Odinkar "den store" Tokesen, Biskop - Dispute regarding father Val-Toke

Ulf Martinsson see you have not lost your amazing charm while I have been away.

But I am sorry to brake it to you. No one have to give into your fantasies of what belongs to where. The link you here provide says nothing about him beling son of Val-Toke It merely states that he was part of the royal hose. Besides from that it is also highly disputed that Val-Toke is the son of Gorm at all.

I believe after several disputes you where told it was to stick with the official history of Denmark.

Have you Anette Guldager Boye actually read this, Quote " Forældre: Jarl Toke. "
Source: http://denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biografisk_Leksikon/Kirke_og_tro/Bis...

That makes his name Odinkar Tokesen, how do you actually justify to delete his father Toke, and then claim that he has no known father, where do you got that information from?

You also wrote in his profile, " It is not know if Odinkar is the Son of Val-Toke, only that he had a connection to the Royal house. Please do not ad his parents as that of Val-Toke. It is even Disputed that Val-Toke is the son of Gorm the old."

Can you now please add sources to that, i.e. who actually disputes this and why?

The Royal house around Odinkar's time of birth, which royal house did exist at that time?

Please, undo your wrongs and stop invent more false history. Did you notice that he had no children, did you notice that he was one of Denmark's earliest Bishops, also, 20 people does actually follow this profile, you did not start any discussion, you just acts on your own and that's not good enough, because when doing drastic changes, the users on Geni are advice to always start a debate about it, just to make sure that arguments for and or against are considered, so now, who is actually charmless?

None of that is proven .Do you know how many Toke existed in that periode of time. It is the most common name on Rune stones which make it a common name in the upper class and royal house. There can be several Jarl Toke as there can be several Gorms we do not know of There is no proof of it. It is guess work all of it. . Secondly it is hightly disputed that Val-Toke and Toke Gormsen is the same person. They are most likely not.

Actually if it stood to danish history Val-Toke should not be listed as a son to Gorm in the first place. Suggest you read some of the pages of the Danish royal house and the liniage.
Theories are not fact and these are more more dubious than most.

What actually make you believe that you stand above the common rules here on Geni?

Ulf Martinsson
What makes you believe that you stand above the common rule of Geni ??

Proof and proper sources is requered especially in the historic figures.

Anette Guldager Boye I read your answer but then I get confused, why mention proof when you don't care about proof?

You stated that Odinkar has no father, despite that the sources mention Toke jarl as his father, then you claim that he can't have any Toke as a father, because, "There can be several Jarl Toke as there can be several Gorms", isn't that proof of your inability to follow sources?

Furthermore, the way you argues could also be read as, if a man has a father named X, and there are plenty of men named X, than we can't put up X as his father...

Lets see, if a man is named Tokesen, and there are plenty of Toke to choose from, then we can't set up Toke as his father. ( Sorry, it's a tragic example of logical fallacy).

I would like to see your list of all these other Toke jarl, and a list of all these other Gorm that belonged to the Danish royal house.

And please, if you had done what's proper, this would have been a discussion started in Odinkar's profile, BEFORE you had made any changes.

Private User I'm a bit late to this discussion so please forgive me if I misunderstand. As I understand it, you believe Odinkar Tokesen, Bishop should be connected as son of Val - Toke Gormsen based on two pieces of information, namely that a) it is documented that "A bishop Odinkar was said to be a son of Toke, the Earl of Winland, who belonged to the royal family" and b) the patronymic surname "Tokesen" suggests evidence that this Odinkar is the son in question -- is that right?

And Anette Guldager Boye you broke the connection Ulf had made based on the fact that "Toke" is a very common name among ancient Danes, particularly on Runestones, meaning "Tokesen" could refer to any number of Toke royals, not necessarily Val - Toke Gormsen -- is that correct?

As always, sources are paramount to resolving such disputes and it sounds like there's no good source for what Ulf is suggesting. What about "Earl of Winland" -- do we know whether or not our Val - Toke Gormsen was the Earl of Winland?

Mike Stangel Almost correct, Jarl Toke was jarl over Vendland, in Denmark, today in Germany, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendland

Secondly, there are no other contemporary royal families than Gorm's line, and the source is beside run-stones Adam of Bremen, NB, NOT Anette Guldager Boye.

It's a shame that this kind of things happens, I could have settle with a footnote in Odinkar's profile telling us that some, yet unknown, people? disagree. ; )

Mike Stangel no there is no if he was Earl of Winland and yes Gorm is believed Ulf Martisson not to have been the only royal house of Denmark. NOt before his son Harald Bluetooth did it all come together. Plus we do not know all members of the royal family. Plus there is a dispute going that Thyra Gorms wife can be the daughter of Harald Klak king of east Denmark.
So fact is no where is it stated with in reasonable doubt that Odinkar is Val-Tokes son and no where is it sure that Val-Toke is even Gorms son.
It is assumed by the theory that Val-Toke is the same as Toke Gormsen mentioned on a runestone in Sweden. This is hightly disputed and it is not even sure that any of them is son of Gorm the old.

So with these connections they are so much a theory that they need glue to stick together.
Just reasontly a viking grave of a highranging person from the vikingage was found in a champer grave. This person is completely unknown and could be one of Gorms supporters.
There can easy be more than one Jarl Toke and we do not know all members of the royal family.
In fact it is likely that when Gorms father HarthaKnud arrived in Jelling and assumed the royal crown, that he was not a no body but a member of the royal house in another line.
On top of that reasent reseach believe that many fone in viking could have been members of the royal house of denmark og nobility pushed out due to disputes over land and territory.
Adam of Bremen does not name Odinkar son of Val- Toke. And to ashume that since that is the one we have heard of it just has to be him, is not even close to a fact. It is a theory and one that is estremely difficult to defend with facts.

Serving it as fact is not going to happend. And that is what it is when connected as son to father. A theory is and stays a theory just that. and in this case one among others.
So untill I recieve some actual evidense of this the profile stayes inside what the official danish history says.

It should say on top of that went into viking could have been members.

Anette is right. The relationship is possible but it is not proved. Let's move this debate to another discussion where we can all enjoy the debate without boring people who are trying to get help from curators.

Anette Guldager Boye
Wrote "Serving it as fact is not going to happend. And that is what it is when connected as son to father."

Mike Stangel

This is the fact she dismisses.
Odinkar, –1043, Biskop, var Søn af Jarlen Toke i Vendsyssel og beslægtet med Kongeætten. http://runeberg.org/dbl/12/0379.html

Odinkar, d. . i påsken 1043, biskop. Død i Ribe, begravet i domkirken. O. var af jysk høvdingeæt og stammede fra den danske kongeslægt. Familie: Forældre: Jarl Toke.
http://denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biografisk_Leksikon/Kirke_og_tro/Bis...

Both links above states that Odinkar was the son of Jarl Toke, a connection Anette refuses to reestablish. According to Adam of Bremen, Odinkar's family were from Jylland, where the location Jelling are situated were Gorm the old ruled as a king, at that place in Danmark and time, there's only one king Gorm who was the father of Toke, giving him the patronymic Gormsen, and at this time there are no other known Toke Gormsen, jarl known in history from Jylland.

The only logical explanation for Odinkar's line, is that Toke was the son of Gorm and the father of Odinkar, which place the family in Jylland just as Adam of Bremen wrote.

Considering Anette's statement, - there could have been many Toke, many Gorm, and many royal families - yes, it could and it probably was, but there was only one royal family in Jylland at that time, and only one jarl Toke, so it makes no difference!

It doesn't matter how many other kings there was if the others was known for ruling in and over other parts of the area today known as Denmark, a land that was split and first conjoined between ca. 960-985 by Gorms son Harald.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jelling_stones#Runestone_of_Harald_Bl...

1. Odinkar's father Toke Gormsen, Jarl, should be reinstated.

2. A footnote can be added saying that the connection could be hard to 100% verify, but is according to the known facts plausible and seemingly correct.

3. Regardless whatever action you take, fact is fact, and just now, the line of facts are broken by another curator due to what I interpret as ill-will, because the previous error made Odinkar, was corrected by me, making the previous creator of that profile appear as extremely incompetent, this is most likely a part of a long drawn revenge from Anette's side, that's the only logical explanation I can see, where the cutting of the father is part of her feud. The question I raise, is if this is an accepted behavior from a curator and why it's allowed?

Justin Durand

This discussion would better have been done started from Odinkar's profile, if she had followed common rules here on Geni!

And no, she is actually wrong, and by standing by her side, you prove me right once again, no matter how bad decisions a curator ever makes, you stand united in defending each other, this is not god as it sometimes just seems as a form of autarchy, and yes, I understand that you must have rules in order to upheld your authority, but decisions made in the world tree should always rest on facts, not personal agendas or vendettas, a rotten apple spoils the barrel.

Ulf, I would love to debate this with you but not here, not on this thread. Move the discussion to an appropriate thread and I'll be "all in".

You do not know for starters that Jarl of VEndsyssel is son of Gorm. You do not know if Val-Toke or Toke Gormsen is the same and no place does it say that that makes him the son of Val-Toke.

Offical Danish history merely states that he is of the Royal family not grandson of Gorm the old or that Harald Bluetooth is his uncle. There is no evidense of that.

So unless you can provide the evidense that places him as that it stayes.
Theories you can have plentyfull but theory is theory and not facts.
I am aware that you both would like it to be so, but it is not.

Discuss it all you want you will still have no place that says this is correct. And if I the evidense you think you have now is enough for you to rewrite danish history. I am sorry to say this you have a problem.
In fact if I I should do the right thing according to danish history I should cut of Val-Toke he is not listed as Gorms son in anyway and there is no specific evidense of him being so.
You are welcome to contactsJelling and the Vejle museum and that of the national museum of Danmark. They will tell you all the same.

http://denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biografisk_Leksikon/Kirke_og_tro/Bis...

This is what is told about him in Danish history. I am sure you can get something from Google translate.
Here is listet what is known of him also of his kin.

When it comes to rules you should have started a discussion about him if you wanted this insteed of adding someone to the royal danish house that in no way can be proven to belong there.

Mike Stangel is this profile going to be according to danish history or based on theories that can not be proven.

Anette Guldager Boye,

> Discuss it all you want you will still have no place that says this is correct.

I hope you will find a way to become more open to discussion and debate. Geni is a collaborative environment. You might know the answer but it helps if you let people know what you're doing and how you arrived at your conclusion. It helps other users learn about the families that interest them.

Anette, why did you post a link to a lexicon that claims that his father was Toke jarl, and furthermore writes that Odinkar was from the royal Danish Jylland family?

"O. var af jysk høvdingeæt og stammede fra den danske kongeslægt."
"Familie: Forældre: Jarl Toke."

"Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence."
<a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+eviden... evidence</a>

I'm moving to this thread the discussion messages posted to "Attention Curators, please assist" by myself, Private User, Anette Guldager Boye and Justin Durand. Once I've moved the messages over, we can continue the discussion.

Okay, all messages have been moved over; we are free to continue the discussion.

The way I see it, we have a couple precedents on Geni already, that may help us decide whether to allow Val-Toke to be listed as Odinkar's father. On the "No" side, we have the recent dispute over the Horowitz connection to Rabbi Benvenisti Ha'Levi. After a fair amount of deliberation it was concluded that although this is an emotionally-powerful part of family lore for some, there was not sufficient evidence to retain the connection. In that case, the connection was not documented anywhere for nearly 300 years, at which time it shows up in a research publication. For me anyway, the compelling factor is that somehow 300 years passed and nobody documented this connection in all that time.

On the flip side, we have traditional connections with scant evidence in areas of the tree like the Biblical profiles, and Odin, {Norse God} to name a couple. Perhaps it will be argued that we should dismantle those trees, as well, but for the time being we allow them based on literary and oral traditions rather than the kind of evidence that would satisfy the Genealogical Proof Standard.

When I review what Ulf has posted, this statement stands out more than the rest: "...there was only one royal family in Jylland at that time, and only one jarl Toke" Is that agreed upon, or also in contention?

As an interested on looker rather than an expert I'd point out that it is impossible to state categorically that there was only one Jarl Toke just because we only know of one, that would be like saying there is only one Mike Stangel because there is only one Geni profile with that name.

At a generalised level the issue that this case and the others you mentioned raise is how do you research genealogy in an illiterate world which left no formal records. The sagas are wonderful but late and full of contradictions, there are a few thousand runestones spanning several centuries, archaeology offers context but almost never names.

Odinkar might be Gorm's grandson, as Ulf is saying it is the best explanation that fits all the evidence that we have, but as Anette is saying the evidence is so fragmented as to have no value. The problem is if we cut every questionable relationship we are going against what many people consider "proven" facts and we end up with a fractured tree with gaping holes which users will then attempt to "fix". RL will stop the MP tree from being "fixed" but the commercial implications ...?

This is hard, This is frustrating. I understand Ulf's point of view. Generations of historians have worked with a plausible version of this family that often includes Odinkar as a likely son of Val-Toke.

But modern experts disagree. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a simple function of changing standards about what constitutes evidence.

We know Odinkar was son of a man named Toke. Pallig Tokesen, Ealdorman of Devonshire was also son of a man named Toke. It seems possible, maybe even likely, they were the same Toke and he was Val-Toke. I often think probably they were. But there is no direct proof.

It our modern world of "scientific genealogy" proof is everything. In the absence of direct evidence you need to have almost overwhelming evidence to make an identification. It does no good to say "I think so" or "Here, I found someone else who thinks so." You have to look at the majority opinion of experts in the field.

So, my personal opinion might (I emphasize might) be inclined to accept this relationship, but still I would not like to see it established on Geni as a fact. It is a possibility, nothing more. As it was with the Horowitz line, we have to accept the rules of the game.

Ulf and Mike are asking the key question here:

> there was only one royal family in Jylland at that time, and only one jarl Toke" Is that agreed upon, or also in contention?

Yes. No. We don't know.

We don't have a complete census of royals. We only know the ones who happened to be recorded on rune stones and in sagas and chronicles. Occasionally someone new is discovered and the discovery highlights how little we know.

And, with the ones we do know, their relationships aren't always clear. There are often heated disputes about whether this man mentioned here is the same person as that man mentioned there.

And, we aren't entirely sure what it meant for someone to be a member of the royal family. They probably weren't speaking with modern, scientific precision. More likely it would be meant in a common understanding, practical sort of way. Royal, or semi-royal, or recently royal, or at least connected somehow that would mean it's not outrageous to say it.

So, Odinkar was son of a man named Jarl Toke. But that doesn't tell us anything firm. Nothing we can bank on.

The test is not, most assuredly not, whether this the best theory that fits the available evidence.

Instead, the test is whether this is logically and practically the only possible scenario, given the available evidence (which includes likely gaps in the evidence).

My view is that it is not. There are too many gaps, too many guesses. It fits, but it's not the only theory that would fit.

"but it's not the only theory that would fit."

No, but the other theories would also never be accepted.

Reminding you of Gnupa (Knut), who was married to Asfrida Odinkarsdotter, he was the son of Olof, and he succeeded his father as king in Denmark in the beginning of the 900's.

We could make one simple theory here, Knut Svensson, the father of Gorm the old came over after that king Gnupa had died in the first quarter, he married his widow Asfrida Odinkarsdotter and had the son Gorm with her, named after Knuts fosterfather Guthred, king in England, she in turn, already had the son Sigfried with Gnupa, so in fact, he took over the rule from Siegfried as S most likely at that time was underage.

Later on after 935, the two half brothers Siegfried and Gorm the old shared the kingdom in Jylland.

Sigfried had a son named Gorm, and he had a son named Toke who had a son named Odinkar.

Gorm the old also had a son named Toke, who had a son named Odinkar.

Gorm the old also had a son named Odinkar, who is referred as Odinkar the old, who also became involved in the church movement in Scandinavia.

Gorm the old also had a son named Strutharald, who had a son named Toke, who had a son named Odinkar. Strutharald ruled over Skåne but before that he was jarl of Jomsborg in Vendland.

Olaf, the previous mentioned king, was a cousin to Knut Svensson, and their both fathers was sons of Ragnar lodbrok's sons

And then, looking purely chronologically, we would still find that the previous solution fits the table best as our mentioned Odinkar became Bishop ca. 1005, must have been born between ca. 970- 980 25-35 years old, and died 1043 most likely in his 70's, giving us that his father must have been over 20, thus earliest born after ca. 940, and we don't have to invent anything at all, skipping all these other more or less unsourced named persons.

Happy?

Ulf,

I said:

> but it's not the only theory that would fit.

Then you said:

> No, but the other theories would also never be accepted.

And that's exactly the point. You haven't got the only answer if there are other possible answers.

The Universe doesn't promise you'll find an answer to every question. If none of the answers can be accepted that's just another way of saying "We don't know."

But we Do know that Odinkar's fathers name was Toke, and that he was a jarl, and we Do know that almost every jarl at that time was sons of kings or Chieftains, as the son had to be first born in order to be kings, and the rest was entitled either drott or later equal jarl's, equal to the english word earl. Drott actually have the same meaning as prince, and the word still lives on in the Finnish word for prince even today, "ruhtinas" Ger. "druhtinaz", so if the father was an earl, he was the son of a king, not the son of a jarl or drott.

There can easyly have been more than one Jarl Toke. It is statet that he was related to the Hvide family who also have relations with the royal family. Toke is a common name in that family.

So no naming him Jarl Toke is not a proof that he is Val-Toke.

And just because they where sons of kings and chieftains does not meen he was son of Val-Toke nor grandchild of Gorm the old.
There is a reason why the many ringfortresses was build by Harald Bluetooth. That was to gain control over the other areas of Denmark that other chieftains, earls and kings had control over. The latest ringfortress at Køge had severe damage to the gate from fire. It is believed it was attacked and left.
Who if not another power from that area.
It is making conclusions on non existing material to say that A he was son of Jarl Toke, therefor he will be son of Val- Toke and since he was a Jarl he most have been son of the king.
Plenty evidense that it is not that simple.

IF we start from the beginning. Val-Toke/Toke Gormsen. it is claimed that he is the son of Gorm the old, due to his call name Gormsen. we do know of other Gorms, also back in time Gorm the English is mentioned in Gesta Danorum. This extensively discussed on the Gorm Debate.
According to the Offical danish sites, such as that of Jelling, National museum, and Aarhus university he has 3 children that we know of.
Danaest. Mentionen in various sagas, among them Gesta Dannorum, Harald Bluetooth and a daughter Gunhild.
No Toke is mentionen and the link to Val-Toke is hightly unlikely

Now Val-Toke often mixed together with Toke Gormsen mentionen on a runestone and in the sagas. Some theories link him as son of Gorm due to his call name Gorm. This is highly debaterble. Reasen is several. But for one looking down the royal house. several of the illigimate children of the kings usually get mentioned,

Also you have a Val -Toke on a rune stone and you have Toke Gormsen, but nothing to prove that in fact was one of the same person.

Not even that Toke Gormsen was the son of Gorm the old.

Now to Odinkar.
Odinkar was of a noble familie that came from the royal house of Denmark. We can start with asking what line. Just because Gorm was the ruler that does not meen that he was all there was of the royal house. For all we know he could have brothers and sisters which would also make them of the royal family.

So what is known about Odinkar is that his father is Jarl. But there could again have been other earls with the same name.
We already have to here mentioned on Rune stones Toke Gormsen and Val-Toke.There are many more. Even a christian one Tome Smed (Smith) rejste denne sted efter Revle. and many more.
No place does it say specific how they are related to the royal house. It could as easyly be a daughter of Harald Bluetooth or a completely different connection.

So the problem is:( Val-Toke is he at all the Toke Gormsen mentioned that might or might not be a son of Gorm. (According to offical danish history. This is not known.

And how is the relations of Jarl Toke. Who was he specificly. Was he Val-Toke or another Jarl in the area. Toke was common used name.

It could for that matter have been a daughter of Harald Bluetooth that got married to Jarl Toke to keep him as an ally. Not nessasary all of them we know of.

Ulf, you said:

> so if the father was an earl, he was the son of a king, not the son of a jarl or drott.

There was not such precision. A jarl was a semi-autonomous ruler without the power to make himself a king. It tells us nothing about his father or how he got his position except that he was high-born.

> Drott actually have the same meaning as prince,

And like the word Prince it had a looser meaning than we now give it. At this period and for hundreds of years afterward a Prince was any powerful magnate, royal or not. The use of Prince to mean the son of a King goes back only to the 16th century.