Mundéric, Lord of Vitry-en-Perthois - Munderic was not Related to King Clovis I or any of his Children

@Munderic Lord of Vitry-en-Perthois is my 41 st grt grandfather i did not think we went that far back in history that is grt to know i am one of his desendents Judy Rice

http://www.geni.com/family-tree/index/6000000002187726088

is this shown correctly?

Thanks, Drew. I'm going to take the liberty of quoting your source to help everyone get their bearings on the argument you're making:

===

14. Now Munderic, who asserted that he was a kinsman of the king, was puffed up with pride and said: "What have I to do with king Theodoric. For the throne of the kingdom is as much my due as his. I shall go out and gather my people, and exact an oath from them, that Theodoric may know that I am king just as much as he." And he went out, and began to lead the people astray, saying: "I am a chief, follow me, and it will be well with you." A multitude of country people followed him, as one might expect from the frailty of mankind, taking the oath of fidelity and honoring him as a king. And when Theodoric found this out he sent a command to him, saying: " Come to see me, and if any share of my kingdom is due you, take it." Now Theodoric said this deceitfully, thinking that he would kill him when he came. But the other was unwilling and said: " Go, bear back word to your king that I am king just as he is." Then the king gave orders to set his army in motion, in order to crush him by force and punish him. And he learned this, and not being strong enough to defend himself, he hastened to the walls of the stronghold of Vitry, and strove to fortify himself in it with all his property, gathering together those whom he had led astray. Now the army got underway, and surrounded the stronghold, and besieged it for seven days. And Munderic resisted with his people, saying: "Let us make a brave stand, and fight together even to death, and not submit to the enemy." And when the army kept hurling javelins against them on every side, and accomplished nothing, they reported this to the king. And he sent for a certain one of his people, named Aregyselus, and said to him: "You see," said he, "what this traitor is able to do in his arrogance. Go and swear an oath to him that he shall go forth safe. And when he has come forth, kill him, and blot out his memory from our kingdom." He went away and did as he had been ordered. He had however first given a sign to the people, saying: "When I speak words thus and so, rush upon him immediately and kill him." Now Aregyselus went in and said to Munderic: "How long will you sit here like one without sense? You will not be able to resist the king long, will you? Behold, your food has been cut off. When hunger overcomes you, you will come forth whether or no, and surrender yourself into the hands of the enemy, and you will die like a dog. Listen rather to my advice, and submit to the king, that you may be able to live, you and your sons." Then the other, disheartened by these words, said: "If I go out, I shall be seized by the king and slain, both I and my sons and all my friends who are gathered with me." And Aregyselus said to him: "Do not be afraid, but if you decide to go forth, receive my oath as to your crime, and stand securely before the king. Do not be afraid. You shall be o n the same terms with him as you were before." To this Munderic answered: "I wish I were sure I should not be killed." Then Aregyselus put his hands on the holy altar, and swore to him that he should go out safely. So when the oath had been taken, Munderic went out from the gate of the stronghold, holding Aregyselus' hand, and the people gazed at him from a distance. Then as a sign Aregyselus said: "Why do you gaze so intently, O people? Did you never see Munderic before?" And at once the people rushed upon him. But he understood and said: "I see very plainly that by these words you gave a sign to the people to kill me, but I tell you who have deceived me by perjury, no one shall ever see you alive again. And he drove his lance into his back, and thrust it through him and he fell and died. Then Munderic unsheathed his sword, and with his followers made great slaughter of the people, and until he died did not shrink back from any one he could reach. And after he had been slain his property was added to the treasury.

According to French Wikipedia, the 12th century Vita Gundulfi says, "Le jugement de Dieu a commencé quand il a permis que Mundéric pérît par le glaive, lui, le fils du parricide Clodéric." (God's judgment began when he allowed Mundéric perish by the sword, he, the son of parricide Clodéric.)

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric

This is too late to be authoritative, and in context it confuses two different Mundérics.

I cut the marriage between Chloderic and Chlothilde wife of Clovis. It appears to have been created by a bad merge.

Gregory of Tours (quote above) does not give Munderic's ancestry, but the accepted view is that Munderic must have been a son of Chloderic the Parricide.

English Wikipedia says only that Munderic claimed to be a son of Chloderic the Parricide, but without discussing the relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munderic

French Wikipedia goes into more detail, citing French scholar Christian Settipani for a synthesis of sources that show Munderic must have been a son of Chloderic.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mund%C3%A9ric

French Wikipeida also touches on Munderic's family in an article discussing the origin of the Arnulfings.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origine_des_Arnulfiens

Interesting Justin. You're using a different translation of Gregory than I am. I'm using Lewis Thorpe from 1974. Your translation says "kinsman of the king" where mine says "of royal blood." "Kinsman of the king" is easier to interpret as "illegitimate son of Clovis," but I hope Gregory would have said "Munderic was a half brother of Theuderic" if that is what he meant. Gregory loved to portray disputes as family feuds. He would have enjoyed telling the Munderic-Theuderic episode as a quarrel between brothers if he could have. So it comes down to semantics. What did Gregory say in the original Latin? We could ask ten translators and get ten different opinions.

The back story for anyone who doesn't know it: In 509, Clovis embarked on a campaign to eliminate the petty kings of the Franks, thereby consolidating all of the Frankish lands and people under himself. One of these petty kings was Sigebert the Lame. Clovis induced Cloderic to kill his father, Sigebert, then Clovis killed Cloderic for being a parricide. Clovis was cunning that way. A few years later, Clovis died, and his kingdom was divided between his four sons. Theuderic received the portion that included the former lands of Sigebert the Lame. In 524, one of Theuderic's brothers died, and his lands were eventually reapportioned among the three surviving brothers. In 531 or thereabouts, Munderic claimed a royal birthright. The question is:
Did Munderic, as son of Cloderic the Parricide, claim only the former lands of Sigebert the Lame, or did Munderic, as illegitimate son of Clovis, claim one-fourth of the entire Frankish realm? If Munderic was after one fourth of the entire realm, all three kings would have been threatened as the three thirds of the realm would have to be reapportioned into four quarters. But Munderic only dealt with Theuderic, and only Theuderic felt threatened enough to respond with armed force. I'm pretty certain Munderic only sought the former lands of Sigebert the Lame. Therefore, Munderic was a son of Cloderic the Parricide, not Clovis.

Most historians portray Clovis as a brutal and savage barbarian, but if Clovis let young Munderic survive in 509, that might make Clovis slightly less brutal and savage. Just one way that I'm finding the genealogy providing historical insight. Thanks all.

Jon, I'm more of a historian than a genealogist. Since Justin can support the theory that Munderic was a son of Cloderic the Parricide and a grandson of Sigebert the Lame, then I am going with that. I can only add that the Cloderic-Sigebert theory is more supported by the historical context than is the Clovis theory.