• Any living male descendant of Charlemagne ?

    From Denis Beauregard@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 27 12:03:54 2022
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joseph cook@21:1/5 to Denis Beauregard on Fri May 27 11:32:41 2022
    Also..

    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.

    There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
    --Joe C

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joseph cook@21:1/5 to Denis Beauregard on Fri May 27 11:31:36 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    To answer these three questions: No. No. No.
    There are no known recent male-only Charlemagne lines.

    --Joe C

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to Denis Beauregard on Fri May 27 11:35:35 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that
    recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the
    person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl
    reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to Denis Beauregard on Fri May 27 12:59:32 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
    wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    [...]
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that
    recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a
    junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the
    person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
    obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.
    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
    with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
    (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is
    possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
    and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5
    from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
    sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are
    male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is
    around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

    As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
    from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in
    the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from
    that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
    of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the possibility.

    Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with
    many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more
    utopic).
    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).

    I guess we are just trying to separate proven from unproven?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Denis Beauregard@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 27 15:38:59 2022
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.medieval@gmail.com>
    wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    [...]

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that
    recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the
    person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
    obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.


    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
    with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
    (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is
    possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
    and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5
    from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
    sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are
    male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is
    around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

    As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
    from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in
    the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from
    that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
    of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the possibility.

    Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with
    many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more
    utopic).


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Fri May 27 13:40:03 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:59:34 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
    wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    [...]
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a
    junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the
    person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
    obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.
    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
    with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
    (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
    and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5
    from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
    sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are
    male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

    As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
    from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in
    the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from
    that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
    of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the possibility.

    Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with
    many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more utopic).
    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).

    I guess we are just trying to separate proven from unproven?

    The question here isn't descendant, as we are all probably in one or the other. But male-line-only. I.E. the Y-DNA test, not the Autosomal DNA tests

    Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.

    So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
    And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence. So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.

    *However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.

    And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths

    And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
    Extremely poor to mildly possible

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Johnny Brananas@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Fri May 27 13:46:10 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:40:05 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:59:34 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    [...]
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a
    junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be
    the person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
    obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.
    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000, with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5 from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
    sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

    As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
    from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
    of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the possibility.

    Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more utopic).
    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).

    I guess we are just trying to separate proven from unproven?
    The question here isn't descendant, as we are all probably in one or the other.
    But male-line-only. I.E. the Y-DNA test, not the Autosomal DNA tests

    Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.

    So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
    And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence.
    So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.

    *However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.

    And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths

    And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
    Extremely poor to mildly possible

    Yes, MALE-LINE only is what I meant. Shouldn't probability indicate there are some still around, given the huge number of descents of all Europeans from Charlemagne?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Fri May 27 14:26:58 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:46:11 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

    Yes, MALE-LINE only is what I meant. Shouldn't probability indicate there are some still around, given the huge number of descents of all Europeans from Charlemagne?


    Setting aside that the whole 'everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne' claim is itself an overstatement, male- or female- line descent doesn't work the same way as general descent, and the fact that someone has a lot of descendants is no real
    indication of how their male line fares over time. I would suggest that the number of male children who had issue is a much better indicator of who living at the dawn of the 9th century is going to have surviving male lines than how many total
    descendants they have, but it is all so random that even that would have realtively weak correlation.

    That said, I think it likely that Charlemagne does have surviving male-line descent because of the 'Mel Brooks factor' ('it's good to be the king' - with so many generations of Carolingian royalty, there were probably many more sons born to each
    generation of Carolingian monarch than are documented).

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Denis Beauregard@21:1/5 to wjhonson.2014@gmail.com on Fri May 27 17:35:18 2022
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 13:40:03 -0700 (PDT), Will Johnson <wjhonson.2014@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

    The question here isn't descendant, as we are all probably in one or the other.
    But male-line-only. I.E. the Y-DNA test, not the Autosomal DNA tests

    Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.

    So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
    And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence. >So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.

    *However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.

    And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths

    And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
    Extremely poor to mildly possible

    With a rather small population like New France, it is usually
    possible to get a reference signature from 2 descendants, and
    ideally from 3 or more. I think we are 6 Beauregard who were
    tested for Y DNA.

    But indeed, in about 5% of cases, the NPE lineage is found,
    often because there is a triangulation upward or because 2
    descendants have different lineages. However, if you reach
    nobility, then you have a longer paper trail and if one
    lineage is in France, the other in England or Germany or
    Spain, then odds of NPE is very small.


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to Denis Beauregard on Fri May 27 14:33:31 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:39:03 PM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:

    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
    with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
    (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is
    possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
    and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    But when your 'paper trail' is simply a couple of modern families claiming that their undocumented origins must trace to Charlemagne because . . . well, just because, any pretense of beign able to triangulate is lost. The best you could do from DNA is
    to prove the lines ahd a common ancestor living at that time, but there is no way of identifying that person. Even with one line ahving a paper trail, and assuming that it is accurate, you still couldn't triangulate to prove it was Charlemagne who was
    the ancestor of the other line. The mutation rate is too imprecise and the mutations themselves too infrequent to give you generation-specificity in the absence of a trustworthy papertrail for both lines, and then what do you need the DNA for. The other
    line could descend from Carloman or Bernard or Drogo. with the common ancestor being one of the earlier pepins or Martel. Without such a paper trail for either line, there just is no basis whatsoever for identifying the shared ancestor.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Paulo Ricardo Canedo on Sat May 28 13:42:43 2022
    On 28-May-22 1:26 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sexta-feira, 27 de maio de 2022 à(s) 19:32:43 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
    Also..
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.
    There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
    --Joe C
    Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, a favorite of Louis XIV, claimed to be an agnatic descendant of the Carolingians through Eudes de Vermandois, the Insane, who was disinherited but this is believed to be a fraud.

    Also a fictitious lineage surnamed 'Sohier de Vermandois' has persisted
    in the literature since the 17th century, based on a series of false
    charters first printed by Le Carpentier in 1661 that he probably
    concocted himself in an attempt to substantiate the alleged Carolingian
    agnatic ancestry of his patron Constantin Sohier, who paid for the
    publication of the work after receiving an Imperial barony in 1658.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 27 20:26:27 2022
    A sexta-feira, 27 de maio de 2022 à(s) 19:32:43 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
    Also..
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.
    There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
    --Joe C
    Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, a favorite of Louis XIV, claimed to be an agnatic descendant of the Carolingians through Eudes de Vermandois, the Insane, who was disinherited but this is believed to be a fraud.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Sat May 28 14:48:54 2022
    On 28-May-22 7:26 AM, taf wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 1:46:11 PM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:

    Yes, MALE-LINE only is what I meant. Shouldn't probability indicate there are some still around, given the huge number of descents of all Europeans from Charlemagne?


    Setting aside that the whole 'everyone in Europe is descended from Charlemagne' claim is itself an overstatement, male- or female- line descent doesn't work the same way as general descent, and the fact that someone has a lot of descendants is no real
    indication of how their male line fares over time. I would suggest that the number of male children who had issue is a much better indicator of who living at the dawn of the 9th century is going to have surviving male lines than how many total
    descendants they have, but it is all so random that even that would have realtively weak correlation.

    That said, I think it likely that Charlemagne does have surviving male-line descent because of the 'Mel Brooks factor' ('it's good to be the king' - with so many generations of Carolingian royalty, there were probably many more sons born to each
    generation of Carolingian monarch than are documented).

    It's also goodish to be the concubine or illegitimate offspring of a
    king, so that there was strong incentive for claims of royal paternity
    to be made and ascertained (or otherwise) in the lifetime of the
    supposed father. If we don't have documented evidence for this, it is
    lost history that no foreseeable DNA analysis could establish - if
    anyone frets over learning the truth of this, it would make as much fact-finding sense to experiment with time travel.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Sat May 28 14:34:06 2022
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is that
    recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of
    _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of
    that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case
    for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur
    in 1989. It is not universally accepted.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 28 03:06:19 2022
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of
    that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case
    for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur
    in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Sat May 28 03:05:32 2022
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 04:42:48 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 1:26 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sexta-feira, 27 de maio de 2022 à(s) 19:32:43 UTC+1, joe...@gmail.com escreveu:
    Also..
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.
    There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
    --Joe C
    Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, a favorite of Louis XIV, claimed to be an agnatic descendant of the Carolingians through Eudes de Vermandois, the Insane, who was disinherited but this is believed to be a fraud.
    Also a fictitious lineage surnamed 'Sohier de Vermandois' has persisted
    in the literature since the 17th century, based on a series of false charters first printed by Le Carpentier in 1661 that he probably
    concocted himself in an attempt to substantiate the alleged Carolingian agnatic ancestry of his patron Constantin Sohier, who paid for the publication of the work after receiving an Imperial barony in 1658.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Paulo Ricardo Canedo on Sat May 28 22:38:11 2022
    On 28-May-22 8:06 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of
    _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as
    probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of
    that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the
    late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case
    for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur
    in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis?

    I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
    fully convincing proof.

    The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
    occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
    heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
    zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
    they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it.

    Peter Stewart

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stewart Baldwin@21:1/5 to wjhons...@gmail.com on Sat May 28 09:48:36 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:40:05 PM UTC-5, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
    ...
    Y-DNA testing is *notoriously* difficult to prove even back five hundred years because of the very poor non-scientific work that has been so far by amateurs and wishful thinkers.

    So Joe Gilliland says I descend from Arthur Gilliland born in 1500 and Michael Gilliland says hey I also descend from this same guy.
    And voila there Y-DNA matches as well, within a certain predicted divergence.
    So they form the Gilliland society and declare that every male-line descendant has to match them.

    *However* back at the farm, as they say,...*both* of their lines were actually from a woman's prior husband and they just took that name of her next husband anyway.

    And so they match each other.... but they are really both Smiths

    And that's how the Y projects usually roll.
    Extremely poor to mildly possible

    While it is true that there is a lot of really bad Y-DNA "research" out there (sitting alongside the flood of really bad paper trail "research"), it is wrong to suggest that most Y-DNA research is that bad. In fact, the basic principles of Y-DNA
    genealogical research are quite straightforward for those who have the necessary skills in genealogical research, basic genetics, and logical thinking. The main stumbling block for serious researchers is the lack of usable data, and the lack of a good Y-
    DNA alternative to Gedmatch (as far as I know) doesn't help. However, if you have enough tested descendants with good paper trails, then much can be done.

    That being said, it is absurd to suggest that Y-DNA evidence could be used to verify a male-line descent from Chartlemagne, or even to suggest (assuming that well-documented "ancient DNA" is not a factor) that an approximate Y-DNA signature for
    Charlemagne could be determined on the available evidence. For that, you would at the very least need Y-DNA from at least two testees who had believable direct-line paper trails back to two different sons of Charlemagne, and even that would only be
    enough to regard the connection as plausible. (I guess you could argue that two well documented brothers only two or three generations removed from Charlemagne in the male line would be close enough.) Since this scenario is nowhere near to being true,
    Y-DNA is not a reasonable factor in the question of the thread.

    In a scenario from Fantasyland, suppose that you somehow had a pristine DNA sample that was 100% guaranteed to come from THE Charlemagne. Even then, getting a Y-DNA match with this sample would not show that you were a male-line descendant of
    Charlemagne, only that you and he shared a direct male-line ancestor who was probably not too many generations removed from him. Only if you also had samples from his brother and several other close male-line relatives which showed that Charlemagne had
    a specific mutation would you have a reasonable test for likely male-line descent from Charlemagne.

    By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof that
    this claim is wrong.

    Stewart Baldwin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Stewart Baldwin on Sun May 29 11:29:54 2022
    On 29-May-22 2:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

    <snip>

    By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof
    that this claim is wrong.

    This will be the easiest $100 I ever made - as a newly-minted onomastics fanatic, I can determine beyond doubt that the name Balwdin proves you
    must be an agnatic descendant of Charles the Bald.

    Peter (also Bald) Stewart


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joseph cook@21:1/5 to ravinma...@yahoo.com on Sat May 28 21:05:15 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:59:34 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    On Fri, 27 May 2022 11:35:35 -0700 (PDT), taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
    wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-7, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    [...]
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a
    junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.

    As to matching DNA from two lines dubiously claiming male-line descent from Charlegmagne giving us his DNA, it would be possible that this was Charlemagne's DNA, simply because in the absence of evidence, any male from that time period could be the
    person the DNA derives from, but there is a distinct possibility that two lines of
    obscure origin that happen to descend from someone else entirely would both pick Charlemagne as their ancestor of choice, while it is also possible the DNA match woudl reflect a much more recent false-paternity event involving the two families.
    I have seen recently results with a triangulation close to year 1000,
    with descendants from 2 families, one in Normandy and one in England
    (they followed William the Conqueror there), with many Big Y
    involved. So with enough paper trail and descendants to test, it is possible to prove something. In this case, there are people in France
    and other in England, so NPE is very unlikely.

    2 descendants would probably not be enough, but I suppose with 4 or 5
    from different families and living in different places (i.e. to be
    sure that there is no NPE), it would be possible, providing there are
    male descendants. But from the genealogics database, the last one is around year 1100, so all this is theoretical.

    As for NPE, I have seen a case with someone in USA matching someone
    from Europe. Since one was from a small noble family who had lands in
    the country of the other, they presumed the common ancestor was from
    that era (a noble and the wife of a commoner). But in my opinion, one
    of them was from a recent (after-1900) NPE so I fully understand the possibility.

    Utopic because of lack of descendants, but nonetheless possible with
    many descendants (and since none is known after 1200, then yet more utopic).
    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).

    No, actually these flow in opposite directions at this point. Every year, it is more likely that "everyone is descended from charlemagne" (the universal ancestors point moves ever forward in the future).
    However, every year is it _less_ likely that an all-male live survives.

    --Joe C

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stewart Baldwin@21:1/5 to joe...@gmail.com on Sun May 29 11:46:32 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:05:17 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
    ...
    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).
    No, actually these flow in opposite directions at this point. Every year, it is more likely that "everyone is descended from charlemagne" (the universal ancestors point moves ever forward in the future).
    However, every year is it _less_ likely that an all-male live survives.

    The first statement is valid, but the second is not true. As some male lines die out, the percentages of others increase slighly in compensation (as do the actual number if the population of males is increasing). So, Of all of Charlemagne's male
    contemporaries, the male lines of most have already died out, and as time advances, some increase and some decrease (or die out). Without evidence, it is impossible to tell which category is relevant to Charlemagne.

    Stewart Baldwin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stewart Baldwin@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Sun May 29 11:48:40 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:29:56 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 29-May-22 2:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

    <snip>
    By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof
    that this claim is wrong.
    This will be the easiest $100 I ever made - as a newly-minted onomastics fanatic, I can determine beyond doubt that the name Balwdin proves you
    must be an agnatic descendant of Charles the Bald.

    Peter (also Bald) Stewart

    Are you sure that the descent is in the direct male line? After all, the daughter of Charles was married to a Baldwin.

    Stewart Baldwin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Stewart Baldwin on Mon May 30 08:46:19 2022
    On 30-May-22 4:46 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:05:17 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
    ...
    I assume they must exist, "because every European living today is a descendant of Charlemagne" (i.e., statistics and probability).
    No, actually these flow in opposite directions at this point. Every year, it is more likely that "everyone is descended from charlemagne" (the universal ancestors point moves ever forward in the future).
    However, every year is it _less_ likely that an all-male live survives.

    The first statement is valid, but the second is not true. As some male lines die out, the percentages of others increase slighly in compensation (as do the actual number if the population of males is increasing). So, Of all of Charlemagne's male
    contemporaries, the male lines of most have already died out, and as time advances, some increase and some decrease (or die out). Without evidence, it is impossible to tell which category is relevant to Charlemagne.

    Charlemagne's heir Louis I tried to avert male-line descents through his illegitimate paternal half-brothers by having them tonsured in 817/18,
    so that not only natural probabilities have applied from the start in
    this case.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Stewart Baldwin on Mon May 30 08:58:51 2022
    On 30-May-22 4:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:29:56 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 29-May-22 2:48 AM, Stewart Baldwin wrote:

    <snip>
    By the way, I hereby claim that I am NOT a direct male-line descendant of Charlemagne, although I will also freely admit that I have no proof of this claim. I will gladly pay one hundred dollars to anybody who can provide clear and convincing proof
    that this claim is wrong.
    This will be the easiest $100 I ever made - as a newly-minted onomastics
    fanatic, I can determine beyond doubt that the name Balwdin proves you
    must be an agnatic descendant of Charles the Bald.

    Peter (also Bald) Stewart

    Are you sure that the descent is in the direct male line? After all, the daughter of Charles was married to a Baldwin.

    Yes, I am quite sure that you owe me $100.

    In the onomastics cult that I joined yesterday in order to win this
    prize, the default setting is _always_ male-line descent from the most
    famous namesake, and of course names and indeed syllables were strictly proprietry within lineages. These are articles of faith handed down from
    Joseph Depoin and Maurice Chaume, not open to question by nasty little
    people like the Peter Stewart of the past.

    As for Baldwin of Flanders, note that his father was Odoacer, reputedly
    son of Lideric - names that never again occur in the comital dynasty of Flanders, showing beyond doubt that the exception proves the rule.

    Baldwin I and Charles the Bald's daughter had a son named Baldwin the
    Bald, the latter element directly after the child's maternal grandfather
    and the former a diminutive of this adopted by his father plainly as a
    tribute to the Carolingians on reconciling with the king. This the
    onomastic patrimony of Lideric and Oddoacer was eliminated for ever, a
    twist of the rules that is otherwise unaccountable.

    Get with the program.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mike davis@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Mon May 30 08:33:48 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:38:16 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 28-May-22 8:06 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:

    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of
    _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as >> probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of
    that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the >> late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case
    for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur >> in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis?
    I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
    fully convincing proof.

    The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
    occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
    heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
    zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
    they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it.

    Peter Stewart

    Is the onomastic argument something like, these noble families
    called a son Louis to indicate a carolingian descent? Why not call him
    Charles after Charlemagne if that is the case, why Louis? Apart from Louis of Chiny [d1025] there are other Louis in the 11th century, that is well after the
    expiry of the Carolingian male line and their loss of kingship.

    Louis of Mousson 1042-71
    Louis the Bearded ancestor of the Landgraves of Thuringia 1039-1056

    Neither of them seem to have had a carolingian descent.

    Mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to mike davis on Tue May 31 10:36:26 2022
    On 31-May-22 1:33 AM, mike davis wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:38:16 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 28-May-22 8:06 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:

    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of >>>> _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as >>>> probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of >>>> that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the >>>> late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case >>>> for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur >>>> in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis?
    I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
    fully convincing proof.

    The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
    occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
    heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
    zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
    they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it.

    Peter Stewart

    Is the onomastic argument something like, these noble families
    called a son Louis to indicate a carolingian descent? Why not call him Charles after Charlemagne if that is the case, why Louis? Apart from Louis of
    Chiny [d1025] there are other Louis in the 11th century, that is well after the
    expiry of the Carolingian male line and their loss of kingship.

    Louis of Mousson 1042-71
    Louis the Bearded ancestor of the Landgraves of Thuringia 1039-1056

    Neither of them seem to have had a carolingian descent.

    Looking for commonsense in the arguments of people who think they can
    trace medieval genealogies by matching names to ancestry is like hoping
    a rap artist is going to understand the difference between verse and
    doggerel - they just don't have it in them.

    The name Louis was adopted by the Carolingians as a PR exercise, like
    the name Edward by the Plantagenets, and of course the Vermandois line
    was (a) not descended from any Louis in their agnatic clan and (b) did
    not use the names Charles, Carloman, Pippin or Bernard belonging to
    their own direct forbears.

    Trying to make Stewart Baldwin into a Carolingian on the basis of a
    byname given to one of Charlemagne's grandsons is on an illogical par
    with trying to make Charles of Vienne into a grandson of Leo VI because
    the identifier 'Constantine' was used by Flodoard to differentiate him
    from namesakes. Onomastics mavens will use free-association to get a
    result if the actual evidence doesn't help in their pursuit of novelty.

    Peter Stewart

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stewart Baldwin@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Mon May 30 21:53:54 2022
    On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 5:58:54 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

    In the onomastics cult that I joined yesterday in order to win this
    prize, the default setting is _always_ male-line descent from the most famous namesake, and of course names and indeed syllables were strictly proprietry within lineages. These are articles of faith handed down from Joseph Depoin and Maurice Chaume, not open to question by nasty little people like the Peter Stewart of the past.

    If I correctly understand the Depoin-Chuame cult which you joined recently, it is less extreme than some of the other onomastic religions in the sense that actual documentary evidence is usually allowed to trump onomastic evidence when it is solid enough.
    Indeed, Depoin and Chaume generally resorted to onomastic arguments only when the direct documentation ran dry. For that reason, your onomastic "evidence" concerning the name Baldwin must be rejected as irrelevant, for I have pretty solid Y-DNA
    evidence (which I will give in excruciating detail if necessary) that sometime after the origin of surnames, but more than 300 years ago, one of my male-line Baldwin ancestors was in fact a biological son of a man whose surname was Mayberry or some
    variant thereof (Maybury, Mabry, etc.), so that my male-line descent goes through the Mayberry family. Since I doubt that even the onomastics cults would accept the two-letter match between Mayberry and Magnus as being sufficient, it is difficult to see
    where the evidence is. As further onomastic evidence in the negative direction, please note that the names Andy and Griffith are not known to occur in Charlemagne's family.

    Stewart Baldwin

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 31 16:20:23 2022
    T24gMzEtTWF5LTIyIDI6NTMgUE0sIFN0ZXdhcnQgQmFsZHdpbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gU3VuZGF5 LCBNYXkgMjksIDIwMjIgYXQgNTo1ODo1NCBQTSBVVEMtNSwgcHNzLi4uQG9wdHVzbmV0LmNvbS5h dSB3cm90ZToNCj4gDQo+PiBJbiB0aGUgb25vbWFzdGljcyBjdWx0IHRoYXQgSSBqb2luZWQgeWVz dGVyZGF5IGluIG9yZGVyIHRvIHdpbiB0aGlzDQo+PiBwcml6ZSwgdGhlIGRlZmF1bHQgc2V0dGlu ZyBpcyBfYWx3YXlzXyBtYWxlLWxpbmUgZGVzY2VudCBmcm9tIHRoZSBtb3N0DQo+PiBmYW1vdXMg bmFtZXNha2UsIGFuZCBvZiBjb3Vyc2UgbmFtZXMgYW5kIGluZGVlZCBzeWxsYWJsZXMgd2VyZSBz dHJpY3RseQ0KPj4gcHJvcHJpZXRyeSB3aXRoaW4gbGluZWFnZXMuIFRoZXNlIGFyZSBhcnRpY2xl cyBvZiBmYWl0aCBoYW5kZWQgZG93biBmcm9tDQo+PiBKb3NlcGggRGVwb2luIGFuZCBNYXVyaWNl IENoYXVtZSwgbm90IG9wZW4gdG8gcXVlc3Rpb24gYnkgbmFzdHkgbGl0dGxlDQo+PiBwZW9wbGUg bGlrZSB0aGUgUGV0ZXIgU3Rld2FydCBvZiB0aGUgcGFzdC4NCj4gDQo+IElmIEkgY29ycmVjdGx5 IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIERlcG9pbi1DaHVhbWUgY3VsdCB3aGljaCB5b3Ugam9pbmVkIHJlY2Vu dGx5LCBpdCBpcyBsZXNzIGV4dHJlbWUgdGhhbiBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBvdGhlciBvbm9tYXN0aWMg cmVsaWdpb25zIGluIHRoZSBzZW5zZSB0aGF0IGFjdHVhbCBkb2N1bWVudGFyeSBldmlkZW5jZSBp cyB1c3VhbGx5IGFsbG93ZWQgdG8gdHJ1bXAgb25vbWFzdGljIGV2aWRlbmNlIHdoZW4gaXQgaXMg c29saWQgZW5vdWdoLiAgSW5kZWVkLCBEZXBvaW4gYW5kIENoYXVtZSBnZW5lcmFsbHkgcmVzb3J0 ZWQgdG8gb25vbWFzdGljIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBvbmx5IHdoZW4gdGhlIGRpcmVjdCBkb2N1bWVudGF0 aW9uIHJhbiBkcnkuICBGb3IgdGhhdCByZWFzb24sIHlvdXIgb25vbWFzdGljICJldmlkZW5jZSIg Y29uY2VybmluZyB0aGUgbmFtZSBCYWxkd2luIG11c3QgYmUgcmVqZWN0ZWQgYXMgaXJyZWxldmFu dCwgZm9yIEkgaGF2ZSBwcmV0dHkgc29saWQgWS1ETkEgZXZpZGVuY2UgKHdoaWNoIEkgd2lsbCBn aXZlIGluIGV4Y3J1Y2lhdGluZyBkZXRhaWwgaWYgbmVjZXNzYXJ5KSB0aGF0IHNvbWV0aW1lIGFm dGVyIHRoZSBvcmlnaW4gb2Ygc3VybmFtZXMsIGJ1dCBtb3JlIHRoYW4gMzAwIHllYXJzIGFnbywg b25lIG9mIG15IG1hbGUtbGluZSBCYWxkd2luIGFuY2VzdG9ycyB3YXMgaW4gZmFjdCBhIGJpb2xv Z2ljYWwgc29uIG9mIGEgbWFuIHdob3NlIHN1cm5hbWUgd2FzIE1heWJlcnJ5IG9yIHNvbWUgdmFy aWFudCB0aGVyZW9mIChNYXlidXJ5LCBNYWJyeSwgZXRjLiksIHNvIHRoYXQgbXkgbWFsZS1saW5l IGRlc2NlbnQgZ29lcyB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBNYXliZXJyeSBmYW1pbHkuICBTaW5jZSBJIGRvdWJ0 IHRoYXQgZXZlbiB0aGUgb25vbWFzdGljcyBjdWx0cyB3b3VsZCBhY2NlcHQgdGhlIHR3by1sZXR0 ZXIgbWF0Y2ggYmV0d2VlbiBNYXliZXJyeSBhbmQgTWFnbnVzIGFzIGJlaW5nIHN1ZmZpY2llbnQs IGl0IGlzIGRpZmZpY3VsdCB0byBzZWUgd2hlcmUgdGhlIGV2aWRlbmNlIGlzLiAgQXMgZnVydGhl ciBvbm9tYXN0aWMgZXZpZGVuY2UgaW4gdGhlIG5lZ2F0aXZlIGRpcmVjdGlvbiwgcGxlYXNlIG5v dGUgdGhhdCB0aGUgbmFtZXMgQW5keSBhbmQgR3JpZmZpdGggYXJlIG5vdCBrbm93biB0byBvY2N1 ciBpbiBDaGFybGVtYWduZSdzIGZhbWlseS4NCg0KTm90IHlldCwgYW55d2F5IC0gYnV0IGlmIEF1 bnQgQmVlJ3MgbmFtZSB3YXMgQmVhdHJpY2UgaXQgaGFzIGJlZW4gDQpzaG9lLWhvcm5lZCBpbnRv IHRoZSBWZXJtYW5kb2lzIGZhbWlseSBpbiB0aGUgcGVyc29uIG9mIEtpbmcgUm9iZXJ0IEkncyAN CndpZmUgb2YgdW5rbm93biBvcmlnaW4sIHRoZW4gbWlzdGFrZW5seSBhc3NlcnRlZCB0byBiZSBv cmlnaW5hbCBpbiBoZXIgDQphbmQgYSB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBDYXJvbGluZ2lhbiBuYW1lIEJl cnRhIG1lYW5pbmcgJ3NoZSB3aG8gYmxlc3NlcyANCndpdGggZ29vZCBmb3J0dW5lJywgd2hlbiBp dCBpcyBhY3R1YWxseSBhIGNvcnJ1cHRpb24gb2YgVmlhdHJpeCwgbWVhbmluZyANCidhIGZlbWFs ZSB3YXlmYXJlcicsIHRoZSBuYW1lIG9mIGEgUm9tYW4gbWFydHlyIG9mIHRoZSBmb3VydGggY2Vu dHVyeS4NCg0KVGhlIGNvbXBhcmF0aXZlbHkgbW9kZXJhdGUgb25vbWFzdGljcyBiZWxpZWYgdGhh dCB5b3UgaGF2ZSBvdXRsaW5lZCB3YXMgDQp3ZWxsLWVzdGFibGlzaGVkIGJ5IDE3MjEsIHdoZW4g aXQgd2FzIHN0YXRlZCBieSBFY2thcmR0ICh0cmFuc2xhdGVkIGZyb20gDQpMYXRpbjogJ0l0IGlz IG5vdyBjb21tb24ga25vd2xlZGdlIHdpdGggbWVkaWV2YWwgZ2VuZWFsb2dpZXMgdGhhdCB3aGVy ZSANCmNsZWFyIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2YgYXV0aG9ycyBhcmUgbGFja2luZywgY29ubmVjdGlvbiB0 byB0aGUgbGluZWFnZSBvZiANCmlsbHVzdHJpb3VzIGZhbWlsaWVzIGNhbiBiZSBjb25jbHVkZWQg ZnJvbSBtZW4ncyBuYW1lcywgaWYgb3RoZXIgDQpjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzIGFyZSBmYXZvdXJhYmxl LicpDQoNCkRlcG9pbiBhbmQgQ2hhdW1lIGRpZCBub3QgYm90aGVyIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMgbmVhcmx5 IGVub3VnaCBvdmVyIA0KZmF2b3VyYWJsZSBvdGhlciBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzLiBUaGVpciBmb2xs b3dlcnMgaGF2ZSBiZWNvbWUgZXZlciBtb3JlIA0KZXh0cmF2YWdhbnQsIG5vdCB0byBzYXkgZm9v bGlzaCwgaW4gdGhlb3J5IGFuZCBwcmFjdGljZS4NCg0KUGV0ZXIgU3Rld2FydA0KDQoNCi0tIA0K VGhpcyBlbWFpbCBoYXMgYmVlbiBjaGVja2VkIGZvciB2aXJ1c2VzIGJ5IEFWRy4NCmh0dHBzOi8v d3d3LmF2Zy5jb20NCg==

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mike davis@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Tue May 31 14:24:01 2022
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:36:28 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 31-May-22 1:33 AM, mike davis wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:38:16 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 28-May-22 8:06 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:

    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of >>>> _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as
    probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of >>>> that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the
    late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case >>>> for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur >>>> in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis? >> I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
    fully convincing proof.

    The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
    occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
    heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
    zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
    they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it. >>
    Peter Stewart

    Is the onomastic argument something like, these noble families
    called a son Louis to indicate a carolingian descent? Why not call him Charles after Charlemagne if that is the case, why Louis? Apart from Louis of
    Chiny [d1025] there are other Louis in the 11th century, that is well after the
    expiry of the Carolingian male line and their loss of kingship.

    Louis of Mousson 1042-71
    Louis the Bearded ancestor of the Landgraves of Thuringia 1039-1056

    Neither of them seem to have had a carolingian descent.
    Looking for commonsense in the arguments of people who think they can
    trace medieval genealogies by matching names to ancestry is like hoping
    a rap artist is going to understand the difference between verse and doggerel - they just don't have it in them.

    The name Louis was adopted by the Carolingians as a PR exercise, like
    the name Edward by the Plantagenets, and of course the Vermandois line
    was (a) not descended from any Louis in their agnatic clan and (b) did
    not use the names Charles, Carloman, Pippin or Bernard belonging to
    their own direct forbears.

    yes that absence of certain names seems quite marked. I may be wrong
    but a cursory look at the early capetian kings shows they stopped using
    Hugh and Robert for their elder sons after Robert II. Some noble families
    do seem wedded to just 1 or 2 names, the Guilhems of Montpellier and
    Raymonds of Toulouse spring to mind, but you might have expected
    a long line of King Hughs and Roberts, instead we have Henry and Philip
    and then they too adopt Louis. And I believe that after the heiress Adelaide of
    vermandois married one of the Hughs they didnt give any of their sons 'dynastic names' such as Hugh, Robert or Herbert.

    mike

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to mike davis on Wed Jun 1 09:54:24 2022
    On 01-Jun-22 7:24 AM, mike davis wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:36:28 AM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 31-May-22 1:33 AM, mike davis wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 1:38:16 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 28-May-22 8:06 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A sábado, 28 de maio de 2022 à(s) 05:34:11 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 28-May-22 4:35 AM, taf wrote:

    The general consensus is that the proven male line of Charlemagne went extinct with the deaths of the children of Charles of Lorraine, uncle of Louis V, and with the end of the Vermandois male line, both in the 11th century. The caveat to this is
    that recently there has been a hypothesis floated that the Counts of Chiny were a junior line of Vermandois, but they in turn went extinct in the 14th century.
    The hypothesis is not entirely recent - it was adumbrated in vol. 9 of >>>>>> _Gallia Christiana_ (1751), p. 259, where Odo of Warcq was identified as >>>>>> probably the son of Albert I of Vermandois, who certainly had a son of >>>>>> that name although not certainly this same individual. Historians in the >>>>>> late-19th and early-20th century repeated the connection, and the case >>>>>> for descent from him to the counts of Chiny was expounded by Michel Bur >>>>>> in 1989. It is not universally accepted.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Thanks for this, Peter. What do you, yourself, think of that hypothesis? >>>> I think my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    For what it isn't worth, Bur made a plausible case that fell short of
    fully convincing proof.

    The onomastics are unhelpful, relying on the name Louis that did not
    occur in the Vermandois lineage as somehow indicating a Carolingian
    heritage for the Chiny family, so that the argument should occur to
    zealous onomacists as little short of nonsense - and yet predictably
    they have seized on this particularly unsupportable way of crediting it. >>>>
    Peter Stewart

    Is the onomastic argument something like, these noble families
    called a son Louis to indicate a carolingian descent? Why not call him
    Charles after Charlemagne if that is the case, why Louis? Apart from Louis of
    Chiny [d1025] there are other Louis in the 11th century, that is well after the
    expiry of the Carolingian male line and their loss of kingship.

    Louis of Mousson 1042-71
    Louis the Bearded ancestor of the Landgraves of Thuringia 1039-1056

    Neither of them seem to have had a carolingian descent.
    Looking for commonsense in the arguments of people who think they can
    trace medieval genealogies by matching names to ancestry is like hoping
    a rap artist is going to understand the difference between verse and
    doggerel - they just don't have it in them.

    The name Louis was adopted by the Carolingians as a PR exercise, like
    the name Edward by the Plantagenets, and of course the Vermandois line
    was (a) not descended from any Louis in their agnatic clan and (b) did
    not use the names Charles, Carloman, Pippin or Bernard belonging to
    their own direct forbears.

    yes that absence of certain names seems quite marked. I may be wrong
    but a cursory look at the early capetian kings shows they stopped using
    Hugh and Robert for their elder sons after Robert II. Some noble families
    do seem wedded to just 1 or 2 names, the Guilhems of Montpellier and
    Raymonds of Toulouse spring to mind, but you might have expected
    a long line of King Hughs and Roberts, instead we have Henry and Philip
    and then they too adopt Louis. And I believe that after the heiress Adelaide of
    vermandois married one of the Hughs they didnt give any of their sons 'dynastic names' such as Hugh, Robert or Herbert.

    The process of dropping Hugo and Robert from the Capetian name-stock was
    not altogether straightforward. Henri I gave the exotic name Philip to
    his eldest son, but the next two were named Robert and Hugo
    respectively. Henri's brother Robert of Burgundy named his eldest son
    Hugo and the next two Henri and Robert respectively.

    Robert II's eldest son was not only named Hugo but given Magnus along
    with it, after Hugo Capet's father known as Hugo Magnus and presumably
    on the pattern of Carolus Magnus for Charlemagne - this compound was
    still used by one of Henri I's great-grandsons, a marquis of Vasto.

    As you say, Hugo (Magnus) of Vermandois did not give recognised Capetian
    names to two of his sons, although the middle one of three was named
    Henri - the heir and the youngest were Radulf and Simon respectively,
    both names also given in the family of their maternal grandmother.
    However, we don't know that other dynastic names were bypassed entirely
    as these may have been given to unrecorded sons who died young. (If this happened repeatedly in a lineage, any name might have become discredited
    as unlucky just as some fell out of use after an embarrassing family
    member had brought it into disrepute.)

    Peter Stewart

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Tue May 31 19:12:13 2022
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    The process of dropping Hugo and Robert from the Capetian name-stock was
    not altogether straightforward. Henri I gave the exotic name Philip to
    his eldest son, but the next two were named Robert and Hugo
    respectively.

    Indeed, while they didn't use it for their eldest son, the name Robert was used for a younger son by all but two kings down to Louis IX (which is as far as I went), and one of those only had a single son. It didn't really pass out of usage, just out of
    first preference.

    Henri's brother Robert of Burgundy named his eldest son
    Hugo and the next two Henri and Robert respectively.

    And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Wed Jun 1 13:23:54 2022
    On 01-Jun-22 12:12 PM, taf wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    The process of dropping Hugo and Robert from the Capetian name-stock was
    not altogether straightforward. Henri I gave the exotic name Philip to
    his eldest son, but the next two were named Robert and Hugo
    respectively.

    Indeed, while they didn't use it for their eldest son, the name Robert was used for a younger son by all but two kings down to Louis IX (which is as far as I went), and one of those only had a single son. It didn't really pass out of usage, just out of
    first preference.

    Henri's brother Robert of Burgundy named his eldest son
    Hugo and the next two Henri and Robert respectively.

    And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.

    It's notable that the second duke named Robert came in the second half
    of the 13th century, two hundred years after the first.

    Also the form 'Hugo Magnus' does not occur in the ducal line - I suspect
    (but haven't tried to prove) that the epithet attached to Hugo was
    originally intended to indicate royal authority over the whole of
    Francia, as appears to have been the case with Charlemagne.

    Karl Ferdinand Werner considered that in his case 'magnus' did not refer
    to Charles personally but was derived from Byzantine protocol associated
    with the imperial title assumed by him in December 800 ("Karolus
    [sere]nissimus augustus a deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator
    Romanum gubernans imperium"). However, Werner's analysis placed too much emphasis on diplomatic and liturgical forms, and on official practice in general, as influences on popular usage: if the imperial title had been
    the main association in Frankish minds, it seems far more likely that
    the name would have turned into 'Charlauguste' in the vernacular instead
    of Charlemagne. The epithet 'magnus' that ultimately became compounded
    with his given name had been occasionally applied to him and to his
    father as king, not emperor, for instance Charlemagne's cousin Adalhard
    was described as "Pippini magni regis nepos, Caroli consobrinus Augusti"
    - here 'magnus' is clearly associated either with Pippin's name or with
    his title as king while 'augustus' stands for Charlemagne's title as
    emperor. In the 770s according to the contemporary Vita of Hadrian I the
    pope could not be budged from his high regard and affection for Charles
    the great king ("a caritate et dilectione saepefati christianissimi
    Caroli magni regis").

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From James Baker@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 1 01:02:48 2022
    <snip>
    Looking for commonsense in the arguments of people who think they can
    trace medieval genealogies by matching names to ancestry is like hoping
    a rap artist is going to understand the difference between verse and
    doggerel - they just don't have it in them.

    Oh look, dear. The Native Academic in his natural habitat is making a disdainful witticism about a culture he deems to be substandard. How incredibly cosmopolitan and original.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Wed Jun 1 06:58:45 2022
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:23:58 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 01-Jun-22 12:12 PM, taf wrote:

    And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.
    It's notable that the second duke named Robert came in the second half
    of the 13th century, two hundred years after the first.

    Yeah. After being used for two boys who became bishops, it passed out of use in the 12th century, and when used again for a duke it is better viewed as a reintrocution via the intermarriage with Capetian Dreux line rather than a callback to the first
    duke.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Thu Jun 2 09:03:14 2022
    On 01-Jun-22 11:58 PM, taf wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:23:58 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    On 01-Jun-22 12:12 PM, taf wrote:

    And in this family, the dukes are named Hugh, Robert and another stem Capitian name, Eudes/Odo, all the way down to their penultimate member.
    It's notable that the second duke named Robert came in the second half
    of the 13th century, two hundred years after the first.

    Yeah. After being used for two boys who became bishops, it passed out of use in the 12th century, and when used again for a duke it is better viewed as a reintrocution via the intermarriage with Capetian Dreux line rather than a callback to the first
    duke.

    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon respectively - the namesake son came to a childless end, poisoned by his mother-in-law, while Simon died unmarried as far as we know.

    The latter name is interesting, new to the Capetian family and
    introduced also into other magnate families around the same time (for
    instance, Simon of Crépy, count of Mantes, Amiens, Valois etc, was born
    within a few years of his Burgundian namesake). Parallel instances are
    the sudden frequency of Stephen in the same century and of John in the
    12th, all of course major saints' names (and Simon of Crépy became one
    himself after a shortish life of heroic chastity).

    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
    were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
    custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors, failed to
    take account of changing fashions, including in the veneration of saints.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Wed Jun 1 16:50:56 2022
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.

    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
    were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
    custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Thu Jun 2 11:01:16 2022
    On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
    respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.

    Adopting a name from the mother's family probably happened more often
    when this was of higher status than the father's, as was not the case
    with Burgundy and Semur.

    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
    were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
    custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?

    Depoin was focused on agnatic ancestry, but anyway some leeway with
    tradition (and indulgence for a murder or two) must be given to a son of Robert's appalling mother Constance.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to pss...@optusnet.com.au on Thu Jun 2 18:01:30 2022
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

    Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of
    Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
    much less one specific about bare hands.

    Don't remember where this came from. Not a primary source.
    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Fri Jun 3 10:24:03 2022
    On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
    respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.

    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
    were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
    custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?

    Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of
    Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
    much less one specific about bare hands.

    Peter Stewart


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 2 18:17:32 2022
    A quinta-feira, 2 de junho de 2022 à(s) 02:01:21 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
    respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.
    Adopting a name from the mother's family probably happened more often
    when this was of higher status than the father's, as was not the case
    with Burgundy and Semur.
    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names
    were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by
    custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?
    Depoin was focused on agnatic ancestry, but anyway some leeway with tradition (and indulgence for a murder or two) must be given to a son of Robert's appalling mother Constance.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Dear Peter, could you, please, expand on how Constance of Provence was appaling?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From taf@21:1/5 to taf on Thu Jun 2 20:03:10 2022
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 6:01:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

    Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
    much less one specific about bare hands.
    Don't remember where this came from. Not a primary source.

    Retraced my steps - I was looking into two different things at the same time, and got them crossed in my head.

    taf

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Paulo Ricardo Canedo on Fri Jun 3 13:34:37 2022
    On 03-Jun-22 11:17 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A quinta-feira, 2 de junho de 2022 à(s) 02:01:21 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon
    respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.
    Adopting a name from the mother's family probably happened more often
    when this was of higher status than the father's, as was not the case
    with Burgundy and Semur.
    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names >>>> were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by >>>> custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?
    Depoin was focused on agnatic ancestry, but anyway some leeway with
    tradition (and indulgence for a murder or two) must be given to a son of
    Robert's appalling mother Constance.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Dear Peter, could you, please, expand on how Constance of Provence was appaling?

    Queen Constance was not someone to be caught with down a dark alley, or
    even a well-lit street - she was a violent termagant who once poked out
    a priest's eye with a stick when undertaking crowd control at a heresy
    trial. She fomented war between her sons over the succession after
    Robert II's death.

    Peter Stewart

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to taf on Fri Jun 3 13:30:04 2022
    On 03-Jun-22 1:03 PM, taf wrote:
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 6:01:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
    On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:24:08 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote: >>
    Where did you come across strangling as the cause of death? Hildebert of >>> Lavardin wrote that Dalmas was killed by his son-in-law the duke of
    Burgundy with his own hand, but I haven't seen another source for it
    much less one specific about bare hands.
    Don't remember where this came from. Not a primary source.

    Retraced my steps - I was looking into two different things at the same time, and got them crossed in my head.

    In 1868 J-Henri Pignot suggested from carvings over a church portal in
    Semur that Dalmas may have imbibed wine laced with poison while Robert
    looked on, and that this was one of the crimes for which the duke later travelled to Rome as a penitent. There is no other evidence I know of, including for his alleged penitence.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 3 09:50:53 2022
    A sexta-feira, 3 de junho de 2022 à(s) 04:34:40 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 03-Jun-22 11:17 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
    A quinta-feira, 2 de junho de 2022 à(s) 02:01:21 UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au escreveu:
    On 02-Jun-22 9:50 AM, taf wrote:
    On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:03:17 PM UTC-7, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
    Robert I of Burgundy named his third and fourth sons Robert and Simon >>>> respectively
    [snip]

    But none named Dalmas.
    Adopting a name from the mother's family probably happened more often
    when this was of higher status than the father's, as was not the case
    with Burgundy and Semur.
    The theory stated by Joseph Depoin, according to which baptismal names >>>> were a "moral property" in Frankish families that they were obliged by >>>> custom to respect and pass on in memory of distant ancestors,
    [snip]

    Does strangling one's father-in-law absolve one of this obligation to pass on his memory via onomastics?
    Depoin was focused on agnatic ancestry, but anyway some leeway with
    tradition (and indulgence for a murder or two) must be given to a son of >> Robert's appalling mother Constance.
    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com
    Dear Peter, could you, please, expand on how Constance of Provence was appaling?
    Queen Constance was not someone to be caught with down a dark alley, or
    even a well-lit street - she was a violent termagant who once poked out
    a priest's eye with a stick when undertaking crowd control at a heresy trial. She fomented war between her sons over the succession after
    Robert II's death.

    Peter Stewart
    Thanks for the reply, Peter. I checked Constance's Wikipedia page where the succession war she instigated is mentioned but I wanted more clarification.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jun 3 12:07:04 2022
    When Robert separated from his second wife Bertha, are there any primary documents that mention this separation ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Will Johnson on Sat Jun 4 09:01:27 2022
    On 04-Jun-22 5:07 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
    When Robert separated from his second wife Bertha, are there any primary documents that mention this separation ?

    Not directly in an authentic contemporary document, but a letter from
    Pope Leo IX to King Henri I in 1054 confirms that Robert and Berta had eventually obeyed the Church's demand for their separation after being excommunicated for marrying ("Pater tuus Robertus, laude et consultu episcoporum regni tui, Bertam matrem Odonis comitis sibi duxit uxorem.
    Ob quam rem, quoniam sibi erat carnis affinitate conjuncta, ab
    antecessore nostro, cum episcopis qui placito interfuerunt,
    excommunicati, post ad sedem apostolicam venientes cum satisfactione,
    sumpta pœnitentia, redierunt ad propria").

    See the Henry Project page for Robert II here https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/rober102.htm, setting out my interpretation of evidence for the chronology of the illicit marriage
    and its ending.

    Peter Stewart


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Sijnesael?=@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 09:22:24 2022
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Sijnesael?=@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 09:49:01 2022
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 20:32:43 UTC+2 schreef joe...@gmail.com:
    Also..
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:04:01 PM UTC-4, Denis Beauregard wrote:
    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne.
    There are none to my knowledge that claim a fully agnatic descent. Do you know of one?
    --Joe C

    Up till now I can go to Gilles Sohier, born Clécy (France) 1612, died there 1694, son of Samson Sohier and Magdalena Madeline.
    As far as I can see his was a direct male descendant of Hughes "le Magnifique" Sohier, seigneur de la Héries etc., Baron of Cambrai and Adele de Thourette.
    This Hughes was a son of Almaric Sohier de Vermandois (1038-1097) and a direct male descendant of Charlemagne, by Pepin of Italy.

    I am still searching if Gilles Sohier had male descendants. In the pedigree of my children there are more possible male lines that I want to follow in time, but that is something for later.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Sijnesael?=@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 10:02:13 2022
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.

    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paulo Ricardo Canedo@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 11:10:07 2022
    A domingo, 5 de junho de 2022 à(s) 18:02:15 UTC+1, André Sijnesael escreveu:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.
    Peter Stewart already said this is a fraud.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Will Johnson@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jun 5 10:59:21 2022
    On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, André Sijnesael wrote:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.


    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudes_I,_Lord_of_Ham

    which does not give this Eudes any children at all, and also says he was yet living as late as 1089

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 6 09:21:13 2022
    On 06-Jun-22 3:02 AM, André Sijnesael wrote:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.

    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.

    #28 above is completely fictitious - 'Sohier de Vermandois', purportedly
    the issuer of a testament dated 1080, was invented for pay by Jean Le Carpentier in the 17th century. This fraud was debunked as long ago as
    1842, but unfortunately it has been perpetuated since. There was no such person, and no agnatic descent from the Carolingians to the parvenu
    Sohier family.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Will Johnson on Mon Jun 6 09:25:27 2022
    On 06-Jun-22 3:59 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, André Sijnesael wrote:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number 1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.


    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudes_I,_Lord_of_Ham

    which does not give this Eudes any children at all, and also says he was yet living as late as 1089

    When I open your link the Wikipedia page shows two sons of Eudes I - his successor Gérard and Lancelin, who is further alleged on the page for
    his elder brother to be the father of Gérard's successor Eudes II.

    This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced in the context of
    Carolingian ancestry.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Peter Stewart on Mon Jun 6 15:02:20 2022
    On 06-Jun-22 9:25 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
    On 06-Jun-22 3:59 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, André Sijnesael wrote:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10


    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord -
    http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 -
    http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of
    Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in
    The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number
    1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.


    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudes_I,_Lord_of_Ham

    which does not give this Eudes any children at all, and also says he
    was yet living as late as 1089

    When I open your link the Wikipedia page shows two sons of Eudes I - his successor Gérard and Lancelin, who is further alleged on the page for
    his elder brother to be the father of Gérard's successor Eudes II.

    This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced in the context of Carolingian ancestry.

    To be clearer, I meant to type the last sentence as follows:

    This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced, in the context of
    Carolingian ancestry.

    The Wikipedia page is not wrong in giving Eudes of Ham sons named Gérard
    and Lancelin, but only in placing their family as a branch of the
    Vermandois lineage.

    This mistake stems from a curious series of lapses in Père Anselme,
    where Eudes I of Ham is arbitrarily stated without proof to have been
    identical with Eudes the brother of Heribert of Vermandois (who was
    correctly either IV or VI but confusingly numbered V in the Vermandois
    section and IV in the seigneurs of Ham section).

    The first proof cited (with a misprinted page number) for the alleged connection was a charter of Heribert for Saint-Prix abbey dated 1076
    witnessed by his brother Eudes. However, a subsequent witness in the
    same charter was named as Ivo of Ham, indicating that the counts of
    Vermandois had installed another family there as castellans beforehand.
    The two subsequent citations in Anselme are erroneous since no brother
    of Heribert or seigneur of Ham is mentioned on either page referenced in
    Claude Héméré's _Augusta Viromanduorum_ (1643).

    There is no basis in Anselme for the Wikipedia assertion that Eudes I
    died after 1089. His family, of unknown origin, was discussed by Romain Waroquier in 'Les hommes du pouvoir: l'entourage des comtes de
    Vermandois au XIIe siècle' in _Le Moyen âge_ 127 (2021).

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Peter Stewart@21:1/5 to Peter Stewart on Mon Jun 6 18:54:36 2022
    On 06-Jun-22 3:02 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
    On 06-Jun-22 9:25 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
    On 06-Jun-22 3:59 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
    On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:02:15 AM UTC-7, André Sijnesael wrote:
    Op zondag 5 juni 2022 om 18:22:25 UTC+2 schreef André Sijnesael:
    Op vrijdag 27 mei 2022 om 18:04:01 UTC+2 schreef Denis Beauregard:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10


    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed >>>>>> to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will >>>>>> have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord -
    http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/
    French in North America before 1722 -
    http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    I am working to research the most recent male ancestors of
    Charlemagne. Untill now I have one that reaches the 18th century in
    The Netherlands (Sohier family) but that line needs more research.
    I found: (not checked completely until now, don't know yet if number
    1 had sons).

    1 Jacques Antoine Adrien Sohier 1851-1928
    2. Hippolyte Sohier 1815-1911
    3. Jacques-Francois Sohier ?-1849
    4, François-Adrien Sohier ?-?
    5. Jean-Antoine Sohier 1715-?
    6. Jean Sohier 1688-?
    7. Nicolas III Sohier 1638-1728
    8. Jacques Sohier 1606-?
    9. Hugues Sohier 1560-?
    10. NIcolas II Sohier 1530-?
    11. Nicolas I Sohier ?-?
    12. Simon Sohier 1465-?
    13. Jean III Sohier, seigneur de la Buissière ?-?
    14, Jean II Sohier ?-?
    15. Pierre IV Sohier ?-?
    16. Pierre III Sohier ?-?
    17. Pierre II Sohier ?-?
    18. Matthieu Sohier ?-?
    19. Gillebert Sohier ?-?
    20, Jean I Sohier ?-?
    21. Pierre I Sohier ?-?
    22. Hellin Sohier ?-?
    23. Hugues II Sohier ?-?
    24, Renaud Sohier ?-?
    25, Watier Sohier ?-?
    26. Hugues I Sohier ?-?
    27. Hugues d'Oisy Sohier ?-?
    28. Sohier de Vermandois 1024-?
    29. Eudes de Vermandois ?-ca 1050
    30. Othon de Vermandois ca980-1046
    31. Herbert III de Vermandois ca955-1015
    32. Albert I "le Pieux" de Vermandois ca931-987
    33. Herbert II de Vermandois ca880-943
    34. Herbert I de Vermandois ca840-902
    35. Pepin II de Vermandois 818-878
    36. Bernard d'Italie ca 797-818
    37. Pepin I d'Italie ca777-810
    38. CHARLEMAGNE 768-814.


    See
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudes_I,_Lord_of_Ham

    which does not give this Eudes any children at all, and also says he
    was yet living as late as 1089

    When I open your link the Wikipedia page shows two sons of Eudes I -
    his successor Gérard and Lancelin, who is further alleged on the page
    for his elder brother to be the father of Gérard's successor Eudes II.

    This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced in the context of
    Carolingian ancestry.

    To be clearer, I meant to type the last sentence as follows:

    This is all hooey, as well as entirely misplaced, in the context of Carolingian ancestry.

    The Wikipedia page is not wrong in giving Eudes of Ham sons named Gérard
    and Lancelin, but only in placing their family as a branch of the
    Vermandois lineage.

    Oops - the page not only wrongly asserts that Eudes of Ham was "the son
    of Otto, Count of Vermandois and Pavia" but is also unreliable in
    stating that he "died after 1089".

    We know that Eudes was living in 1089 from his own charter for
    Notre-Dame de Noyon dated 12 March in that year, naming his father as
    Ivo whose donation (dated 29 January 1055) he was confirming. This of
    course contradicts the claimed Vermandois paternity while not proving
    that Eudes lived beyond the end of 1089.

    Peter Stewart

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From M S@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 7 01:26:46 2022
    perjantai 27. toukokuuta 2022 klo 19.04.01 UTC+3 Denis Beauregard kirjoitti:
    Hi all:

    Genealogics has only 8 generations of male descendants for
    Charlemagne from the main entries.

    https://genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=10

    I see there is a limit of 8 in the settings of the software. But
    if I check the most recent lineages, I get at most 4 more
    generations. When selecting "male descendants", the "4" is changed
    to "8" so it is not the limit of the software but the limit of
    what is found on this site.

    So, is there something after year 1200 ? 1600 ? Would I find more
    on other medieval databases and would this be reliable ?

    Some noble families pretend to descend from Charlemagne. So if
    2 of them from distinct lineages have the same Y DNA, then we will
    have the Y DNA of Charlemagne. But is this possible ?


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
    Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790



    All in all,
    there are circa 10 male generations in Genealogics to be agnatic descendants of Charlemagne. (Not mere 8 generations.)

    This seems to come frm the requirement of being documented (reliably enough). Documentation generally in those centuries comes from chronicles of olitically remarkable events, and from some soradical inheritances.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)