Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan - Split profile, duplicate, or major confusion

Started by Private User on Friday, February 5, 2021
Problem with this page?


Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 15 posts
Private User
2/5/2021 at 12:29 PM

...maybe someone would like to help me figure this out. I was tracing pedigree number LXXIV in "Some Colonial Dames of Royal Descent" (pps. 307-9: Alfred the Great, King of England) from him down to my ancestors of interest, the Digbys (whose ancestry, incidentally, was also Anglo-Saxon through their paternal line). Everything went beautifully until I arrived at this particular Geni profile. At that point, the branch divided into what appears to be a duplication of some sort. Very doppelganger-like, it seems.

Alfred the Great, King of the Anglo-Saxons

Edward I "the Elder", king of The Anglo-Saxons


Louis IV, king of West Francia

Mathilde de France, Reine Consort des Deux-Bourgognes

Berthe de Bourgogne, reine consort de France

Odo II, count of Blois, Champagne and Chartres

Berthe de Blois, of Chartres,

Hawise de Bretagne, duchesse de Bretagne

Alain IV "Fergant" de Cornouaille, duc de Bretagne

Conan III, duke of Brittany

Bertha, Duchess of Brittany

Constance Alix de Penthièvre (MARRIED AFTER 1160) Alain de Rohan (d 1195), 3rd vicomte de Rohan

Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan (MARRIED) Mabile de Fougères

However, while his marriage to Mabel matches up correctly, in "Colonial Dames" he is described: ALAIN IV., Viscount de Rohan, Count of Brittainy, feudal Baron le Zouche, of Ashby -- and like this eerily similar profile (his double, apparently):

Alain la Zouche, Lord of Ashby la Zouche

is the father of one Roger la Zouche (spouse unnamed); no Geni profile; who in turn is the father of a "Jr.":

Sir Roger La Zouche

...described as having (like this Geni profile) a brother William La Zouche, of Belmeis who died in 1199,

and a wife, Lady Margaret: Margaret Annora Bisset

With whom the line continues to the Digbys:

Alice la Zouche

Arabella de Harcourt

John Digby

John de tilton Digby

Robert Digby

Simon Robert Digby

Sir Everard Simon Digby, Esq., alias Greenleaf

Sir Everard Rutland Digby, alias Greenleaf (MARRIED) Jacqueta Digbie (Ellys)

This Everard was the high sheriff of Rutland (1459, etc.), although it isn't indicated on his Geni profile.

Sir John Digby

From this point onward, the pedigree veers away from my direct ancestry. But it is plain to see that the whole line is almost perfect on Geni, the only exception being that peculiar La Zouche zig-zag with the absence of one Roger and the weirdness of the parentage of the younger Roger la Zouche.

It looks like Roger's father does not fit correctly as the son of Geoffrey I, Vicomte de Porhoët and I can't understand how that happened.

Wikipedia says, "Also of note: Alan de Porhoët, son of Odo I, was created Viscount of Rohan and was the founder of the House of Rohan...Alan de Porhoët, younger brother of Odo II, left for England and became Alan la Zouche, great-grandfather of two English Barons and great-great-grandfather of a third - see Baron Zouche."

However, Wikipedia doesn't have anything earlier than Alan la Zouche, 1st Baron la Zouche of Ashby son of Roger la Zouche, Lord of Ashby son of Sir Alan la Zouche, I son of Sir Roger La Zouche

And so it just circled me right back around to my original problem, the Porhoët aka La Zouche question. I will have to take a break before looking at it again.

Private User
2/5/2021 at 1:59 PM

The root of the problem is that the Porhoet family was mad for the name Alain and grossly overused it, resulting in a whole flock of Alains who are very very hard to tell apart.

The Alain who became the founder of the Zouche family was NOT the same Alain who became Vicomte de Rohan - I think that was his uncle, but check with for the details.

Wikipedia and Colonial Dames are NOT primary sources, and you'd be very lucky to find anything like a primary source in them. MedLands provides primary sources, when it can get them, but often shaves them too close (but usually you can still track down the full citation).

2/5/2021 at 4:37 PM

What Maven said +1

I'm not saying reading Colonial Dames is a complete waste of your time, but if some one else says it I will +1 it.

Private User
2/5/2021 at 5:05 PM

Forgot the link to the reference book:

While I'm here, I noticed that Sir George Neville, 5th and de jure 3rd Baron Bergavenny

...who was incidentally born in Wales -- is Guillaume l'Ismaélite de Tinténiac's 12th g-grandson. Re: another discussion I began earlier today:

Some readers might think that's irrelevant, but coincidentally the Ishmael line is rather closely related to this one in at least one area (the Fougeres), as seen here:

Guillaume l'Ismaélite de Tinténiac
→ Hoga / Noga ou Ignoguen de Brionis
his daughter → Jeanne de Dol
her daughter → Guillaume de Fougères ***
her son → Geoffrey, count of Fougères *** (MARRIED Mahaud de Porhoët
his son → Ralph de Fougères, III ***
his son → Jeanne de Lusignan, Heiress de Fougères ***
his daughter → Jeanne de Lusignan
her daughter → Joan de Geneville, 2nd Baroness Geneville
her daughter → Katherine Mortimer, Countess of Warwick
her daughter → Sir William de Beauchamp, 1st Baron Abergavenny
her son → Richard de Beauchamp, 1st Earl of Worcester
his son → Elizabeth de Beauchamp, Lady of Abergavenny
his daughter → George Neville, 4th and de jure 2nd Baron Bergavenny
her son → Sir George Neville, 5th and de jure 3rd Baron Bergavenny
his son

2/5/2021 at 11:25 PM

Of those 32, this is the one I curate: Mathilde de France, Reine Consort des Deux-Bourgognes Is there any issue with her?

Private User
2/5/2021 at 11:50 PM

Was just told FACTS in publications have no value by rvk here on GENI. Even facts on a Death Notice not proven or accepted by him , so all of these publications quoted become meaningless.
So what do all these "books " or" historical novels " or publications prove .

2/6/2021 at 2:44 AM

Private User every document should be viewed with the intention of the author in mind.
A death notice may have an incorrect birth date as no one alive at the time of death was living at the time of the deceased's birth.
A military enlistment might have an incorrect birth date because the person was not legally old enough to join up.
A birth certificate might name a man who is not the father, or alternately not name a father even though at the time everyone knows who he is.
A census might have all sorts of inaccuracies because the census taker might be from a different cultural group or for numerous other reasons.

These are just a few quick examples of why "primary sources" can contain data which you might be wise to question.

The book Debra refers to in this discussion was published in 1900. Why did the author publish this work? Were they trying to make a profit? Were they trying to improve their own social standing? What sources were they referring to? How well trained were they to understand the sources? It's not that you can't trust anything it's that you have to be aware that there is a motive for any author. 19th century genealogical studies are notorious for being very poor quality from a modern evidence based perspective, and several well known (and popular to quote) publications are proven fakes with false pedigrees and invented links between known reliable ones.

Private User
2/6/2021 at 3:00 AM

Alexander agree with you 100% when actual sources is found to contradict those on DN 's or military documents yes it changes.
I just totally accept and like what you have stated here.
We have to rely on valid reliable sources .
However until a different source is presented what appears on a DN us a legally binding fact..
Whatever is in a publication ? Well that is a different story all together

Private User
2/6/2021 at 3:10 AM

We even have many in South Africa that claim ancestor born somewhere in Europe.
Yet with modern DNA testing the yDNA and mtDNA is telling us ; 100 % more likeky India ,
,East Africa Southern Africa or Sumatra .
Yet people just refuse to accept that.

2/6/2021 at 4:16 AM

I have no idea how accurate this site is but it corroborates Dr Jim's claim, broadly speaking, though rather than some deep conspiracy to conceal the truth it explains that Washington was the first President of the United States whereas the men prior to him were presidents of the congress which was formed under the under the Articles of Confederation prior to the Constitution being written. seems to be of much the same opinion.

I am not sure if this makes it a fact or only an agreed-upon opinion.

Private User
2/6/2021 at 4:16 AM

Spot on Dr Jim !
Even baptism records have been proven not 100 % correct etc etc.
Have personally discovered glaring errors on Wikipedia intentional or just by accident ?
Why in a legal document as close to a fact as possible given under oath ( might be lying possible ) until better information refute or change that information.

We have to start somewhere---

2/6/2021 at 4:18 AM

Dr Jim seems to have recanted his opinion, I shall leave my reply nonetheless.

Private User
2/6/2021 at 4:43 AM

Mm ? Think Alexander has a better explanation but Dr Jim does have a very valid point to make regarding facts and where they originate from as Alexander also states very clearly .

Private User
2/6/2021 at 7:04 AM

The point where the discrepancy lies, with the two Alains who in comparison with Pedigree LXXIV must be cobbled together in order to get the complete picture provided in the book,

Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan

Alain la Zouche, Lord of Ashby la Zouche

...are First Cousins Twice Removed. And I'm not sure but would tend to agree with Maven that the problem may have something to do with the family's fondness for the name, Alain.

Alain la Zouche, Lord of Ashby la Zouche is Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan's first cousin twice removed!
Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan
→ Alain de Rohan (d 1195), 3rd vicomte de Rohan
his father → Alain II, vicomte de Rohan et de Castelnoec
his father → Alain I "le Noir" de Rohan, vicomte de Castelnoec, vicomte de Porhoët
his father → Geoffrey I, Vicomte de Porhoët
his brother → Alain la Zouche, Lord of Ashby la Zouche
his son

Yet, in testing the integrity of the information provided by both the book and Geni, I found that on Geni both Alains are in fact 10th g-grandsons of King Alfred.

Whereas, the book has that same generation as the 11th g-grandson of the king. And the Roger de la Zouche which on Geni is his 11th grandson, in the book is presented as the 13th grandson of the king.

Nevertheless, with the exception of the extra Roger in the book which is unaccounted for on Geni (and barely accounted for in the book, I might add), I have found multiple varying (but probably all fairly correct) avenues for arriving at Roger the father of Alice Harcourt, from King Alfred.

And, either way (book or Geni) my Digby ancestor works out as a g-grandson of King Alfred -- and sharing some of the same lineages, as well. But in the book he is the king's 16th g-grandson, while on Geni he comes up 13th with the relationship calculator.

John Digby is Alfred the Great, king of The Anglo-Saxons' 13th great grandson!
Alfred the Great, king of The Anglo-Saxons
→ Edward I "the Elder", king of The Anglo-Saxons
his son → Eadgifu
his daughter → Louis IV, king of West Francia
her son → Mathilde de France, Reihne Consort des Deux-Bourgognes
his daughter → Berthe de Bourgogne, reine consort de France
her daughter → Odo (Eudes) II, Count of Blois, Champagne and Chartres
her son → Thibaut, Count of Blois & Champagne
his son → Magdalena Cecily Fitznigel de Blois
his daughter → Eustace FitzJohn, Lord of Alnwick, Constable of Knaresborough and Cheshire
her son → Richard FitzEustace Clavering, Lord of Halton
his son → Albreda Bisset
his daughter → Margaret Annora Bisset
her daughter → Alice la Zouche
her daughter → Arabella de Harcourt
her daughter → John Digby
her son

In conclusion, after checking the few other scanty sources I could find -- I am inclined to believe that the book reference may have confused these two of the many Alains in that family.

And I'm grateful to have learned something new: I had not realized the origin of the Zouches was in the Porhoët family.

Also, Maven was most helpful here, thank you very much; and I sincerely appreciate all who were interested enough to respond to this discussion.

10/6/2021 at 12:40 PM

Alain IV, vicomte de Rohan is myr 8th cousin 15 times removed.

Showing all 15 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion