mother.

She was called Anastasia in the commemoration book of Vydubitsky
monastery in Kiev (founded by her husband in the 1070s), according to a
copy probably made in the 17th century. However, the list of her family
in this was inaccurate, as it made her the mother of Vladimir's paternal
half-brother Rostislav whose actual mother, a Polovtsian princess, was
baptised Anna (this may have been muddled into the name Anastasia
ascribed by the compiler to the founder's prior wife).

The name of Vladimir Monomakh's daughter Maria, probably his eldest, is
perhaps a better indicator of his mother's likely name - but this is far
from certain.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 14:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
NN Tornikaina married Theodosios Monomakos
Constantine IX Monomachos of Byzantium
Irina of Byzantium married Vsevolod I of Kiev
Vladimir II Monomakh of Kiev
Even the most recent part of the descent isn't directly attested. It is reasonable that the wife of Vsevolod was a kinswoman of Constantine Monomachos, but a good bit was written by his near-contemporaries about Constantine's amorous escapades, and no such daughter is mentioned. Indeed, I don't think there is any source for 'Irina' at all, just the byname of Vsevolod's son.
taf
It is known from a chronicle that Vsevolod married a Greek Princess and because of the byname of his son Vladimir it is assumed that she was a Monomachos.
taf
2017-08-02 15:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
It is known from a chronicle that Vsevolod married a Greek Princess and
because of the byname of his son Vladimir it is assumed that she was a
Monomachos.
Which is hardly the basis for making her "Irina, daughter of Constantine IX". This is in the nature of such DFAs, they tend to present possibilities, guesses and speculation as if they were well documented facts.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-08-02 22:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
It is known from a chronicle that Vsevolod married a Greek Princess and
because of the byname of his son Vladimir it is assumed that she was a
Monomachos.
Which is hardly the basis for making her "Irina, daughter of Constantine IX". This is in the nature of such DFAs, they tend to present possibilities, guesses and speculation as if they were well documented facts.
It is also hardly the basis for confidence in the value of newsgroup
discussions and the Gen-Med archive - only last month there was a thread
about this woman, in which links were provided to the earliest
manuscript and the standard edition of the primary source for
identifying her, as well as a transliteration and translation of the
relevant text, see:
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2017-06/1497486047.

But why bother?

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2017-08-01 18:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Paulo why are you citing a previous post from *this* group instead of citing directly to those underlying supposed alleged articles.

The original document of her supposed existence, is *utterly* *completely* *ultimately* and *finally* without any credibility.

*All* of these references stem from one single source, written down 1500 years after the event is supposed to have occurred.

That's the problem
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 18:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Paulo why are you citing a previous post from *this* group instead of citing directly to those underlying supposed alleged articles.
The original document of her supposed existence, is *utterly* *completely* *ultimately* and *finally* without any credibility.
*All* of these references stem from one single source, written down 1500 years after the event is supposed to have occurred.
That's the problem
What is the original document and what does it say about this.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 18:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Paulo why are you citing a previous post from *this* group instead of citing directly to those underlying supposed alleged articles.
The original document of her supposed existence, is *utterly* *completely* *ultimately* and *finally* without any credibility.
*All* of these references stem from one single source, written down 1500 years after the event is supposed to have occurred.
That's the problem
What is the original document and what does it say about this.
You already cited it, as did I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Markwart

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22provinical+capitals%22+markwart&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And all it says is that he married the daughter of a Jewish "leader"

However, a book written 1500 after an event, citing a legend, is not a source for what occurred 1500 years earlier.

Accept it.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 19:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On another part of the line I still have to find a source or conjecture that says that Parsamn VI of Iberia was father-in-law of Smbat Bagratuni. Does anyone here know one?
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-01 19:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You have been advised and I will repeat the advice that there is absolutely nothing to gain by inquiring more deeply into this line. It is hogwash from start to finish.
Richard Smith
2017-08-01 19:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
On another part of the line I still have to find a source or
conjecture that says that Parsamn VI of Iberia was father-in-law of
Smbat Bagratuni. Does anyone here know one?
But you said the descent you posted at the start of this thread was
plausible. Surely you didn't say that without even knowing a
conjecture, let alone a source, for one key link in the descent? I'm
not aware of a source for this either, though I'm not particularly
knowledge about early Iberia; but equally I'm not posting a descent
including on this link and characterising them as plausible.

Richard
wjhonson
2017-08-01 19:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Instead of trying to force a beginning to a line that is destined to fail, why not start closer in.

Theodosios Monomakos

Show any evidence at all, of who his wife was or who she was related to ?
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 19:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Instead of trying to force a beginning to a line that is destined to fail, why not start closer in.
Theodosios Monomakos
Show any evidence at all, of who his wife was or who she was related to ?
I said in the first post that that info came from T Stanford Mommaerts I simply don't know where he took it from.
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-01 19:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Largely he took it from his own imagination for entertainment purposes only. Imagine almost every Link in this chain is as reliable as the proof people gave to show Prince Harry dad is not Prince Charles but then repeated through the game of telephone over the course of 1500 years
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 19:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Instead of trying to force a beginning to a line that is destined to fail, why not start closer in.
Theodosios Monomakos
Show any evidence at all, of who his wife was or who she was related to ?
I said in the first post that that info came from T Stanford Mommaerts I simply don't know where he took it from.
in various posts, he mentioned that he was offering possibilities based on his own speculations for the purpose of discussion
wjhonson
2017-08-01 19:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Paulo you are mistaken

http://news.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-01/1073348592

T Stanford said nothing at all about this alleged wife
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 20:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Paulo you are mistaken
http://news.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-01/1073348592
T Stanford said nothing at all about this alleged wife
In the page of Fabpedigree of Constantine's mother it says:
"Note: Pedigree of Emperor Constantine's mother (and much more) generously provided by T Stanford Mommaerts."
wjhonson
2017-08-01 20:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fabpedigree is a site created by a nutty nutbar who has almost no concept of how to actually read ancient documents of any sort.

It contains literally thousands of gross errors.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 20:21:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Fabpedigree is a site created by a nutty nutbar who has almost no concept of how to actually read ancient documents of any sort.
It contains literally thousands of gross errors.
I don't want to be rude but Mr could you please read the word PROVIDED the pedigree of Constantine's mother was provided to Fabpedigree by Mommaerts who is a correspondent to the owner Jamie Allen. Do you think Jamie's lying or something? I am one of Jamie's correspondents too.
wjhonson
2017-08-01 21:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?

http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-01 21:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?
http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm
It is not in that page but in this one http://fabpedigree.com/s097/f580633.htm
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 21:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Where exactly does it state what Jamie's source is?
http://fabpedigree.com/s098/f790316.htm
he does not provide generation by generation sourcing. rather, he lists them from the main page by clicking "sources"
wjhonson
2017-08-01 21:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Instead of *starting* from such a useless piece of ... like fabpedigree, you need to start from *actual* sources.

Hand waving is the province of weak minded fools.

In the meantime I have asked T Stanford to comment on what source if any he might have for this complete load of ....
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 22:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
through sources
Post by Peter Stewart
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
Post by Peter Stewart
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted?
that it is possible
Post by Peter Stewart
Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
academic curiousity and the research involved
Peter Stewart
2017-08-01 23:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
through sources
Post by Peter Stewart
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
Post by Peter Stewart
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted?
that it is possible
Post by Peter Stewart
Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
academic curiousity and the research involved
I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?

The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
and interpreted from preconception.

'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
aiming not for value but for adventure.

If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
come down to us already established. Forgotten links may sometimes (very
rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
flim-flam.

Peter Stewart
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 23:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
through sources
Post by Peter Stewart
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
Post by Peter Stewart
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted?
that it is possible
Post by Peter Stewart
Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
academic curiousity and the research involved
I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?
no. it is to investigate one or more theories put together through research
Post by Peter Stewart
The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
and interpreted from preconception.
perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup
Post by Peter Stewart
'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
aiming not for value but for adventure.
nothing wrong with adventure...
Post by Peter Stewart
If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
come down to us already established.
there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period
Post by Peter Stewart
Forgotten links may sometimes (very
rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
flim-flam.
true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-01 23:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
To my mind, however, begging St Luke's pardon, there is more glory
(and joy) to be gained over rescuing one forgotten soul's ancestry
from oblivion that from all the 99+ DFA so far posited by researchers
(excepting, perhaps, the claims of Confucian descent in the Orient).
Richard C-Z
many chinese clans have similar genealogies. confucius' one is simply the best known and documented
wjhonson
2017-08-01 23:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You know you could have started at least with a page that attempts to show the Bagratuni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagratuni_family_tree


I am not claiming that this page has any better basis in fact than your bare descent line, but at least it would give us a place from which to begin discussion
wjhonson
2017-08-01 23:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Oral tradition" that is 1500 years old without any of it having found it's way into any documentation, is worthless.

A much better explanation is falsification, deceit, lie, and senility
Peter Stewart
2017-08-01 23:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
through sources
Post by Peter Stewart
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
Post by Peter Stewart
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted?
that it is possible
Post by Peter Stewart
Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
academic curiousity and the research involved
I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?
no. it is to investigate one or more theories put together through research
Of course, but the value underlying these theories seems to be novelty
value in theorising rather than a substantive contribution to knowledge.
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
and interpreted from preconception.
perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup
Post away - this newsgroup does not bar material from elsewhere.
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
'That it is possible' is like climbing a mountain because it is there,
aiming not for value but for adventure.
nothing wrong with adventure...
Not much right with it either - little value altogether, except for
thrills. Becoming the first female to climb Mt Everst with a nosepeg and
one hand tied behind her back may be exciting, but it isn't useful.
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
come down to us already established.
there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period
People marry across regions, but they don't reproduce across different
time periods. Research that is not specific to individuals and their
immediate links may be fun, but a multi-disciplinary effort that shades
into broad-stroke history or even anthropology is not exactly genealogy.
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Forgotten links may sometimes (very
rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
flim-flam.
true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that late sources are invalid - but an oral
tradition over many centuries is folklore, not history.

Peter Stewart
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-02 07:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
It would be interesting to hear from someone who can explain the basis
for pursuing any DFA. I don't get this.
Do people hope they are going to prove a line by persuasion, without
specific sources for each generation, or that some new sources may come
to light if supposed possibilities are discussed?
through sources
Post by Peter Stewart
To me it seems quite obvious that we are all descended from antiquity,
but none of us can conceivably know how. What is the problem with that?
there is none. however, the conception is to find various ways and to check their viability
Post by Peter Stewart
Or what would be achieved if some DFA line was to become generally
accepted?
that it is possible
Post by Peter Stewart
Is it just admiring the length of a line, or is there some
actual value in the attempt to stitch clouds together that I am missing?
academic curiousity and the research involved
I'm no clearer now than when I posed the question - are you saying that
the 'actual' value of DFA pursuit is nothing more than novelty value?
no. it is to investigate one or more theories put together through research
Of course, but the value underlying these theories seems to be novelty
value in theorising rather than a substantive contribution to knowledge.
perhaps to one looking from the outside in. however, the intent is to advance knowledge
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
The only 'research' I see is into other people's conjectures. The
'sources' always turn out to be remote from the events, vague at best
and interpreted from preconception.
perhaps from the posts here. however, there is material available that is not posted in this newsgroup
Post away - this newsgroup does not bar material from elsewhere.
true. I am referring to material found in books and journals that might include lineages that tie specific cultures together, either via text or chart. also, there is very little interest here in much beyond europe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
If there was a viable way to establish a DFA it would most probably have
come down to us already established.
there have been published attempts at this long before the internet based on research. one problem with finding the material these are based on is that one needs to be aware and willing to go beyond a region or time period
People marry across regions, but they don't reproduce across different
time periods. Research that is not specific to individuals and their
immediate links may be fun, but a multi-disciplinary effort that shades
into broad-stroke history or even anthropology is not exactly genealogy.
not directly. however, results can lead to genealogy when one asks why certain marriages happened and to whom
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Forgotten links may sometimes (very
rarely) emerge from new-found sources or even from deduction, but these
are specific and limited to individuals, not to extended chains of
flim-flam.
true. some of these links are based on deduction as well as interpretation of sources. when dealing with older material, that it was written long after what it describes does not necessarily invalidate it, as it is probably based on oral tradition
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that late sources are invalid - but an oral
tradition over many centuries is folklore, not history.
true, however, folklore can have some history behind it
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-02 07:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
To my mind, however, begging St Luke's pardon, there is more glory
(and joy) to be gained over rescuing one forgotten soul's ancestry
from oblivion that from all the 99+ DFA so far posited by researchers
(excepting, perhaps, the claims of Confucian descent in the Orient).
Richard C-Z
many chinese clans have similar genealogies. confucius' one is simply the
best known and documented
Many families in India have similarly long pedigrees,
true, with a few going back to the mahabharata and earlier
but I am not
aware of any there or in China (or elsewhere for that matter) which
are so well documented as the Confucian lineage(s) to which I
referred. As I understand it, the lineage of Confucius contains
adoptions which, at the very least, confuse the line of direct
descent, though the adoptions
may indeed have occurred from within the wider Confucian kindred.
internal clan adoptions did occur within this family. however, these were from junior branches with known ancestry to the senior branch. I am unaware of any non-kong person being adopted to fulfill this role. this frequently happens within chinese families as it is the obligation of the eldest son of the senior branch to maintain not only the genealogy, but the rituals to honor the ancestors. non-clan adoptions did happen in other families, but for different reasons. other families have similarly long genealogies, but lack documentation at one or more generations
Which families have reputably documented DFAs with strong scholarly acceptance?
DFAs are a minefield for those without the necessary prerequisites to
get involved. While most if not all serious scholars would shy away
from claiming to put their reputations on the line by endorsing any of
the DFAs from the ancient world
partly because these require comfort in a variety of cultures and time periods. something most don't do
(the Confucian lineage(s) and possibly
some others I don't know of excepted). This is not to say that ancient
genealogies are not within the scope of this list; however, the bulk
of these would likelier involve Descents in Antiquity (DIAs), i.e.
those which arise and terminate within ancient times without any claim
to reach into the modern era by named and corroborated persons.
this often happens and is worth studying as such
zglorg zmeh
2017-08-02 13:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
By the way...

just to be curious.

Who could be assimilated to Shangul in the legend ? Could Shangul be a derivate of an historical indian ruler ?

Many thnaks

JL
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-02 14:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by zglorg zmeh
By the way...
just to be curious.
Who could be assimilated to Shangul in the legend ? Could Shangul be a derivate of an historical indian ruler ?
Many thnaks
JL
monmaerts thought he could be kumaragupta I of the gupta dynasty. whether he was the first to think that, I do not know
wjhonson
2017-08-02 14:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You have overstated the case.

It is stated that she was a "relative"
Calling her a "Princess" pushes that point too far
wjhonson
2017-08-02 15:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You do all readers a great disservice by citing *no* sources in your ramblings.

It is not "a" chronicle you great bumbling ninny but

http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf

The Russian Primary Chronicle legendarily by Nestor

I have no idea why you would create this vast database and include no sources for anything you have in it. That just makes it a great heap of garbage
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 15:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
You do all readers a great disservice by citing *no* sources in your ramblings.
It is not "a" chronicle you great bumbling ninny but
http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf
The Russian Primary Chronicle legendarily by Nestor
I have no idea why you would create this vast database and include no sources for anything you have in it. That just makes it a great heap of garbage
Are you talking to me? I have no database and I did not remember what chronicle it was.
wjhonson
2017-08-02 15:21:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Are you talking to me? I have no database and I did not remember what chronicle it was.
And you can't be bothered to make any attempt to even try to find out before you post all this trash.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 19:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.
P J Evans
2017-08-02 19:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.
That isn't solid evidence for your claims. DO you have anything that's worth more of our time?
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 19:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by P J Evans
Post by Paulo Canedo
The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.
That isn't solid evidence for your claims. DO you have anything that's worth more of our time?
I know some of those connections are probably conjectures and I didn't claim the line was correct I only said I thought it was plausible and asked for comments on it. If you want sources I'll give the ones I didn't say yet the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the other kings of Iberia is documented by The Georgian Chronicles. The source of the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the Bagratuni is more hard to find and the earliest source I find is The British Chronicles by David Hughes that is not a very trustworthy.
taf
2017-08-03 00:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
The source of the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the Bagratuni is
more hard to find and the earliest source I find is The British Chronicles
by David Hughes that is not a very trustworthy.
That is an understatement. Hughes used to participate here, and he made the argument that his genealogical descents should not be subjected to critical evaluation, because were they to be disproved it would deprive 'descendants' of fascinating names in their pedigrees. His material is utterly worthless - not DFA worthless where it is a house of cards built on speculation, but outright fraud and fantasy.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 00:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
The source of the connection of Pharasmnes VI of Iberia to the Bagratuni is
more hard to find and the earliest source I find is The British Chronicles
by David Hughes that is not a very trustworthy.
That is an understatement. Hughes used to participate here, and he made the argument that his genealogical descents should not be subjected to critical evaluation, because were they to be disproved it would deprive 'descendants' of fascinating names in their pedigrees. His material is utterly worthless - not DFA worthless where it is a house of cards built on speculation, but outright fraud and fantasy.
I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is
between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the
Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in
the other is questionable. When no DFA has been continuously recorded,
apart from nonsensical lines into folklore such as Adamic pedigrees, and
the clear consensus over many centuries is that Europeans cannot trace
their ancestry back to antiquity, setting out to achieve what is thought
impossible seems to me a kind of intellectual egotism and contrariness,
even arrogance - not unlike setting out to climb Mt Everest wearing a
nosepeg because the mountaineering community says this can't be done.
Failing a credible explanation, that is still wanting, I can only assume
that the hope for glory in unimagined success is a large part of the
motivation.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-08-03 01:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm still trying to understand how much of a distinction there really is
between these kinds of worthlessness. I agree completely about the
Hughes approach, but the implicitly lesser degree of worthlessness in
the other is questionable.
Well, as I see it, one is making wishful-thinking connections between real people. Their hypotheses may be credulous, but at least you can see how they got there even if you think they are grossly over-interpreting things. Hughes, if you remember, had a pedigree tracing from the King of Atlantis, split people in two to deal with sources that gave alternative ancestry to the same person, etc., and as I said, was adamantly opposed any kind of evaluation of the lines he was put together. Maybe they are differences in degree, rather than kind, but I m not going to view Hughes and Settipani as equivalent in their failings.

taf
taf
2017-08-02 19:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line
of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.
The internet is an echo chamber for bad genealogy. That one or another language Wikipedia has a particular genealogical connection provides no weight in evaluating accuracy.

taf
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 20:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Canedo
The French Wipedia genealogy of the Bagratids gives the exact same line
of descent from Smbat IV to Aponagem as I show.
The internet is an echo chamber for bad genealogy. That one or another language Wikipedia has a particular genealogical connection provides no weight in evaluating accuracy.
taf
The French Wikipeda is usually more trustworthy because the French have more acess to Settipani's books on these topics.
taf
2017-08-03 00:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
The French Wikipeda is usually more trustworthy because the French have more
acess to Settipani's books on these topics.
That begs the question. Settipani himself admits that his work is highly speculative.

taf
wjhonson
2017-08-02 20:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Hughes had a bee in his bonnet for British Israelism which is a dog's breakfast

You should take his book and burn it, and save the future society from his nonsense
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 20:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
David Hughes had a bee in his bonnet for British Israelism which is a dog's breakfast
You should take his book and burn it, and save the future society from his nonsense
Since all of Hughes's genealogies ended with Queen Elizabeth II perhaps he wanted her to be able to make claims to all thrones of the globe with his genealogies. But burning books isn't a good thing to do since it destroys knowledge and knowledge shouldn't be completely destroyed no matter whether it is good or bad.
wjhonson
2017-08-02 20:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 20:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.
Weren't they researched in his book about the myth and reality or in the one about the countinuity of the elites in Byzantium?
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-02 21:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.
Weren't they researched in his book about the myth and reality or in the one about the countinuity of the elites in Byzantium?
his work, continuite des elites a byzance has a chapter about them
wjhonson
2017-08-02 21:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.
Weren't they researched in his book about the myth and reality or in the one about the countinuity of the elites in Byzantium?
his work, continuite des elites a byzance has a chapter about them
Or we could look at actual useful sources

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 21:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by n***@san.rr.com
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Also if you think the Bagrationi were extensively researched by Settipani, you are grossly mistaken.
Weren't they researched in his book about the myth and reality or in the one about the countinuity of the elites in Byzantium?
his work, continuite des elites a byzance has a chapter about them
Or we could look at actual useful sources
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
wjhonson
2017-08-02 21:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways

child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent

One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-02 21:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Actually that is a first cousin second cousin on maternal side is someone whose father or mother was a grandchild of my greatgrandfather so there are actually even more possibilities but the possibility of Constantine Monomachos's mother being a Tornikaina is still a plausible conjecture.
wjhonson
2017-08-02 22:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Actually that is a first cousin second cousin on maternal side is someone whose father or mother was a grandchild of my greatgrandfather so there are actually even more possibilities but the possibility of Constantine Monomachos's mother being a Tornikaina is still a plausible conjecture.
But One possibility out of Four does not make a conjecture "plausible" it only makes it "possible". For it to become "plausible" you need enough weight to turn it into "probable" because "plausible" is a synonym for "probable". It's not a synonym for a "one in four chance".
j***@gmail.com
2017-08-02 21:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You are wasting everyone's time because you are not understanding what everyone is trying to tell you. That the line has presented is not plausible at all he is not possible. Some people try and find DFA for the same reason they tried to find any links it is an interesting puzzle. Some of the DFA described in previous years on this news group have some interest because they have maybe at most a 5% chance of being accurate. The line you present is just fantasy it is as likely to be correct as it is that one of the people in you were linked just happened to receive all of the genetic mutations at the same time such that his father was a monkey for a fish. Zero.

The French Wikipedia is not more accurate than the English Wikipedia there are many many fewer editors meaning that errors can creep in more easily in a non English version. To say that the French Wikipedia editors have more access to a widely published book because it is written in French makes no sense.

I suggest instead of posting here anymore on this topic you find a Facebook group on genealogy that is on topic. They will be much more receptive to your discussions believe me.
wjhonson
2017-08-02 22:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways
child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent
One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.
Zonaras did not write in Latin, and any book or article relying on an
editor's translation from the original Greek into Latin, English or any
other language is not worth using for relationship terms (if at all).
For some reason, at a time when it has never been easier to learn
languages or at least make use of online dictionaries and translators,
many people who want to be historians or genealogists have decided not
to make this effort and to pretend that this isn't necessary anyway.
Peter Stewart
Googling this term I found this

https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false
wjhonson
2017-08-02 22:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways
child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent
One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.
Zonaras did not write in Latin, and any book or article relying on an
editor's translation from the original Greek into Latin, English or any
other language is not worth using for relationship terms (if at all).
For some reason, at a time when it has never been easier to learn
languages or at least make use of online dictionaries and translators,
many people who want to be historians or genealogists have decided not
to make this effort and to pretend that this isn't necessary anyway.
Peter Stewart
Googling this term I found this

https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false

To me it appears as if the footnote using this term is by the author (writing in Latin), not by Zonares writing in Greek
wjhonson
2017-08-02 23:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways
child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent
One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.
Zonaras did not write in Latin, and any book or article relying on an
editor's translation from the original Greek into Latin, English or any
other language is not worth using for relationship terms (if at all).
For some reason, at a time when it has never been easier to learn
languages or at least make use of online dictionaries and translators,
many people who want to be historians or genealogists have decided not
to make this effort and to pretend that this isn't necessary anyway.
Peter Stewart
Googling this term I found this
https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false
To me it appears as if the footnote using this term is by the author (writing in Latin), not by Zonares writing in Greek
Oh this is not a footnote.
The author is translating the work from Greek into Latin, page-by-page
Peter Stewart
2017-08-02 23:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTINE%20NOBILITY.htm#BagratTaronitesdiedafter975
In that page there is good evidence that Constantine Monomachos's mother was a Tornikaina it says Psellus records that "the emperor [Konstantinos IX] had a second cousin on the maternal side…Leo, a member of the Tornician family…who lived in Adrianopolis" and that Zonaras names Leone Tornicio…materno imperatoris cognato".
A second cousin on the maternal side works in two ways
child of a female who was child of my grandparent
child of a male who was child of my grandparent
One implies a Tonikaino family blood connection, the other does not.
Zonaras did not write in Latin, and any book or article relying on an
editor's translation from the original Greek into Latin, English or any
other language is not worth using for relationship terms (if at all).
For some reason, at a time when it has never been easier to learn
languages or at least make use of online dictionaries and translators,
many people who want to be historians or genealogists have decided not
to make this effort and to pretend that this isn't necessary anyway.
Peter Stewart
Googling this term I found this
https://books.google.com/books?id=rkBMAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA625&ots=t0LbP-arQM&dq=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&pg=PA625#v=onepage&q=materno%20imperatoris%20cognato&f=false
To me it appears as if the footnote using this term is by the author (writing in
Latin), not by Zonares writing in Greek
Appearances are not a reliable guide - books are meant to be read, not Googled. Zonaras (who wrote in Greek) is the author.

An editor's Latin translation running on the lower part of pages below the corresponding Greek text is found in most if not all 'Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae' editions.

What did you suppose the manuscript variants in Greek shown above the Latin translation were there for?

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2017-08-02 20:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As another point, the Bagrationi have claimed for a thousand years to be descendants of King David (of the Bible) or various other people in the Bible, but their claims keep moving about in various ways.

Educate yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_the_biblical_descent_of_the_Bagrationi_dynasty
wjhonson
2017-08-02 20:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
As another point, the Bagrationi have claimed for a thousand years to be descendants of King David (of the Bible) or various other people in the Bible, but their claims keep moving about in various ways.
Educate yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_of_the_biblical_descent_of_the_Bagrationi_dynasty
IF it had been known by even a few people that some king around 200 married a Jewish "princess", you would not get such divergent and wildly variant claims
wjhonson
2017-08-02 20:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On the point of what Settipani did or didn't say, perhaps (since you've never seen the book itself) you are referring to this posting

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-02/1203202799
n***@san.rr.com
2017-08-02 21:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
On the point of what Settipani did or didn't say, perhaps (since you've never seen the book itself) you are referring to this posting
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2008-02/1203202799
for clarity, please include the post in whole or part that you are responding to

thank-you
wjhonson
2017-08-02 21:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I post through the google groups
So to me the post is directly present
Peter Stewart
2017-08-02 23:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by wjhonson
I post through the google groups
So to me the post is directly present
I am posting this reply through Google Groups, and the whole of your post was automatically copied into mine when I clicked to reply. Perhaps you can adjust your settings (though mine are the defaults, since I don't have a clue how to change this).

Peter Stewart
p***@yahoo.ca
2017-08-03 01:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's fun to speculate on DFA, but I agree it needs to backed up with at least some evidence, which I haven't seen any here. My wife and I descend from Charlemagne, whose ancestry has been discussed on this list. His proven ancestry goes back to the late 500s, while academic conjecture takes it back another 200 years to the late 300s. Pure speculation takes it back to the 1230s BC, according to one list I've seen, but it's just that - speculation. From what I've seen the proposed ancestral line for Vladimir II is not backed up by anything except wishful thinking.
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 01:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
It's fun to speculate on DFA, but I agree it needs to backed up with at least some evidence, which I haven't seen any here. My wife and I descend from Charlemagne, whose ancestry has been discussed on this list. His proven ancestry goes back to the late 500s, while academic conjecture takes it back another 200 years to the late 300s. Pure speculation takes it back to the 1230s BC, according to one list I've seen, but it's just that - speculation. From what I've seen the proposed ancestral line for Vladimir II is not backed up by anything except wishful thinking.
The Greek imperial origin of Vladimir's mother is backed up by the
Russian primary chronicle. The first source to name Constantine Monomakh
as her father was the Gustin chronicle, compiled in the 17th century.
This early-modern work (by Western European assessment) is taken more
seriously by Russian historians than you or I might think prudent, but I
would characterise this more as 'trustful' than 'wishful' - the starting
point is faith in the value of historiographic tradition as recorded in
the 17th century, and not the mere wish to aggrandise Vladimir's pedigree.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-03 10:21:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Although Irina was given in marriage after a war I would like
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 05:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by p***@yahoo.ca
It's fun to speculate on DFA, but I agree it needs to backed up with
at least some evidence, which I haven't seen any here. My wife and I
descend from Charlemagne, whose ancestry has been discussed on this
list. His proven ancestry goes back to the late 500s, while academic
conjecture takes it back another 200 years to the late 300s. Pure
speculation takes it back to the 1230s BC, according to one list I've
seen, but it's just that - speculation. From what I've seen the
proposed ancestral line for Vladimir II is not backed up by anything
except wishful thinking.
The Greek imperial origin of Vladimir's mother is backed up by the
Russian primary chronicle. The first source to name Constantine
Monomakh as her father was the Gustin chronicle, compiled in the 17th
century.
I should have been more precise: this is the first source explicitly
stating that Vladimir's father married a daughter of Constantine
Monomakh. However, the Tver chronicle (begun at Rostov in the 16th
century, and thought to contain fragments from earlier Tver annals)
stated that Vladimir's byname Monomakh came from his grandfather
Constantine. Also one of two early 19th-century extracts from the lost
commemoration book of Vidubitsky monastery states that the lady (there
named 'Anastasia') was Constantine Monomakh's daughter, though it is
unknown whether this is because the extracts were copied from different
originals or if the information was added by Maxim Berlinsky, one of the
copyists. It is thought that the original/s may have been as old as the
mid-15th century, but this too is uncertain - an indication that the
family details may not be close to any contemporary record is that it
does not follow the earlier custom of giving the Christian names of the
princes (for instance, Vladimir was baptised Basil and his father
Vsevolod was baptised Andrei).

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-03 10:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Although Irina was given in marriage as a peace treaty I would like to know why the Byzantines were more fond of marrying with the Varangians than with the Franks. Weren't they both barbarians? What did the Byzantines saw of special in the Varangians?
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 10:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 03-Aug-
Post by Paulo Canedo
Although Irina was given in marriage as a peace treaty I would like to know why the Byzantines were more fond of marrying with the Varangians than with the Franks. Weren't they both barbarians? What did the Byzantines saw of special in the Varangians?
Perhaps you could tell us first why you are more fond of the baseless
name Irina for this woman than of information you have been given
against it.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-08-03 10:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It was to simplify things but now I'll call her NN. Could someone answer my question?
Peter Stewart
2017-08-03 11:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
It was to simplify things but now I'll call her NN. Could someone answer my question?
It doesn't simplify anything to use a false or imaginary name for
someone. The obvious alternative is to call her Monomakhina.

As to marriages, why wouldn't Byzantines prefer unions within their own
Orthodox confession? Franks were considered presumptuous, obtreporous
and remote. The pretensions of the papacy and the western 'Roman' empire
were irritants at best, cultural, political and eventually doctrinal
insults to the Byzantines. Until smelly and ravening Franks arrived en
masse during the Crusades they did not often present themselves in
Constantinople or go to war with the eastern empire that considered
itself the sole 'Roman' authority under heaven. 'Varangians', as you
call them - princely scions from Kievan Rus' - were not too infrequently
exiled in Constantinople, or travelled there to find patriarchs for
their Church, etc., whereas Franks even before the Great Schism did not.
In the case of Monomakhina, there was a Rus'-Byzantine war in 1043 that
was allegedly settled with her marriage - this kind of exigency had not
arisen with Franks at that time. People from Rus' could make their way
down the Dnieper and across the Black Sea, a fairly easy and quick trip
to visit Constantinople. Franks had to trudge through a vast swathe of
foreign territory, or risk a relatively long sea voyage, to reach there.
Franks, including Germans when they were favoured with Byzantine
marriages, never showed the appreciation of giving a maternal surname as
byname to a ruler's son, even when a Greek princess was as influential
in the west as empress Theophanu - indeed they didn't bother to record
her surname.

Peter Stewart
Loading...