Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Leo van de Pas
Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
A friend told me to go and buy the Canberra Times of today, 5 July 2006, as there is an article "Crowning Glory" 'The royal roots in every family tree', by Matt Crenson with mention of Mark Humphreys. The main headline is Right Royal family tree, Genealogists say the odds are every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
Then it starts with quoting interesting ancestors of Brooke Shields, five popes, the Conqueror and so on. "What is it about Brooke? Well, nothing - at least genealogically" This is nonsense as well, I think, genealogically Brooke Shields is different and special, having a Princess as a grandmother. It makes her different from most, she is not a yard stick.
Then a "what if" which is pretty useless, what if Edward II had been killed in 1312. It tells that in 1312 Piers de Gaveston was murdered (I though he was beheaded in 1314) and "Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312--------Edward III would not have been born"
"The longer ago somebody lived, the more descendants a person is likely to have today." According to David Starr Jordan, in England around 1100 there were less than 2 million people and of those less than 10 percent have descendants to the present. I think Matt Crenson should have been a little more precise in what he said.
Then, and this is my main objection, he tells how many people have tried to establish a link from Mohammed "Some people have actually tried to establish a documented line between Mohammed, who was born in the 6th century, and the medieval English monarchs, and thus to most if not all people of European descent."
He mentions the "strongly suspicious individuals" in the line he is interested in quoting, it leads to, you guessed it, ZAIDA, as daughter of the last Emir of Seville. He admits that the line to the last Emir of Seville may include fictional characters. He maintains "....Zaida, who is said to have changed her name to Isabel upon converting to Christianity and marrying Alfonso VI, king of Castile and Leon. Yet there is no good evidence demonstrating that Isabel, who bore one son by Alfonso VI, is the same person as Zaida. So the line between Mohammed and the English monarchs probably breaks again at this point."
What a lot of guess work, the line from Mohammed to that last Emir of Seville is blemished with probable fictitional characters, making his descent from Mohammed questionable, Matt Crenson perpetuates the fiction that Zaida (whether she is Isabel as well or not) is a daughter of that Emir, she was the Emir's daughter-in-law, breaking the bloodline to Mohammed, even it the Emir had an established line.
Amazingly, his summing up at the end tells that Brooke Shields' grandmother is 43 generations removed from Mohammed. I would like to see him spell out this line.
I think this article is yet another lost opportunity to give the general public some good genealogy. Matt Crenson mentions US Presidents Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor , and both Roosevelts as descendants of Edward III, why not Presidents Taft, Coolidge and both Bush father and son? He mentions actors Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and Brooke Shields as descendants of Edward III. Why not Randolph Scott, Gloria Grahame (Oscar winner), Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward?
I have not found a link for Humphrey Bogart to Edward III, I have one to KIng John. I would love to hear from someone who can link him to Edward III.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
Then it starts with quoting interesting ancestors of Brooke Shields, five popes, the Conqueror and so on. "What is it about Brooke? Well, nothing - at least genealogically" This is nonsense as well, I think, genealogically Brooke Shields is different and special, having a Princess as a grandmother. It makes her different from most, she is not a yard stick.
Then a "what if" which is pretty useless, what if Edward II had been killed in 1312. It tells that in 1312 Piers de Gaveston was murdered (I though he was beheaded in 1314) and "Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312--------Edward III would not have been born"
"The longer ago somebody lived, the more descendants a person is likely to have today." According to David Starr Jordan, in England around 1100 there were less than 2 million people and of those less than 10 percent have descendants to the present. I think Matt Crenson should have been a little more precise in what he said.
Then, and this is my main objection, he tells how many people have tried to establish a link from Mohammed "Some people have actually tried to establish a documented line between Mohammed, who was born in the 6th century, and the medieval English monarchs, and thus to most if not all people of European descent."
He mentions the "strongly suspicious individuals" in the line he is interested in quoting, it leads to, you guessed it, ZAIDA, as daughter of the last Emir of Seville. He admits that the line to the last Emir of Seville may include fictional characters. He maintains "....Zaida, who is said to have changed her name to Isabel upon converting to Christianity and marrying Alfonso VI, king of Castile and Leon. Yet there is no good evidence demonstrating that Isabel, who bore one son by Alfonso VI, is the same person as Zaida. So the line between Mohammed and the English monarchs probably breaks again at this point."
What a lot of guess work, the line from Mohammed to that last Emir of Seville is blemished with probable fictitional characters, making his descent from Mohammed questionable, Matt Crenson perpetuates the fiction that Zaida (whether she is Isabel as well or not) is a daughter of that Emir, she was the Emir's daughter-in-law, breaking the bloodline to Mohammed, even it the Emir had an established line.
Amazingly, his summing up at the end tells that Brooke Shields' grandmother is 43 generations removed from Mohammed. I would like to see him spell out this line.
I think this article is yet another lost opportunity to give the general public some good genealogy. Matt Crenson mentions US Presidents Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor , and both Roosevelts as descendants of Edward III, why not Presidents Taft, Coolidge and both Bush father and son? He mentions actors Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and Brooke Shields as descendants of Edward III. Why not Randolph Scott, Gloria Grahame (Oscar winner), Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward?
I have not found a link for Humphrey Bogart to Edward III, I have one to KIng John. I would love to hear from someone who can link him to Edward III.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 02:15:32 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
What, you don't believe the Papuas or Natives had some king ? Anyway,
it is the same article published since a few days in many newspapers.
When they have no news, journalists invent them. That's all.
No search, they dig something someone wrote 25 years ago.
Instant journalism is a shame but we can't do anything anyway.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mon association de généalogie:
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
("Leo van de Pas") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
A friend told me to go and buy the Canberra Times of today, 5 July 2006, as there is an article "Crowning Glory" 'The royal roots in every family tree', by Matt Crenson with mention of Mark Humphreys. The main headline is Right Royal family tree, Genealogists say the odds are every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
What, you don't believe the Papuas or Natives had some king ? Anyway,
it is the same article published since a few days in many newspapers.
I think this article is yet another lost opportunity to give the general public some good genealogy. Matt Crenson mentions US Presidents Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor , and both Roosevelts as descendants of Edward III, why not Presidents Taft, Coolidge and both Bush father and son? He mentions actors Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and Brooke Shields as descendants of Edward III. Why not Randolph Scott, Gloria Grahame (Oscar winner), Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward?
When they have no news, journalists invent them. That's all.
No search, they dig something someone wrote 25 years ago.
Instant journalism is a shame but we can't do anything anyway.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mon association de généalogie:
oo oo http://www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
-
norenxaq
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Denis Beauregard wrote:
royalty to these authors seems limited to Europe and perhaps Asia
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 02:15:32 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
A friend told me to go and buy the Canberra Times of today, 5 July 2006, as there is an article "Crowning Glory" 'The royal roots in every family tree', by Matt Crenson with mention of Mark Humphreys. The main headline is Right Royal family tree, Genealogists say the odds are every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
What, you don't believe the Papuas or Natives had some king ? Anyway,
it is the same article published since a few days in many newspapers.
royalty to these authors seems limited to Europe and perhaps Asia
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
I don't think we can say that a king is the same as a chieftain, or whatever
other title bestowed on a leader of a tribe or group. Aborigines in
Australia definitely had no kings.
I think royalty is not only to be found in Europe and Asia, Ethiopia in
Africa had Emperors for a very long time, the Zulus have royalty and so on.
I am surprised to hear the article appeared in many newspapers and no-one
seems to have commented on it. The wrong description of Mohammed's descent
was pretty woeful in my opinion.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
other title bestowed on a leader of a tribe or group. Aborigines in
Australia definitely had no kings.
I think royalty is not only to be found in Europe and Asia, Ethiopia in
Africa had Emperors for a very long time, the Zulus have royalty and so on.
I am surprised to hear the article appeared in many newspapers and no-one
seems to have commented on it. The wrong description of Mohammed's descent
was pretty woeful in my opinion.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "norenxaq" <norenxaq@san.rr.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Denis Beauregard wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 02:15:32 +0000 (UTC), leovdpas@netspeed.com.au
("Leo van de Pas") wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
A friend told me to go and buy the Canberra Times of today, 5 July 2006,
as there is an article "Crowning Glory" 'The royal roots in every family
tree', by Matt Crenson with mention of Mark Humphreys. The main headline
is Right Royal family tree, Genealogists say the odds are every person on
Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the
Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
What, you don't believe the Papuas or Natives had some king ? Anyway,
it is the same article published since a few days in many newspapers.
royalty to these authors seems limited to Europe and perhaps Asia
-
Gjest
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Today I saw a "news item" that claimed it a "mathematical certainty"
that every living human being today is descended from a specific
individual who lived in eastern or southeastern Asia from 5000 to 7000
years ago. The discussion of "kings" versus "chieftains" reminded me of
it, as the same argument militates against it: too many populations
existed more than 7000 years ago from whom there are verifiable living
descendants but no connection within that time line to Asia (Australia,
the Americas, etc.). I think that the "journalists" and their editors
believe that the public would not find factual genealogy and its
principles exciting enough. They want to *believe* that they are
descended from royalty and find it bothersome that anyone might demand
proof. - Bronwen
that every living human being today is descended from a specific
individual who lived in eastern or southeastern Asia from 5000 to 7000
years ago. The discussion of "kings" versus "chieftains" reminded me of
it, as the same argument militates against it: too many populations
existed more than 7000 years ago from whom there are verifiable living
descendants but no connection within that time line to Asia (Australia,
the Americas, etc.). I think that the "journalists" and their editors
believe that the public would not find factual genealogy and its
principles exciting enough. They want to *believe* that they are
descended from royalty and find it bothersome that anyone might demand
proof. - Bronwen
-
norenxaq
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Leo van de Pas wrote:
agreed. as well as meso and south america, not to forget the various
polynesian royal families.
I was refering here to the narrow focus of those who write these articles
I don't think we can say that a king is the same as a chieftain, or
whatever other title bestowed on a leader of a tribe or group.
Aborigines in Australia definitely had no kings.
I think royalty is not only to be found in Europe and Asia, Ethiopia
in Africa had Emperors for a very long time, the Zulus have royalty
and so on.
agreed. as well as meso and south america, not to forget the various
polynesian royal families.
What, you don't believe the Papuas or Natives had some king ? Anyway,
it is the same article published since a few days in many newspapers.
royalty to these authors seems limited to Europe and perhaps Asia
I was refering here to the narrow focus of those who write these articles
-
Gjest
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
Denis Beauregard writes:
there's no war in Cuba signed Wheeler" Any answer?
Yes. Dear Wheeler -you provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war
Charles Foster Kane, editor of New York Inquirer
When they have no news, journalists invent them. That's all.
No search, they dig something someone wrote 25 years ago.
Instant journalism is a shame but we can't do anything anyway.
"Food marvellous. . . could send you prose poems about the scenery . .
there's no war in Cuba signed Wheeler" Any answer?
Yes. Dear Wheeler -you provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war
Charles Foster Kane, editor of New York Inquirer
-
Gjest
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Piers Gaveston was killed on 19 June 1312. The future Edward III was
born on 13 November 1312. Therefore, this whole theory that 'he would
never have been born' is nonsense, as Queen Isabella was already
several months pregnant at the time of Gaveston's death.
Then a "what if" which is pretty useless, what if Edward II had been killed in 1312. It tells that in 1312 Piers de Gaveston was murdered (I though he was beheaded in 1314) and "Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312--------Edward III would not have been born"
Piers Gaveston was killed on 19 June 1312. The future Edward III was
born on 13 November 1312. Therefore, this whole theory that 'he would
never have been born' is nonsense, as Queen Isabella was already
several months pregnant at the time of Gaveston's death.
-
Gjest
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Piers Gaveston was killed on 19 June 1312. The future Edward III was
born on 13 November 1312. Therefore, this whole theory that 'he would
never have been born' is nonsense, as Queen Isabella was already
several months pregnant at the time of Gaveston's death.
Alianore
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/
Then a "what if" which is pretty useless, what if Edward II had been killed in 1312. It tells that in 1312 Piers de Gaveston was murdered (I though he was beheaded in 1314) and "Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312--------Edward III would not have been born"
Piers Gaveston was killed on 19 June 1312. The future Edward III was
born on 13 November 1312. Therefore, this whole theory that 'he would
never have been born' is nonsense, as Queen Isabella was already
several months pregnant at the time of Gaveston's death.
Alianore
http://edwardthesecond.blogspot.com/
-
Gjest
Re: Fibbs, fables and continuing fairytales
According to Gary Boyd Roberts, Humphrey Bogart had four immigrants of
royal descent: Thomas Southworth, William Leete, Obadiah Bruen, and
Gov. Thomas Dudley. Depending on how you feel about Dudley's ancestry
in the proven, possible, probable or not category, he is given a
descent from Edward III in RD600.
Martin
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
royal descent: Thomas Southworth, William Leete, Obadiah Bruen, and
Gov. Thomas Dudley. Depending on how you feel about Dudley's ancestry
in the proven, possible, probable or not category, he is given a
descent from Edward III in RD600.
Martin
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
A friend told me to go and buy the Canberra Times of today, 5 July 2006, as there is an article "Crowning Glory" 'The royal roots in every family tree', by Matt Crenson with mention of Mark Humphreys. The main headline is Right Royal family tree, Genealogists say the odds are every person on Earth is descended from one royal personage or another.
This last line, I think, is rubbish. Think of Papua New Guinea, the Amazon region, and you can discount many already.
Then it starts with quoting interesting ancestors of Brooke Shields, five popes, the Conqueror and so on. "What is it about Brooke? Well, nothing - at least genealogically" This is nonsense as well, I think, genealogically Brooke Shields is different and special, having a Princess as a grandmother. It makes her different from most, she is not a yard stick.
Then a "what if" which is pretty useless, what if Edward II had been killed in 1312. It tells that in 1312 Piers de Gaveston was murdered (I though he was beheaded in 1314) and "Had Edward II been killed along with Gaveston in 1312--------Edward III would not have been born"
"The longer ago somebody lived, the more descendants a person is likely to have today." According to David Starr Jordan, in England around 1100 there were less than 2 million people and of those less than 10 percent have descendants to the present. I think Matt Crenson should have been a little more precise in what he said.
Then, and this is my main objection, he tells how many people have tried to establish a link from Mohammed "Some people have actually tried to establish a documented line between Mohammed, who was born in the 6th century, and the medieval English monarchs, and thus to most if not all people of European descent."
He mentions the "strongly suspicious individuals" in the line he is interested in quoting, it leads to, you guessed it, ZAIDA, as daughter of the last Emir of Seville. He admits that the line to the last Emir of Seville may include fictional characters. He maintains "....Zaida, who is said to have changed her name to Isabel upon converting to Christianity and marrying Alfonso VI, king of Castile and Leon. Yet there is no good evidence demonstrating that Isabel, who bore one son by Alfonso VI, is the same person as Zaida. So the line between Mohammed and the English monarchs probably breaks again at this point."
What a lot of guess work, the line from Mohammed to that last Emir of Seville is blemished with probable fictitional characters, making his descent from Mohammed questionable, Matt Crenson perpetuates the fiction that Zaida (whether she is Isabel as well or not) is a daughter of that Emir, she was the Emir's daughter-in-law, breaking the bloodline to Mohammed, even it the Emir had an established line.
Amazingly, his summing up at the end tells that Brooke Shields' grandmother is 43 generations removed from Mohammed. I would like to see him spell out this line.
I think this article is yet another lost opportunity to give the general public some good genealogy. Matt Crenson mentions US Presidents Washington, Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Zachary Taylor , and both Roosevelts as descendants of Edward III, why not Presidents Taft, Coolidge and both Bush father and son? He mentions actors Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn and Brooke Shields as descendants of Edward III. Why not Randolph Scott, Gloria Grahame (Oscar winner), Hugh Grant and Rachel Ward?
I have not found a link for Humphrey Bogart to Edward III, I have one to KIng John. I would love to hear from someone who can link him to Edward III.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia