Discussion:
ancestral notes: Wittelsbach, Oldenburg and Savoy
Add Reply
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-14 22:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wittelsbach asked me to look up Ludwig III (Duke of Bavaria), so I did -- and nothing came up. I found Ludwig III, King of Bavaria, but no duke. Puzzled, I eventually checked for Ludwig II (1229-1294), which came right up -- father of Ludwig IV, Holy Roman Emperor--per wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II,_Duke_of_Bavaria -- with no Ludwig III. Wikipedia also shows that Ludwig II had an elder son Ludwig by an earlier wife (1267-1290), who was killed in a tournament before his father's death. Wikipedia page for Ludwig II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_II,_Duke_of_Bavaria

Emperor Ludwig IV explains: "Ludwig III was killed. Ludwig had the sight. Ludwig and his father knew that the sight had to be concealed. Ludwig had the ability to tell people how to act, and this drew suspicion. Ludwig wanted to be able to be popular. Ludwig ignored the advice of his father."

Earlier in the Wittelsbach lineage is Otto II, Count of Scheyern, who is not in the main line of descent. The ancestors say that Otto had a natural son, who had a daughter: "The daughter of Otto's son married into a noble family that was well-known but not of the highest rank." The ancestors further said that the husband of the daughter of Otto's son was in the line of Habsburg, "before Habsburg became Habsburg." I looked around wikipedia and identified Albert III, whose wife was Ida, daughter of Count Rudolf of Pfullendorf (and, per the ancestors, son of a natural son of Otto II, Count of Scheyern).

As an aside, the Wittelsbachs were anti-Nazi during World War II, and they paid for it.

--

Oldenburg (the house of the Kings of Denmark) told me that the male line of the family that is currently on the throne of Denmark is indeed descended. Prince Charles and Prince Philip of England are allegedly descended from Oldenburg, but Oldenburg says this is not the case. As I went through the lineage, Oldenburg said that the line failed at Christian III, King of Denmark, the alleged father of younger son John, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg. According to King Christian: "Christian was not the father of John. Christian did not want more children, but his wife did, so Christian acquiesced."

--

According to Savoy, "Philibert, the current head of the House, is descended from Philibert, Duke of Savoy."

--

For an explanation of communicating with ancestors, see https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/535187/communicating-with-ancestors
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-15 01:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Wittelsbach asked me to look up Ludwig III (Duke of Bavaria), so I did -- and nothing came up. I found Ludwig III, King of Bavaria, but no duke.
For people who find this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense, and comes from someone with a mental disability who believes he gets his information via talking to dead people.

--JC
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-19 14:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
For people who find this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense, and comes from someone with a mental disability who believes he gets his information via talking to dead people.
Not too long ago, Joe Cochoit and I were both "coordinators" for WikiTree's Magna Carta Project. As I checked through dubious gateway ancestors, I discovered that Joe's only imaginary gateway had an imaginary connection to my Poyntz ancestors, who say that they do not descend to Joe Cochoit.
j***@gmail.com
2018-10-19 17:24:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
For people who find this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense, and comes from someone with a mental disability who believes he gets his information via talking to dead people.
Not too long ago, Joe Cochoit and I were both "coordinators" for WikiTree's Magna Carta Project. As I checked through dubious gateway ancestors, I discovered that Joe's only imaginary gateway had an imaginary connection to my Poyntz ancestors, who say that they do not descend to Joe Cochoit.
For the very very last time, I hope, I am not Joe Cochoit. How someone could be this stupid, I don't know.
--Joe Cook
Hans Vogels
2018-10-20 07:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dear John,

What makes you think that "the ancestors" are honest with you?
In ordinary life, people lie and tell fibs.
Why should those dead people differ, as they are still the same character as when alive.

Hans Vogels
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
For people who find this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense, and comes from someone with a mental disability who believes he gets his information via talking to dead people.
Not too long ago, Joe Cochoit and I were both "coordinators" for WikiTree's Magna Carta Project. As I checked through dubious gateway ancestors, I discovered that Joe's only imaginary gateway had an imaginary connection to my Poyntz ancestors, who say that they do not descend to Joe Cochoit.
j***@gmail.com
2018-11-27 01:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Dear John,
What makes you think that "the ancestors" are honest with you?
In ordinary life, people lie and tell fibs.
Why should those dead people differ, as they are still the same character as when alive.
Hans Vogels
Hans, I have found that ancestors are indeed capable of lying, and also of mis-remembering. They are less than perfect as a source, as with all sources. Think of, for example, a gravestone that mistakenly where a "9" was mistakenly engraved for a "6." Or a will that "legitimizes" a man's daughter's bastard son by naming him as his own son. Every type of source has its potential pitfalls.

My approach to the question of whether ancestors are lying is basically the same as with living people. What is the motivation? What do ancestors want in general? I think three basic things: They want to be respectfully remembered, they want to be able to communicate with their own parents and children (which they can do when a living descendant focuses in general on the ancestors), and they hope to see the well-being of living descendants. (And some exceptional ancestors have more ambitious goals -- think of a patriarch who follows the life course of his sons and grandsons through the generations.)

If a living descendant insensitively asks that "brick wall" ancestor where he was born, the ancestor might sense the descendant's preconception or logical guess and simply "verify" the descendant's thought, even though it is mistaken. Prominent distant ancestors (for example, Mayflower passengers) have probably been badgered by genealogical hobbyists who just want information, without any thought of a meaningful family relationship. This is why it is so important to slowly build back connections through the generations, which also allows the ancestors to communicate with their own parents and children.

I suspect that by far the most common time when an ancestor will lie is related to bastardy. I just discovered that one ancestor misrepresented his child's bastard as his own, to protect the reputation of the child. Of course these days out-of-wedlock childbirth isn't that big a deal, but ancestors -- especially when beginning to communicate with distant descendants -- bring their pre-suppositions and pre-existing emotional dispositions into the communication.

However, as time goes by, ancestors (some more than others) begin to adjust to different ways of thinking and begin to relax about issues that preoccupied them before their deaths -- as long as the ancestors feel confident that the living descendant is inclined to always be respectful, no matter what.

I would like to finish by saying that I have heard several disturbing and even shocking stories from ancestors, and it is all the more important to stay respectful toward ancestors who have done things that they regret. I think it is a good idea to remember the basic Christian concepts of repentance, forgiveness and redemption. (On that note, I'll share my suspicion that this communication-with-ancestors thing is the seed of the Catholic notion of purgatory.)
taf
2018-11-27 02:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
If a living descendant insensitively asks that "brick wall" ancestor where
he was born, the ancestor might sense the descendant's preconception or
logical guess and simply "verify" the descendant's thought, even though
it is mistaken.
I didn't think this could get more absurd, but it just did.

You have it all covered. If other people haven't tried it they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If people have tried it and failed, they must have done it incorrectly so they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If they tried it and it worked, but they got a different answer it means they were not appropriately respectful so the ancestors lied to them, and thus they can't say your fantasies are wrong.

Everyone must simply accept the inherent truth of everything you say, because it admits no possibility of contradiction - how convenient.

taf
s***@mindspring.com
2018-11-28 16:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
If a living descendant insensitively asks that "brick wall" ancestor where
he was born, the ancestor might sense the descendant's preconception or
logical guess and simply "verify" the descendant's thought, even though
it is mistaken.
I didn't think this could get more absurd, but it just did.
You have it all covered. If other people haven't tried it they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If people have tried it and failed, they must have done it incorrectly so they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If they tried it and it worked, but they got a different answer it means they were not appropriately respectful so the ancestors lied to them, and thus they can't say your fantasies are wrong.
Everyone must simply accept the inherent truth of everything you say, because it admits no possibility of contradiction - how convenient.
Another convenient coincidence is that the new "information" that is allegedly gathered by the "communicating with ancestors" method invariably turns out to be unverifiable by traditional genealogical methods. In many cases, the records needed to prove an unknown parentage are out there, but finding them is like looking for a needle in a haystack. One would expect that the new information would at least occasionally provide clues for locating one of these needles, but no such luck.


If I had the superpower that Mr. Schmeekle claims to have, I would try to get clues that would lead me to documentary sources providing independent confirmation of the information obtained. I am guessing that Mr. Schmeekle would tell us that this is somehow against the rules.


Stewart Baldwin
Peter Stewart
2018-11-28 21:24:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Post by taf
Post by j***@gmail.com
If a living descendant insensitively asks that "brick wall" ancestor where
he was born, the ancestor might sense the descendant's preconception or
logical guess and simply "verify" the descendant's thought, even though
it is mistaken.
I didn't think this could get more absurd, but it just did.
You have it all covered. If other people haven't tried it they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If people have tried it and failed, they must have done it incorrectly so they can't say your fantasies are wrong. If they tried it and it worked, but they got a different answer it means they were not appropriately respectful so the ancestors lied to them, and thus they can't say your fantasies are wrong.
Everyone must simply accept the inherent truth of everything you say, because it admits no possibility of contradiction - how convenient.
Another convenient coincidence is that the new "information" that is allegedly gathered by the "communicating with ancestors" method invariably turns out to be unverifiable by traditional genealogical methods.
This "method" turns out to be unverifiable even by itself - if the communicating ancestors are capable of lying, as the proponent now asserts, then how can he be sure that they are telling the truth when identifying themselves in the first place? They could be imps making fun of him.

Moreover, if there is an afterlife where denizens are capable of lying and have any motive whatsoever to do so, then all the theology of the world's major religions may need to be rewritten.

Peter Stewart

P J Evans
2018-10-19 15:07:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by j***@gmail.com
Wittelsbach asked me to look up Ludwig III (Duke of Bavaria), so I did -- and nothing came up. I found Ludwig III, King of Bavaria, but no duke.
For people who find this thread in the future, please note that all of the above is nonsense, and comes from someone with a mental disability who believes he gets his information via talking to dead people.
--JC
He hears planets talking, also.

All posts by Schmeekle hearing others should be ignored.
s***@mindspring.com
2018-10-20 17:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by P J Evans
...
All posts by Schmeekle hearing others should be ignored.
I would remove the qualification "hearing others" from the above sentence. So much garbage has been uploaded by Mr. Schmeekle that he cannot be given the benefit of the doubt for any claim that he makes. Those who choose to read his postings anyway will hopefully have the sense to know that even if something he says appears to come from reasonable sources, it needs to be carefully checked against the original sources with a fine-tooth comb before any credence is given to it.

Stewart Baldwin
Loading...