While validating some early Spanish/Westgoth entries against Leo's great database, I stumbled on 4 generations of duplicate entries. When merged, they give early Spanish royalty a Merovingian ancestry.
Entry Set 1 shows :
'Liubigotona of the Westgoths', m. 'Ervik King of the Westgoths' [680-687] (son of 'Ardablast', g-son of 'Athanagild' and 'Flavia Juliana') and had dau 'Cixillo of the Westgoth' who m. 'Egika King of the Westgoths'. Egika and Cixillo had a son Witiza (no further descents shown). See http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?pe ... 7&tree=LEO. This set - citing ES II 48 - contains a Merovingian ancestry for both Ervik and Cixillo but no descents to early Spanish royalty.
Entry Set 2 shows
'Liuvigotona', m. 'Erwigio King of the Visigoths' (son of 'Ardavazd', g-son of 'Athanagild' and 'Flavia Juliana') and had dau 'Cixilona of The Visigoths' who m. 'Egica, King of the Visigoths'. Egica and Cixilona had a son Sisbert whose descendants include early Spanish royalty. See http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?pe ... 3&tree=LEO . This set - citing Francisco Antonio Doria's many 2001 & earlier 'link' postings - contains no Merovingian ancestries but do contain a descent to early Spanish royalty, the earliest being Ordono II King of Asturias, Galicia and Leon [914-924].
Clearly 'Egika m. Cixillo' and 'Egica m. Cixilona' are the same couple, and they had not 1 but 2 sons - Witiza (Set 1) and Sisbert (Set 2).
The duplication was no doubt due to different sources using different spellings. Doria also focused on establishing a (tenuous) DFA link back to Mamikonid ruler Vardan III (see http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 0994585264). The Doria postings thus ignored Liubigotona/Liuvigotona's ancestry altogether, and stopped at Ervik/Erwigio's grandparents ('Flavia Juliana' being the alleged Mamikonid link) without noting that Athanagild's mother Ingunda/Ingonde was Merovingian (those wishing to review more of Doria's comments on the Egica to Hermingilde Guterres descent, also see http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 0947216711, and some of his additional citations at http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/ge ... 0948605373)
Todd, Nat and others may have updated their thinking on the Set 2 Sisbert link and descent, but Doria's many postings did seem to have enough seemingly credible early sources that the descent could not be rejected (at least back then).
Can someone also clarify what the title of 'Praesor' means (the Set 2 descent includes several 'Praesores of Coimbra'). While sometimes translated as 'count', Dorioa also translated it as 'count of Christians'. Is it a special kind of title perhaps derived from the Roman title of 'Praetor'?
Terry Booth
Chicago IL
A Merovingian Ancestry for Early Spanish Kings - Hidden in G
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: A Merovingian Ancestry for Early Spanish Kings - Hidden
On Feb 10, 3:41 pm, "TJ Booth" <terryjbo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I certainly wouldn't go along with this characterization. As recited
in the linked contributions you cited, there are several links that
are "`traditional,' and has been carried down since the 16th century
at least." A 16th century tradition is still 700 years after the
events reported and long after political considerations would have
tainted authentic tradition irreparably. Compare to the Maya
tradition. The events described are 200 years later, and the earliest
known example of the tradition is at least a century older, making at
least a 300 year narrower window for distortion, yet that tradition
can be shown to deviate from the historical reality.
Another generation is backed by a document that names the individual
involved and two sons, but does not name the supposed son through whom
the descent is traced. (Again to quote, "There is no document that
links Guterre and this previous Hermenegildo.") For this critical
document, which provides three generations and the important Coimbra
continuity, the cited source is Bernardo de Brito, _Monarquia
Lusitana_, but in a review of a book on Iberian monasticism, which
appeared in _Speculum_, the author states, "Brito is generally held
responsible for propagating numerous forgeries, legends, and
falsehoods. . . ." I have not traced down the specifics, and perhaps
authenticity of this document can be shown independently, but I am
skeptical.
As far as I am aware, Gutierre, father of Hermengildo Gutierrez can
not be shown to be son of anyone, and is thus the earliest person to
whom descent can be traced. There is a good reason for this. Prior to
the generation of Hermengildo and Osorio, the documents do not provide
patronymics, meaning that even were we to find a Gutierre in a
document naming a parent, there would be slim chance of identifying
him with Hermengildo's father. As far as I can tell, this pedigree
has nothing to support it but the suggestion that one Hermengildo
should be grandson of another.
Is the line proven? Not even close. Can it be disproven? No, the same
lack of evidence which prevents credible descents likewise prevents
disproof.
taf
Todd, Nat and others may have updated their thinking on the Set 2 Sisbert link and descent, but Doria's many postings did seem to have enough seemingly credible early sources that the descent could not be rejected (at least back then).
I certainly wouldn't go along with this characterization. As recited
in the linked contributions you cited, there are several links that
are "`traditional,' and has been carried down since the 16th century
at least." A 16th century tradition is still 700 years after the
events reported and long after political considerations would have
tainted authentic tradition irreparably. Compare to the Maya
tradition. The events described are 200 years later, and the earliest
known example of the tradition is at least a century older, making at
least a 300 year narrower window for distortion, yet that tradition
can be shown to deviate from the historical reality.
Another generation is backed by a document that names the individual
involved and two sons, but does not name the supposed son through whom
the descent is traced. (Again to quote, "There is no document that
links Guterre and this previous Hermenegildo.") For this critical
document, which provides three generations and the important Coimbra
continuity, the cited source is Bernardo de Brito, _Monarquia
Lusitana_, but in a review of a book on Iberian monasticism, which
appeared in _Speculum_, the author states, "Brito is generally held
responsible for propagating numerous forgeries, legends, and
falsehoods. . . ." I have not traced down the specifics, and perhaps
authenticity of this document can be shown independently, but I am
skeptical.
As far as I am aware, Gutierre, father of Hermengildo Gutierrez can
not be shown to be son of anyone, and is thus the earliest person to
whom descent can be traced. There is a good reason for this. Prior to
the generation of Hermengildo and Osorio, the documents do not provide
patronymics, meaning that even were we to find a Gutierre in a
document naming a parent, there would be slim chance of identifying
him with Hermengildo's father. As far as I can tell, this pedigree
has nothing to support it but the suggestion that one Hermengildo
should be grandson of another.
Is the line proven? Not even close. Can it be disproven? No, the same
lack of evidence which prevents credible descents likewise prevents
disproof.
taf
-
Christopher Ingham
Re: A Merovingian Ancestry for Early Spanish Kings - Hidden
TJ Booth wrote:
Information about the later Visigothic kingdom derives
mostly from much later chronicles. Ardabastus, parentage
unknown, was a Byzantine official who sought refuge at
the court of King Chindasuinth (642-653), and received
the king's niece in marriage [_ChrAlf_2]. (Athanagild
was taken as a hostage to Constantinople while a still
a youth, and his fate is unknown. No Visigothic rulers
were descended from Ingonde.)
Ervig, the son of Ardabastus and Chindasuinth's niece,
may have been involved in the abdication of Chindasuinth's
son, Wamba (672-680), and himself became king (680-687)
[_ChrAlf_2]. He gave his daughter Cixilo in marriage
to the_dux_Egica (_ChrAlf_3), who subsequently became king
(687-702). Upon ascending the throne he promised his
uncle, the former King Wamba, to repudiate Cixilo, but
he already had a son by her, Witiza, who became co-ruler
and then king (693/4-710) [_Chr Alf_4; the repudiation of
Cixilo is confirmed in the Fifteenth Council of Toledo
(688)].
A second son of Egica, Sisbert, would appear to be a much
later invention. (A contemporary of Egica named Sisibert
was the metropolitan of Toledo.)
There are as yet no proven connections between the
Visigothic kings and rulers of the Spanish successor
states.
Christopher Ingham
'Liubigotona of the Westgoths', m. 'Ervik King of the
Westgoths' [680-687] (son of 'Ardablast', g-son of
'Athanagild' and 'Flavia Juliana') and had dau 'Cixillo
of the Westgoth' who m. 'Egika King of the Westgoths'.
Egika and Cixillo had a son Witiza (no further descents
shown)....
'Liuvigotona', m. 'Erwigio King of the Visigoths' (son
of 'Ardavazd', g-son of 'Athanagild' and 'Flavia Juliana')
and had dau 'Cixilona of The Visigoths' who m. 'Egica,
King of the Visigoths'. Egica and Cixilona had a son
Sisbert whose descendants include early Spanish royalty....
Clearly 'Egika m. Cixillo' and 'Egica m. Cixilona' are
the same couple, and they had not 1 but 2 sons - Witiza
(Set 1) and Sisbert (Set 2).
The Doria postings ignored Liubigotona/Liuvigotona's
ancestry altogether, and stopped at Ervik/Erwigio's
grandparents ('Flavia Juliana' being the alleged Mamikonid
link) without noting that Athanagild's mother Ingunda/
Ingonde was Merovingian....
Information about the later Visigothic kingdom derives
mostly from much later chronicles. Ardabastus, parentage
unknown, was a Byzantine official who sought refuge at
the court of King Chindasuinth (642-653), and received
the king's niece in marriage [_ChrAlf_2]. (Athanagild
was taken as a hostage to Constantinople while a still
a youth, and his fate is unknown. No Visigothic rulers
were descended from Ingonde.)
Ervig, the son of Ardabastus and Chindasuinth's niece,
may have been involved in the abdication of Chindasuinth's
son, Wamba (672-680), and himself became king (680-687)
[_ChrAlf_2]. He gave his daughter Cixilo in marriage
to the_dux_Egica (_ChrAlf_3), who subsequently became king
(687-702). Upon ascending the throne he promised his
uncle, the former King Wamba, to repudiate Cixilo, but
he already had a son by her, Witiza, who became co-ruler
and then king (693/4-710) [_Chr Alf_4; the repudiation of
Cixilo is confirmed in the Fifteenth Council of Toledo
(688)].
A second son of Egica, Sisbert, would appear to be a much
later invention. (A contemporary of Egica named Sisibert
was the metropolitan of Toledo.)
There are as yet no proven connections between the
Visigothic kings and rulers of the Spanish successor
states.
Christopher Ingham