Discussion:
Herod and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA
(too old to reply)
Matthew Rockefeller
2004-11-21 07:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.

Cleopatra VII, Queen of Egypt (69 BC – 30 BC)
married
Mark Antony, Consul of Rome

Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC)
married
Juba II of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of
Mauretania, King of Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of
Numidia

Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40)
married
Julia Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania

Drusilla of Mauretania, Princess of Mauretania, divorced wife of
Felix, Governor of Judea
married
Gaius Julius Sohaemus, Priest-King of Emesa and Sophene (d 73), son of
Sampsigeratnus, Priest-King of Emesa and Iotape II, Priestess-Queen of
Emesa, was deaf, daughter of Aristobulus II, Priest-King of Emesa,
Prince of Judea and Iotape I, Priestess-Queen of Emesa, daughter of
Sampsigeramus, Priest-King of Emesa, Sohaemus was the younger brother
of the childless Priest-King Azizus
Children:
Gaius Julius Alexio, Priest-King of Emesa
Iotape = Rabbel II Soter, King of the Arabs, ancestors of Zenobia
Mamaea = Marcus Antonius Polemo, Prince of Pontus


***
Break in the pedigree

Gaius Julis Sohaemus was a descendant of Herod the Great.

Here is his lineage quickly

Herod the Great = Mariamme, a Hasomonaean heiress

Aristobulus I, Prince of Judea = Berenice II, daughter of Costobarus,
Governor of Idumaea and Salome a sister of Herod the Great

Aristobulus II, Priest-King of Emesa = Iotape I, Priestess-Queen of
Emesa, daughter of Sampsigeramus, Priest-King of Emesa who was a
younger brother of the childless Priest-King Azizus

Iotape II, Priestess-Queen of Emesa, was deaf = Sampsigeratnus,
Priest-King of Emesa

Gaius Julius Sohaemus

***

Continuation of the original lineage

Gaius Julius Alexio, Priest-King of Emesa (d 78)
married
Claudia, daughter of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, King of Syria and
possibly Servilla an illegitimate daughter of Claudius, Emperor of
Rome
Children:
Gaius Julius Sampsigeramus III Silas, Priest-King of Emesa
Mamaea = Malchus, King of Palmyra, ancestors of Zenobia

Gaius Julius Sampsigeramus III Silas, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 120)

Gaius Julius Longinus Soaemus, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 160)
Children:
Julius Bassianus, Priest-King of Emesa, progenitor of Roman emperors,
father of Empress Julia Domna and her sisters
Iamblichus

Iamblichus, Prince of Emesa

Gaius Julius Sulpicius, Priest-King of Emesa (d ca 210)

Uranius Antoninus, rival Emperor of Rome [218 - 235], Priest-King of
Emesa (d 235)

Lucius Julius Aurelius Sulpicius Severus Uranius Antoninus, rival
Emperor of Rome [253 - 254], Priest-King of Emesa (d 254)

Iamblichus (d 325), philosopher, disciple of Porphyry in Rome, founder
of his own neoplatonic school

Urania
married
Sopater (d 312), Imperial Counsellor to Constantine, philosopher,
disciple of Iamblichus

Himerius

Iamblichus

Tetradius, Proconsul of Treves, Senator (d after 386)
married
Arthemia

Arthemia
married
Decimius Rusticus, Praetorian Prefect (d after 411)

Rusticus, his parentage and that of his children are certain but his
name is speculated
married
Tullia, daughter of Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons

Aquilinus, Bishop of Lyons (d 470)
married
Fuscina, daughter of Hesychius, Bishop of Vienne and Audentia a
daughter Emperor Petronius Maximus and Eparchia, sister of Emperor
Avitus

Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons (d April 25, 501)
married
Ommace, daughter of Ruricius, Bishop of Limoges

Sacerdos, Bishop of Lyons (d September 11, 552)

Aurelian, Bishop of Arles (d June 16, 551)

Arthemia
married
Munderic, Bishop of Arisitum (d after 578)

Mummolin, Mayor of the Palace of Neustrie
married
a daughter of Maurilion and sister of Arnulf, Duke of Angouleme

Bodegisel II, Duke of Aquitaine, Ambassador to Byzantium (d 588)
married
Chrodoare, Abbess of Amay (d 634)

Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d August 16,
640)
married
Clothilde, daughter of Arnold, Bishop of Metz and Dode a daughter of
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above

Ansegisel, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d 685)
married
St. Begga (d 698), daughter of Pepin "of Landen", Mayor of the Palace
of Austrasia and Itta

Pepin "of Heristal", Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia and Neustrie
(635 - December 16, 714)
married
Aupais

Charles "Martel", Duke of Franks, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia
(689 - October 22, 741)
married
Chrotrude (d 724), daughter of St. Lievin, Bishop of Treves

Pepin "the Short", King of Franks [751 - 768], Mayor of the Palace of
Neustrie, Provence, and Bourgogne (714 - September 24, 768)
married 740
Bertha "the White Lady" (d 783), daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon
and Bertha a daughter of Clothaire IV, King of Franks

Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor (April 2, 742 - January 28, 814)

Matthew
W***@aol.com
2004-11-21 08:09:41 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 11/20/2004 11:54:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.
Indicate which parts are from Settipani so we can find the parts you wove out
of whole cloth.
Will
Doug McDonald
2004-11-21 14:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 11/20/2004 11:54:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.
Indicate which parts are from Settipani so we can find the parts you wove out
of whole cloth.
Will
This is similar to but not identical with a similar
descent (chart) by Mr. Mommaerts who posted it on the Rootsweb
gen-ancient list. Mommaerts clearly indiocates that much of
it is exceedingly speculative. Lots and lots of dotted lines.

Doug McDonald
Robert
2004-11-21 14:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Most software packages can produce text reports that include citations
for the facts presented.

This is interesting but can't you present this descent with the
sources you used? (Otherwise it's just bandwidth.) I think you're
finding the serious here on this forum expect facts and data.

"Settipani" is fine, but what work, what page from that work? A
"whole lot of my own time and research." You are keeping track of all
your sources no doubt. But not presenting them alongside this descent
goes nowhere with regards to establishing a credible presentation.
Especially on something like this descent from Herod and the Queen of
the Nile.

Thanks.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.
<snip>
Todd A. Farmerie
2004-11-21 21:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Here is a possible descent of Charlemagne from both Cleopatra the
Queen of the Nile and King Herod the Great. It was constructed with
information from
Settipani and a whole lot of my own time and research were thrown in.
I have not read most of Settipani's pre-medieval work. I do know that
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Arthemia
married
Munderic, Bishop of Arisitum (d after 578)
Mummolin, Mayor of the Palace of Neustrie
married
a daughter of Maurilion and sister of Arnulf, Duke of Angouleme
Bodegisel II, Duke of Aquitaine, Ambassador to Byzantium (d 588)
married
Chrodoare, Abbess of Amay (d 634)
This, link (B II to A) I know is speculative.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d August 16,
640)
married
Clothilde, daughter of Arnold, Bishop of Metz and Dode a daughter of
This looks like an attempt to 'fix' claims that Arnulf was son of Arnold.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above
I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Ansegisel, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia (d 685)
married
St. Begga (d 698), daughter of Pepin "of Landen", Mayor of the Palace
of Austrasia and Itta
I have seen it indicated that this is the first generation (Ansegisel
and Begga) that can be documented with 'absolute certainty' (whatever
that means in a world where some loons claim that a thousand years of
medieval history were invented).
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Pepin "of Heristal", Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia and Neustrie
(635 - December 16, 714)
married
Aupais
Charles "Martel", Duke of Franks, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia
(689 - October 22, 741)
married
Chrotrude (d 724), daughter of St. Lievin, Bishop of Treves
Chrotrude's parentage is speculative - not documented in any source that
I am aware of.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Pepin "the Short", King of Franks [751 - 768], Mayor of the Palace of
Neustrie, Provence, and Bourgogne (714 - September 24, 768)
married 740
Bertha "the White Lady" (d 783), daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon
and Bertha a daughter of Clothaire IV, King of Franks
The wife of Charibert is not documented. However, his mother was
Bertrada (Bertha) and it has been speculated that this mother was
daughter of a Merovingian king (several different ones have been
suggested, although the prefered candidates are non-royal). This
version looks like it has confused mother and wife (or perhaps taken the
alternative solutions and applied one to mother and one to wife, so that
you could buy one, get one free.
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Charlemagne, Holy Roman Emperor (April 2, 742 - January 28, 814)
taf
marshall kirk
2004-11-23 14:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above
I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.
In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)

This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.
Todd A. Farmerie
2004-11-23 17:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above
I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.
In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)
This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.
I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this time?

taf
Francisco Antonio Doria
2004-11-24 08:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Todd,

Think of the Ferreoli, and their family entourage.

fa
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz,
Governor of Provence a son
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and
Arthemia a daughter of
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above
I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of
Austrasia, and hence almost
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.
In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into
sufficiently highly
Post by marshall kirk
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began
to bestow Germanic
Post by marshall kirk
names as well as Latin names on their kids.
Gregory of Tours, whose
Post by marshall kirk
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost
nothing but Latin
Post by marshall kirk
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf --
or, if there were
Post by marshall kirk
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully
trust my memory on
Post by marshall kirk
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated
to around 584 (?),
Post by marshall kirk
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was
on some sort of
Post by marshall kirk
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly,
as I realized that
Post by marshall kirk
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me
on this, please, and
Post by marshall kirk
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate
access.)
Post by marshall kirk
This onomastic accommodation to the facts of
social life rapidly
Post by marshall kirk
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of
Gallo-Roman patrilineage
Post by marshall kirk
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly
Burgundian) names.
I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a
Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have
the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman
aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this
time?
taf
_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
marshall kirk
2004-12-01 13:00:18 UTC
Permalink
First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)

This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.

(Gregory states explicitly that he was related to all but five of the
previous 18 bishops of Tours. Kelley has argued rather persuasively
that among his episcopal relatives were Baldwin and Gundahar (Baudinus
and Gunthar). Scholars have wrangled over this passage for
generations, tho'.)

I do know that the Frankish and Gallo-Roman onomastics began to mix,
in Gaul, within single family groups by 500 CE or so, and that such
mixed naming-patterns became quite common by 600 CE. Any short
dogpaddle through the literature of that period makes the phenomenon
immediately clear. Some of this may, again IIRC, show up in
Mathisen's (sadly) unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, _An Ecclesiastical
Aristocracy in Fifth-Century Gaul_, which is an onomastic gold-mine,
really indispensable.

As for your question about the frequency with which Gallo-Roman
aristocrats held high office in the Frankish kingdoms by the late 500s
-- quite frequently indeed. Gregory is full of tittle-tattle about
the doings of both the royal officials (tax collectors, referendaries,
and suchlike) and the many Counts and Dukes who held regional or
military commands. You'll find plenty of both Frankish and Roman
names. Some of the latter (Ennodius, Firminus, Parthenius) are
redolent of high aristocracy.

I would conjecture that the Franks had to lean rather heavily, at
least at first, on pre-existing Roman offialdom to keep the complex
administrative machinery running. (Note that an early codifier of
Burgundian law was one Syagrius, apparently of the highest nobility.
Sidonius wrote him a letter expressing mock-admiration that he now
speaks perfect Burgundian.) If so, this would have become both a
precedent and a habit. At the same time, so many high-level
Gallo-Roman aristocrats moved over to that other power-base, the
Church, and became bishops, that even the Frankish kings seem uneasily
to have feared them as *perhaps* having supernatural powers ... an
impression that, if we can trust Gregory, the said bishops did little
to dispel.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by marshall kirk
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Matthew Rockefeller
Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, Bishop of Metz, Governor of Provence a son
of Florentinus, Bishop Elect of Geneva and Arthemia a daughter of
Rusticus, Bishop of Lyons who is listed above
I find it unlikely that Gundulf, Duke of Austrasia, and hence almost
certainly a Frank, would be son of Florentinus.
In this period, Gallo-Romans who married into sufficiently highly
placed families of the Germanic aristocracy began to bestow Germanic
names as well as Latin names on their kids. Gregory of Tours, whose
extensive roster of attested relatives bear almost nothing but Latin
names, nevertheless mentions the above Gundulf -- or, if there were
two, part of him -- as blood kin. I don't fully trust my memory on
this, but as I recall you'll find a passage, dated to around 584 (?),
in which Gregory says he 'put up' Gundulf, who was on some sort of
diplomatic or military mission, 'the more gladly, as I realized that
he was my mother's brother.' (Somebody check me on this, please, and
the original Latin, to which I have no immediate access.)
This onomastic accommodation to the facts of social life rapidly
burgeoned, and tends to disguise people of Gallo-Roman patrilineage
behind Germanic (in this case, possibly Burgundian) names.
I was basing my conclusion (that he was probably a Frank) as much on his
title as on his name, but I will admit, I don't have the best of feel
for this. How frequently did the Gallo-Roman aristocracy occupy the
highest levels of the Frankish nobility at this time?
taf
Don Stone
2004-12-01 18:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by marshall kirk
First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)
This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.
Martin Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth
Century_ (2001) devotes part of Chapter 1 to Gregory's prosopography and
genealogy. He shows a sister of Duke Gundulf marrying a son of Gregorius
Attalus (Bp. of Langres) and producing Gregory's mother Armentaria II.

In the entry for Gundulf, Heinzelmann reports that Gregory said of Duke
Gundulf: "I recognized him as the uncle [avunculus] of my mother."

-- Don Stone
marshall kirk
2004-12-03 16:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Interesting, and the first time I've heard of anyone taking this
reconstructive route. Does Heinzelmann explicitly state his reasoning
for doing so?

(For that matter, Don, I wonder if you might mail me a copy of the
relevant section? I'm in the middle (or perhaps I'm only at the
quarter mark) of a deeply upsetting change in residence (chasing after
a moving job), and it may be a long time before I again have access to
a useful library.----I must have been out of my mind to agree to all
that ...)

If Settipani's lurking out there, his opinion of Heinzelmann's work in
this regard would be welcome. (This should fall under the heading of
_Capetiens_, vol. II, part 1, anyway, hint hint ... :) )

Does anyone here have a well-founded opinion as to the attested
extensions of *avunculus* in this era and region? As a parallel case,
I've always taken *amita* as meaning 'father's sister.' However, as
I've been at pains to state before, I'm *not* a Latinist.
Post by Don Stone
Post by marshall kirk
First, a self-correction. (My expressed doubt as to the entire
accuracy of my memory was well-founded.) Gregory says that Gundulf
"was my mother's UNCLE," not "mother's BROTHER." (Which seems to make
Gundulf pretty old to be engaged in diplomatic and military affairs
... but compare Liberius and Narses, in high military commands well
into their eighties.)
This might seem to open the possibility that Gundulf was an uncle by
marriage, but perhaps the Latin --which I haven't seen -- doesn't
permit that, as every pedigree of Gregory's family I've ever seen (and
I've seen perhaps a dozen), including some by qualified folk such as
Settipani and, I think, Ralph Whitney Mathisen, makes Gundulf
Armentaria's uncle by blood, not marriage. Perhaps someone might
comment here on whether Latin typically distinguished between the two
possibilities in 6th-c. Gaul. I don't know.
Martin Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours: History and Society in the Sixth
Century_ (2001) devotes part of Chapter 1 to Gregory's prosopography and
genealogy. He shows a sister of Duke Gundulf marrying a son of Gregorius
Attalus (Bp. of Langres) and producing Gregory's mother Armentaria II.
In the entry for Gundulf, Heinzelmann reports that Gregory said of Duke
Gundulf: "I recognized him as the uncle [avunculus] of my mother."
-- Don Stone
Peter Stewart
2004-12-04 00:08:33 UTC
Permalink
marshall kirk wrote:

<snip>
Post by marshall kirk
Does anyone here have a well-founded opinion as to the attested
extensions of *avunculus* in this era and region? As a parallel case,
I've always taken *amita* as meaning 'father's sister.' However, as
I've been at pains to state before, I'm *not* a Latinist.
I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.

Anyway, the second continuator of Fredegar described Childebrand as
"germanus" to Charles Martel and yet as "avunculus" rather than
"patruus" to the latter's son Pippin - see _The Fourth Book of the
Chronicle of Fredegar with its Continuations_, edited by JM
Wallace-Hadrill (London, 1960), p. 94: "Ad contra uir egregius Carlus
dux germanum suum uirum inlustrium Childebrando ducem...diriget"; ibid
p. 97: "Pippinus dux...cum auunculo suo Childebrando duce"; ibid p. 102:
inluster uir Childebrandus comes auunculus praedicto rege Pippino".

However "germanus" may also be misleading here: Charles Martel was the
son of their father Pippin of Heristal's second wife Chalpais, and
Childebrand was not a son of the first wife Plectrude. The two _may_
have been full-brothers, but it is possible that they were uterine
half-brothes and Childebrand was son of Chalpais by another (though
unrecorded) husband. Either way, the relationship as "avunculs" to
Charles Martel's son was through a brother and not a sister.

Regino also described Charlemagne's son Drogo, bishop of Metz, as
"avunculus" to the emperor's grandson Pippin I, king of Aquitaine, under
the year 853 - see _Reginonis abbatis Prumiensis chronicon cum
continuatione Trevernensi_, edited by Friedrich Kurze, MGH SSrG 50
(Hanover, 1890) p. 76.

The point of this is that "avunculus" was used beyond its stricter
classical meaning of maternal uncle, and for what little it's worth this
can be shown within a few centuries after Gregory & not very far away
from Tours. Lexicography, like the writing of Latin at any time,
anywhere, is an art and not an exact science.

Peter Stewart
Francisco Antonio Doria
2004-12-04 11:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Douglas Richardson
2004-12-04 19:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.
Peter Stewart
Wonky idea? Mmmmmm .....

I don't recall proposing such a thing, but now that you've mentioned
it, a distinctly regional and temporal Latin dictionary makes good
sense.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
2004-12-05 23:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Richardson
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what you require as to "era and region" - I trust this is
just for confirmation and not an opening to rationalise denial as in the
wonky idea of Douglas Richardson about distinctly regional and temporal
Latin vocabulary. Apart from the general principle, we don't have enough
material from around the time and place in question to allow for
certainty and nicety in definition even if this idea could be taken as
meaningful.
Peter Stewart
Wonky idea? Mmmmmm .....
I don't recall proposing such a thing, but now that you've mentioned
it, a distinctly regional and temporal Latin dictionary makes good
sense.
Of course you have advanced this idea: I didn't say you explicitly
proposed it - once again you are failing to comprehend a simple
statement in contemporary English, your native language, which as
always casts a shadow over your ability to interpret any statement in
sources primary or secondary, even when written or summarised in
English.

The idea is clearly implicit in your demand for post-Conquest examples
from English sources of certain meanings of "avunculus" (which you
still haven't acknowledged), "nepos" and "cognatus", as well as by
your stubborn refusal to accept that examples given of the last in the
standard dictionary from Bede or Jerome's Bible could answer the
point.

Once a non-classical extension of a word's meaning had been put into
circulation in Latin, there was no putting it back out again - even IF
meanings in a formal, archaic language could be said to become somehow
obsolete, nothing could conceivably prevent their revival when writers
kept reading older sources that used them. Bede and St Jerome's Bible
were both widely read and enormously influential, and the second
carried authority above all other writings. This is approximately the
fifth time I have had to go over this very straightforward point,
apparently for your sole benefit since no-one else keeps raising the
issue.

But for Marshall Kirk's question, it is not possible to tell precisely
when the cat of "avunculus" instead of "patruus" (for paternal uncle)
got out of the bag, only to show that it was used by Frankish writers
after Gregory. There may be examples closer in time and place to him,
but of course with less external evidence for relationships it is very
hard to say for sure.

And ten or twenty such examples would not be absolute PROOF of
Gregory's meaning in a specific instance, while on the other hand the
certainty that there were NO others available for lexicographers today
couldn't establish that there had been none known to him in the sixth
century.

So there is no purpose - for me at least - in searching for
post-Conquest examples in England of "cognatus" meaning an in-law,
when the earlier examples given prove that the word COULD have been
(because it HAD been) used in this way.

As for a regional and temporal Latin dictionary, there are plenty of
these but NOT for the purpose you seem to imagine. The British
Academy's medieval Latin dictionary is just one such publication
(notable counterparts exist for the Netherlands and Hungary, amongst
others): the temporality is as wide as the entire middle ages because
nothing less would be of value; and the region is due to specialised
interest in the study of local history and culture, for which sources
from elsewhere would only be a distraction, and to a lesser extent the
developing Latinity of native languages.

Peter Stewart
Don Stone
2004-12-06 02:01:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by marshall kirk
Interesting, and the first time I've heard of anyone taking this
reconstructive route. Does Heinzelmann explicitly state his reasoning
for doing so?
Heinzelmann's _Gregory of Tours_ is the focus of a review article by Danuta
Shanzer in the 2002 issue of _Medieval Prosopography_. Quoting (p. 249):

Heinzelmann provides a bolder and more conjectural stemma than does either
Jean Verdon or J. R. Martindale in _The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire (PLRE)_ 3. In it he uses straight solid lines for hard connections,
dashes for relationships mentioned (imprecisely or vaguely) by Gregory, and
dotted lines for his own conjectural reconstructions. His conclusions seem
sound, but the thought processes behind them need clarification in many
cases. The reader is customarily sent without comment to earlier studies.

-- Don Stone
W***@aol.com
2004-11-22 01:32:13 UTC
Permalink
"Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC)
married Juba II of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of Mauretania, King of Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of Numidia"

1) The death date of Cleopatra Selene is uncertain, guesses range from 5BC to 11 AD.

"Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40)
married Julia Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania"

Ptolemy, King of Mauretania was not born in 22 BC. This is apparently some sort of mistake based on when he started to rule. When his father died in 23 AD it was said that Ptolemy had been co-ruler with him for 3 to 4 years. Ptolemy the son was born in 1 BC. The attribution of Julia Urania as daughter to King Phraates is uncertain. It is mere speculation.

Will Johnson
Bob Turcott
2004-11-23 04:05:54 UTC
Permalink
WJ,

I don't know much about ancestry beyond Charlemagne, is it unlikley that
Cleopatra
is an ancestor of Charlemagne? I just want to make sure I interpret the
findings properly..

Bob
and Cleopatra to Charlemagne DFA Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:32:13 -0500
"Cleopatra Selene, Queen of Libya (40 BC – 5 BC) married Juba II of
Mauretania, King of Mauretania (d 23) s of Juba I of Mauretania, King of
Mauretania s of Hiempsal I of Numidia, King of Numidia"
1) The death date of Cleopatra Selene is uncertain, guesses range from 5BC
to 11 AD.
"Ptolemy of Mauretania, King of Mauretania (22 BC – 40) married Julia
Urania, daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia and Thea Urania"
Ptolemy, King of Mauretania was not born in 22 BC. This is apparently some
sort of mistake based on when he started to rule. When his father died in
23 AD it was said that Ptolemy had been co-ruler with him for 3 to 4 years.
Ptolemy the son was born in 1 BC. The attribution of Julia Urania as
daughter to King Phraates is uncertain. It is mere speculation.
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2004-11-23 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
" I don't know much about ancestry beyond Charlemagne, is it unlikley that Cleopatra is an ancestor of Charlemagne? I just want to make sure I interpret the findings properly"

Bob first I want to make sure you realize this was NOT my original post, I was merely adding corrections to THIS part of the alledged lineage. Others have commented on other parts of it. The lineage from end-to-end is suspect yes.

We know for example that while Mark Antony and Cleopatra were offing themselves, their three children were captured and taken captive to Rome. There they were entrusted to the royal household, (in the past they would have been killed).
Nothing more is heard of the two boys, but the girl Selene was raised in the royal household and married off to Juba II.

Ok we're on firm ground there. The existence of Selene and Juba is on solid ground, we have several coins from their reign and Selene imprudently appears to boast that she is heir to most of Roman Africa constantly exhibiting her Egyptian symbols on her coinage. She was not, in fact, since Egypt had become a Roman province and had no dynastic ruler (IIRC).

However once the lineage devolves into base marriages into the insignificant house of Emesa things get pretty murky.

However consider if you will, the reign of Caligula and Tiberius, both known (esp under Sejanus) for being quite bloodthirsty. I'm not sure, if I can cotton to the idea of THEM leaving a person alive who could possibly claim the throne of Egypt, no matter how trivia that person's "actual" power had become.

But please note, that the entire lineage was presented by the offending party without ANY sources. That is a big red flag right there.

Will Johnson
e***@hotmail.com
2019-12-14 20:52:38 UTC
Permalink
OMG thank you! I'm not the only one to have discovered that Charlemagne is a direct descendant of King Herod and Miriam (Hasmonean). Miriam descends from Aaron.

I do not know anything about a Cleopatra link, nor have I looked into the matter.

I've been speaking up about the Charlemagne/Herod/Miriam/Aaron connection ever since I made the discovery three years ago, in 2016 +/-.

It is very suspicious to me that this information is not widely known. I go so far to say that it is a form of Anti Semitism that this is covered up. Reason I say Anti Semitic, is that the Royal families that descend from Charlemagne are proud to display their Christian roots, but not their Jewish roots? I keep asking why.

The Herod piece is the black sheep, obviously..,but I keep asking why this is hidden from mainstream knowledge. Makes me wonder if this is a high level PR stunt.

I am a direct descendant of Charlemagne and therefore a direct descendant of Herod and Miriam. I am not afraid to speak the truth about the black sheep of Herod.

Sincerely,
Erika
taf
2019-12-14 22:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@hotmail.com
OMG thank you! I'm not the only one to have discovered that Charlemagne is
a direct descendant of King Herod and Miriam (Hasmonean). Miriam descends
from Aaron.
Umm, don't want to rain on your enthusiasm, but the line presented here was full of problems. At a minimum, such lines are highly speculative, but parts of the line presented I would not even dignify with that description.

Perhaps if you post what you believe to be such a line of descent, someone here might be able to give you useful feedback.

taf
P J Evans
2019-12-14 22:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by e***@hotmail.com
OMG thank you! I'm not the only one to have discovered that Charlemagne is
a direct descendant of King Herod and Miriam (Hasmonean). Miriam descends
from Aaron.
Umm, don't want to rain on your enthusiasm, but the line presented here was full of problems. At a minimum, such lines are highly speculative, but parts of the line presented I would not even dignify with that description.
Perhaps if you post what you believe to be such a line of descent, someone here might be able to give you useful feedback.
taf
It's my understanding that there are no proven links from Europe to Roman times. Settipani's work is speculative, but indicates the questionable links in the one work of his that I have. (At least his sources seem to be reputable.)

There are, however, a lot of amateur genealogists who will accept anything that tells them what they want to believe, particularly if it matches what their religion tells them.
taf
2019-12-15 05:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
It's my understanding that there are no proven links from Europe to Roman times.
Pretty much all of the claimed descents in Western Europe involve a surfeit of wishful thinking. I am not familiar enough with, for example, the claims running through the Georgian dynasties to pass judgment on them.

taf
mike
2019-12-26 17:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
Post by taf
Post by e***@hotmail.com
OMG thank you! I'm not the only one to have discovered that Charlemagne is
a direct descendant of King Herod and Miriam (Hasmonean). Miriam descends
from Aaron.
Umm, don't want to rain on your enthusiasm, but the line presented here was full of problems. At a minimum, such lines are highly speculative, but parts of the line presented I would not even dignify with that description.
Perhaps if you post what you believe to be such a line of descent, someone here might be able to give you useful feedback.
taf
It's my understanding that there are no proven links from Europe to Roman times. Settipani's work is speculative, but indicates the questionable links in the one work of his that I have. (At least his sources seem to be reputable.)
looking at the op which I havnt seen before, I cant believe it is settipani's
work since I think his theory is that the carolingians were descended from
a quite different munderic who wasn't a bp but a Merovingian pretender
from the ripurian branch. I thought it quite respectable as a theory, although
I would have thought that if it were correct, then the lackeys who wrote
the Frankish annals at Pippins court after 751 would have trumpeted this
descent.
Post by P J Evans
There are, however, a lot of amateur genealogists who will accept anything that tells them what they want to believe, particularly if it matches what their religion tells them.
like religion DFAs usually require a huge leap of faith plus some sloppy
research. in the case of the op those links between the emesa dynasty
and gaul look very suspicious, but seem to have become enshrined into
personal gens all over the net.

merry xmas

mike

Peter D. A. Warwick
2019-12-15 14:17:45 UTC
Permalink
From what I've read on this list and elsewhere there are only 14 proven ancestors of Charlemagne, which takes you back about 200 years before him. Academic conjecture can take you back about another 200 years. However, the lines that take you back a further 200 years are disputed, but at least they are realistically grounded. Anything further back is pure speculation and not grounded in anything so far as I can tell. To me this has nothing to do with being antisemitic, but rather going where the evidence leads you.
taf
2019-12-15 15:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D. A. Warwick
To me this has nothing to do with being antisemitic, but rather going where the evidence leads you.
This indeed has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It doesn't matter if the target desired ancestor worshiped the god(s) of Persia, Assyria, Egypt, Rome, Greece or Palestine, the probability of there being a descent is not appreciably different, and the lack of documented descents is equally the case.

taf
zglorgy
2019-12-15 22:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Hello TaF

Sorry for my english

You are a professionnal of genetics

Can you briefly explain why Mr acheson could be wrong in his statement that we Can not have idenfiable dna of ours ancestors past 20 générations (autosomal dna)

Many thanks

Jl
Denis Beauregard
2019-12-15 23:09:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 14:15:58 -0800 (PST), zglorgy
Post by zglorgy
Hello TaF
Sorry for my english
You are a professionnal of genetics
Can you briefly explain why Mr acheson could be wrong in his statement that we Can not have idenfiable dna of ours ancestors past 20 générations (autosomal dna)
I answer in French. I suppose someone else will answer in
English anyway.

Je réponds en français. Je suppose qu'un autre répondra en
anglais de toutes façons.

L'ADN n'est pas distribué uniformément à chaque génération.
Voir par exemple le classique https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcm
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4

L'ADN avec de la parenté est calculé en cM qui donnent la partie
partagée avec l'autre personne. La relation parent-enfant n'a pas
la même valeur selon le labo. FTDNA donne 3384 alors que d'autres
sont en haut de 3400.

Dans ce tableau, fait d'après des valeurs réelles, l'ADN partagé
entre un arrière-grand-parent et son descendant varie de 464 à 1486
cM. En d'autre mot, selon les hasards de la procréation, on peut
avoir pratiquement du simple au triple après 3 générations. À 6
générations, c'est le carré, donc de 1 à 9 fois entre l'ancêtre
qui fournit le plus d'ADN et celui qui en fournit le moins. Avec
ces valeurs, on comprendra que l'ADN ne peut pas être précis. Pour
les origines, par exemple, il y a beaucoup de foi et les labos
se contredisent. De même, pour une simple relation frère-frère,
il y a une zone grise où la relation pourrait être avec un demi-frère.

Après 6 générations, on n'a pas assez de précision pour dire si
l'ADN vient d'une personne ou s'il a été recombiné et vient de
plusieurs donneurs. C'est un peu pour cela qu'on parle d'une
limite sur ce qu'on peut trouver. Évidemment, on peut être chanceux
et avoir un fragment beaucoup plus élevé de tel ancêtre, mais c'est
du hasard aussi, c'est impossible de savoir de quel ancêtre il s'agit.

C'est un peu pour cela que l'ADN autosomal (celui qui vient de tous
les chromosomes excepté le Y) n'est pas utilisable pour de la
généalogie médiévale.

Je pourrais prendre les résultats de 100 personnes qui descendent
d'un même ancêtre "royal", comme Catherine Baillon ou Anne Couvent,
et je ne pourrais pas isoler quelle partie vient de l'une d'elle.
Et elles sont à environ 10 générations en arrière.

L'ADN Y ou MT est dans une autre équipe. Ici, on peut trouver 2
descendants du même ancêtre, en ligne masculine ou féminine,
avec une signature cohérente, et on a alors leur signature ADN,
mais c'est limité au chromosome Y ou à celui des mitochondries.

Pour les curieux, on a deux signatures d'Anne Couvent mais trop
différentes à mon goût et il faudra vérifier les lignées pour
en savoir davantage. Toutefois, cela ne servirait qu'à des
descendants en lignée féminine. Rien sur Catherine de Baillon.


Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
taf
2019-12-16 04:13:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by zglorgy
Hello TaF
Sorry for my english
You are a professionnal of genetics
Well, not exactly, but I do have a lot of training and expertise, both in terms of educational background and actual hands-on experience working with DNA - cloning, sequencing, hybridization, PCR, etc.
Post by zglorgy
Can you briefly explain why Mr acheson could be wrong in his statement that we Can not have idenfiable dna of ours ancestors past 20 générations (autosomal dna)
Briefly? What I was quibbling with was the degree to which the DNA gets divided until you get a piece 'too short to be identifiable'.

Think of DNA as it it was a deck of 50,000 cards. For each generation, randomly (again an oversimplification, but not important for this point) take half of the cards, and combine them with half the cards from a different deck. After the first generation, you have 25,000 cards of your original deck, and 25,000 from another source. The next generation you have 12,500 (and 37,500 from elsewhere), then 6,250, then 3,125, . . . This looks exactly like what Richard Acheson described until you get down to having only one card. This is still an identifiable unit of DNA. From this point forward, there is no further division (most of the time). You don't get half a card, too small to be identifiable. Rather, either the one remaining card is passed on intact, and is still identifiable, or else that card doesn't get passed on, and there is none whatsoever. There are identifiable pieces of DNA that are thought to have passed intact for 10s of thousands of years, and people either have them or don't. From this point, rather than the size of the DNA becoming two small to be identifiable, it is simply a lesser and lesser probability of having the identifiable piece that gets no smaller.

There is a second caveat though. If we are talking about Edward I, both of his wives were related to him, in multiple ways. Both he and Eleanor descended from Henry II of England, and both of them descended from Alfonso VII of Castile & Leon, and both descended from Amadeus of Savoy, so a good amount of Edward's identifiable pieces of DNA - cards in the above metaphor, were also in his wife's deck. Given the inbred nature of European populations in general and royalty in particular, most of anyone's ancestors in that generation would have had indistinguishable pieces of DNA, so even in the generation of Edward's son Edward II, you won't be able to tell whose DNA he got at a given position, not because it is too short to be identifiable, but because both his parents had the exact same sequence. Or to put it a different way, you can have a piece of Edward I's DNA without descending from him at all, as long as you and he got that DNA from the same common ancestor. At some point the whole question becomes so semantic and esoteric as to be almost meaningless.

Anyhow, Richard Acheson had the basic idea, my quibbles on the precise details aside.

taf
Peter Stewart
2019-12-16 08:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by zglorgy
Hello TaF
Sorry for my english
You are a professionnal of genetics
Well, not exactly, but I do have a lot of training and expertise, both in terms of educational background and actual hands-on experience working with DNA - cloning, sequencing, hybridization, PCR, etc.
Post by zglorgy
Can you briefly explain why Mr acheson could be wrong in his statement that we Can not have idenfiable dna of ours ancestors past 20 générations (autosomal dna)
Briefly? What I was quibbling with was the degree to which the DNA gets divided until you get a piece 'too short to be identifiable'.
And in your biological expertise I hope you don't overlook that just
four people living today have an identifiable biographical influence due
to descent from Edward I - that is, the queen along with her eldest son,
grandson and great-grandson. For them, much less for anyone else, to try
factoring significance into a DNA connection back to the 13th century is
laughable.

Peter Stewart
Richard Smith
2019-12-16 12:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
And in your biological expertise I hope you don't overlook that just
four people living today have an identifiable biographical influence due
to descent from Edward I - that is, the queen along with her eldest son,
grandson and great-grandson.
At the risk of being pedantic, the Royal Family are who are they because
they purport to have a specific descent from Edward I, not because they
actually do.

Richard
j***@gmail.com
2019-12-16 12:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Peter Stewart
And in your biological expertise I hope you don't overlook that just
four people living today have an identifiable biographical influence due
to descent from Edward I - that is, the queen along with her eldest son,
grandson and great-grandson.
At the risk of being pedantic, the Royal Family are who are they because
they purport to have a specific descent from Edward I, not because they
actually do.
To be even more pedantic; their descent from Edward I is totally irrelevant; if they, and Henry VII, had not been descended from Edward I, he still would have taken the crown by conquest and all would still be as it is.

--Joe C
taf
2019-12-16 14:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Richard Smith
Post by Peter Stewart
And in your biological expertise I hope you don't overlook that just
four people living today have an identifiable biographical influence due
to descent from Edward I - that is, the queen along with her eldest son,
grandson and great-grandson.
At the risk of being pedantic, the Royal Family are who are they because
they purport to have a specific descent from Edward I, not because they
actually do.
To be even more pedantic; their descent from Edward I is totally irrelevant; if they, and Henry VII, had not been descended from Edward I, he still would have taken the crown by conquest and all would still be as it is.
Had he not had a descent from Edward I, would he really have been able to garner the support necessary to take the crown by conquest, or would he have ended up like Lambert Simnel? Such alternative history, positing counterfactual events, quickly falls back on assumptions that to a degree beg the question.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-12-16 17:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Had he not had a descent from Edward I, would he really have been able to garner the support necessary to take the crown by conquest, or would he have ended up like Lambert Simnel? Such alternative history, positing counterfactual events, quickly falls back on assumptions that to a degree beg the question.
Honestly, I think the answer is 'yes' pretty clearly in this case. He did not rely on this as his claim whatsoever. His nearest ancestor who was a king was over *200 years* previously. A distant/remote random descent from an ancient king had nothing to do with it. It's just a sort-of-interesting side note
taf
2019-12-16 17:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by taf
Had he not had a descent from Edward I, would he really have been able to garner the support necessary to take the crown by conquest, or would he have ended up like Lambert Simnel? Such alternative history, positing counterfactual events, quickly falls back on assumptions that to a degree beg the question.
Honestly, I think the answer is 'yes' pretty clearly in this case. He
did not rely on this as his claim whatsoever. His nearest ancestor who
was a king was over *200 years* previously. A distant/remote random
descent from an ancient king had nothing to do with it. It's just a
sort-of-interesting side note
You might want to try that math again. His last royal ancestor was Edward III, who was not over 200 years before.

Without his connection to the Lancastrians, would he really have attracted so much of their faction's support, as opposed to being just some random guy who decided to conquer England? The answer is not 'pretty clearly yes'.

This is why these arguments are pointless, though. There is no evidence because it is all counterfactual, and anyone can express with the same degree of certainly whatever they want the answer to be.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2019-12-16 18:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Honestly, I think the answer is 'yes' pretty clearly in this case. He did not rely on this as his claim whatsoever. His nearest ancestor who was a king was over *200 years* previously. A distant/remote random descent from an ancient king had nothing to do with it. It's just a sort-of-interesting side note
To be as specific as possible, I should have said "English King", he of course being the great-grandson of Charles VI of France.

But my point, rather than "historical what-ifs" was really to say that Queen Elizabeth II today does not sit around and rely on this obscure historical fact to maintain her status as monarch of Great Britain; the Act of Succession of 1701 all she needs to hang her hat on. Any discovered frauds in illegitimacy prior to that would be irrelevant to changing her status.

--Joe C
Peter Stewart
2019-12-16 21:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Honestly, I think the answer is 'yes' pretty clearly in this case. He did not rely on this as his claim whatsoever. His nearest ancestor who was a king was over *200 years* previously. A distant/remote random descent from an ancient king had nothing to do with it. It's just a sort-of-interesting side note
To be as specific as possible, I should have said "English King", he of course being the great-grandson of Charles VI of France.
But my point, rather than "historical what-ifs" was really to say that Queen Elizabeth II today does not sit around and rely on this obscure historical fact to maintain her status as monarch of Great Britain; the Act of Succession of 1701 all she needs to hang her hat on. Any discovered frauds in illegitimacy prior to that would be irrelevant to changing her status.
Illegitimacy would be irrelevant even if the queen could be shown not to
be her own father's biological offspring: she was legally his daughter
and the elder of two with no sons, so she was his heiress.

The crown was seized by Henry VII who in a sense had the same right of
conquest as William the Conqueror, but for legitimists it was lawfully
inherited by Henry VIII from his mother not his father.

Pedantry is misplaced in this discussion, since Elizabeth II would not
be queen if George I had not been the senior Protestant descendant of
sovereigns including Edward I. Except for her immediate line of heirs,
other members of the royal family are biographically influenced more
directly by their relationship to her than to their ancestors, as are
her in-laws who may or may not share royal ancestry. Even in the
hereditary system applying from the Act of Settlement they are (for now
and the foreseeable future anyway) surplus to constitutional
requirements, and can make their own destinies (as indeed Prince Andrew
acknowledges that his "royal highness" daughters must do).

The biological legacy of Edward I, or any medieval king, will remain
negligible even if it should become calculable. Their cultural legacy
belongs to everyone reading this just as much as to Elizabeth II. It is
only a constitutional legacy that passed through them with identifiable
effect on her life, not DNA.

Peter Stewart
taf
2019-12-16 14:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Briefly? What I was quibbling with was the degree to which the DNA gets divided until you get a piece 'too short to be identifiable'.
And in your biological expertise I hope you don't overlook that just
four people living today have an identifiable biographical influence due
to descent from Edward I - that is, the queen along with her eldest son,
grandson and great-grandson. For them, much less for anyone else, to try
factoring significance into a DNA connection back to the 13th century is
laughable.
Of course. It has no biographical significance whatsoever. For that matter, it is of no genetic relevance even to your four people. Its only hypothetical utility would be for genetic genealogy, and for the reason I have explained, even that is not practicable.

taf
Richard ACHESON
2019-12-15 00:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Perspective is important in life.

Mathematically speaking, if they do have any living descendants that made it thru several population bottlenecks along the way, like the volcanic eruptions which likely precipitated the dark ages (https://phys.org/news/2016-04-volcanoes-trigger-crises-late-antiquity.html) or the plague waves of the mid 1300's, then we of Western European descent are all likely descended from them, since the survivors are all intermingled and make up the population today.

Similarly, after about 15 or 20 generations of descent, all of us are unlikely to have any discernible runs of contiguous dna chains associated with any of our ancestors from so far back- it simply gets washed out. The fragments would be too minuscule to recognize, even if we even continue to share any dna with them at all. I'm descended from Edward Longshanks about 6 provable times over, and yet I likely don't still possess a single shred of his dna- Unless by some extreme miracle I happen to be patri-lineally descended from a lost bastard Plantagenet offshoot on my father's, father's, father's.... etc. side (Please no! Twouldst damage my tender Ulster-Scots ego)- In which case I'd share about 2% of my dna, as would my son and my son's son's. On the plus side, we should all be extremely happy that by some miracle we came into existence at all... there was never any guarantee!
taf
2019-12-15 05:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard ACHESON
Perspective is important in life.
Mathematically speaking, if they do have any living descendants that made it thru several population bottlenecks along the way, like the volcanic eruptions which likely precipitated the dark ages (https://phys.org/news/2016-04-volcanoes-trigger-crises-late-antiquity.html) or the plague waves of the mid 1300's, then we of Western European descent are all likely descended from them, since the survivors are all intermingled and make up the population today.
Similarly, after about 15 or 20 generations of descent, all of us are unlikely to have any discernible runs of contiguous dna chains associated with any of our ancestors from so far back- it simply gets washed out. The fragments would be too minuscule to recognize, even if we even continue to share any dna with them at all. I'm descended from Edward Longshanks about 6 provable times over, and yet I likely don't still possess a single shred of his dna- Unless by some extreme miracle I happen to be patri-lineally descended from a lost bastard Plantagenet offshoot on my father's, father's, father's.... etc. side (Please no! Twouldst damage my tender Ulster-Scots ego)- In which case I'd share about 2% of my dna, as would my son and my son's son's. On the plus side, we should all be extremely happy that by some miracle we came into existence at all... there was never any guarantee!
The first is true on a statistical level (the second is a lot trickier, though the spirit of what you said is on the mark), but of course genealogy is about documenting specific relationships, so there is no inherent contradiction in stating that if anyone descends from Herod we probably all do, while at the same time saying that nobody has a proven genealogical descent from Herod.

taf
Ian Goddard
2019-12-16 10:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Mathematically speaking, if they do have any living descendants that made it thru several population bottlenecks along the way, ... then we of Western European descent are all likely descended from them, since the survivors are all intermingled and make up the population today.
%><
Post by taf
The first is true on a statistical level
The validity of such a statistical claim depends on the validity of the
model. As a model "all intermingled" lacks detail. Does it, for
instance, allow for pedigree collapse and to what extent?

Lesie et al, "The fine-scale genetic structure of the British
population" https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230 shows that the
degree of "intermingling" varied over so small an area as Britain.

"We're all descended from (favourite would-be ancestor)" is an easy
claim to make but, without a testable model to justify it, rather more
difficult to believe.

Ian
Andrew Lancaster
2019-12-16 11:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Goddard
Post by taf
Mathematically speaking, if they do have any living descendants that made it thru several population bottlenecks along the way, ... then we of Western European descent are all likely descended from them, since the survivors are all intermingled and make up the population today.
%><
Post by taf
The first is true on a statistical level
The validity of such a statistical claim depends on the validity of the
model. As a model "all intermingled" lacks detail. Does it, for
instance, allow for pedigree collapse and to what extent?
Lesie et al, "The fine-scale genetic structure of the British
population" https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14230 shows that the
degree of "intermingling" varied over so small an area as Britain.
"We're all descended from (favourite would-be ancestor)" is an easy
claim to make but, without a testable model to justify it, rather more
difficult to believe.
Ian
I think for the reasons explained by taf and Denis the further back we go the more that our autosomal DNA is most useful for identifying ancestral populations (interbreeding populations in the biological sense), not individuals.

OTOH, it is I think still unclear how far that genealogists will eventually manage to get with autosomal DNA, or perhaps even better with a combination of normal autosomal, Y, X and mitochondrial studies.

Autosomal is what the testing companies love to sell at the moment. When it first came out wise advice was not to expect it to be useful for common ancestry before about 1800, but it does now seem to be pushing beyond that. The testing companies could show their value better by giving better tools to triangulate matches. Probably privacy concerns have distracted from this a bit. For the X chromosome, it is similar.

Mitochondrial DNA has never been very useful in genealogy because it does not mutate enough. It can be handy for saying that two people are NOT related in a certain way.

Y DNA was the first big proof that DNA could help genealogy, and more complex testing technologies are likely to be the next big thing in the future in my opinion. These only help with male lines, but in theory they can show connections thousands of years old. The older cheaper tests are still great for showing if two men are in the same line, but can almost never tell you the actual family tree of a group of closely matching men, nor how far back the common ancestor was. More complex tests are known but not being promoted by any of the better known genealogy-focused testing companies.
Richard ACHESON
2019-12-16 03:20:16 UTC
Permalink
Rather supports my point... n'est ce pas?
zglorgy
2019-12-16 08:55:15 UTC
Permalink
TAF You are awesome (really!)

Ok so we can still have identifiable DNA though so many generations, but so tiny (and shared) that we can not determine the generation of the common ancestor.

thanks
Loading...