Well, my last 4 were bogus, but maybe this Charlemagne descent to my
3rd Great Grandmother is true?
1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
2. Pepin, King of italy + Bertha of Toulouse
3. Bernard, King of Italy + Cunigunde
4. Pepin Quentin II Of Peronne Of St. Quentin + Countess Of
Vermandois
5. Heribert I De Vermandois + Bertha De Morvois
6. Beatrix De Vermandois + Robert I Of France
7. Hughes Of France + Hawise Of Germany
10. Hugues "Capet" Of France + Adélaide Of France
11. Robert II + Constance De Arles
12. Adele "Capat" + Baldwin V
13. Matilda Of Flanders + William I "The Conqueror"
14. Henry I + Matilda Editha "Caenmoor"
15. Matilda Beauclerc Of England + Geoffrey V Plantagenet
16. Henry II + Eleanor Of Aquitaine
17. John "Lackland" + Isabella Of Angoulême
18. Henry III + Eleanor Of Provence
19. Edward I + Eleanor Of Castile
20. Elizabeth Plantagenet + Humphrey VIII De Bohun
21. William De Bohun + Elizabeth De Badlesmer
22. Elizabeth De Bohun + Richard Fitzallen
23. Elizabeth Fitzallen + Robert Goushill
24. Jane Goushill + Thomas De Stanley
25. Catherine De Stanley + John III Savage
26. Margaret Savage + Edmund De Trafford
27. Edward De Trafford + Elizabeth De Longford
28. Elizabeth De Trafford + George De Boothe
29. William I Boothe + Elizabeth De
Warburton
30. Richard Boothe + Dulcia Massie
31. Richard Booth + Elizabeth Hawley
32. Elizabeth Booth + John Miner
33. Elizabeth Miner + Zechariah Walker
34. Mary Walker + Joseph Judson
35. Joesph Judson Jr. + Lydia Hull
36. Leman Judson + Lucy Doolittle
37. Rowena Lucy Judson + Joab Irish
Stefan Ramonat
Yet another... Charlemagne Descent
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Yet another... Charlemagne Descent
Dear Stefan,
I am glad to see you continue to try to establish a line. In this line your
23.Elizabeth Fitzalan
I have asked a question in my own computer program. The question I asked
cannot be done on http://www.genealogics.org but the same information is
there. The question I asked was : How many times does Elizabeth Fitzalan
descend from Charlemagne. At the moment it is still digesting information
but I am at generation 23 and there are 774 lines (at least) between her and
Charlemagne.
If the generations after her stand, you have a great number of lines to
Charlemagne.
A quick look at the other computer : 23 generations and 801 lines.
Hope this helps a little.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Ramonat" <sjramonat@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Yet another... Charlemagne Descent
I am glad to see you continue to try to establish a line. In this line your
23.Elizabeth Fitzalan
I have asked a question in my own computer program. The question I asked
cannot be done on http://www.genealogics.org but the same information is
there. The question I asked was : How many times does Elizabeth Fitzalan
descend from Charlemagne. At the moment it is still digesting information
but I am at generation 23 and there are 774 lines (at least) between her and
Charlemagne.
If the generations after her stand, you have a great number of lines to
Charlemagne.
A quick look at the other computer : 23 generations and 801 lines.
Hope this helps a little.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Ramonat" <sjramonat@gmail.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Yet another... Charlemagne Descent
Well, my last 4 were bogus, but maybe this Charlemagne descent to my
3rd Great Grandmother is true?
1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
2. Pepin, King of italy + Bertha of Toulouse
3. Bernard, King of Italy + Cunigunde
4. Pepin Quentin II Of Peronne Of St. Quentin + Countess Of
Vermandois
5. Heribert I De Vermandois + Bertha De Morvois
6. Beatrix De Vermandois + Robert I Of France
7. Hughes Of France + Hawise Of Germany
10. Hugues "Capet" Of France + Adélaide Of France
11. Robert II + Constance De Arles
12. Adele "Capat" + Baldwin V
13. Matilda Of Flanders + William I "The Conqueror"
14. Henry I + Matilda Editha "Caenmoor"
15. Matilda Beauclerc Of England + Geoffrey V Plantagenet
16. Henry II + Eleanor Of Aquitaine
17. John "Lackland" + Isabella Of Angoulême
18. Henry III + Eleanor Of Provence
19. Edward I + Eleanor Of Castile
20. Elizabeth Plantagenet + Humphrey VIII De Bohun
21. William De Bohun + Elizabeth De Badlesmer
22. Elizabeth De Bohun + Richard Fitzallen
23. Elizabeth Fitzallen + Robert Goushill
24. Jane Goushill + Thomas De Stanley
25. Catherine De Stanley + John III Savage
26. Margaret Savage + Edmund De Trafford
27. Edward De Trafford + Elizabeth De Longford
28. Elizabeth De Trafford + George De Boothe
29. William I Boothe + Elizabeth De
Warburton
30. Richard Boothe + Dulcia Massie
31. Richard Booth + Elizabeth Hawley
32. Elizabeth Booth + John Miner
33. Elizabeth Miner + Zechariah Walker
34. Mary Walker + Joseph Judson
35. Joesph Judson Jr. + Lydia Hull
36. Leman Judson + Lucy Doolittle
37. Rowena Lucy Judson + Joab Irish
Stefan Ramonat
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Yet another... Charlemagne Descent
Stefan Ramonat wrote:
I posted about this the other day...and here it is again, unqualified.
Douglas Richardson's leg must be twitching.
This attempt to give a Carolingian ancestry to Hugo Capet is
problematic, to say the least. Several sources whose authors would
certainly have known of this & had every interest in recording it, had
the link been true, don't mention any such thing.
Quite apart from this, there are several good reasons to doubt to
rationale given by KF Werner (and repeated since by Christian Settipani
& many others), even though Erich Brandenburg had also been wrong in
the view that Werner was trying to correct.
By all means stick to your version, but why keep asking for this to be
reviewed if you won't even note or directly question the responses?
Peter Stewart
Well, my last 4 were bogus, but maybe this Charlemagne descent
to my 3rd Great Grandmother is true?
1. Charlemagne + Hildegarde Von Vinzgau Of Swabia
2. Pepin, King of italy + Bertha of Toulouse
3. Bernard, King of Italy + Cunigunde
4. Pepin Quentin II Of Peronne Of St. Quentin + Countess
Of Vermandois
5. Heribert I De Vermandois + Bertha De Morvois
6. Beatrix De Vermandois + Robert I Of France
7. Hughes Of France + Hawise Of Germany
10. Hugues "Capet" Of France + Adélaide Of France
I posted about this the other day...and here it is again, unqualified.
Douglas Richardson's leg must be twitching.
This attempt to give a Carolingian ancestry to Hugo Capet is
problematic, to say the least. Several sources whose authors would
certainly have known of this & had every interest in recording it, had
the link been true, don't mention any such thing.
Quite apart from this, there are several good reasons to doubt to
rationale given by KF Werner (and repeated since by Christian Settipani
& many others), even though Erich Brandenburg had also been wrong in
the view that Werner was trying to correct.
By all means stick to your version, but why keep asking for this to be
reviewed if you won't even note or directly question the responses?
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Yet Another... Charlemagne Descent
Dear Stefan,
Your Line according to Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry
is fine down to generation # 29 Booth / Warburton at least; see pp 128-129
article Booth, see also Trafford, Troutbeck, Savage etc. William and Elizabeth
(Warburton) Booth of Dunham Massey, Cheshire did have a son Richard, who is
said in Burke`s Extinct Peerage p 60 subject Booth to have married _________
Massie, daughter and heiress of Massie of Cogshull, so it may be correct down
that far, but You need to check the entire line againest contemprary
documents whenever possible, everyone needs to.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Your Line according to Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry
is fine down to generation # 29 Booth / Warburton at least; see pp 128-129
article Booth, see also Trafford, Troutbeck, Savage etc. William and Elizabeth
(Warburton) Booth of Dunham Massey, Cheshire did have a son Richard, who is
said in Burke`s Extinct Peerage p 60 subject Booth to have married _________
Massie, daughter and heiress of Massie of Cogshull, so it may be correct down
that far, but You need to check the entire line againest contemprary
documents whenever possible, everyone needs to.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Yet Another... Charlemagne Descent
In message of 1 Feb, Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
The last sentence about everyone needing to check against contemporary
documents raises an interesting question (but not one for a laugh).
In principle I agree that this should be done. But the question is who
by? I, for one, cannot read documents earlier than around 1600 and have
some difficulty with those from the next 150 years. Further even if I
could read them, I certainly cannot understand them if they are in latin.
Even if they were in English I would reckon to have problems as I would
not know the technical concepts and language they were using.
As an aside I was astonished once when my brother, who graduated in
Latin and Greek and is the Real Genealogist of the family, said he could
not read medieval Latin and it needed someone who was expert in it,
usually to be found, in England he said, at County Record Offices.
So, does the above precept mean that I should give up my interest in
medieval genealogy?
Well, I'm not going to so I had better justify staying on the boundaries
of this study. Assuming that you can't teach an old dog new tricks,
the answer is to find a young dog who already knows the tricks. I am
prepared to accept the word of honest scholars who have studied the
documents and transcribed and translated them. This is the best that I
can do.
But even this policy is fraught with problems, usually around the
selection of documents that they have studied. While documents
disappear as each year passes, the known documents increases in number.
So inevitably those who are doing the Real Research now are better
informed and come to better conclusions that those of a few decades
back. So the old books steadily wither away.
If these are acceptable criteria, then what are the books whose authors
have actually studied the original documents - or photocopies or film of
them - and are competent at interpreting them? This is something we
seldom discuss on this newsgroup.
In the light of this, I think that the original proposal of "You need to
check the entire line against contemporary documents whenever possible,
everyone needs to" is infeasible and need restating.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Dear Stefan,
Your Line according to Richardson`s Plantagenet Ancestry is fine down
to generation # 29 Booth / Warburton at least; see pp 128-129
article Booth, see also Trafford, Troutbeck, Savage etc. William and
Elizabeth (Warburton) Booth of Dunham Massey, Cheshire did have a
son Richard, who is said in Burke`s Extinct Peerage p 60 subject Booth
to have married _________ Massie, daughter and heiress of Massie of
Cogshull, so it may be correct down that far, but You need to check
the entire line againest contemprary documents whenever possible,
everyone needs to.
The last sentence about everyone needing to check against contemporary
documents raises an interesting question (but not one for a laugh).
In principle I agree that this should be done. But the question is who
by? I, for one, cannot read documents earlier than around 1600 and have
some difficulty with those from the next 150 years. Further even if I
could read them, I certainly cannot understand them if they are in latin.
Even if they were in English I would reckon to have problems as I would
not know the technical concepts and language they were using.
As an aside I was astonished once when my brother, who graduated in
Latin and Greek and is the Real Genealogist of the family, said he could
not read medieval Latin and it needed someone who was expert in it,
usually to be found, in England he said, at County Record Offices.
So, does the above precept mean that I should give up my interest in
medieval genealogy?
Well, I'm not going to so I had better justify staying on the boundaries
of this study. Assuming that you can't teach an old dog new tricks,
the answer is to find a young dog who already knows the tricks. I am
prepared to accept the word of honest scholars who have studied the
documents and transcribed and translated them. This is the best that I
can do.
But even this policy is fraught with problems, usually around the
selection of documents that they have studied. While documents
disappear as each year passes, the known documents increases in number.
So inevitably those who are doing the Real Research now are better
informed and come to better conclusions that those of a few decades
back. So the old books steadily wither away.
If these are acceptable criteria, then what are the books whose authors
have actually studied the original documents - or photocopies or film of
them - and are competent at interpreting them? This is something we
seldom discuss on this newsgroup.
In the light of this, I think that the original proposal of "You need to
check the entire line against contemporary documents whenever possible,
everyone needs to" is infeasible and need restating.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Yet Another... Charlemagne Descent
Dear Tim,
I don`t read Latin nor Greek nor medieval English all that
well, but if One is to to sure of One`s descent from Anyone, You need to try
and verify as much as You can without limitations for yourself. After You reach
the point where You don`t feel you can understand the original text, then You
compare what the best minds (In your own opinion )think about the family
connections You are interested in. However, I believe the study of Genealogy
should be more about having a good time discovering your past than with any idea
of it`s being a life and death quest except in such cases where it is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
I don`t read Latin nor Greek nor medieval English all that
well, but if One is to to sure of One`s descent from Anyone, You need to try
and verify as much as You can without limitations for yourself. After You reach
the point where You don`t feel you can understand the original text, then You
compare what the best minds (In your own opinion )think about the family
connections You are interested in. However, I believe the study of Genealogy
should be more about having a good time discovering your past than with any idea
of it`s being a life and death quest except in such cases where it is.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
-
Gjest
Re: Yet Another... Charlemagne Descent
I highly suggest getting "A Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography"
by E.M. Thompson (Chicago, Ares Publishers, 1975). It includes English
palaeography from the 15th and 16th centuries as well. It's very
helpful when trying to read wills and such from the time period. I'm
getting better at it but am, by no means, an expert.
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
SNIPPED
by E.M. Thompson (Chicago, Ares Publishers, 1975). It includes English
palaeography from the 15th and 16th centuries as well. It's very
helpful when trying to read wills and such from the time period. I'm
getting better at it but am, by no means, an expert.
Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
SNIPPED
In principle I agree that this should be done. But the question is
who
by? I, for one, cannot read documents earlier than around 1600 and
have
some difficulty with those from the next 150 years. Further even if
I
could read them, I certainly cannot understand them if they are in
latin.
Even if they were in English I would reckon to have problems as I
would
not know the technical concepts and language they were using.
As an aside I was astonished once when my brother, who graduated in
Latin and Greek and is the Real Genealogist of the family, said he
could
not read medieval Latin and it needed someone who was expert in it,
usually to be found, in England he said, at County Record Offices.
SNIPPED