Is anyone aware of any scholars who even bothered to refute the de Burgh invented ancestor John de Burgo/de Conteville, invented to bridge their fantasy tree with the Carolingian-descended Counts of Flanders, as supposed son of Baldwin III (at least in
some renderings)?

taf

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

On 09-Mar-23 8:32 AM, taf wrote:

Is anyone aware of any scholars who even bothered to refute the de Burgh invented ancestor John de Burgo/de Conteville, invented to bridge their fantasy tree with the Carolingian-descended Counts of Flanders, as supposed son of Baldwin III (at least

in some renderings)?


Gadzooks - rather ask "Is anyone aware of any scholars who are aware of
it?", since outside this newsgroup it's fairly unlikely that anyone who
ever pulled on a scholar's boots would read many internet genealogies in
the first place.

In one version of the absurdity (here, with a nosepeg and smelling salts advised for those of delicate sensibilities): https://gw.geneanet.org/belfast8?lang=en&p=jean+de+burgh&n=flanders
the fantasy extends to Balduin III's wife Mathilde of Saxony giving
birth to a legitimate son implausibly named John in Normandy - i.e. the inveterate hostility between Flanders and Normandy notwithstanding, she
sought obstetric services in enemy territory.

The legend that the comital family of Flanders always expelled its
younger sons to seek their fortune abroad goes back to the 12th century
at least, but this is a new doozy to me.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Mar-23 8:32 AM, taf wrote:

Is anyone aware of any scholars who even bothered to refute the de Burgh invented ancestor John de Burgo/de Conteville, invented to bridge their fantasy tree with the Carolingian-descended Counts of Flanders, as supposed son of Baldwin III (at least

in some renderings)?

Gadzooks - rather ask "Is anyone aware of any scholars who are aware of it?", since outside this newsgroup it's fairly unlikely that anyone who
ever pulled on a scholar's boots would read many internet genealogies in
the first place.

Unfortunately, this nonsense long predates the internet. Burke's 1883 Extinct Peerage (p. 88, Burgh - Earl of Kent) has this John as father of Herluin de Conteville, tracing through the Moreton/Cornwall Earls, then appending Adelelm and John de Burgh, as
sons of the son-less 2nd Earl. I remember similar in O'Hart - I don't think he followed the Flanders connection either, but something else (I vaguely recall him trying to make a link to Godfrey of Jerusalem, but I don't remember specifics - it's probably
been more than 40 years since I saw it). I found a passing dismissal from the 1960s in an American genealogical periodical, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, but only a snippet and that looked like it was a brush-off rather than a full explanation
of the fictional nature of this 'John'. Given how long it has been bouncing around, I was hoping it might have received a vitriolic stomping by someone like Round, but that doesn't appear to have been the case.

taf

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

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:03:59 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Mar-23 8:32 AM, taf wrote:

Is anyone aware of any scholars who even bothered to refute the de Burgh invented ancestor John de Burgo/de Conteville, invented to bridge their fantasy tree with the Carolingian-descended Counts of Flanders, as supposed son of Baldwin III (at

least in some renderings)?

Gadzooks - rather ask "Is anyone aware of any scholars who are aware of it?", since outside this newsgroup it's fairly unlikely that anyone who ever pulled on a scholar's boots would read many internet genealogies in the first place.

Unfortunately, this nonsense long predates the internet. Burke's 1883 Extinct Peerage (p. 88, Burgh - Earl of Kent) has this John as father of Herluin de Conteville, tracing through the Moreton/Cornwall Earls, then appending Adelelm and John de Burgh,

as sons of the son-less 2nd Earl. I remember similar in O'Hart - I don't think he followed the Flanders connection either, but something else (I vaguely recall him trying to make a link to Godfrey of Jerusalem, but I don't remember specifics - it's
probably been more than 40 years since I saw it). I found a passing dismissal from the 1960s in an American genealogical periodical, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, but only a snippet and that looked like it was a brush-off rather than a full
explanation of the fictional nature of this 'John'. Given how long it has been bouncing around, I was hoping it might have received a vitriolic stomping by someone like Round, but that doesn't appear to have been the case.


Found the O'Hart absurdity (3rd ed, 1881, p. 416) - Herlouin de Conteville, son of John Earl of Comyn, son of Baldwin II of Flanders, son of Baldwin I, son of Godfrey of Bouillon, son of Roland, son of Charles Duke of Ingelheim, son of Charlemagne.
Godfrey, Roland and Charlemagne in the same line. Isn't that special.

taf

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

On 09-Mar-23 12:33 PM, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:03:59 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 3:36:21 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Mar-23 8:32 AM, taf wrote:

Is anyone aware of any scholars who even bothered to refute the de Burgh invented ancestor John de Burgo/de Conteville, invented to bridge their fantasy tree with the Carolingian-descended Counts of Flanders, as supposed son of Baldwin III (at least

in some renderings)?

Gadzooks - rather ask "Is anyone aware of any scholars who are aware of
it?", since outside this newsgroup it's fairly unlikely that anyone who
ever pulled on a scholar's boots would read many internet genealogies in >>> the first place.

Unfortunately, this nonsense long predates the internet. Burke's 1883 Extinct Peerage (p. 88, Burgh - Earl of Kent) has this John as father of Herluin de Conteville, tracing through the Moreton/Cornwall Earls, then appending Adelelm and John de Burgh,

as sons of the son-less 2nd Earl. I remember similar in O'Hart - I don't think he followed the Flanders connection either, but something else (I vaguely recall him trying to make a link to Godfrey of Jerusalem, but I don't remember specifics - it's
probably been more than 40 years since I saw it). I found a passing dismissal from the 1960s in an American genealogical periodical, National Genealogical Society Quarterly, but only a snippet and that looked like it was a brush-off rather than a full
explanation of the fictional nature of this 'John'. Given how long it has been bouncing around, I was hoping it might have received a vitriolic stomping by someone like Round, but that doesn't appear to have been the case.

Found the O'Hart absurdity (3rd ed, 1881, p. 416) - Herlouin de Conteville, son of John Earl of Comyn, son of Baldwin II of Flanders, son of Baldwin I, son of Godfrey of Bouillon, son of Roland, son of Charles Duke of Ingelheim, son of Charlemagne.

Godfrey, Roland and Charlemagne in the same line. Isn't that special.

In O'Hart's absurd version it is not Balduin II count of Flanders (died
918) as history knows him but instead Balduin II king of Jerusalem
(Balduin of Rethel, died 1131) wrongly called count of Flanders, see
here in a later edition: https://archive.org/details/irishpedigreesor021915/page/n83/mode/2up.

Balduin II of Jerusalem left four daughters, the eldest of whom was his
heiress (married as second wife to Fulco V of Anjou). No sons of course,
"earl of Comyn and baron of Toursbourg in Normandy" or otherwise, and
obviously not one who could have been father of Herlouin du Bourg of
Conteville ("Herlowen de Burgo") who married William the Conqueror's
mother around a century before Balduin of Rethel's death. I doubt that
even a fanatical corrector such as Round would have troubled to stomp
this smelly mess underfoot, to soil the soles of his scholarly boots.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:09:49 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Mar-23 12:33 PM, taf wrote:

Found the O'Hart absurdity (3rd ed, 1881, p. 416) - Herlouin de Conteville, son of John Earl of Comyn, son of Baldwin II of Flanders, son of Baldwin I, son of Godfrey of Bouillon, son of Roland, son of Charles Duke of Ingelheim, son of Charlemagne.

Godfrey, Roland and Charlemagne in the same line. Isn't that special.

In O'Hart's absurd version it is not Balduin II count of Flanders (died
918) as history knows him but instead Balduin II king of Jerusalem
(Balduin of Rethel, died 1131) wrongly called count of Flanders, see
here in a later edition: https://archive.org/details/irishpedigreesor021915/page/n83/mode/2up.

Yep. Now that you point it out, it sparks my memory of this insertion of the non-father-to-son Jerusalem succession into the middle of this pedigree resulted in a double take. Even this then-novice with access to very few sources could smell the stench
coming off that one.

Still, I have to think the Flanders nonsense is someone's attempt to 'fix' this O'Hart pedigree by substituting selecting a different Carolingian-descended Baldwin to be John's father.

Balduin II of Jerusalem left four daughters, the eldest of whom was his heiress (married as second wife to Fulco V of Anjou). No sons of course, "earl of Comyn and baron of Toursbourg in Normandy" or otherwise, and obviously not one who could have been father of Herlouin du Bourg of Conteville ("Herlowen de Burgo") who married William the Conqueror's
mother around a century before Balduin of Rethel's death.

Not to mention the problem on the other end, with Roland (d. 778) as father of Godfrey of Bouillon (d. 1100).

I doubt that
even a fanatical corrector such as Round would have troubled to stomp
this smelly mess underfoot, to soil the soles of his scholarly boots.

Probably right.

taf

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

On 09-Mar-23 2:53 PM, taf wrote:

On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:09:49 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:

On 09-Mar-23 12:33 PM, taf wrote:

Found the O'Hart absurdity (3rd ed, 1881, p. 416) - Herlouin de Conteville, son of John Earl of Comyn, son of Baldwin II of Flanders, son of Baldwin I, son of Godfrey of Bouillon, son of Roland, son of Charles Duke of Ingelheim, son of Charlemagne.

Godfrey, Roland and Charlemagne in the same line. Isn't that special.

In O'Hart's absurd version it is not Balduin II count of Flanders (died
918) as history knows him but instead Balduin II king of Jerusalem
(Balduin of Rethel, died 1131) wrongly called count of Flanders, see
here in a later edition:
https://archive.org/details/irishpedigreesor021915/page/n83/mode/2up.

Yep. Now that you point it out, it sparks my memory of this insertion of the non-father-to-son Jerusalem succession into the middle of this pedigree resulted in a double take. Even this then-novice with access to very few sources could smell the stench

coming off that one.

Still, I have to think the Flanders nonsense is someone's attempt to 'fix' this O'Hart pedigree by substituting selecting a different Carolingian-descended Baldwin to be John's father.

Balduin II of Jerusalem left four daughters, the eldest of whom was his
heiress (married as second wife to Fulco V of Anjou). No sons of course,
"earl of Comyn and baron of Toursbourg in Normandy" or otherwise, and
obviously not one who could have been father of Herlouin du Bourg of
Conteville ("Herlowen de Burgo") who married William the Conqueror's
mother around a century before Balduin of Rethel's death.

Not to mention the problem on the other end, with Roland (d. 778) as father of Godfrey of Bouillon (d. 1100).

I doubt that
even a fanatical corrector such as Round would have troubled to stomp
this smelly mess underfoot, to soil the soles of his scholarly boots.

Probably right.

O'Hart is no doubt read and believed to this day in some quarters - he
was writing principally for social climbers to be au fait with the
pretensions of their betters in the ascendancy, and there are still such
people throughout the world. The head of the history department of my
school was an Anglo-Irish scion - who by the way was entrusted to teach constitutional history to King Charles III - and despite his profession
he refused to read Round in order to keep his fantasies intact. De Burgh
was one of his middle names.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

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