"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
"Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
alden@mindspring.com
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 11:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
LOL
Doug Smith
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
LOL
Doug Smith
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 11:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
"In the eighth and ninth centuries, the story of Arnulf
[Bishop of Metz] underwent mythical retouching as part
of an effort to exalt the achievements of this glorious
forebear of the Carolingians. Fabricated legends con-
nected him with the nobility of Aquitaine and even went
so far as to make him a scion of the Merovingian family,
a fantasy to be sure." -- P. Riché,_The Carolingians: A
Family Who Forged Europe_(Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p.15.
I am not aware that any new discoveries since Riché wrote
these remarks have incontrovertibly linked the Merovin-
gians to the Carolingians or any other families with
modern-day descendants.
Christopher Ingham
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
"In the eighth and ninth centuries, the story of Arnulf
[Bishop of Metz] underwent mythical retouching as part
of an effort to exalt the achievements of this glorious
forebear of the Carolingians. Fabricated legends con-
nected him with the nobility of Aquitaine and even went
so far as to make him a scion of the Merovingian family,
a fantasy to be sure." -- P. Riché,_The Carolingians: A
Family Who Forged Europe_(Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p.15.
I am not aware that any new discoveries since Riché wrote
these remarks have incontrovertibly linked the Merovin-
gians to the Carolingians or any other families with
modern-day descendants.
Christopher Ingham
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 9:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG. He attended the
first organizational meeting. A picture of all those who attended
that meeting is found at the following weblink:
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Ann.html
As for the "former" Walter Aston line, new evidence has surfaced in
recent time. The Aston line has now been fully reinstated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG. He attended the
first organizational meeting. A picture of all those who attended
that meeting is found at the following weblink:
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Ann.html
As for the "former" Walter Aston line, new evidence has surfaced in
recent time. The Aston line has now been fully reinstated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 9:38 pm, Christopher Ingham <christophering...@comcast.net>
wrote:
The Order is certainly not relying on anything new, but rather on a
hypothesis of Maurice Chaume from close to 80 years ago - a hypothesis
that has failed to garner support in subsequent studies. As Nat
hinted, that they are citing Stuart is indicative of the level of
their scholarship.
What I can't figure out is the preference for Merovech. Given that
every line they trace to him goes through Charlemagne and Clovis, and
(seeing as they cite HBHG) to Jesus, what makes Merovech of such
interest for them to pick him as the focus of the society. It would
be like the English royal family touting their descent from John of
Gaunt? I could understand if it was the Order of Bill the Dirtfarmer,
as the statement being made would be clear, but they have specifically
picked descent from Merovech as their source of pride. Why him? I
guess it is just because Merovingian sounds exotic, and he was the
source of the name (as I think about it, there are those who similarly
focus on descents from Geoffrey Plantagenet even though he represents
a similar level of historical insignificance except in so much as he
gave his name to the dynasty. (And a group called the Order of Clovis
could just as well be interested in the town in New Mexico, the
spearpoint or the prehistoric culture.)
taf
wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
"In the eighth and ninth centuries, the story of Arnulf
[Bishop of Metz] underwent mythical retouching as part
of an effort to exalt the achievements of this glorious
forebear of the Carolingians. Fabricated legends con-
nected him with the nobility of Aquitaine and even went
so far as to make him a scion of the Merovingian family,
a fantasy to be sure." -- P. Riché,_The Carolingians: A
Family Who Forged Europe_(Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p.15.
I am not aware that any new discoveries since Riché wrote
these remarks have incontrovertibly linked the Merovin-
gians to the Carolingians or any other families with
modern-day descendants.
The Order is certainly not relying on anything new, but rather on a
hypothesis of Maurice Chaume from close to 80 years ago - a hypothesis
that has failed to garner support in subsequent studies. As Nat
hinted, that they are citing Stuart is indicative of the level of
their scholarship.
What I can't figure out is the preference for Merovech. Given that
every line they trace to him goes through Charlemagne and Clovis, and
(seeing as they cite HBHG) to Jesus, what makes Merovech of such
interest for them to pick him as the focus of the society. It would
be like the English royal family touting their descent from John of
Gaunt? I could understand if it was the Order of Bill the Dirtfarmer,
as the statement being made would be clear, but they have specifically
picked descent from Merovech as their source of pride. Why him? I
guess it is just because Merovingian sounds exotic, and he was the
source of the name (as I think about it, there are those who similarly
focus on descents from Geoffrey Plantagenet even though he represents
a similar level of historical insignificance except in so much as he
gave his name to the dynasty. (And a group called the Order of Clovis
could just as well be interested in the town in New Mexico, the
spearpoint or the prehistoric culture.)
taf
-
Gjest
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 9:57 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I guess this just serves as further proof that one should focus on the
message and not the messenger, no matter how eminent. (Not unique to
genealogy - I can point you to a Nobel Prize winner who should be
castrated for the damage his ill-considered pontificating is doing
with respect to a global health crisis, and another who is going to
win the Prize (just ask him) who published a scientific paper based on
a premise that was so ridiculously misinformed it set us all
laughing.)
taf
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
I guess this just serves as further proof that one should focus on the
message and not the messenger, no matter how eminent. (Not unique to
genealogy - I can point you to a Nobel Prize winner who should be
castrated for the damage his ill-considered pontificating is doing
with respect to a global health crisis, and another who is going to
win the Prize (just ask him) who published a scientific paper based on
a premise that was so ridiculously misinformed it set us all
laughing.)
taf
-
Seumas MacThómais
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 24, 10:53 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
I was looking at the site, and noted the lineages included some to
Charlemagne that gave the appearance of proper documentation (although
mostly unpublished sources), and others that were simply taken from
secondary sources.
But I can't believe no one had mentioned the amazing medals offered by
this society. For a mere (?) £722, plus $40 shipping you can have a
magnificent gold-plated sterling silver medal sent to your doorstep.
The link to this is http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Medals.
Seumas
On Nov 24, 9:57 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
I guess this just serves as further proof that one should focus on the
message and not the messenger, no matter how eminent. (Not unique to
genealogy - I can point you to a Nobel Prize winner who should be
castrated for the damage his ill-considered pontificating is doing
with respect to a global health crisis, and another who is going to
win the Prize (just ask him) who published a scientific paper based on
a premise that was so ridiculously misinformed it set us all
laughing.)
taf
I was looking at the site, and noted the lineages included some to
Charlemagne that gave the appearance of proper documentation (although
mostly unpublished sources), and others that were simply taken from
secondary sources.
But I can't believe no one had mentioned the amazing medals offered by
this society. For a mere (?) £722, plus $40 shipping you can have a
magnificent gold-plated sterling silver medal sent to your doorstep.
The link to this is http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Medals.
Seumas
-
Doug McDonald
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
taf@clearwire.net wrote:
All the Nobel Prize winners I know (or knew) well personally
have been fine people. Only one (Zewail) is
an overblown self-promoter, and at least what he did was
basically correct and quite fun indeed, if not exactly scientifically
important (his results could all have been, and were, predicted
in advance.) It's hard to fault the prize committee for awarding
it for something as fun as Zewail did. It's brilliant fun.
The others (Herschbach, Y. T. Lee, Polanyi, and
Lauterbur) are about as fine and modest and brilliant people as
could possibly be. (Herschbach has an amazing sense of humor
and of how unimportant it all is ... after all, he personally
appeared on TV giving a Nobel Prize to Bart Simpson! Well,
a cartoon him with his own voice.)
Doug McDonald
I guess this just serves as further proof that one should focus on the
message and not the messenger, no matter how eminent. (Not unique to
genealogy - I can point you to a Nobel Prize winner who should be
castrated for the damage his ill-considered pontificating is doing
with respect to a global health crisis, and another who is going to
win the Prize (just ask him) who published a scientific paper based on
a premise that was so ridiculously misinformed it set us all
laughing.)
All the Nobel Prize winners I know (or knew) well personally
have been fine people. Only one (Zewail) is
an overblown self-promoter, and at least what he did was
basically correct and quite fun indeed, if not exactly scientifically
important (his results could all have been, and were, predicted
in advance.) It's hard to fault the prize committee for awarding
it for something as fun as Zewail did. It's brilliant fun.
The others (Herschbach, Y. T. Lee, Polanyi, and
Lauterbur) are about as fine and modest and brilliant people as
could possibly be. (Herschbach has an amazing sense of humor
and of how unimportant it all is ... after all, he personally
appeared on TV giving a Nobel Prize to Bart Simpson! Well,
a cartoon him with his own voice.)
Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
That's what the game is all about...
Selling the medals...
And other paraphernalia.
DSH
"Seumas MacThómais" <jwt_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:22230979-a127-41f2-bf0c-ea6c3261af2b@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 10:53 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
I was looking at the site, and noted the lineages included some to
Charlemagne that gave the appearance of proper documentation (although
mostly unpublished sources), and others that were simply taken from
secondary sources.
But I can't believe no one had mentioned the amazing medals offered by
this society. For a mere (?) £722, plus $40 shipping you can have a
magnificent gold-plated sterling silver medal sent to your doorstep.
The link to this is http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Medals.
Seumas
Selling the medals...
And other paraphernalia.
DSH
"Seumas MacThómais" <jwt_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:22230979-a127-41f2-bf0c-ea6c3261af2b@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 10:53 pm, t...@clearwire.net wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:57 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
I guess this just serves as further proof that one should focus on the
message and not the messenger, no matter how eminent. (Not unique to
genealogy - I can point you to a Nobel Prize winner who should be
castrated for the damage his ill-considered pontificating is doing
with respect to a global health crisis, and another who is going to
win the Prize (just ask him) who published a scientific paper based on
a premise that was so ridiculously misinformed it set us all
laughing.)
taf
I was looking at the site, and noted the lineages included some to
Charlemagne that gave the appearance of proper documentation (although
mostly unpublished sources), and others that were simply taken from
secondary sources.
But I can't believe no one had mentioned the amazing medals offered by
this society. For a mere (?) £722, plus $40 shipping you can have a
magnificent gold-plated sterling silver medal sent to your doorstep.
The link to this is http://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Medals.
Seumas
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty" [& Walter Aston case]
[crossposts removed; context restored]
In article
<09a7756e-deab-49cf-8a07-3bf3a7ebfc20@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
I'm sure he may be; but his personal character is not relevant to a
discussion of the merits and weaknesses of his genealogical
presentation, and what it implies about the group that puts his
presentation on its website.
Yes, I read his name on the website, which characterizes all 23 founders
as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of genealogy."
They may all be fine individuals.
I look forward to seeing a concise presentation of this new evidence in
print. But the most recent published analysis of this case (Paul Reed's
2001 TAG article) raises a specific cause for doubt which has not been
satisfactorily allayed.
Paul Reed mentioned here, back in November 2003, another candidate for
the Virginia colonist within the same Staffordshire Aston family--other
than the earlier candidate impugned by Paul Reed, who was apparently
dead by 1647. This other candidate was the subject of someone else's
research, and, Paul implied, a hopefully-forthcoming article somewhere.
Does anyone know anything about that?
If the man said to be dead in 1647 can, with new evidence, be explicitly
proved to the same as the man who died in Virginia in 1656, then the
line can indeed be 'reinstated'. Or if some other Staffordshire Aston
can now be proved to be the Virginia man, and if he shares descent from
Sir Roger Aston & Joyce Freville, then the same earlier ancestry could
in effect be 'reinstated'.
But (unless Douglas intends the word in a sense I am misunderstanding)
it would be premature to claim that such a line has already been
'reinstated', either in the scholarly consensus, or even in lineage
societies like the one discussed here, until the evidence has been
published and publicly digested. Perhaps Douglas simply means that the
line has been 'reinstated' in his own working manuscript of his medieval
descent books (where the Virginian identity had apparently been quietly
trimmed out of his MS--or Faris' earlier editions of _Plantagenet
Ancestry_--without reference to Paul Reed's 2001 article).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
In article
<09a7756e-deab-49cf-8a07-3bf3a7ebfc20@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
I'm sure he may be; but his personal character is not relevant to a
discussion of the merits and weaknesses of his genealogical
presentation, and what it implies about the group that puts his
presentation on its website.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
Yes, I read his name on the website, which characterizes all 23 founders
as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of genealogy."
They may all be fine individuals.
As for the "former" Walter Aston line, new evidence has surfaced in
recent time. The Aston line has now been fully reinstated.
I look forward to seeing a concise presentation of this new evidence in
print. But the most recent published analysis of this case (Paul Reed's
2001 TAG article) raises a specific cause for doubt which has not been
satisfactorily allayed.
Paul Reed mentioned here, back in November 2003, another candidate for
the Virginia colonist within the same Staffordshire Aston family--other
than the earlier candidate impugned by Paul Reed, who was apparently
dead by 1647. This other candidate was the subject of someone else's
research, and, Paul implied, a hopefully-forthcoming article somewhere.
Does anyone know anything about that?
If the man said to be dead in 1647 can, with new evidence, be explicitly
proved to the same as the man who died in Virginia in 1656, then the
line can indeed be 'reinstated'. Or if some other Staffordshire Aston
can now be proved to be the Virginia man, and if he shares descent from
Sir Roger Aston & Joyce Freville, then the same earlier ancestry could
in effect be 'reinstated'.
But (unless Douglas intends the word in a sense I am misunderstanding)
it would be premature to claim that such a line has already been
'reinstated', either in the scholarly consensus, or even in lineage
societies like the one discussed here, until the evidence has been
published and publicly digested. Perhaps Douglas simply means that the
line has been 'reinstated' in his own working manuscript of his medieval
descent books (where the Virginian identity had apparently been quietly
trimmed out of his MS--or Faris' earlier editions of _Plantagenet
Ancestry_--without reference to Paul Reed's 2001 article).
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Gjest
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty" [& Walter Aston case]
On Nov 25, 11:15 am, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
Said FASG is not just in on this on a lark - he is the Genealogist
General of the group, and hence the individual who (apparently at $200
a pop*) gives the nod to these lineages. I note that they require
documentation from the primary record, or from secondary sources that
cite the primary record. One wonders how anyone could conclude that
Stuart fulfills one of these criteria.
[* - application fee is $550, of which only $350 is returned if found
wanting, and further consultation with the GG can to resolve
deficiencies can involve further charges]
I've got it - the Most Honourable Society for Descendants of People
with No Known Descendants! Anyone submitting valid lineage papers is
automatically disqualified.
taf
[crossposts removed; context restored]
In article
09a7756e-deab-49cf-8a07-3bf3a7ebf...@b4 ... groups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
On Nov 24, 9:06 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
Here's an interesting one that seems to have escaped notice here: a
fresh hereditary society, in the United States, whose membership
requirement is proof of descent from Merovech (!).
http://www.merovingiandynasty.com
The website states that it was "conceived of and organized" in
September, 2004, by 23 founding members. Of all the various hereditary
societies out there, the fact that this one exists at all belies any
claimed rigor for membership.
Tucked into the website is a powerpoint presentation by Charles C.
Lucas, Jr., MD, to the "Baronial Order of the Magna Charta and the
Military Order of the Crusades" in October 2006, which presents a line
from Charlemagne to Merovech. The path used is the one attaching
Bertrada of Prum to Theuderic III. The principal cited authority:
Roderick Stuart's _Royalty for Commoners_ (also cited: _Holy Blood, Holy
Grail_).
There's a whole set of lineages from various colonial American gateways
also on the site, all using the same path from Charlemagne to the
Merovingians, all citing Stuart. Among them is the line formerly
claimed for Walter Aston of Virginia.
I've met Dr. Lucas. He's a fine individual.
I'm sure he may be; but his personal character is not relevant to a
discussion of the merits and weaknesses of his genealogical
presentation, and what it implies about the group that puts his
presentation on its website.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
Yes, I read his name on the website, which characterizes all 23 founders
as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of genealogy."
They may all be fine individuals.
Said FASG is not just in on this on a lark - he is the Genealogist
General of the group, and hence the individual who (apparently at $200
a pop*) gives the nod to these lineages. I note that they require
documentation from the primary record, or from secondary sources that
cite the primary record. One wonders how anyone could conclude that
Stuart fulfills one of these criteria.
[* - application fee is $550, of which only $350 is returned if found
wanting, and further consultation with the GG can to resolve
deficiencies can involve further charges]
I've got it - the Most Honourable Society for Descendants of People
with No Known Descendants! Anyone submitting valid lineage papers is
automatically disqualified.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 25, 1:07 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
"Essentially valid" seems as definitive as "nearly pregnant".
The problem with the descents shown on the site is not that they are
jokes. Both represent serious genealogical speculation. It is just
that they fail to live up to the explicit stated criteria of the
group, such that no members actually qualify for membership.
As to Aethelbeorht, I am much less convinced. All of these lines come
from reconstructions based on (usually) nothing but names, and ignore
the fact that in most societies the highest nobility draw their name
from the same pool as the royalty. As such, it is curious that it is
always the most eminent individual linked to the name that is chosen
for such reconstructions. They are certainly plausible, but there is
a world of difference between what could have happened and what did.
taf
wrote:
Well, while I agree that no such line is actually up to the level of
proof that say Arnulf of Metz or Alfred the Great is, still,
in toto the evidence is that there is a good probability that SOME
valid line exists, and we know of it. The Charibert-Bertrada m
Aethelbeorht King of Kent connection is the likely best hope.
There are numerous lines from Aethelbeorht to the present that
are not jokes. None are reliably proven, but many are so plausible that
"probabilities" are such that at least one is essentially valid.
"Essentially valid" seems as definitive as "nearly pregnant".
The problem with the descents shown on the site is not that they are
jokes. Both represent serious genealogical speculation. It is just
that they fail to live up to the explicit stated criteria of the
group, such that no members actually qualify for membership.
As to Aethelbeorht, I am much less convinced. All of these lines come
from reconstructions based on (usually) nothing but names, and ignore
the fact that in most societies the highest nobility draw their name
from the same pool as the royalty. As such, it is curious that it is
always the most eminent individual linked to the name that is chosen
for such reconstructions. They are certainly plausible, but there is
a world of difference between what could have happened and what did.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
On Nov 25, 5:46 am, "Seumas MacThómais" <jwt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Seumas ~
I've seen some of the "amazing" medals in person. The medallions in
particular are quite beautiful.
Many of the people who belong to these organizations are quite
wealthy. Consequently the high price tag for an individually hand
crafted medal or pin is not of concern to them. They can easily
afford it.
DR
But I can't believe no one had mentioned the amazing medals offered by
this society. For a mere (?) £722, plus $40 shipping you can have a
magnificent gold-plated sterling silver medal sent to your doorstep.
The link to this ishttp://www.merovingiandynasty.com/Medals.
Seumas
Dear Seumas ~
I've seen some of the "amazing" medals in person. The medallions in
particular are quite beautiful.
Many of the people who belong to these organizations are quite
wealthy. Consequently the high price tag for an individually hand
crafted medal or pin is not of concern to them. They can easily
afford it.
DR
-
Doug McDonald
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty"
Doug McDonald wrote:
I should add that one line that needs great attention is that backwards from
Eadwulf of Northumbria (Bamborough) fl ~910. In my opinion if
this line could be well established it could very well be the best hope.
The slim leads look very interesting.
Doug McDonald
Well, while I agree that no such line is actually up to the level of
proof that say Arnulf of Metz or Alfred the Great is, still,
in toto the evidence is that there is a good probability that SOME
valid line exists, and we know of it. The Charibert-Bertrada m
Aethelbeorht King of Kent connection is the likely best hope.
I should add that one line that needs great attention is that backwards from
Eadwulf of Northumbria (Bamborough) fl ~910. In my opinion if
this line could be well established it could very well be the best hope.
The slim leads look very interesting.
Doug McDonald
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty" [& Walter Aston case]
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
As you are well aware, the chief purpose of most of the hereditary
societies is social in nature. Socially this is a fine group.
However, if we're talking historical accuracy, perhaps we should
examine your own post. You've stated that the Walter Aston line is
invalid, because you took someone else's word for it. Fair enough.
In this instance, however, you were wrong. I assume you will allow
the members of the Merovingian Society to place their faith in someone
else who may also be wrong. That's just being fair, I think.
founders
< as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of
genealogy."
< They may all be fine individuals.
I know several of the founding members personally, and one of them
very well. They're all intelligent people with culture, class, and
manners. Mr. Beard in particular is an outstanding individual. I
have enormous respect for Mr. Beard, as should we all.
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I'm sure he may be; but his personal character is not relevant to a
discussion of the merits and weaknesses of his genealogical
presentation, and what it implies about the group that puts his
presentation on its website.
As you are well aware, the chief purpose of most of the hereditary
societies is social in nature. Socially this is a fine group.
However, if we're talking historical accuracy, perhaps we should
examine your own post. You've stated that the Walter Aston line is
invalid, because you took someone else's word for it. Fair enough.
In this instance, however, you were wrong. I assume you will allow
the members of the Merovingian Society to place their faith in someone
else who may also be wrong. That's just being fair, I think.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
Yes, I read his name on the website, which characterizes all 23
founders
< as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of
genealogy."
< They may all be fine individuals.
I know several of the founding members personally, and one of them
very well. They're all intelligent people with culture, class, and
manners. Mr. Beard in particular is an outstanding individual. I
have enormous respect for Mr. Beard, as should we all.
< Nat Taylorhttp://www.nltaylor.net
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-
Gjest
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty" [& Walter Aston case]
On Nov 25, 4:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
I don't see anyone addressing their social standing, except you.
And yours.
No, this is not the reason he gave for doubting the line.
Not really, as you have attributed to him false motivations.
Says you, and we are to take your word for it?
Anyhow, it is your strawman that is inaccurate - Nat gave a reasoned
explanation of Paul's work. Even if the evidence (what evidence?)
resolves these concerns (one of the possible eventualities Nat
explicitly acknowledged in his post), that does not make Nat wrong in
summarizing those concerns, or even in accepting them as reasonable.
Who is to stop them? It is not like they are asking permission.
Likewise, though, I assume you will allow the genealogical connections
they are relying upon to be independently evaluated?
But this isn't about their pedigree anymore, is it? It is about the
Aston descent.
Oh, we are now being fair? One might not have noticed.
What of it? Do different rules of genealogical evidence apply to the
social elite? I am sure they are all pillars of their communities, but
that has no bearing on the accuracy of their descents from Merovech.
And I have yet to see a single documented descent from Merovech, and,
respected or not, Mr. Beard is far afield in accepting Royalty for
Commoners as a source based on primary documentation, and hence
sufficient to prove these descents to the level of stringency claimed
by the society itself.
taf
My comments are interspersed below. DR
On Nov 25, 12:15 pm, Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net> wrote:
I'm sure he may be; but his personal character is not relevant to a
discussion of the merits and weaknesses of his genealogical
presentation, and what it implies about the group that puts his
presentation on its website.
As you are well aware, the chief purpose of most of the hereditary
societies is social in nature. Socially this is a fine group.
I don't see anyone addressing their social standing, except you.
However, if we're talking historical accuracy, perhaps we should
examine your own post.
And yours.
You've stated that the Walter Aston line is
invalid, because you took someone else's word for it.
No, this is not the reason he gave for doubting the line.
Fair enough.
Not really, as you have attributed to him false motivations.
In this instance, however, you were wrong.
Says you, and we are to take your word for it?
Anyhow, it is your strawman that is inaccurate - Nat gave a reasoned
explanation of Paul's work. Even if the evidence (what evidence?)
resolves these concerns (one of the possible eventualities Nat
explicitly acknowledged in his post), that does not make Nat wrong in
summarizing those concerns, or even in accepting them as reasonable.
I assume you will allow
the members of the Merovingian Society to place their faith in someone
else who may also be wrong.
Who is to stop them? It is not like they are asking permission.
Likewise, though, I assume you will allow the genealogical connections
they are relying upon to be independently evaluated?
But this isn't about their pedigree anymore, is it? It is about the
Aston descent.
That's just being fair, I think.
Oh, we are now being fair? One might not have noticed.
One of the founding members of the Merovingian Society, by the way, is
the eminent genealogist, Timothy Field Beard, FASG.
Yes, I read his name on the website, which characterizes all 23
founders
as people "whose names denote leadership in the field of
genealogy."
They may all be fine individuals.
I know several of the founding members personally, and one of them
very well. They're all intelligent people with culture, class, and
manners. Mr. Beard in particular is an outstanding individual. I
have enormous respect for Mr. Beard, as should we all.
What of it? Do different rules of genealogical evidence apply to the
social elite? I am sure they are all pillars of their communities, but
that has no bearing on the accuracy of their descents from Merovech.
And I have yet to see a single documented descent from Merovech, and,
respected or not, Mr. Beard is far afield in accepting Royalty for
Commoners as a source based on primary documentation, and hence
sufficient to prove these descents to the level of stringency claimed
by the society itself.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: "Order of the Merovingian Dynasty" [& Walter Aston case]
[crossposts removed--again]
In article
<a840fcb1-7b3f-401e-abc5-91d0b496d486@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Be careful. What did I actually say about the Walter Aston line? I
said: "the most recent published analysis of this case (Paul Reed's
2001 TAG article) raises a specific cause for doubt which has not been
satisfactorily allayed."
By reducing this statement to "you've stated that the . . . line is
invalid" I suspect you are deliberately seeking to invoke a false
dichotomy of proof / disproof. As a professional genealogist, you
should be well aware of the far larger middle category of lack of proof.
Many amateurs and genealogical egotists have a very difficult time
understanding and accepting that middle category. Sometimes it seems
that you do, too, Douglas.
Interesting: a backhanded attempt to devalue the medium of scholarly
discourse by equating it with hearsay.
Rather than "taking someone's word," I read a journal article which
presented evidence and interpreted it, making a case sufficient, in my
judgment, to shake the previously held assumption of identity of Walter
Aston of Virginia. I did not come to this conclusion on "someone else's
word," but because I read the evidence and the interpretation (it is
sitting on my desk now) and judged it credible.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to take someone else's word for this.
*Show* us how I'm wrong. Or tell us where and when (and by whom) you
expect this new evidence to be published and discussed.
Interesting: disingenuously equating scholarly discourse and consensus
with arbitrary personal loyalties.
The members of this 'Order' are free to place their faith wherever they
wish--and wear whatever medallions they desire. On the other hand,
readers of this group may draw (and have drawn) their own conclusions
about the implications of the quality of the genealogies displayed by
this group predicated on 'proof' of descent from a Merovingian king.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
In article
<a840fcb1-7b3f-401e-abc5-91d0b496d486@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Douglas Richardson <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
. . . You've stated that the Walter Aston line is
invalid, . . .
Be careful. What did I actually say about the Walter Aston line? I
said: "the most recent published analysis of this case (Paul Reed's
2001 TAG article) raises a specific cause for doubt which has not been
satisfactorily allayed."
By reducing this statement to "you've stated that the . . . line is
invalid" I suspect you are deliberately seeking to invoke a false
dichotomy of proof / disproof. As a professional genealogist, you
should be well aware of the far larger middle category of lack of proof.
Many amateurs and genealogical egotists have a very difficult time
understanding and accepting that middle category. Sometimes it seems
that you do, too, Douglas.
. . . because you took someone else's word for it.
Interesting: a backhanded attempt to devalue the medium of scholarly
discourse by equating it with hearsay.
Rather than "taking someone's word," I read a journal article which
presented evidence and interpreted it, making a case sufficient, in my
judgment, to shake the previously held assumption of identity of Walter
Aston of Virginia. I did not come to this conclusion on "someone else's
word," but because I read the evidence and the interpretation (it is
sitting on my desk now) and judged it credible.
In this instance, however, you were wrong.
I'm sorry, but I don't want to take someone else's word for this.
*Show* us how I'm wrong. Or tell us where and when (and by whom) you
expect this new evidence to be published and discussed.
I assume you will allow
the members of the Merovingian Society to place their faith in someone
else who may also be wrong. That's just being fair, I think.
Interesting: disingenuously equating scholarly discourse and consensus
with arbitrary personal loyalties.
The members of this 'Order' are free to place their faith wherever they
wish--and wear whatever medallions they desire. On the other hand,
readers of this group may draw (and have drawn) their own conclusions
about the implications of the quality of the genealogies displayed by
this group predicated on 'proof' of descent from a Merovingian king.
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net