Pharamond, king of the Franks (Fictitious) - CLOVIS--Fictional Profiles connected to Saintly Kings-

Started by Karen Jean Tanner, Penwright on Sunday, February 18, 2024
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Related Projects:

Showing all 25 posts

I have my suspicions as to why someone keeps saying so many lineages of "Clovis I" are Fictional-

They did this to King Arthur centuries ago. There is more proof that King Arthur existed than some of the others who claim nobility-

Here is a genealogy of this lineage:

http://www.dasharpe.com/Genealogy/Paramund.pdf

FindaGrave has extensive research on these lineages-

Childeric, LINK

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/94481382/childeric_i_of_the_sal...

You
→ Renée CHALANCON
your mother → Victor CHALANCON
her father → Elisabeth MASSARDIER
his mother → Marie MASSARDIER (Neyrieux)
her mother → Marie Benoîte NEYRIEUX (Thelisson)
her mother → Etiennette THELISSON (Thivillier)
her mother → Jeanne THIVILLIER (Blanchard)
her mother → Claude BLANCHARD
her father → Mathieu (Dit Pontet) BLANCHARD
his father → Antoinette BOUTEILLE (Blanchard)
his sister → Jeanne Marie BOUTEILLE
her daughter → Françoise PEYRACHON
her daughter → Jean Claude PUPIER
her son → Jeanne Jeanette PUPIER
his daughter → Jean Claude GRANGE
her husband → Jean Marie GRANGE
his father → Guillaume GRANGE
his father → Jean GRANGE
his father → Claudine GRANGE (Chevron)
his mother → Antoine CHEVRON, Le Jeune
her father → Pierre Louis CHEVRON
his father → Jean CHEVRON
his father → Etienne CHEVRON
his father → Marie CHEVRON (de Thélisson)
his mother → Dame Françoise DE THÉLISSON (Mitte de Chevrières)
her mother → Seigneur Jean Donnat MITTE DE CHEVRIÈRES, III
her father → Louis MITTE DE CHEVRIÈRES, I
his father → Jean MITTE DE CHEVRIERES, II
his father → Agnes MITTE DE CHEVRIERES
his mother → Guichard ALLEMAN DE LENS
her father → Eléonore ALLEMAN DE LENS (de Roussillon)
his mother → Béatrix DE LA TOUR-DU-PIN
her mother → Beatrix de Coligny DE LA TOUR, DE PIN (de Coligny), dame de Malleval
her mother → Beatrice D'ALBON, Dauphine du Viennois, comtesse d'Albon & du Grésivaudan
her mother → Beatrice ALERAMICI, del Monferrato
her mother → Alberto MALASPINA, il Moro
her husband → Marquis Obizzo MALASPINA, the great
his father → Marquis Alberto OF THE OBERTENGHI, "the Malaspina"
his father → Orberto Obizzo II
his father → Guilla OBERTENGHI (de Spoleto)
his mother → Waldrada, de Bourgogne
her mother → Rodolph 1er DE BOURGOGNE, Roi de Bourgogne
her father → Conrad II «le Jeune», duc de Bourgogne transjurane
his father → Conrad I «le Vieux», comte d'Auxerre
his father → Helwige, Abbesse de Chelles-Saint-Berthour
his mother → Isembart, count in Thurgau
her father → Adelinde of Spoleto
his mother → Regarde of Bavaria
her mother → Imma of Alamannia, Abbesse de Nonnberg
her sister → Aldegonde of Bavaria
her daughter → Waudbert VII, comte de Lommois
her husband → Adeltrude de Hainaut van Henegouwen
his mother → Saint Vincent Madelgarus
her father → Madelgaire DE HAINAUT
his father → Amalberge DE HAINAUT
his mother → Wauthier DE HAINAUT
her father → Mathilde DE BRANDEBOURG (De Therouanne)
his mother → Clodgar II de Thérouanne, seigneur de Boulogne
her father → Landbert, roi des Francs à Thérouanne et Boulogne
his father → Ildégonde des Francs
his mother → Marcomir, roi des Francs à Cologne
her father → Pharamond, roi des Francs
his son

Didier Raymond Coquard ---Thank you, but what is that lineage for?

Geni has my lineages mixed up it seems with my lines to these people with BASINA & her Husband, I was always the GGD of the other lines.

What really gets my goat is that the whole entire concept of genealogy originally was the connection between a living person and an ancestor who had achieved some measure of greatness or even divinity. Heresy to label a people's beloved matriarch or patriarch as fictitious! People were condemned for heresy once.....

Kazimierz of Rús-

Very good point, they start the slander over jealously, rivalry etc... been going on since the beginning.

I firmly believe that King Arthur was real, so much supportive evidence, and, we continue to see this pattern of slander on family profiles of heroes today.

Within the past 2 weeks, some has isolated this tree, this profile showed as my GGF, now it is missing.

THIS WAS MY LINK POST--

https://www.geni.com/path/Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Ishmael?from=6...

CHANGED AGAIN---

https://www.geni.com/path/Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Ishmael?
from=6000000113159515092&path_type=blood&to=6000000000792610085

Someone is possibly breaking links within these lineages-

I am requesting Geni investigate WHO is making these changes & for what purpose.

Here is the original link to my lines- They are now changed.

LINK NOW SAYS:

This tree has been isolated from other trees on Geni: Tree is known to have no certifiable connections
Geni does not allow isolated trees to be merged into the World Family Tree, or other trees.

WHO IS BREAKING THESE LINKS TO ISHMAEL?

https://www.geni.com/path/Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Ishmael?
from=6000000113159515092&path_type=blood&to=6000000000792610085

Kazimierz of Rús-

Strange thin I've noticed about these 3 isolated profiles were exactly the ones I had on my Facebook, Ishmael, Abraham & Terah--- Those are now isolated blocking MY links.

They claim they are now deemed FICTIONAL, yet other biblical profiles such as Jesus & Moses are still up not isolated.

I just assume at this point it could be about religion in general. Some websites don't want the religious conflict- Geni is an Israeli based business anyway-

My Link to Abraham--

https://www.geni.com/path/Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Patriarch-Abra...
%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95?from=6000000113159515092&path_type=blood&to=4008970325070048050

My Link to Ishmael---

https://www.geni.com/path/Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Ishmael?
from=6000000113159515092&path_type=blood&to=6000000000792610085

My Link to Terah

https://www.geni.com/.../Karen-Tanner+is+related+to+Terah..

Strange how these 3 profiles all now are blocked-

Isolation means PRIVATE, they are only allowing certain people access---

Someone is trying to prevent world information of religion & true Royalty is what it seems like to me.

It would expose those who are not actually noble royals as they have claimed for generations & centuries & give the real successors the true genealogy. This is a way to suppress information-

I believe the trees are active to only selected people, the term "Isolation" really means PRIVATE-

Karen Jean Tanner, Penwright

Re "Isolation means PRIVATE" actually no it doesn't.

Isolated means that it is isolated from the world tree - and the profiles within an isolated branch can be either public or private.

  • All users can access any public profile in Geni even if it is isolated.

Private is either a living profiles or for deceased profiles born under 150 years ago where the family/profile managers decide for it to be private.

  • For obvious reasons private profiles are only accessible to family and profile managers.

Isolated does not mean private.

On Geni, trees can be isolated for various reasons; the main two would be duplicate trees that need to not get merged into the Tree because they cause so much work, or trees which are either false genealogies (some of which are near or fairly new, and some of which are extremely old) or trees made up of non-humans — the deities found in early genealogies, for instance, or fictional characters such as the many versions of King Arthur, or the Harry Potter tree.

No one is attempting to,suppress royalty and religion. Everybody is doing their best to help create a world tree with reliable sources.

Please be very careful. That you are posting essentially the same arguments in many different discussion threads can be seen as instigating conflict, which would be a violation of the Geni Code of Conduct..

Thank you Anne, I have not argued with anyone- Just stated my opinions-

I have placed the various topics on the related profiles to chat about this situation. Some of the isolated profiles can still be active to certain members is what I am referring to as "Private".

By no means have I instigated anything, I have been very polite but straight to the point, about this situation. I see people actually arguing on other boards. I never argue with anyone.

When profiles cannot be access in an ancient tree it does block the capability of connecting.

I have print outs of the lineages, I cannot access them because of the Isolated tree now. That is preventing me from researching further because that data is blocked. But, that is what Geni is doing so that's the way you are doing it here.

As far as religion, it seems to be only certain Biblical persons being blocked & deemed as fictional when others of the same Biblical story are not being blocked. That is religion, religious characters as well. That is what I am saying.

Again, I have not said anything inflammatory to anyone, I have not argued with anyone, I am just stating my opinions. And, again, I see many people arguing on the other Topics that nobody says anything about.

Anne, by me saying that is Private is not an inflammatory statement to be in violation,

i have only stated what i am experiencing.

I have links to those profiles of my GGFs that are now Isolated, I cannot access them as you say they can be accessed. The 3 profiles that are blocking me now are Abraham, Ishmael & Terah.

I cannot access them.

Seems strange that those are my connections but I see no others blocked than that, this is what i am saying seems someone is being selective is deeming Fictional Profiles.

I still see Moses, Jesus & other biblical profiles of the same religion. Why would Abraham, Ishmael & Terah be isolated now?

The profile of "Jesus Christ" is absolutely Fake from what i see.

Again, I have been polite to everyone, just stating my opinions peacefully.

I posted on the several boards so that others of the same type of topic can see my Conversation, they would not see it if I don't post t there, that's what the boards are for.

You have however explained some things- Thank you

:Leanne, Thanks for the comment & info-

What I saw when I clicked my link, the page said Isolated & Fictional- Now that page says "Isolated", so it was changed since then.

I kept posting, asking everyone what was going on, i had no idea why they deemed the biblical profiles as Fictional-

I was not getting the right information, I was asking everyone-

I looked all around at other pages, their discussions were about the fictional profiles.

I saw Jesus, Moses etc... wondering why someone had determined that Abraham, Terah & Ishmael were Fictional- I got different responses. Some said Geni was beginning to do that with the bible profiles....

I determined the pages were still accessible to some people & PRIVATE.

All it said was FICTIONAL- Of course I was astonished.

Karen Jean Tanner, Penwright
It's hard for me to comment on specifics as you haven't tagged a profile

Geni is a worldwide system so it covers users of every religion.

Its not my area of expertise but I can imagine that it would be nearly impossible to locate enough sources to trace ancestors back to the times outlined in the books of most religions.

What we suggest when someone believes that there are connections missing or incorrect in Geni is to start a discussion from the profile and outline what connection is missing or incorrect and the source of where that comes from.

Leanne, thank you-

Yes, it is very difficult for a website to deal with so many various topics especially religion. I understand this-

As researcher's genealogist have it hard trying to piece together profiles with ancient information, it's a very special skill. Imagine what the translators of the bible scrolls went through.

When we say those are fictional it invalidates centuries of research from scrolls, artifacts, archeology & the hard work of those before us-

New Users don't realize what researchers have done just to build profiles; they create profiles that are medieval, full of controversy & when they isolate the tree it blocks all the profiles they have attached & merged to to the point of the isolation.

When I see something noted as Fictional, we presume it is like King Arthur- If we claim biblical characters are fictional, it relates to many other religions that do have those same characters, like Jesus for example-

I don't think Isolating it is the answer, people need to be able to access it, chat about it, share links & info to resolve the issues.

So now, I have to find out if I need to create my own profiles of my own lines, but I can't do that because it duplicates profiles-

How do I do this, if those profiles isolated are invalid, I should be able to create new ones with more specific information.

When they isolated that tree, it also blocks some of the correct profiles blocking merges-

So, it messes up many lines.

Karen Jean Tanner, Penwright -- the isolated lines are isolated so that they do not get merged into the World Tree. Often they also have locked profiles in them, as well; usually that is done because users have changed information in them, there has been vandalization, or they are controversial in some way.

You say -- "I don't think Isolating it is the answer, people need to be able to access it, chat about it, share links & info to resolve the issues."

But neither isolating nor making profiles private keeps users from accessing (that is, looking at the profile), chatting abut it (which happens in Discussions, started from the Discussion tab), sharing links (easily done in the Discussions) or resolving the issues (another thing that often happens in Discussions).

So that is actually a non-issue.

It may be, however, that you do indeed need to create your own profiles, and your own tree, so that you can put in the information and connections you believe should be in it, without having to deal with troublesome people making changes that you do not like. If that is the case, there are a great many genealogical websites that allow that -- Geni isn't one of them, but it's an easily solved problem. I have many friends, by the way, who keep both their own tree on one site, and then also participate in the Geni tree. So there's that.

But unless our mandate changes, curators are going to continue to isolate lines that they can see need to be isolated, whether, as I have said before, it's because the tree is a duplicate line in the early historical tree, or because the tree is, according to genealogical standards, either comprised of nonhumans or people who cannot at this point be connected to the World Tree with any confidence.

Both of these tools are used in order to help us keep some kind of order in a tree where, were we not to be taking care of things, sheer chaos prevails. Having profiles undergo edit wars is not helpful or useful. Much better to be discussing issues in the forum -- AND one of the things I am sure you remember that you can do is to go to the Discussion tab on any profile you are having trouble with, and see if people have already addressed the problem.

And also. Changing decisions that have been made by earlier generations of researchers and scholars is not the same thing as disrespecting earlier generations of researchers and scholars. It is the same thing as being a researcher and scholar. I myself, having been a medievalist for about 55 years at this point, work with older publications when needed, or when appropriate, but I have no trouble understanding that our interpretation of documents changes over time. All early documents, ALL early primary sources, having been written down by actual humans, are not texts that cannot be questioned. They must be not only transcribed (and transcriptions can change), but translated (and this can also change), and then must be interpreted by taking into account the author, the audience, the purpose, and the historical context. And those interpretations change over time, as we learn more or as we come to see things differently.

That also is not going to be changing. That is what scholarship is.

By the way, I haven't, myself, had anything to do with the lines that are upsetting you at the moment, but just in case this comes up: The host of Arthurian profiles, put together into trees that give the varying genealogies as they appear in various Arthurian works, were created by me. Also, I am the curator who detached the tops of the Welsh and Irish trees, which, in medieval tradition, had humans descended from the Welsh and Irish deities. Also, I am the curator who detached the upper lines of the inherited lines of High Kings of Ireland, who could not have been High Kings because High Kings hadn't been invented yet. That was me.

Finally. There is a case to be made for arguing that the unreliable pieces of the Tree should not have been detached and isolated, but simply left in the Tree as they stand, and labelled Legendary or Fictional or whatnot. My own argument for that would be that genealogical activity, a subset of history, has its own history, and the deities and invented kings that medieval people were descended from, in the documents of that time, represent an earlier understanding of what genealogy does and what it is for, and so should stay, as one of the strata of genealogical decisions and ideas. I did not win the argument. The general consensus was that only actual humans, who can be put into the Tree by using current genealogical standards, should be profiles that actual humans connect to.

Very well! I detached the Welsh and Irish deities.

Therefore.

I am no longer descended from the Welsh Sun God Beli Mawr on Geni, though I used to be. My own interpretation of this is that I AM descended from him in my reality, just not in Geni reality.

Here he is, no longer my ancestor: Beli Mawr "The Great", {Fictitious, Mabinogion}

So that would be one way of looking at the entire issue.

Karen Jean Tanner, Penwright

I think you are confusing the terms which makes it hard to understand the issues you are raising.

For example you are, I believe, using the terms fictional and private when I think you meant they were isolated.

Isolated, fictional and private have specific meanings in Geni.

  • Isolated means it can’t be merged into the world tree. There are quite a few reasons for isolating a branch from the world tree. Some of them are Duplicates to be deleted, Fictional, Experimental, no known connection and some others. For example the profiles for the Harry Potter books are isolated as fictional. I would expect that most biblical profiles to be isolated due to them having no certifiable connection to the world tree.
  • Fictional - there are 2 uses in Geni - one is the tree being isolated with the reason as fictional and then separately a profile could be labelled fictional in the name. Sometimes it might include the text as often the same name pops up in different texts (from memory I think King Arthur has a few different texts with different family connections) Hopefully any profiles marked individually as Fictional are also isolated as we really don’t want fictional people getting mixed up with the world tree. (You should see the amount of Clark Kent / Superman profiles I have cut from the world tree)
  • Private is for living profiles and profiles born under 150 years ago - and the information is only visible to family.
  • Blocked is not a term that is used in Geni. I think you might mean “Locked” as in you can’t edit the profiles. Profiles can be locked in a number of ways - fully locked, field locked, relationship locked. There are many reasons for locking profiles and getting a change made to them should be as simple as starting a discussion from the profile and outlining what you want changed and citing the source. Sometimes the change would be done but sometimes there would be a discussion about the change, the validity of the source or other contradictory sources. (I work much lower in the tree but often I find that sources contradict or that profiles are confused with other like named profiles - further back in the tree often the sources are harder to pin down). Locked profiles are unfortunately a necessity when dealing with thousands of users across the world. (There are a surprising amount of people who believe they are the child of God or Jesus or are the rightful King of England)

The intent of isolating and locking is not to stop improvement of the profiles but to stop inaccurate information being added by well intentioned users who don’t have the skills in that time period or locations particularly in speciality areas. Although a I consider myself a good researcher I don’t touch anything biblical or before 1600 - I pass it over to those far better skilled in those areas. I have found that those curators who work these areas welcome additional information and sources.

Leanne,

Thank you so much, I just had no idea what was going on, when I was told they were Fictionalizing everything I was just a mess. I have tried to tell everyone what I had experienced, they didn't understand me & I didn't understand fictional either- You're awesome, thank you.

I thought Moses & Jesus were next.

Regarding Pharamond, king of the Franks {Legendary} - The earliest reference to him is 400 years after the period he legendarily comes from, in the Liber Historiae Francorum. This lack of primary sources makes his existence impossible to verify historically or genealogically.

And wrt the spamming of your 'suspicion' mail over numerous Discussions now:

I have my suspicions as to why someone keeps saying so many lineages of "Clovis I" are Fictional-They did this to King Arthur centuries ago. There is more proof that King Arthur existed than some of the others who claim nobility-Here is a genealogy of this lineage: http://www.dasharpe.com/Genealogy/Paramund.pdf Karen Jean Tanner19/2/2024 at 12:56 AM FindaGrave has extensive research on these lineages-Childeric, LINK https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/94481382/childeric_i_of_the_sal... Karen Jean Tanner 19/2/2024 at 12:57 AM CLODIO https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/189704182/chlodio_of_the_franks Karen Jean Tanner 19/2/2024 at 12:59 AM PHARAMOND (PARAMUND) https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/189705964/pharamond_or_faramund..

Here are the applicable answers I've given you over ten Discussions:

1. There are no documented direct descent lines from Childéric I, King of the Franks - see Project: Testing for Fake Medieval and Ancient Lines https://www.geni.com/projects/Testing-for-Fake-Medieval-and-Ancient-Lines/48078.. Geni isn't the one saying this - historians are. For why, see Project: Descents from Antiquity https://www.geni.com/projects/Descents-from-Antiquity/12283. No direct descents to modern people means that the documentation for the line peters out before it gets to us.

2. Find a Grave isn't a primary or secondary source It’s a crowd-sourced website like Geni, whose data is only as good as the Sources it cites: . Please see Project: Working with Sources: https://www.geni.com/projects/Working-with-sources/18201 for how Sources are judged.

3. Regarding Arthur - He is definitely a fictional construct, genealogically speaking.The debates about the likelihood that the legends are based on a real person from the 5th Century have no place on a world family tree trying to connect people for whom we have proof of existence.
However, what medievalist or lover of chivalric romances, would want him eradicated? He's central to the mediaeval aesthetic. So we use isolated trees (that cannot be accidentally merged into the one world tree) to draw up the different family lines that have been written around him, and we have TWO wonderful projects for him, that you'll love:
Historical King Arthur https://www.geni.com/projects/Historical-King-Arthur/25646#
and
Arthurian Fiction https://www.geni.com/projects/Arthurian-Fiction/8905

It isn't clear what you want to achieve by ignoring any response and simply restarting the 'suspicion' Discussion again and again somewhere new.

Showing all 25 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion