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

No I don't, but as I've said earliser you just brush everything away. Gregory of Tours referd to sulpicius in his writings, according to you it is not reliable, then that goes for Gregory too, because he became a secondery Source, just because he referd to an other who wrote Things before him.
03.08.2018 you said quote:First, the curators are not using Settipani. We did, years ago, when there was a particular type of dispute. Not now. (I've told you this several times. You don't seem to listen.)
Sharon wrote 04.08.2018Cawley's Medlands http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FRANKSMaiordomi.htm#_Toc143752561 has her as
5. [ALDANA . Settipani quotes an Aquitaine necrology which lists "Willelmus…pater eius Theodericus, mater Aldana soror Hiltrudis et Landradæ"[229]. He suggests that "Hiltrudis" was the wife of Odilo Duke of Bavaria, and therefore that all three sisters were daughters of Charles "Martel". The
Who tries to fool who.
I did not say the quote from athe book was a primary Source, but as I said they refer among others also to Gregory and you trust him, when somebody quote him you don't, strange.

LOL. No, Tor. Just no.

mature answer, Thanks

Very restrained, I was going to suggest biting my own leg off.

Talk about members of Geni on other discussion sites than where the discussion with that person is.

I'm tired of trying to make members of Geni seem foolish (that's not just me) , maybe it's the opposite.

When it comes to answers, maybe it's what you need when you come with funny answers . Answers may be what you seek, but you have a Bible that you refer to in any context yourself if that Bible is based on other writings you deny.

Good work is done by Geni's members, independent of curators .

The fact that you discuss others behind your back also shows some of your seriousness in what you should do .

Regarding Justin, none of what I do or have put forth in genius is a result of his "expertise". He has not provided a basis for what I have written or posted, if you perceive or want to perceive it so it may be but it's wrong. I've found the lines back to Priam without Justin before I was at Geni. As I have said there is much to be found without using Geni.

Do not blame others for Justin to intervene many times in discussions he is not part of.

Why not just accept the fact that you do not have any source, but that it is most prob n to feel a is so on the basis of what you find, do not claim that it is the right thing, there may be other sources you do not know. We are talking about Europe and books that were area specific throughout Europe were written.

Such as Gregory. He also writes about a time when he did not live, so it becomes hearsay that you do not accept else.

You can not do both according to what you think is correct, it's not genealogy,

one is either consistent with an assessment or so one is inconsistent so using the most suitable for themselves and their knowledge.

Some words was missing in the first post (above), correction!

You talk about members on Geni in other discussion sites, rather than where the discussion with that person is.

I'm tired of you trying to make members of Geni seem foolish (that's not just me) , maybe it's the opposite.

Tor,

You don't know how to evaluate and use sources. The way you do it is a muddle. I can see it frustrates you, but it's not as hard as you think, and people aren't playing games with you.

You have to "keep your eye on the ball".

Think about these scenarios.

If I say that Cawley says Settipani cites an Aquitaine necrology, what is the source?

The source is the necrology. This is an example of me citing a good secondary source (Cawley) citing an expert (Settipani) who is using a primary source (the necrology). I am not the source. Cawley is not the source. Settipani is not the source. The necrology is the source.

And this is a proper use of sources. Everything should refer back to the primary sources. It's the primary sources that count.

On the other hand, if I said that Settipani suggests A is the father of B based on an onomastic argument, then who is the source?

The source is Settipani. There is no primary source. Settipani, who is an expert, is reasoning from his expertise.

On Geni, we would treat the first case as good evidence, but not the second case.

Do you see why?

It is the same when we talk about Gregory of Tours and Sulpicius. You keep saying we accept Gregory of Tours but not Suplicius. The situation is much more complex than that. You're missing it because you don't know how to evaluate and use sources.

The genealogy of the early Merovingians on Geni follows Gregory of Tours, because he was a contemporary or near-contemporary for it. Sometimes he is a primary source and sometimes he is a secondary source, but in all of it he is probably more reliable than someone who wrote a few hundred years later.

Gregory says he drew material from Sulpicius but Sulpicius doesn't have much relevance to the discussion on Geni. You think there is some kind of ignorance or double standard here, but there isn't. This is another case where you don't know how to evaluate and use sources.

Gregory quotes Sulpicius as naming Genobaud, Marcomer, and Sunno as Frankish dukes. Okay. But so what? It doesn't look like Sulpicius gave any genealogical details. Gregory doesn't report any and Gregory doesn't add any.

In fact, Gregory's entire point here is that no one knows the early genealogy of the Frankish kings. Sulpicius is irrelevant to anything. There were some Frankish dukes. For our purposes it doesn't really matter whether Sulpicius' information is accurate or not because there is no genealogy in it.

Tor, your misunderstanding comes through very clearly when you say:

> Why not just accept the fact that you do not have any source

That's the whole point. There are no sources. We do not have any sources because there are none. "We" do not claim to have sources. Our argument is that there are no primary sources.

It's you who is saying there are sources, although you aren't showing them. Everyone knows the fake line back to Priam. It's a 16th / 17th century invention, with no primary sources to support it. You like it anyway. That's fine, but arguing without evidence isn't working here.

Ulf, I'm not ignoring you but I'm also not understanding how a discussion of Norse sagas and king lists is relevant to a debate about the early ancestry of the Frankish kings.

Really, the argument you are presenting answers itself. Quoting from the article:

> "The accepted opinion among scholars has been that . . . Here this idea is rejected and the article argues that . . . "

You can see that this is an expert arguing with other experts and disagreeing with them. His theory doesn't become the new Truth just because he says it.

This is a problem we see sometimes in almost all the discussions about medieval and ancient genealogy. Someone reads an article by someone, maybe even by someone who is an expert in the field, and they think the article is Final Answer.

The better, more solid way to work is to read a bunch of articles by people who disagree with each other -- and be skeptical of all of them.

If you cultivate this habit, you will learn very quickly where the experts agree and where they disagree. Then it will be easier emotionally to give up the old lines when you get to the point there is no longer any certainty.

I see what you say and I agree to some of it, but as you say about Settipani should also og for others, I'm just saying there are more than one expert out there.About Gregory and Sulpicius, it is incorrect what you.re saying, because Gregory himself lists back to Priam, when we talk about the time before Gregorey it is just hearsay as you don't Accept, if you Accept it from one you have to Accept it from others that conclude the same line as Gregory.
You say everybody who take the line back to Priam knows it is an 16th/17th invention, How could it be when Sulpicius and Gregory makes a remark of it. I feel you say this because the books I refered to was written around 1730, but Settipani wrote his ideas later than that, and you Accept those. You say he is an expert, the others who wrote about this, maight also be experts.
I'm no expert but I used 8 years to get the line of 9 decendants right, That is reasearch and that is information you don't find on the web, which gave those results. I do not belive everything i read, not on the web and not on any genealogical sites, it can possbly give a hint but I always search what I find.
This is not trolling, this is to give you an other perpective than to just cling to one Source.
Frustration, yes in a way, when you as curators discuess members on Geni, and make comments like they don't know anything, it gives a feeling of narcissism.It is actually
obnoxious behavior from curators.

Tor.Juastin,ect. E participado desde el principio en la discusión y seguido atentamente el debate, a veces interesante a veces aburrido y creo que han llegado a un punto en el que ay que preguntar: que fue primero el huevo o la gallina? Porque digo esto, porque para que exista una prueba tiene que haber existido un hecho: el hecho existió? Sí y es lo que tenemos.

Lots of dots, Juan Carlos - the disagreements are in how they are connected. (big grin)

Well, since we are all descended of a same elite ( and not linked to all other people on earth (, that makes us all descended from adam and eve. ( knowing of course they were not the only humans then)
Now it's a tribal question. But we all ( about a million, down to 100.000 for direct and 4000/5000 for pure descendants ) connected.

Tor, this is where it helps to have formal education in the field of History.

No modern historian believes the Franks were descended from the Trojans. There is no historical, cultural, linguistic, archaeological, or genetic evidence of it.

Just the opposite. We actually see the Trojan myth developing over time, but you have to read the whole span to see it. You can't just pick and choose the parts you like.

The idea is mentioned for the first time after the Franks overthrew the Roman remnants in Gaul. Gregory of Tours must have known about it but he doesn't mention it (it looks like he might have been a skeptic). Then the story grew in the telling. Every time it was re-told there were new details until after hundreds of years there is an actual genealogy.

The English and the Scandinavians did exactly the same thing, at the same time and in the same way.

The Romans had done it before them. And that was the point of doing it. It was a way of claiming to be just as good as the Romans. (We're also descended from the Trojans, so ha!)

Juan Carlos,

For modern historians the fact cannot be known unless there is reliable evidence to support it.

Any other way of working puts someone on the same level as people who believe in a flat earth, or who deny the existence of atoms and molecules.

These genealogical "flat earthers" are people who haven't kept up with the science.

Naive literalism is not a good research style.

I can see what you mean and you can see this also at Geni, My Heritage, Familysaerch (and so on) today.
But I disagree about the statement that everything is false. The book I refered to is a Collection of books in 8 volumes, written in a period of 50 years, They refer to(as I've said before Gregory, Martin, Herman, Sulpicius, among others. That makes me Wonder why you relay on Settipani, who was quoting the same People as I have mentioned earlier, and you do Accept him as a Source not main or primary, but still a Source.. That is the issue why Accept him and not the others, when they are quoting the same Sources. If he is a reliable Source why not the others. There is no more evidence from Gregory than any other who lived at that time.
You say it might look like Gregory was sceptic about the time before Childeric, might be. They are not nessecerely written as kings, but more like war lords, exept for Marcomir and forwards.They say that he was elected to be the leader and therefor they use the term king on him.
You mentioned formal education in history. I disagree in a way, because the formal education can guide you in a direction as they will the history to be.
Scepticisme of what you read, Yes absolutely, and that is why you must find more Sources to confirm, then you can see if it is a possible truth. not just one because someone else said it was a reliable Source.
That is why I make a remark about 8 years to find 9 decendants, I could have done as many others found the first name of the person and take it where I wanted regarding titles. in that case I found the first name and then the sir name and followed the sir name regardless of titles.

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=6ttiAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA303&...

If I read this correctly, he's saying that the whole Trojan thing is a fable, and the Franks were latecomers into Europe from no-one-knows-where. (My Spanish is only so-so,and this is somewhat antiquated Spanish besides.)

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=hW9RAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP24&d...

Jessica, are you talking about Theuderic?