Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

Started by Sharon Doubell on Monday, June 25, 2018
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 61-90 of 321 posts
6/26/2018 at 4:38 PM

Thank you for explaining background in simple English.

Well, i've put a link that says Doda's name is Clothilde de Clèves ?

6/26/2018 at 4:53 PM

Jessica, I don't think that works.

One of the very basic things to understand about medieval genealogy is that much of what we have today was produced in the 16th to 18th centuries as political propaganda. The royal families of Europe were paying people to come up with better and more impressive genealogical links than their rivals.

Just about any time you see Clèves invoked, you're in territory where someone wants to be descended from Lohengrin, the Knight of the Swan. The legend came to be centered on the town of Clèves, and the dukes there claimed descent from him. It was a very big deal but pure romance.

The modern equivalent would be reading Bram Stoker's Dracula and thinking you're reading a biography of the historical Vlad the Impaler ;)

6/26/2018 at 11:12 PM

Thank you Justin. That explains it so well, I think we should put it on the profile!

Thank you Justin. I am still bugged, there has to be a way to find out. Like ancient scrolls in Latin somewhere. The Menthon castle above the Annecy lake has been in the same family for 1000 years and they have a library full of ancient and rare books.

Private User
6/27/2018 at 6:44 AM

@ Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Teiric d'Autun, comte d'Autun MP
Sexo: Hombre
Nacimiento: hacia 720
Autun, Saona y Loira, Francia
Fallecimiento: 15 de Diciembre desde 793 (69-77)
Toulouse, Haute-Garonne, Midi-Pyrenees, Francia
Lugar de entierro: Saint-Guilhem-le-Desert, Herault, Languedoc-Rosellón, Francia
Familia inmediata: Hijo del Desconocido Padre de Thierry I y Desconocido Madre de Thierry I
Marido de Aude de Austrasia y Aude de Austrasia
Padre de Bertha (Aube) d'Autun ; Aude de Gellone ; Adalehelm d'Autun ; Gilbert, conde de Rouergue ; Unk Narbonne hija de Toulouse y otros 5

Agregado por: João Emanuel Fernandes Serra Rodrigues Diogo el 11 de junio de 2007
Gestionado por: Margaret (C) y 188 otros

Curado por: Sharon Lee Doubell

Este es el perfil maestro de Thierry I, count of Autun.
Nota del curador Sharon Lee Doubell (6/4/2016):
Theuderic (o Thierry o Teiric) era el Conde de Autun y el Conde de Toulouse (771).
Él no es Teodorico IV, Rey de los Francos; Makhir, el Príncipe judío, o Aymeri de Narbonne

Yo hacía referencia a esto: Thierry I, conde de Autun nació hacia el año 730 en Autún, Borgoña, Francia. Murió el 793. Su padre fue Teodorico Pruem (c.705), hijo de Garnier (Bernarius) de Rouerge y Crodelinda de Austrasia (hermana de Bertrada "La Anciana" de Pruem: ver nota 4). Casó con Aude (Aldane) Martel de Francia, y tuvieron por hijos a San Guillermo Gellone, conde de Toulouse (750, ver nota 6) y a Aube de Autún (c.755, que casó con Fredol, embajador y conde de Rouergue: ver Condes de Rouergue).

6/27/2018 at 6:47 AM

Jessica. It could happen. It does happen. But remember that people have been scouring old collections for centuries. When someone finds something new it's generally going to be a palimpsest or a case where no one recognized the significance of a familiar document. Not much chance any of us are going to be so lucky ;)

6/27/2018 at 7:23 AM

Juan Carlos, if a site doesn't use primary sources there is no way to know if it is reliable.

For Thierry I, count of Autun, this site is better:

"The origin of Comte Theoderic is not known."

Private User
6/27/2018 at 5:44 PM

I read Spanish well enough to understand that it does say the parents of Thierry I are unknown ("desconocido"). Looks as though somebody copied off a Geni profile (either in Spanish, or translated into Spanish - note it says "Curated by Sharon Lee Doubell".

Using a Geni reference as a source for a Geni profile is called "self-referential". :-)

6/27/2018 at 6:56 PM

The way I read it, he's quoting the Geni profile because he disagrees with it. The links show the line he wants to add.

Private User
6/27/2018 at 7:11 PM

@ Justin Stranstrom interpretaste correctamente porque considero que sus padres no son
desconocidos desde el momento que son mencionados en distintos sitios,

6/27/2018 at 8:12 PM

You need good sources, not just sources ;)

6/28/2018 at 12:30 AM

That sums it up, Juan. We're trying not to make geni a copy of just anything put onto the net, or written as 'propaganda' genealogy for someone's ego. We're only using information that is backed up with historical primary sources.

There is history, modified by generations of people in power and there is history, with an H, facts.

And there is science, archeology, DNA and cellular research, the human codex in general.

We are advancing too much in science to refute facts when they come.

6/28/2018 at 12:56 AM

I was using 'historical' as another synonym for 'primary sources' in case the translation into Spanish was difficult to understand.

You probably can get no more primary source than DNA from the corpse that matches the paper trail descendants

Private User
6/28/2018 at 4:18 AM

I agree with Ulf. I find it very annoying when profiles get locked or people removed with any though to how others feel. I totally understand why this sometime done and sometimes necessAry but it is annoying .

6/28/2018 at 4:32 AM

It isn't clear why you'd want to add on relationships to these medieval profiles.

Most users are pleased to have their sourced work on the Medieval tree Relationship Locked so that it can be preserved, and express a lot of annoyance at people adding unsourced profiles wherever they feel like it.

Right now, the Medieval Tree is more stable than it's ever been, and most of the managers are expressing delight that their sourced profiles can no longer be continually mismerged and accrue relationships that aren't considered historically accurate just because somebody feels like it.

Private User
6/28/2018 at 5:15 AM

"Settipani quotes an Aquitaine necrology which lists "Willelmus…pater eius Theodericus, mater Aldana soror Hiltrudis et Landradæ"[416]. He suggests that "Hiltrudis" was the wife of Odilo Duke of Bavaria, and therefore that the wife of Theoderic was Aldana, daughter of Charles "Martel" maiordomus of Austrasia and Neustria [Carolingian]. The theory is attractive but not conclusive, as its validity depends on there being no other contemporary Hiltrudis, which is not provable. Hlawitschka highlights the case against the affiliation[417]. However, the evidence of the 25 May 765 charter, quoted in the document MEROVINGIAN NOBILITY under Aldana’s supposed sister Landrada, suggests that Settipani’s hypothesis may be correct. In addition, Einhard indicates that Theoderic [I] was related to Charles I King of the Franks when he records that in 782 King Charles sent his three missi "Adalgiso camerario et Geilone comite stabuli et Worado comite palati" to meet "in…Saxonis…Theodericus comes, propinquus regis"[418]. One possible relationship being between the king and Theoderic [I] would have been through his wife, if she had been the king's paternal aunt. "
Alda was disconnected from her parents Charles Martel "the Hammer" och Rotrude and siblings Pépin III, King of the Franks, Hiltrud d'Austrasie, Duchess of Bavaria, Aude of Austrasia och Carloman, King of the Franks by Erica Howton.
Sep 10, 2017 kl. 2:04 AM
"Aude, Aida, Alda, Aldana ou Adalne (732-après 755?) est fille naturelle de Charles Martel et probablement de Rotrude et la mère de saint Guillaume de Gellone."

My simple view on this particular cut and likewise in this topic, I think it's just as good and enough with a footnote in her (similar cases) profile stating that she was a plausible daughter of Charles Martel, and so keeping her line.

I also think that some of you curators should try to avoid history revisionism, and instead use some logical analyzes on the made conclusions; if it holds together, fits chronologically, doesn't imply much uncertainty or inexactness, make sense, or there ain't any equal good counterpart to choose among, that is, another equivalent good choice that creates a contradiction with a competing conclusion, it should stand.

We have the sources that we have, they will not be fewer, some will at the other hand be rejected, but until then, we should use what we have until something better turns up, this behavior, cutting of lines, some of you have taken upon you as a daily mission must be hold backed a bit, as some of you really goes too far, starts a topic about sources, none answer, cuts, or worse, Not starting a topic, just making the cuts from their own biased minds and limited insight=vandalism. One of the greater problem with this form of acts, is when a curator does it, because the impossibility to revoke bad decisions as you most likely need another curator to undo the mess, and all of them are frightened to go against each other, no matter how stupid their mess have been.

This site actually doesn't have a system that sorts out the bad apples in the basket, unfortunately, what we hear instead is that if it's not good enough for you, just leave.
I can easily list a handful of curators that are clearly unsuitable for their mission, some of you common users have most likely already noticed them. Should I quit because of other people incompetence? Well, I and my brothers have added over 25.000+ profiles, connected thousands of single trees, corrected thousands of families, with no major mistakes, or that haven't been noticed and corrected. Are we useful to this site, are we the type of people this site needs? Should we back off for a handful of rotten eggs? Do we deserve to take shit when we questioning their flaws?

Many times we have to follow topics in silence,, because if we raise our voice, we have noticed that the chance for a negative outcome increases by 100%.

Private User
6/28/2018 at 5:41 AM

Ulf, I just had to disambiguate Frances White Petre from Frances White Wells for the umpteenth time. This is in the *17th* century *AD*, and there is a record that indicates that 1) they cannot be the same person and 2) Frances Petre cannot have married Dr. Richard Wells in Colonial America at any time which makes logical sense for the known Wells family structure (11 children by 1651).

And lo and behold, Frances White Wells is sprouting duplicate profiles with the old incorrect legendary information, again, when it's far from certain that she was the daughter of Sir Richard White at all (the only evidence is circumstantial, inferential, and subject to interpretation).

You'd think people would know better by now. But they don't.

6/28/2018 at 5:57 AM

Thanks Maven.
It's hard to stomach the ugliness of this kind of attack, and good to hear that the hours of work we do are appreciated.

Ulf - what is Aude doing here? Start an honest Discussion from her profile, instead of just using her to insult people.

Private User
6/28/2018 at 7:00 AM

Theuderic (or Thierry or Teiric) was Count of Autun, and Count of Toulouse (771). His ancestry is not attested by contemporary sources. Traditionally, he was held to have been of Merovingian descent, son of either Bernarius and Chrodelinde (Moriarty, Stuart), or of Childébrand, Duke of Burgundy, and Rolande.
FUENTE: Thierry I, count of Autun.
Nota:Este perfil fue modificado ya no dice Familia inmediata:Hijo del Desconocido Padre de Thierry I y Desconocido Madre de Thierry I

Private User
6/28/2018 at 7:06 AM

Justin, sometimes people question things , because they do not agree. That is their right. How else yo we get various ideas and perhapes new good info and maybe not. This is why geni loses people. Both sides need to listen respectfully to each other

6/28/2018 at 7:16 AM

"Genealogy without sources is mythology."

Ulf, you are arguing -- as you often do -- in favor of making any connection that seems plausible to you. Sources be damned. But that's not genealogy. That's a particular kind of myth-making.

It takes some time for new genealogists to realize that past generations of genealogists weren't gods. The monks writing their histories were genealogists, just like us. They had documents, and oral traditions, and the work of other genealogists. They tried to put it all together.

Some of them were good at it. Some weren't.

They didn't have nearly as many documents as you might think. Medieval governments didn't produce written records nearly as lavishly as modern governments do.

And, they were often over-enthusiastic about making connections. Just like some modern genealogists.

It took genealogists a long time to realize the importance of sources in genealogy. It was the turn of the century before anyone even thought of doing it that way. Post World War II for the idea to take hold.

There is a wonderful irony here. I chuckle whenever someone says we should make any plausible connection whether we have evidence or not.

That's exactly what medieval genealogists thought too. And that's why we have centuries of genealogical fiction. Everyone was out there making the connections that made sense to them. Evidence be damned.

Fun stuff, but it's not genealogy as we know it today.

6/28/2018 at 7:19 AM

I've shared this before but maybe it's time to share it again.

I came across a quote that epitomizes the medieval approach to knowledge, including genealogy. It's from Umberto Eco's novel Baudolino. (Some of you remember and loved Name of the Rose.)

The bishop is talking to an imaginative monk. He says:

"I have heard you invent many stories that the emperor has believed. So then, if you have no other news of that realm [Prester John], invent some. Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false, which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true--which is a virtuous act because it compensates for the lack of proof of something that certainly exists or happened."

6/28/2018 at 7:24 AM

Juan Carlos, yes. You are right.

There are two "traditional" lines that seem to have been invented much later. Carolingian propaganda.

They can't both be right. They could both be wrong. There is no way to choose among the options.

And then there are the contemporary sources. Which say nothing about his ancestry.

6/28/2018 at 8:17 AM

Judy, when Geni works best it is a place where we can all learn from each other.

But some people choose not to learn. They sit in the back, cat-calling that the earth is flat because medieval monks said so.

That's really what much of this "debate" amounts to.

Some people might think their opinions are just as good as anyone else's.

But medieval genealogy isn't like modern genealogy. This isn't a case where we're going to find the marriage record for Grandpa two counties over. The sources have been well-known for hundreds of years. The controversies about them have been raging for decades.

And, the medieval world wasn't just like modern world. Ansigisel wasn't just like some guy who lived in Des Moines in the 1920s but wore funny clothes and talked funny. He and his crew lived in a world that was a foreign culture compared to our own.

This isn't a case of learning to listen to each other. It's a case of learning to listen to the experts instead of grasping for outdated information and embracing flat-earth theories.

Private User
6/28/2018 at 9:28 AM


Discusiones públicas sobre Aude

Aude of Austrasia - Incorrect mother?

"Thanks guys."
3 de jul de 2015 a las 5:16 AM por Sharon Lee Doubell

Este es el Principio luego de fusión del árbol desaparecen Familiares pero quedan las notas al pie.

6/28/2018 at 10:17 AM

Yes, that would be the one to add to.

6/28/2018 at 12:44 PM

I sometimes give talks about medieval genealogy. I have one I call "You Don't Know What You Think You Know". Here's the basic idea.

Our medieval ancestors lived in a very different world. Their "science" was religion.

The king (a) ruled by hereditary right, because (b) he was appointed by God, (c) to be God's delegate on earth.

Most of us know that already, but it has implications for genealogy that we don't often think about.

That kind of thinking creating a problem when there was any kind of change. For example, when the Carolingians overthrew the older Merovingian dynasty.

The only way they had to think about this was to believe either (a) God had withdrawn his favor from the Carolingians, or (b) the Carolingians were somehow the rightful heirs of the Merovingians.

It was almost unthinkable that God rejected the Merovingians. That would have to mean one of them committed some great sin, so they were all being punished. Not good for national pride. And besides, the Merovingians were the ones who adopted Christianity. God would want to reward them for that.

So, the only realistic alternative was to believe the Carolingians had Merovingian ancestry. They had to have. Nothing else could make sense.

So, it really didn't matter whether there were records, or whether there was any kind of proof. The "proof" was that the Carolingians replaced the Merovingians.

So, they looked at the genealogies and they came up with lines to show how the Carolingians could have Merovingian ancestry. Easy. Simple. Obvious.

Except we don't think that way today. We don't assume that God always gives the throne to the rightful heirs, but some people still think God used to do that way, so we should trust the old genealogies ;)

6/29/2018 at 4:42 AM

Makes a lot of sense, Justin.

Showing 61-90 of 321 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion