Discussion:
Heinrich I's Carolingian descent
(too old to reply)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-22 23:48:20 UTC
Permalink
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 00:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
I don't see how you have reached the conclusion that "it's also apparent
that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent
Carolingian descent". Why not tell us your own reasoning instead of
asking for other people's opinions if the subject seems pressing enough
to make a new thread?

For what little it's worth, in my view the problem you have raised can't
be resolved definitively. A brother of Heinrich I's paternal aunt
Hathumod of Gandersheim married a relative of kings according to her
Vita by Agius ("frater eius regum neptem in matrimonio habet"). In this
case 'regum neptis' can't mean that the unnamed wife of an unnamed
brother was a granddaughter of kings, since no offspring of two
Carolingian monarchs married each other; it is unlikely that it means
she was the niece of kings, since there is no plausible candidate who
could have been either her father or mother with two or more crowned
brothers or uterine half-brothers. The meaning is most probably that she
was just a relative of kings. There is no clear warrant in this to
suppose she must necessarily have been a descendant of any king/s, as in
that case it would be strange to vaunt the royal status of her
collateral relatives rather than of her ancestor/s. There is also no
warrant to suppose that she was descended from any member of the unnamed
kings' family rather than that they were descended from a member of
hers: the lost explanation may be simply that a relative of one of her
parents married a Carolingian and became the mother and/or grandmother
of several kings.

Whatever kinship underlies the connection stated by Agius, this royal
'neptis' is often taken to have been Heinrich I's mother Hathui (Hadwig)
partly because Thietmar described him as 'nepos' to Charles the Simple.
However, this is not specific enough to draw a firm conclusion and with
at least equal probability Agius may have been referring to an unknown
wife of Heinrich's paternal uncle Bruno as the 'regum neptis' in question.

Wolfgang Metz in 1964 thought that Heinrich I's mother belonged to an
aristocratic family that was part of a Frankish-Saxon group oriented
around Corvey and Herford abbeys, close to the Babenbergs, Rupertians
and in an early period also to the Salians, very likely with a
relationship to the Carolingians through Adalhard and Wala, founders of
Corvey. Emil Kimpen in 1953 had claimed to have shown in 1935 that
Heinrich I's mother was a daughter of Heinrich of Babenberg (your
Heinrich of Neustria), who was killed fighting against Normans in 886,
by Baba the eldest daughter of Berengar, duke of Spoleto, and emperor
Lothar I's daughter Hiltrude. This is chronologically possible, though
not very plausible much less compellingly proven: the timelines involve
Lothar I's marriage in October 821, the birth of his daughter Hiltrude
ca 823, that of her supposed daughter Baba ca 836 and the marriage of
the latter's daughter in 869/70 with Heinrich I (her third son, who was
aged ca 60 when he died in 936) born in 876.

Kimpen in 1935 dismissed contradictory traditions regarding the
restoration of Charlemagne's blood to the thrones of France and the
Empire: this was reputedly not with Hugo Capet and Ottonians
respectively, all of whom were descended from Heinrich I, but rather
with the accession of Louis VIII in France and the Salian Heinrich III
in Germany. Kimpen attempted to rebut Otto of Friesing's statement about
Heinrich III on the flimsy grounds that this was influenced by Wipo's
remarks about the Carolingian origin of Empress Gisela and that Otto was
ignorant of other lines of descent.

The traditions about Capetian and Salian descendants of the
Carolingians, if correct, would (apart from chronological difficulty)
rule out Judith of Friuli (a great-granddaughter of Charlemagne) as
Heinrich's maternal grandmother, though not necessarily Heinrich of
Babenberg as her father. Alfred Friese in 1979 agreed with Kimpen that
Heinrich I's mother was a daughter of Heinrich of Babenberg, noting that
her name Hathui (Hadwig) was allegedly derived from that of Hadaburg
supposed to have been her father's paternal grandmother. Again, not
"apparently" definite evidence in my view.

Peter Stewart
paulorica...@gmail.com
2020-07-23 01:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
I don't see how you have reached the conclusion that "it's also apparent
that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent
Carolingian descent". Why not tell us your own reasoning instead of
asking for other people's opinions if the subject seems pressing enough
to make a new thread?
For what little it's worth, in my view the problem you have raised can't
be resolved definitively. A brother of Heinrich I's paternal aunt
Hathumod of Gandersheim married a relative of kings according to her
Vita by Agius ("frater eius regum neptem in matrimonio habet"). In this
case 'regum neptis' can't mean that the unnamed wife of an unnamed
brother was a granddaughter of kings, since no offspring of two
Carolingian monarchs married each other; it is unlikely that it means
she was the niece of kings, since there is no plausible candidate who
could have been either her father or mother with two or more crowned
brothers or uterine half-brothers. The meaning is most probably that she
was just a relative of kings. There is no clear warrant in this to
suppose she must necessarily have been a descendant of any king/s, as in
that case it would be strange to vaunt the royal status of her
collateral relatives rather than of her ancestor/s. There is also no
warrant to suppose that she was descended from any member of the unnamed
kings' family rather than that they were descended from a member of
hers: the lost explanation may be simply that a relative of one of her
parents married a Carolingian and became the mother and/or grandmother
of several kings.
Whatever kinship underlies the connection stated by Agius, this royal
'neptis' is often taken to have been Heinrich I's mother Hathui (Hadwig)
partly because Thietmar described him as 'nepos' to Charles the Simple.
However, this is not specific enough to draw a firm conclusion and with
at least equal probability Agius may have been referring to an unknown
wife of Heinrich's paternal uncle Bruno as the 'regum neptis' in question.
Wolfgang Metz in 1964 thought that Heinrich I's mother belonged to an
aristocratic family that was part of a Frankish-Saxon group oriented
around Corvey and Herford abbeys, close to the Babenbergs, Rupertians
and in an early period also to the Salians, very likely with a
relationship to the Carolingians through Adalhard and Wala, founders of
Corvey. Emil Kimpen in 1953 had claimed to have shown in 1935 that
Heinrich I's mother was a daughter of Heinrich of Babenberg (your
Heinrich of Neustria), who was killed fighting against Normans in 886,
by Baba the eldest daughter of Berengar, duke of Spoleto, and emperor
Lothar I's daughter Hiltrude. This is chronologically possible, though
not very plausible much less compellingly proven: the timelines involve
Lothar I's marriage in October 821, the birth of his daughter Hiltrude
ca 823, that of her supposed daughter Baba ca 836 and the marriage of
the latter's daughter in 869/70 with Heinrich I (her third son, who was
aged ca 60 when he died in 936) born in 876.
Kimpen in 1935 dismissed contradictory traditions regarding the
restoration of Charlemagne's blood to the thrones of France and the
Empire: this was reputedly not with Hugo Capet and Ottonians
respectively, all of whom were descended from Heinrich I, but rather
with the accession of Louis VIII in France and the Salian Heinrich III
in Germany. Kimpen attempted to rebut Otto of Friesing's statement about
Heinrich III on the flimsy grounds that this was influenced by Wipo's
remarks about the Carolingian origin of Empress Gisela and that Otto was
ignorant of other lines of descent.
The traditions about Capetian and Salian descendants of the
Carolingians, if correct, would (apart from chronological difficulty)
rule out Judith of Friuli (a great-granddaughter of Charlemagne) as
Heinrich's maternal grandmother, though not necessarily Heinrich of
Babenberg as her father. Alfred Friese in 1979 agreed with Kimpen that
Heinrich I's mother was a daughter of Heinrich of Babenberg, noting that
her name Hathui (Hadwig) was allegedly derived from that of Hadaburg
supposed to have been her father's paternal grandmother. Again, not
"apparently" definite evidence in my view.
Peter Stewar
The case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is outlined in the page I linked to. It's pretty good, IMO.
Regardless, the combined testimony of Agus and Thietmar is, IMO, pretty
convincing evidence that Hedwig was a neptis of the Kings, as there's no other explanation for Heinrich I having been nepos of Charles the Simple. Anyways, neptis often also had the meaning of grandniece and it's conceivable for Hedwig to have been so had she somehow been great-granddaughter of Louis the Pious.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 02:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
The case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is outlined in the page I linked to. It's pretty good, IMO.
Regardless, the combined testimony of Agus and Thietmar is, IMO, pretty
convincing evidence that Hedwig was a neptis of the Kings, as there's no other explanation for Heinrich I having been nepos of Charles the Simple. Anyways, neptis often also had the meaning of grandniece and it's conceivable for Hedwig to have been so had she somehow been great-granddaughter of Louis the Pious.
If you are going to indulge yourself in such glib, half-baked,
overly-generalised and unduly-confident opiniating as this based on some
casual internet reading, I have no interest in whatever else you have to
say or ask on the subject.

Peter Stewart
paulorica...@gmail.com
2020-07-23 10:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
e
The case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is outlined in the page I linked to. It's pretty good, IMO.
Regardless, the combined testimony of Agus and Thietmar is, IMO, pretty
convincing evidence that Hedwig was a neptis of the Kings, as there's no other explanation for Heinrich I having been nepos of Charles the Simple. Anyways, neptis often also had the meaning of grandniece and it's conceivable for Hedwig to have been so had she somehow been great-granddaughter of Louis the Pious.
If you are going to indulge yourself in such glib, half-baked,
overly-generalised and unduly-confident opiniating as this based on some
casual internet reading, I have no interest in whatever else you have to
say or ask on the subject.
Peter Stewart
Don't be like that, Peter.
The evidence for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is good, as it explains the relationships between her and his descendants and her son's name, which was rare at the time.
Regardless, I simply don't think there's any other way for Heinrich I to have been related to Charles the Simple other than through Hedwig
If it was Bruno who was related, Agius would have stated that Hathunod, herself, was related to the Kings, not one of her sisters-in-law. Thus, Agius and Thietmar's combined testimonies point out to Hedwig as being neptis of the Kings.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 12:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
e
The case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is outlined in the page I linked to. It's pretty good, IMO.
Regardless, the combined testimony of Agus and Thietmar is, IMO, pretty
convincing evidence that Hedwig was a neptis of the Kings, as there's no other explanation for Heinrich I having been nepos of Charles the Simple. Anyways, neptis often also had the meaning of grandniece and it's conceivable for Hedwig to have been so had she somehow been great-granddaughter of Louis the Pious.
If you are going to indulge yourself in such glib, half-baked,
overly-generalised and unduly-confident opiniating as this based on some
casual internet reading, I have no interest in whatever else you have to
say or ask on the subject.
Peter Stewart
Don't be like that, Peter.
The evidence for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is good, as it explains the relationships between her and his descendants and her son's name, which was rare at the time.
Regardless, I simply don't think there's any other way for Heinrich I to have been related to Charles the Simple other than through Hedwig
If it was Bruno who was related, Agius would have stated that Hathunod, herself, was related to the Kings, not one of her sisters-in-law. Thus, Agius and Thietmar's combined testimonies point out to Hedwig as being neptis of the Kings.
Don't patronise me - your lack of self-awareness when causing offense to
others is astonishing.

You asked for opinion and when given it, at somewhat more trouble than I
suppose you have ever bothered to take over a post of your own, you
flatly ignored it in favour of a pre-conceived and barley
half-considered notion. Combining two "testimonies" that are each vague
and uncertain is not a secure way to pin down genealogical facts.

I have not denied the likelihood that Hathui may have been a daughter of
or otherwise closely related to Heinrich of Babenburg, but only
challenged your false certainty that this is somehow "apparent".

As for the main issue, the supposed descent of Heinrich I from
Carolingians, you blandly neglected - as so often - the courtesy of
addressing salient points in my post that you had solicited. Why on
earth would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to
in the first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings? Here 'neptis' cannot have meant granddaughter,
since she could not have had two kings as her grandfathers. Therefore it
must have meant some kind of collateral relationship, whether as niece,
grand-niece, cousin or more distant relative. If she was descended from
Carolingian kings, why would her 'neptis'-hood be remarked upon instead
of her royal ancestry? Why should not a member of her family have
married into theirs and become mother to kings rather than Hathui
herself having royal blood? And how do you know anyway that Agius was
talking about Hathui, the wife of Hathumod's younger brother Otto,
rather than an unknown wife of the abbess' elder brother Bruno? The
argument made about this 'neptis' having been demonstrably the wife Otto
- most recently rehashed with allegedly supporting misinformation by
Donald Jackman - is specious.

As for Thietmar's stating that Heinrich was 'nepos' to Charles the
Simple - do you have a clue how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all?

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 15:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
e
The case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is outlined in the page I linked to. It's pretty good, IMO.
Regardless, the combined testimony of Agus and Thietmar is, IMO, pretty
convincing evidence that Hedwig was a neptis of the Kings, as there's no other explanation for Heinrich I having been nepos of Charles the Simple. Anyways, neptis often also had the meaning of grandniece and it's conceivable for Hedwig to have been so had she somehow been great-granddaughter of Louis the Pious.
If you are going to indulge yourself in such glib, half-baked,
overly-generalised and unduly-confident opiniating as this based on some
casual internet reading, I have no interest in whatever else you have to
say or ask on the subject.
Peter Stewart
Don't be like that, Peter.
The evidence for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg is good, as it explains the relationships between her and his descendants and her son's name, which was rare at the time.
Regardless, I simply don't think there's any other way for Heinrich I to have been related to Charles the Simple other than through Hedwig
If it was Bruno who was related, Agius would have stated that Hathunod, herself, was related to the Kings, not one of her sisters-in-law. Thus, Agius and Thietmar's combined testimonies point out to Hedwig as being neptis of the Kings.
Don't patronise me - your lack of self-awareness when causing offense to
others is astonishing.
You asked for opinion and when given it, at somewhat more trouble than I
suppose you have ever bothered to take over a post of your own, you
flatly ignored it in favour of a pre-conceived and barley
half-considered notion. Combining two "testimonies" that are each vague
and uncertain is not a secure way to pin down genealogical facts.
I have not denied the likelihood that Hathui may have been a daughter of
or otherwise closely related to Heinrich of Babenburg, but only
challenged your false certainty that this is somehow "apparent".
As for the main issue, the supposed descent of Heinrich I from
Carolingians, you blandly neglected - as so often - the courtesy of
addressing salient points in my post that you had solicited. Why on
earth would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to
in the first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings? Here 'neptis' cannot have meant granddaughter,
since she could not have had two kings as her grandfathers. Therefore it
must have meant some kind of collateral relationship, whether as niece,
grand-niece, cousin or more distant relative. If she was descended from
Carolingian kings, why would her 'neptis'-hood be remarked upon instead
of her royal ancestry? Why should not a member of her family have
married into theirs and become mother to kings rather than Hathui
herself having royal blood? And how do you know anyway that Agius was
talking about Hathui, the wife of Hathumod's younger brother Otto,
rather than an unknown wife of the abbess' elder brother Bruno? The
argument made about this 'neptis' having been demonstrably the wife Otto
- most recently rehashed with allegedly supporting misinformation by
Donald Jackman - is specious.
As for Thietmar's stating that Heinrich was 'nepos' to Charles the
Simple - do you have a clue how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all?
Peter Stewart
First, I apologize. I did not mean to patronize or offend you.
Second, most of what you wrote was already included in the Henry II Project page I linked to.
Third, I may have overstated the case for Hedwig having been daughter of Heinrich von Babenberg. I think the best piece of evidence is that Widunkind said that Adalbert von Babenberg was Heinrich I's
"ex sorore nepoti". The most common meaning would be "nephew through a sister" but that's chronologically impossible. However, Eckhardt suggested that nepos may have been a Latin translation of the Old German neve, which, at the time, could also mean uncle, which is chronologically plausible.
Fourth, I admit it's a good counter-argument that Agius did not call Hathui's sister-in-law a descendant of kings but it's not conclusive.
Fifth, thing is, Agius and Thietmar's statements match very well.
Sixth,the fact that some people Carolingian kings called nepos cannot be proven to have been related to them does not mean that they weren't.
taf
2020-07-23 19:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Sixth,the fact that some people Carolingian kings called nepos cannot be
proven to have been related to them does not mean that they weren't.
While it is true that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, good genealogy is evidence based. If one can take the absence of documentation as permission to attach someone to whatever ancestors they desire, that way lies chaos (the kind of chaos that genealogy has had a long struggle to try to rise above).

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 19:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Sixth,the fact that some people Carolingian kings called nepos cannot be
proven to have been related to them does not mean that they weren't.
While it is true that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, good genealogy is evidence based. If one can take the absence of documentation as permission to attach someone to whatever ancestors they desire, that way lies chaos (the kind of chaos that genealogy has had a long struggle to try to rise above).
taf
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no other evidence indicates it.
taf
2020-07-23 20:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 21:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 22:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?

Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.

Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.

The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.

Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.

When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 23:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?
Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.
Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.
The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.
Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.
When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.
Peter Stewart
I was, actually, refering to the last part of your post: "how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
I thought you were refering to any relationship, not merely one with the nepos having Carolingian ancestry.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 23:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?
Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.
Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.
The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.
Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.
When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.
Peter Stewart
I was, actually, refering to the last part of your post: "how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
I thought you were refering to any relationship, not merely one with the nepos having Carolingian ancestry.
Eh? I'm not sure what rabbit-hole you are entering now but be careful
you don't suddenly grow too big to get out of it again.

The post of mine copied above is not exclusively in response to the
one-liner of yours copied above it, but also to your other posts of
today and in this thread beforehand.

You would be well-advised to spend more time thinking and less time
skimming other people's posts and firing off scatter-shot responses.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 23:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?
Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.
Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.
The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.
Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.
When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.
Peter Stewart
I was, actually, refering to the last part of your post: "how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
I thought you were refering to any relationship, not merely one with the nepos having Carolingian ancestry.
Eh? I'm not sure what rabbit-hole you are entering now but be careful
you don't suddenly grow too big to get out of it again.
The post of mine copied above is not exclusively in response to the
one-liner of yours copied above it, but also to your other posts of
today and in this thread beforehand.
You would be well-advised to spend more time thinking and less time
skimming other people's posts and firing off scatter-shot responses.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain what I'm refering to. You said "Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins." However, you had previously said "frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all". So, I understand that someone being said to have been nepos of a Carolingian King does not mean that they had a Carolingian descent. However, I don't understand if you believe that the term nepos could be used without any actual relationship between the two parties.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-24 01:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?
Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.
Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.
The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.
Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.
When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.
Peter Stewart
I was, actually, refering to the last part of your post: "how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
I thought you were refering to any relationship, not merely one with the nepos having Carolingian ancestry.
Eh? I'm not sure what rabbit-hole you are entering now but be careful
you don't suddenly grow too big to get out of it again.
The post of mine copied above is not exclusively in response to the
one-liner of yours copied above it, but also to your other posts of
today and in this thread beforehand.
You would be well-advised to spend more time thinking and less time
skimming other people's posts and firing off scatter-shot responses.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain what I'm refering to. You said "Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins." However, you had previously said "frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all". So, I understand that someone being said to have been nepos of a Carolingian King does not mean that they had a Carolingian descent. However, I don't understand if you believe that the term nepos could be used without any actual relationship between the two parties.
I don't know how to make this any clearer: the main point I am trying to
get across is precisely the one you are misunderstanding.

I am trying to persuade you to stop focusing only on the most prominent
agnatic lineage that comes into the picture, and yet again you are doing
exactly that.

Under what moon does "cannot be proved to have been related to them at
all" mean the same as "cannnot be proved to have been related to them in
male line"? Of course I didn't mean that these men called 'nepotes' by
Carolingians were nothing of the sort and shared no blood tie with them.

In order to have Carolingian ancestry a person had to be descended in
some way from a Carolingian agnate. However, in order to be called
'neptis' or 'nepos' to a Carolingian king, or to several of them,
meaning a relative of his or theirs, a person did NOT need to be
descended in any way at all from a Carolingian agnate.

So even IF Agius meant Hathui as 'neptis regum' (which I doubt, as
focusing on seniority with the unnamed brother of Hathumod is more
probably how he would have expected to be understood), and even if
Thietmar knew correctly and had in mind the same relationship in calling
Heinrich I 'nepos' to Charles the Simple, this in combination does not
necessitate (OR preclude) Carolingian ancestry of Hathui. It is not a
demonstrable "match" of information but just two bits of insufficient
evidence for the conclusion you want to draw.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-24 01:14:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
That's not really the case here, though. A Carolingian king refering to
someone as his nepos is already evidence of a relationship, even if no
other evidence indicates it.
"cannot be proven to have been related to them" says it all.
That's why I wrote "evidence", not "proof".
There you go again - are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just
so stubborn that you are incapable of reflection?
Several people have gone to quite a lot of trouble in different threads
here to help you rise above your (unfortunately common) tendency to
assume that a proposal consistent with evidence, if you happen to like
it enough, must be the unique explanation of that evidence.
Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins. For instance, the
king's mother's sister might have been that person's maternal
grandmother, or there may be various other connections that were
encompassed by the vague term. Vocabulary in Latin or any other language
is not nearly as complex as human relationships. We don't have specific
terms available to cover every way that two people can be connected.
The ratbag school of history has had (and still has) several relentless
participants who construct vast genealogical schemes out of their
speculations about Carolingian ancestry for all of the men elected as
kings within the former empire of Charlemagne after the death of Louis
the Younger without sons in 875. Their habit is to orient every solution
around the most prominent agnatic lineage of the time, disregarding that
the wives of kings had as many non-royal relatives as their husbands had
royal ones, although these people were generally less likely to be
individually or collectively known. This humbug methodology is reflected
in the whizz-bang onomastics-permutations school, where proponents
acknowledge but then conveniently forget the transmission of names
through females whenever the uncertain evidence allows them to speculate
about direct agnatic connections.
Human nature does not work like a clever fool beavering in an ivory
tower. Relationships are multifarious and often at odds with simplistic
expectations. Language is not capable of defining every possible link
between people, and medieval writers were not capable of knowing every
wrinkle in the family histories of their subjects anyway.
When someone posts that your conclusions are not secure, it is a futile
response to say that inconclusivity is not conclusive. Stewart Baldwin
touched on the often-misguided literature of the past half-century or so
when he noted that "more recent opinion has tilted toward Bruno's
younger brother duke Otto" as the sibling of Hathumod whose wife was
'neptis' to kings. To take this idea as the basis for a Carolingian
ancestry of Heinrich I and then try to bolster it from Thietmar is a
prime example of poor judgement in assessing and combining evidence. All
you have so far is two possibly adjoining rooms in a house of cards.
Peter Stewart
I was, actually, refering to the last part of your post: "how frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
I thought you were refering to any relationship, not merely one with the nepos having Carolingian ancestry.
Eh? I'm not sure what rabbit-hole you are entering now but be careful
you don't suddenly grow too big to get out of it again.
The post of mine copied above is not exclusively in response to the
one-liner of yours copied above it, but also to your other posts of
today and in this thread beforehand.
You would be well-advised to spend more time thinking and less time
skimming other people's posts and firing off scatter-shot responses.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain what I'm refering to. You said "Carolingians or others calling someone 'nepos' to a king does NOT
necessitate any royal blood in that person's veins." However, you had previously said "frequently Carolingians themselves
called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all". So, I understand that someone being said to have been nepos of a Carolingian King does not mean that they had a Carolingian descent. However, I don't understand if you believe that the term nepos could be used without any actual relationship between the two parties.
I don't know how to make this any clearer: the main point I am trying to
get across is precisely the one you are misunderstanding.
I am trying to persuade you to stop focusing only on the most prominent
agnatic lineage that comes into the picture, and yet again you are doing
exactly that.
Under what moon does "cannot be proved to have been related to them at
all" mean the same as "cannnot be proved to have been related to them in
male line"? Of course I didn't mean that these men called 'nepotes' by
Carolingians were nothing of the sort and shared no blood tie with them.
In order to have Carolingian ancestry a person had to be descended in
some way from a Carolingian agnate. However, in order to be called
'neptis' or 'nepos' to a Carolingian king, or to several of them,
meaning a relative of his or theirs, a person did NOT need to be
descended in any way at all from a Carolingian agnate.
So even IF Agius meant Hathui as 'neptis regum' (which I doubt, as
focusing on seniority with the unnamed brother of Hathumod is more
probably how he would have expected to be understood), and even if
Thietmar knew correctly and had in mind the same relationship in calling
Heinrich I 'nepos' to Charles the Simple, this in combination does not
necessitate (OR preclude) Carolingian ancestry of Hathui. It is not a
demonstrable "match" of information but just two bits of insufficient
evidence for the conclusion you want to draw.
Peter Stewart
Sorry. I misinterpreted your original comment, "frequently Carolingians themselves called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
Thanks for explaining what you meant.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-24 02:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Sorry. I misinterpreted your original comment, "frequently Carolingians themselves called men their 'nepotes' who cannot be proved to have been related to
them at all".
An interesting example of this is Liutpold (the father of Arnulf of
Bavaria), who was called 'nepos' by Emperor Arnulf as well as close
relative ('propinquus') and blood kinsman ('consanguineus'). He was also
called 'propinquus' by Arnulf's son Louis the Child.

The exact relationship between Liutpold and Arnulf has not been
determined - but considering that the latter was a rival king of Italy
and took this title from 894, it hardly seems necessary to seek a
Carolingian ancestry for the wife of his namesake of Bavaria (son of his
'nepos' and 'propinquus' Liutpold) in order to account for later
ambitions in Italy, as discussed in another recent thread.

The idea that every candidate for elective kingship had to be descended
from earlier kings is not much better than a conspiracy theory,
presuming some deep but unspoken rule that was invariably followed
across centuries despite ostensible evidence to the contrary. It ought
to be obvious that potential new kings were likely to come from families
not too far below earlier dynastic monarchs in the power structure, and
the notion that such men would always defer to less suitable blood
relatives of the Carolingians if by chance they were not themselves
qualified in this way requires bending human nature out of shape.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-23 01:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Also, the tradition that Carolingian blood only arrived to the Capetians with Louis VIII can be safely dismissed. All French Kings since Louis VI had documented Carolingian descents.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 02:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Also, the tradition that Carolingian blood only arrived to the Capetians with Louis VIII can be safely dismissed. All French Kings since Louis VI had documented Carolingian descents.
Louis VI had such obscure and circuitous documented links to Carolingian
ancestors that to imply these must have been overlooked in the 'reditus
regni' tradition is absurd.

Peter Stewart
paulorica...@gmail.com
2020-07-23 10:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Also, the tradition that Carolingian blood only arrived to the Capetians with Louis VIII can be safely dismissed. All French Kings since Louis VI had documented Carolingian descents.
Louis VI had such obscure and circuitous documented links to Carolingian
ancestors that to imply these must have been overlooked in the 'reditus
regni' tradition is absurd.
Peter Stewart
Well, they must have been overlooked but it was because they were obscure.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-23 12:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Also, the tradition that Carolingian blood only arrived to the Capetians with Louis VIII can be safely dismissed. All French Kings since Louis VI had documented Carolingian descents.
Louis VI had such obscure and circuitous documented links to Carolingian
ancestors that to imply these must have been overlooked in the 'reditus
regni' tradition is absurd.
Peter Stewart
Well, they must have been overlooked but it was because they were obscure.
You are missing the point. Lines of descent such as those of Louis VI
from Charles the Bald were considered (as of course they were) quite
unexceptional, shared by many and coming through a family (the counts of
Holland) that was not regarded as Carolingian representatives. The
'reditus regni' celebrated descent that had never in any generation
failed to be noted as royally-connected and specially distinguished
compared to others.

Peter Stewart
s***@mindspring.com
2020-07-24 03:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
As has already been pointed out, you read too much into the statements made on the Henry Project page. As is the case with heavily researched topics like this one, if a definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously undiscovered evidence (hardly likely in this case).

Many of your postings seem to be based on the assumption that you can simply find solutions to unsolved problems by asking if one of the alternative proposals is correct. Often, you seem to ignore or underestimate indications of uncertainty in the accounts that you read. Authors have a reason for including such indications of uncertainty, and you cannot simply wish them away.

The apparent reluctance of many genealogists to accept the word "unknown" as a part of their vocabulary is one of the big pitfalls of genealogy. Evidence needs to be followed to where it leads, and too many genealogists try to force "solutions" to problems instead.

Stewart Baldwin
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-24 17:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
As has already been pointed out, you read too much into the statements made on the Henry Project page. As is the case with heavily researched topics like this one, if a definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously undiscovered evidence (hardly likely in this case).
Many of your postings seem to be based on the assumption that you can simply find solutions to unsolved problems by asking if one of the alternative proposals is correct. Often, you seem to ignore or underestimate indications of uncertainty in the accounts that you read. Authors have a reason for including such indications of uncertainty, and you cannot simply wish them away.
The apparent reluctance of many genealogists to accept the word "unknown" as a part of their vocabulary is one of the big pitfalls of genealogy. Evidence needs to be followed to where it leads, and too many genealogists try to force "solutions" to problems instead.
Stewart Baldwin
I wasn't seeking a solution for this problem. I was merely asking what others thought of it.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-24 22:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
As has already been pointed out, you read too much into the statements made on the Henry Project page. As is the case with heavily researched topics like this one, if a definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously undiscovered evidence (hardly likely in this case).
Many of your postings seem to be based on the assumption that you can simply find solutions to unsolved problems by asking if one of the alternative proposals is correct. Often, you seem to ignore or underestimate indications of uncertainty in the accounts that you read. Authors have a reason for including such indications of uncertainty, and you cannot simply wish them away.
The apparent reluctance of many genealogists to accept the word "unknown" as a part of their vocabulary is one of the big pitfalls of genealogy. Evidence needs to be followed to where it leads, and too many genealogists try to force "solutions" to problems instead.
Stewart Baldwin
I wasn't seeking a solution for this problem. I was merely asking what others thought of it.
Paulo, I'm curious to know what value you feel you are getting from
threads such as this one - for starters, are you more interested in
shedding light on unresolved questions in medieval genealogy or just on
other posters from gauging their opinions on these and whether they
reinforce yours?

You don't appear to be testing your own opinions when you shrug off
counterweight points as "inconclusive" without addressing their substance.

There are many problems that can be usefully aired here by seeking a
range of interpretations of primary sources or circumstantial evidence,
and perhaps even some that may be unexpectedly advanced by going over
old conjectures in the secondary literature, but I wonder what guides
your choice of subjects. As Stewart Baldwin has stated above, "if a
definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a
satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously
undiscovered evidence".

Do you find satisfaction in reading what others think about the current
state of questions? And are you perhaps being unnecessarily deferential
to older SGM participants when you avoid addressing direct challenges to
your opinions?

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-25 01:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent. Thus, it must have been via her mother. However, it's not at all clear what the descent was.
What do you think of this?
As has already been pointed out, you read too much into the statements made on the Henry Project page. As is the case with heavily researched topics like this one, if a definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously undiscovered evidence (hardly likely in this case).
Many of your postings seem to be based on the assumption that you can simply find solutions to unsolved problems by asking if one of the alternative proposals is correct. Often, you seem to ignore or underestimate indications of uncertainty in the accounts that you read. Authors have a reason for including such indications of uncertainty, and you cannot simply wish them away.
The apparent reluctance of many genealogists to accept the word "unknown" as a part of their vocabulary is one of the big pitfalls of genealogy. Evidence needs to be followed to where it leads, and too many genealogists try to force "solutions" to problems instead.
Stewart Baldwin
I wasn't seeking a solution for this problem. I was merely asking what others thought of it.
Paulo, I'm curious to know what value you feel you are getting from
threads such as this one - for starters, are you more interested in
shedding light on unresolved questions in medieval genealogy or just on
other posters from gauging their opinions on these and whether they
reinforce yours?
You don't appear to be testing your own opinions when you shrug off
counterweight points as "inconclusive" without addressing their substance.
There are many problems that can be usefully aired here by seeking a
range of interpretations of primary sources or circumstantial evidence,
and perhaps even some that may be unexpectedly advanced by going over
old conjectures in the secondary literature, but I wonder what guides
your choice of subjects. As Stewart Baldwin has stated above, "if a
definitive solution has not already been found, it is unlikely that a
satisfactory solution will be found without finding previously
undiscovered evidence".
Do you find satisfaction in reading what others think about the current
state of questions? And are you perhaps being unnecessarily deferential
to older SGM participants when you avoid addressing direct challenges to
your opinions?
Peter Stewart
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-25 02:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"

This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".

Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?

Peter Stewart
lancast...@gmail.com
2020-07-25 18:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
It is not meant to be an excuse of every complaint, but I want to say I find Paulo's promotion of discussion useful. I often learn something from the feedback even if the original question did not seem well designed. I suppose Paulo is mainly interested in learning, and I do think he has helped promote discussion. Of course this is not meant to say that better questions and better discussions are a possibility to aim for. :)
Peter Stewart
2020-07-25 22:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
It is not meant to be an excuse of every complaint, but I want to say I find Paulo's promotion of discussion useful. I often learn something from the feedback even if the original question did not seem well designed. I suppose Paulo is mainly interested in learning, and I do think he has helped promote discussion. Of course this is not meant to say that better questions and better discussions are a possibility to aim for. :)
I agree with this, but it's not what I'm getting at.

I'm not trying to curb Paulo's enthusiasm for reopening questions that
are unlikely to be resolved - apart from any other consideration, it
should be fairly obvious that I have spent more time and energy
responding to these than most other posters.

What I am trying to get across is that inviting opinions on a topic and
then ignoring a critical point that someone has taken the trouble to
bring up, or arbitrarily writing it off as "inconclusive" without
bothering to say why, is offensive.

When this is done apparently from a mindless veneration of royalty - so
that it is automatically shifted to the centre of any picture in which
it may peripherally appear, as with the Carolingians and their "neptis
regum" - the study of genealogy is distorted in a way that should not go
unchallenged.

This is not just a methodological issue for researchers, but in another
aspect a contemporary issue in public life. For instance, the crazy
notion that Prince Harry had some hereditary duty to deny his wife
liberty and the pursuit of happiness on the wrong-headed principle that
she married into his family and life but that somehow he didn't marry
into hers, and that his paternal grandmother's overawed attitude to her
own destiny must therefore be binding on him, is toxic. Assuming that
Princess Diana's son owes any duty at all to the British public who
consume Meghan Markle's persecution by the tabloids is immorally stupid.
It is not very far removed from the obsessive focus on royal ancestry in
this forum.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-25 23:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
Truth is, to an extent, I'm simply unable to debate in such a way. I'm far from being as familiar with the primary sources as you and other peoples here and I don't wish to make wrong suppositions.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-25 23:43:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
Truth is, to an extent, I'm simply unable to debate in such a way. I'm far from being as familiar with the primary sources as you and other peoples here and I don't wish to make wrong suppositions.
The value of SGM is not limited to contributions by people who look into
primary sources - having many sets of eyes on a problem can be more
helpful than having one "expert" pair that may be blinkered by prior
opinion or simple mistake.

You were rightly confident that the term "neptis" could encompass a
variety of relationships (and, with the plural "regum", more than one
different connection at the same time). But if you were not willing or
able to back up your initial presumption that this meant Hathui (if it
was her Agius referred to) had Carolingian ancestry, it would have been
plain courtesy to acknowledge this straight away rather than respond
ignoring the counter-argument.

If you (and others) made a habit of taking the trouble to be a bit more
comprehensive and/or detailed in SGM discussions, rather than airily
waving a stick at hard questions, there would be less chance of giving
unintended offense and more chance of clarifying difficulties.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-26 22:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
Truth is, to an extent, I'm simply unable to debate in such a way. I'm far from being as familiar with the primary sources as you and other peoples here and I don't wish to make wrong suppositions.
The value of SGM is not limited to contributions by people who look into
primary sources - having many sets of eyes on a problem can be more
helpful than having one "expert" pair that may be blinkered by prior
opinion or simple mistake.
You were rightly confident that the term "neptis" could encompass a
variety of relationships (and, with the plural "regum", more than one
different connection at the same time). But if you were not willing or
able to back up your initial presumption that this meant Hathui (if it
was her Agius referred to) had Carolingian ancestry, it would have been
plain courtesy to acknowledge this straight away rather than respond
ignoring the counter-argument.
If you (and others) made a habit of taking the trouble to be a bit more
comprehensive and/or detailed in SGM discussions, rather than airily
waving a stick at hard questions, there would be less chance of giving
unintended offense and more chance of clarifying difficulties.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain further. In assuming that Hedwig had Carolingian ancestry, I was taking the scholarly opinions in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm too seriously.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-26 22:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
Truth is, to an extent, I'm simply unable to debate in such a way. I'm far from being as familiar with the primary sources as you and other peoples here and I don't wish to make wrong suppositions.
The value of SGM is not limited to contributions by people who look into
primary sources - having many sets of eyes on a problem can be more
helpful than having one "expert" pair that may be blinkered by prior
opinion or simple mistake.
You were rightly confident that the term "neptis" could encompass a
variety of relationships (and, with the plural "regum", more than one
different connection at the same time). But if you were not willing or
able to back up your initial presumption that this meant Hathui (if it
was her Agius referred to) had Carolingian ancestry, it would have been
plain courtesy to acknowledge this straight away rather than respond
ignoring the counter-argument.
If you (and others) made a habit of taking the trouble to be a bit more
comprehensive and/or detailed in SGM discussions, rather than airily
waving a stick at hard questions, there would be less chance of giving
unintended offense and more chance of clarifying difficulties.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain further. In assuming that Hedwig had Carolingian ancestry, I was taking the scholarly opinions in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm too seriously.
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.

"While there is no early source which unambiguously states that Hadwig
was of Carolingian descent, there is one source which can be seen as
possibly implying such a descent" and "With Hadwigs father plausibly
identified as someone with no likely Carolingian descent, it follows
that if she did have any such ancestry, it probably came through her
mother" do not give a logical warrant for assuming Carolingian ancestry.

The only scholarly opinons mentioned in this context as far as I can see
on a quick reading are in: "However, more recent opinion has tilted
toward Bruno's younger brother duke Otto" as the brother of Hathumod
referred to by Agius as marrying a "neptis regum".

As I said before, this touches on a specious argument made by Emil
Krüger in 1893 that has been rehashed several times since, most recently
(with bogus evidence allegedly in support) by Donald Jackman. If you
want more information on this matter of (probably) little interest to
SGM readers, it would be better to ask for it rather than making
assumptions - but anyway you would be generally well-advised to treat
everything put forward by Jackman about the ancestry of German kings
with caution.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-26 23:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I like to know others' opinions.
As for avoiding addressing direct challenges: Unlike some of you, I'm not an expert. Thus, I am unwilling to challenge experts in certain questions.
That's not what I meant - the consistent avoidance in question is
instanced by your not addressing the point when I asked "Why on earth
would Hathui (supposing it was indeed her that Agius referred to in the
first place) be called 'neptis' of kings if she was actually the
descendant of kings?"
This is central to the issue you had raised in starting the thread, and
it is implicitly a challenge to the view you had already expressed that
"Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother,
Hedwig".
Why do you repeatedly put forward opinions that you are evidently
unwilling to defend when asked? Are you just throwing out random ideas
to see how others respond, or are you perhaps (like some posters here,
whether "expert" or otherwise) averse to acknowledging difficulties with
your interpretations and intuitions?
Peter Stewart
Truth is, to an extent, I'm simply unable to debate in such a way. I'm far from being as familiar with the primary sources as you and other peoples here and I don't wish to make wrong suppositions.
The value of SGM is not limited to contributions by people who look into
primary sources - having many sets of eyes on a problem can be more
helpful than having one "expert" pair that may be blinkered by prior
opinion or simple mistake.
You were rightly confident that the term "neptis" could encompass a
variety of relationships (and, with the plural "regum", more than one
different connection at the same time). But if you were not willing or
able to back up your initial presumption that this meant Hathui (if it
was her Agius referred to) had Carolingian ancestry, it would have been
plain courtesy to acknowledge this straight away rather than respond
ignoring the counter-argument.
If you (and others) made a habit of taking the trouble to be a bit more
comprehensive and/or detailed in SGM discussions, rather than airily
waving a stick at hard questions, there would be less chance of giving
unintended offense and more chance of clarifying difficulties.
Peter Stewart
Let me explain further. In assuming that Hedwig had Carolingian ancestry, I was taking the scholarly opinions in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm too seriously.
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
"While there is no early source which unambiguously states that Hadwig
was of Carolingian descent, there is one source which can be seen as
possibly implying such a descent" and "With Hadwigs father plausibly
identified as someone with no likely Carolingian descent, it follows
that if she did have any such ancestry, it probably came through her
mother" do not give a logical warrant for assuming Carolingian ancestry.
The only scholarly opinons mentioned in this context as far as I can see
on a quick reading are in: "However, more recent opinion has tilted
toward Bruno's younger brother duke Otto" as the brother of Hathumod
referred to by Agius as marrying a "neptis regum".
As I said before, this touches on a specious argument made by Emil
Krüger in 1893 that has been rehashed several times since, most recently
(with bogus evidence allegedly in support) by Donald Jackman. If you
want more information on this matter of (probably) little interest to
SGM readers, it would be better to ask for it rather than making
assumptions - but anyway you would be generally well-advised to treat
everything put forward by Jackman about the ancestry of German kings
with caution.
Peter Stewart
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-26 23:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
<snip>
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you take the existence of conjectures as evidence that they are on the right track.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-27 00:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
<snip>
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you take the existence of conjectures as evidence that they are on the right track.
Peter Stewart
I was enthusiastic, as they were from several different genealogists, including two rivals, Hlawitschka and Jackman.
BTW, what do you think of Hlawitschka's theory that Saint Ida was daughter of Carloman, younger brother of Charlemagne?
I find it unlikely, for the reasons mentioned in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-27 02:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
<snip>
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you take the existence of conjectures as evidence that they are on the right track.
Peter Stewart
I was enthusiastic, as they were from several different genealogists, including two rivals, Hlawitschka and Jackman.
BTW, what do you think of Hlawitschka's theory that Saint Ida was daughter of Carloman, younger brother of Charlemagne?
I find it unlikely, for the reasons mentioned in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm.
I think it's beyond unlikely - even preposterous.

Hlawitschka, like other academics, tries to make a splash now and then
with striking conjectures that are rationalised out of very thin air.

In this case, the chances that Charlemagne would have allowed a daughter
of his brother (if there was one in the first place) to marry at all are
negligible; but that such a princess should have become the wife of one
of his leading aristocrats and venerated as a saint without anyone
specifically noting these interesting facts is bordering on the absurd -
from the far side.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-27 11:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
<snip>
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you take the existence of conjectures as evidence that they are on the right track.
Peter Stewart
I was enthusiastic, as they were from several different genealogists, including two rivals, Hlawitschka and Jackman.
BTW, what do you think of Hlawitschka's theory that Saint Ida was daughter of Carloman, younger brother of Charlemagne?
I find it unlikely, for the reasons mentioned in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm.
I think it's beyond unlikely - even preposterous.
Hlawitschka, like other academics, tries to make a splash now and then
with striking conjectures that are rationalised out of very thin air.
In this case, the chances that Charlemagne would have allowed a daughter
of his brother (if there was one in the first place) to marry at all are
negligible; but that such a princess should have become the wife of one
of his leading aristocrats and venerated as a saint without anyone
specifically noting these interesting facts is bordering on the absurd -
from the far side.
Peter Stewart
Good observations, Peter.
Regardless, I posted the wrong link, it's https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/ida00000.htm.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-27 23:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
I'm not sure what scholarly opinions you mean - as Stewart Baldwin has
said, you were reading too much into his statements.
<snip>
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I mean the several conjectured Carolingian descents shown in the page.
You are on a hiding to nothing if you take the existence of conjectures as evidence that they are on the right track.
Peter Stewart
I was enthusiastic, as they were from several different genealogists, including two rivals, Hlawitschka and Jackman.
BTW, what do you think of Hlawitschka's theory that Saint Ida was daughter of Carloman, younger brother of Charlemagne?
I find it unlikely, for the reasons mentioned in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm.
I think it's beyond unlikely - even preposterous.
Hlawitschka, like other academics, tries to make a splash now and then
with striking conjectures that are rationalised out of very thin air.
In this case, the chances that Charlemagne would have allowed a daughter
of his brother (if there was one in the first place) to marry at all are
negligible; but that such a princess should have become the wife of one
of his leading aristocrats and venerated as a saint without anyone
specifically noting these interesting facts is bordering on the absurd -
from the far side.
Peter Stewart
Good observations, Peter.
Regardless, I posted the wrong link, it's https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/ida00000.htm.
Thanks - the St Ida page is characteristic of Stewart Baldwin's
penetrating and measured work. I enjoyed (and envied) this:

"The Life of St. Ida states that she was the daughter of a count, and
this statement does not fit at all well with the conjecture that she was
a daughter of king Carloman ... Hlawitschka mentions the possibility
that Carloman's wife Gerberga had been remarried to some count, who
would then be Ida's supposed stepfather."

I would not have been subtle or generous enough to describe this as a
"possibility", despite the lateness of the source. The idea that
Charlemagne would have allowed his sister-in-law to remarry with a count
who had the temerity to try this (presumably Hlawitschka was thinking of
those who accompanied her when she fled to Italy), and then favoured his
putative niece who was oddly given a non-Carolingian name with marriage
to an important magnate, is probably as silly as any chain of
speculations about this family that I've come across.

There are however plenty of candidates for the very silliest, and
Hlawitschka is not likely to beat out all the rest.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-29 07:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However, it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had no apparent Carolingian descent.
An argument of Karl August Eckhardt in 1963 is referred to as unseen by
Stewart Baldwin in the Henry Project page liked above, where he relied
on Eduard Hlawitschka in stating that 'Eckhardt saw nepos as a possible
Latin translation of the old German neve, which in those days could also
mean "uncle".'

Eckhardt made a fairly persuasive case for Heinrich of Babenberg as the
maternal grandfather of Heinrich the Fowler, but this is not his
strongest point. He translated Widukind's 10th-century description of
the elder Heinrich's son Adalbert as 'nepos' to the younger Heinrich
through his sister (Adelberto Heinrici ex sorore nepoti) as "Adalbert,
Heinrich's uncle by (Adalbert's) sister", contending that this was due
to a "Germanism" by the writer based on the word "nëve" which was used
for mother's brother in two 13th-century works (Wirnt von Grafenberg's
Arthurian romance Wigalois - where it is also used in reverse for the
junior relative - and Konrad of Würzburg's Trojan War).

It seems more plausible to me that Widukind simply got his phrase
twisted and meant the relationship the other way round, that Heinrich
was nephew - a sister's son - to Adalbert.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-08-21 06:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A few hours ago, I mentioned this in another thread. Thus, I think
this is the best time to create a thread about this. Heinrich I
apparently had a Carolingian descent through his mother, Hedwig, read
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/hedwi002.htm. However,
it's also apparent that her father was Heinrich of Neustria, who had
no apparent Carolingian descent.
An argument of Karl August Eckhardt in 1963 is referred to as unseen by
Stewart Baldwin in the Henry Project page liked above, where he relied
on Eduard Hlawitschka in stating that 'Eckhardt saw nepos as a possible
Latin translation of the old German neve, which in those days could also
mean "uncle".'
Eckhardt made a fairly persuasive case for Heinrich of Babenberg as the
maternal grandfather of Heinrich the Fowler, but this is not his
strongest point. He translated Widukind's 10th-century description of
the elder Heinrich's son Adalbert as 'nepos' to the younger Heinrich
through his sister (Adelberto Heinrici ex sorore nepoti) as "Adalbert,
Heinrich's uncle by (Adalbert's) sister", contending that this was due
to a "Germanism" by the writer based on the word "nëve" which was used
for mother's brother in two 13th-century works (Wirnt von Grafenberg's
Arthurian romance Wigalois - where it is also used in reverse for the
junior relative - and Konrad of Würzburg's Trojan War).
It seems more plausible to me that Widukind simply got his phrase
twisted and meant the relationship the other way round, that Heinrich
was nephew - a sister's son - to Adalbert.
Looking further into the source and the literature on this point has
strengthened my impression that Eckhardt reached a valid conclusion
despite a specious argument. I can see no good reason to suppose that
Widukind worked his way from a Germanism into Latin, rather than that he
was just plain wrong either from a misunderstanding of the relationship
or an overlooked misphrasing.

In 1952 Heinrich Büttner & Irmgard Dietrich concluded that Widukind had
reversed the generations and that Heinrich I's mother Hathui was a
sister of Heinrich of Babenberg, basing this on the chronology of the
two Heinrichs and the apparent transmission of their name from the
Babenbergs to the Liudolfings. (They also postulated a double marriage
between these families, though providing no evidence at all for Heinrich
of Babenberg having "apparently" married a sister of Otto the Illustrious).

In 1955 Martin Lintzel questioned the idea of a reversal of generations
in Widukind, suggesting instead that Heinrich I may have had a
considerably older sister married to Heinrich of Babenberg or that if
Widukind was wrong on this - as on much else around the same time - then
there is no compelling reason to suppose this was from getting an
uncle-nephew relationship the wrong way round.

However, Widukind was demonstrably unreliable on the order of
generations in the late-9th century - for instance, he wrongly made
Heinrich I's paternal aunt Liudgard into the wife of Emperor Arnulf's
son Ludwig whereas she was actually the wife of Arnulf's paternal uncle
of that name. The same kind of confusion quite probably led to a simple
misstatement about the connection between Heinrich I and Adalbert of
Babenberg.

As for the alleged Carolingian ancestry of Heinrich I, proponents of
this should start by trying to explain why the same ancestry was not
explicitly (or even implicitly) attributed to Heinrich's grandson Hugo
Capet when he became king in western Francia.

Peter Stewart

Loading...