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

Justin Durand You're right that I'm arguing for the use of plausible connection, but the part "Sources be damned" are yours misinterpretations derived from a biased negative mind about me and mine intention.

I guess that makes some sorts of sense for me seeing how not only you but many others having great difficulties in reading texts and then understanding the meaning of it, making it hard for you to draw conclusions and validate the content in the right perspective and instead creates some sort of mumble jumble, gets confused and choose to cut the lines. The main problem is that you all seems strongly negatively colored by preconceived ideas and prejudice about everything not contemporary is false so you rejects even the parts of whats actually was derived from contemporary sources.

Sharon Doubell
"Right now, the Medieval Tree is more stable than it's ever been", yes, but if you want a stable tree you need to cut our own lines near your great grandparents, but not even then could it be certain to be viewed as stable, your father could have been adopted, he could have been the son of his uncle, etc, and not even with the help of DNA you could sort that out, and because of this "if", you'll never be 100% certain, and it gets worse the further up in the tree you goes, can you really be sure? Of course not, we can never be sure that the presented lines always are valid, not even today.

Example1
A man and a woman are the only two known castaways on an isolated island, she gives birth to a child, but, was he really the father? How long time was they isolated before they had the child, could there have been a third person, making her pregnant, then drowning or vanishing without a trace? Since we don't know for sure, we have to reject him as the father.

None of us were there, all we have is this text, and the plausibility that most likely, the known man was the real father.

Example 2
The mothers name was Greta, she was sister to Elsa, Elsa was the daughter of Hans, but! could there have been two other sisters named Elsa and Greta at the same place and time? As we don't know for sure, we can't say that this Greta actually was the one who was the sister to that Elsa with the father Hans...even if they lived in the same village at the same time, but, have we heard or read anything at all about the other two possible namesakes, no!

What many of you do, is to overrate the significance of doubts.

Ulf, when working back before Charlemagne, it's a fuzzy area where facts are few, myths are many, and traditions are sometimes all there is to go on. There are clear-cut cases of myth (the infamous Quinotaur, or any family tree tracing back to Troy or to any god/dess of any pantheon), there are cases where there *may* be a small kernel of historical fact obscured by layer upon layer of legend (Ragnar Lodbrok, Ganger-Hrolf), and there are cases where there is a plausible possibility but no proof one way or the other (this continues right down into at least the 11th century, e.g. Agatha wife of Edward the Exile, and in some cases the 17th, e.g. Frances White Wells).

At some point it becomes a judgment call, and it's rare that any two people will make exactly the same call.

You are correct that too many people of the same name in the same general area can become a problem - it's how Emma Siggins White got away with fudging her husband's family tree. She found a three-generation set of matching names between the Somerset shepherds who were his actual ancestors, and a bunch of Catholic aristos - and then proceeded to overwrite the shepherds with the aristos. Unfortunately for her, the aristos were documented all too well, and one of her husband's relatives had already covered the shepherds - so the facts eventually came out (though the 'Net is a long way from catching up with them).

All the same, when "we don't know" is the only answer that makes sense, even if it satisfies nobody, that's the answer that should be used. (Again, see Agatha. There are two strong and a number of weak possibilities for her family, but no way of between/among them.)
deciding

ack - Geni jump-bug. Last sentence should have read ""but no way of deciding between/among them".

Ulf, the problem of doubt is well known. You're over-estimating it. The problem of biology is also well known. You're misunderstanding it.

Modern genealogy is driven by sources. You do not accept its basic premise, which is that primary sources are presumed to be correct unless there is a reason for doubt.

There might be doubt because the record is not primary. That is, it was not made at the time of the event, or is too late to be deemed reliable.

There might be doubt because there is some reason to think the record has been falsified.

There might be doubt because the record contradicts other records.

On and on.

When you say we are all "strongly negatively colored by preconceived ideas", you are right. We have been trained in a particular methodology that relies on sources. There's nothing sinister about that. It's the same as saying we're genealogists.

The world won't end if you prefer a more relaxed style, but you should understand from the beginning that it's not a winning argument on a site full of people who have been trained to follow modern methods.

> At some point it becomes a judgment call, and it's rare that any two people will make exactly the same call.

This is a very important point. I've been intending to write about it in a different context but here is good.

One of the easy ways to know that someone is a genealogy neophyte is that they will cite and argue a particular expert as proof without noticing other experts who disagree.

Medieval genealogy requires a great deal of specialized knowledge. The practical result is that the field is dominated by experts.

It's very common to see different opinions from different experts. Expert A thinks the line is a forgery. Expert B thinks there has been some confusion on a particular generation. Expert C thinks the line can be reconstructed like this.

But, these opinions are a trap for the newbie. These experts are all offering opinions and suggestions about a line they agree is not proven. They assume other experts will disagree about the details. It doesn't bother them a bit. That's just the world they live in, academically.

Geni is always going to end up reflecting the opinions of the experts, not amateur speculation. When the experts disagree, the line comes to an end. It has to, by definition. We can only go back to the point where the agreement ends.

Ulf, I'm not sure how many answers you need:
1.On the 'mother's baby; father's maybe' scenario - I can't figure out how that, or my father's DNA is relevant to the issue of Dode.

Genealogy is about sources. Yes DNA can disprove birth certificate sources. In SA a whole progenitor surname line was recently showed to be the descent line of a different man: https://www.geni.com/projects/Bothas-Appels-who-are-DNA-descendants....
In the case of my father or uncles of course DNA can prove I'm his daughter or their niece.

BUT in Doda's case we have neither DNA or primary documentation. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

2. I don't know what to say to this one, as I don't get the point you're making as the point itself seems stretched beyond credibility. If 300 years after Elsa was born, someone guessed that her sister's name was Greta we wouldn't take that to be proof of anything but fantastical thinking. So it is in the case of Dode.

I can't say it better than Maven & Justin:
"when "we don't know" is the only answer that makes sense, even if it satisfies nobody, that's the answer that should be used."

"Geni is always going to end up reflecting the opinions of the experts, not amateur speculation. When the experts disagree, the line comes to an end. It has to, by definition. We can only go back to the point where the agreement ends."

Disculpen mi ignorancia, pero si la genealogía se trata de fuentes cuales fueron las fuentes que utilizaron para este perfil: Eve of Eden
Eve . is your first cousin 71 times removed's ex-partner's second cousin's husband's 12th great uncle's wife's 7th great grandmother.

That is exactly what we're trying to clean up, Juan. There should be no profile for Eve on a world tree if it wants to be taken seriously.

Sharon Doubell Sorry, I now understand better how you think and why you draw wrong conclusions, it was a general example, but you actually takes it literally. Your fathers should be replaced by anybody's father, so don't take it personally, when it comes to sources we obviously have different way of judging them, I may be less inquiring about their authenticity in some cases because I generally don't assume that everybody is a liar, or that every older document is a falsification made to glorify some family, person, so when I read that Arnulf of Metz himself claimed to be a descendant of Flavius Afranius Syagrius, I belive that that is not only possible but also true, with only 200 years apart those two, in about 6 generations, and other descendants ending up in Austrasia with similar status and in one case occupation, bishop, I see no doubt to questioning that this Frankish bishop of Metz actually was right.

Since we do not know the names or the path between them, I see the problems to connect them, obvious, but not the reason why they wouldn't be linked? I would have created 6 generations of N.N. with unknown sex, directly between them and I would have been satisfied with such a solution, but none of you counterparts would be willing to that, as I notice that another user already tried a similar solution, but had them as one profile instead of six, and that connection was dissolved.

According to what I see, Saint Arnoul, Bishop of Metz ought to be either a near cousin, or perhaps a brother to Ansoud of Dijon ad yes, that would be my amateur speculation, but who says it completely wrong just because that?
Over time today's experts will most likely be surpassed by other experts that will make us astonished over how many serious mistakes and conclusions the previous have done, the same ones you today follow blindly.

Arnulf of Metz did not claim to be a descendant of Flavius Afranius Syagrius. There is no surviving evidence that Arnulf made any claims about his own ancestry. The idea he was a descendant of Syagrius is a modern theory.

I don't see what we would gain by linking Arnulf and Ansoud based on speculation. That might seem appealing at first, but then there would endless arguments about how they should be linked based on each person's own speculations. And, it would open up new lines to speculate about, so we'd also argue about those, all the way back to the beginning of time. .

My grandmother used to say that no one ever looks for an answer if they think they already know it. Wise wisdom for genealogists especially. The minute you link Arnulf as the son of anyone, everyone will think the problem is solved, and they'll stop looking. In genealogy, it's just as important to record what we don't know as it is to record what we know.

I don't doubt that future generations will make progress on these lines. Textual analysis, network modeling, and DNA are all opening up new insights into old genealogies.

But, I think you would be dismayed by the direction this is going. So far, these techniques aren't confirming speculative lines. They're casting doubt on some genealogies once thought to be reliable. If you're a betting man, I'd advise betting against controversial connections whenever you get the chance ;)

Justin, I'm not a betting man, I don't gamble and you'll not see any profiles created by me, that I don't fully stand behind and fully support. This site has at the other hand over 100 miljons of users, the majority of the profiles created here are made by none experts, none historians, just ordinary people doing what they like, yes, amateurs. So when some of you here jumps down on them, it feels like you want to saw off the very branch in the tree you're sitting on.

The quality in the tree is depending on who did what, and every part of the tree must be judged based on its creator and the sources behind it, when people says that this site isn't trustful, they forget that part of the tree if not overall is top notch.

The curators role is to help people as good as they can in order to prevent mistakes and faults. When it comes to more speculative ancestors and their lines, we have different opinions based on the fact that we have different judgments and opinions in how valid the sources is, and which one of the experts we listen more into, sometimes the outcome is good, sometimes it's bad depending on how familiar with the subject we are, not given that we all ought to be experts in order to be experienced enough, but the idea that two equal good ideas, takes out each other, or that we can't choose a better idea in favor for a more inadequate, makes it difficult for us all when some single curator decides what will be presented, why, just because if the curator makes a poor judgement, (biased) it will reflect a shitty solution, likely locked as well.

Ulf, your argument works better the other way around.

This high up in the tree, these people are the ancestors of millions of people today in Europe and in the European diaspora. The curators' job is conform the tree to the best available evidence, not to indulge speculations.

We owe it to the users to help everyone create an authentic tree, free from fantasy.

Certainly, curators can make mistakes. That's why we have discussions and that's why we have other curators. It's all part of a system designed to ensure that the tree is getting better and more accurate rather than devolving into chaos.

Regresando al punto de la discusión inicial Este es el perfil maestro de Saint Dode of Metz.
Nota del curador Sharon Lee Doubell (27/6/2018):
Dode of Metz
Many historians reject her existence. See discussion https://www.geni.com/discussions/182992?msg=1226047
Saint Dode of Metz
Como ven no posee familiar ni conectado a ningún lado, pero por favor vean esto: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Saintly_Women/Doda_(2)
¿No creen que existe una posibilidad .

We've already covered that point, haven't we? This takes the argument in a circle.

The earliest mention of Arnulf's wife is from the 7th century. It doesn't give her a name or say anything about her ancestry. It just says she was a very noble girl.

The first time her name appears anywhere is in the 10th century. It says her name was Dode. It doesn't say anything about her ancestry. It just says she was not less noble than her husband.

It's possible Arnulf's wife was named Dode, but the evidence is not good. 300 years is a long time, especially in a culture that didn't keep many written records. Plus, the political situation had changed dramatically in those 300 years. Arnulf was now the ancestor of the royal family instead of just a minor character on the fringe.

The "Dictionary of Saintly Women" is just a modern repetition (1904, 1905) of old stories.

The stories about Arnulf and Dode go back to the same two "saints lives" above -- the 1st and 2nd Vita Sancti Arnulfi ("Life of St. Arnulf").

This isn't new evidence or different evidence. It's the same evidence in a different format.

For those who might not know already, "saints lives" are a particular kind of medieval literature. They are basically pious stories about the saints that describe their miracles and promote their worship. Not to put too fine a point on it -- they are marketing materials about why you should donate money to this church or that church.

Saints lives are collections of legends. They are notoriously unreliable. For example, there are two different versions of St. Arnulf's parents. One says he was son of Arnoald, and one says he was the son of Bodegisel.

If you like tall tales, the two Lifes of St. Arnulf also tell us that that stopped a sickness by throwing a cross into a vat of beer and blessing it. Everyone who drank that beer was cured. Then, after his death, there was only one tankard of beer for 5000 people, so they prayed to him. The empty barrels re-filled with beer and the tankards never got empty.

After reading the beer stories and two different versions of his ancestry, I don't think I'd bet good money on his wife's name being right ;)

Cheers :-)

Well ladies and gents, BUGGIFE could be BEUGIFE and it seems that it was used in old french to describe an anormaity in functionning.

So Arnoald could have had the two names, as to say Arnoald the abnormal.

I always dig into old langages, ethymology and regionnal slang. That's what our drama teacher taught us when we learnt shakespeare.

Also, if you change one letter, to "juggife", it is soundex to " le juif", meaning " the jew". Which could well be,n since one reading error would lead to where we are.
It could have been Arnoald the jew. Considering what is said about Charlemagne and the lineage, it would be interesting.

Sorry tu bug you, it's just that I am bilingual, did 6 years of latin, ancient french and english languages in my training and since i am also jewish, genealogy in phonetics throughout poland for years. A lot of jeiwh names were changed to their soundex.

Probably the most popular theory is that Arnulf was son of Bodegisel ("Buotgisus") and son-in-law of Arnoald.

Some authorities believe they see evidence that the Franks in this period were still using the kinds of compound names found in other Germanic peoples, so if this is true it raises the possibility of incest -- that ARNulf might have married a close relative, the daughter of ARNoald. It's been suggested she might even have been his niece.

Once you cut loose your moorings from the sources, anything is possible. I think that's what a lot of people dislike about sources. They're soooooo limiting ;)

Well, the rothschild have a habit of marrying their nieces, it wasn't a first in history and probably not the last, is it ? Fully possible.

San Arnulfo de Metz
Estadista, obispo bajo los merovingios, nacido c. 580; murió c. 640. Sus padres pertenecían a una distinguida familia franca y vivían en Austrasia, la parte oriental del reino fundada por Clovis . En la escuela en la que fue colocado durante su infancia, se destacó por su talento y su buen comportamiento. De acuerdo con la costumbre de la época, fue enviado a su debido tiempo a la corte de Theodebert II, rey de Austrasia (595-612), para ser iniciado en las diversas ramas del gobierno. Bajo la guía de Gundulf, el alcalde del palacio, pronto se volvió tan hábil que se lo incluyó en la lista regular de oficiales reales, y entre los primeros ministros de los reyes. Se distinguió tanto como comandante militar como en la administración civil; En un momento tuvo bajo su cuidado seis provincias distintas. A su debido tiempo, Arnulf se casó con una mujer franca de noble linaje, por quien tuvo dos hijos, Anseghisel y Clodulf. Mientras Arnulf disfrutaba de honores y honorarios mundanos, no olvidaba las cosas más elevadas y espirituales. Sus pensamientos moraban a menudo en los monasterios , y con su amigo Romaricus, también un oficial de la corte, planeaba hacer una peregrinación a la Abadía de Lérins, evidentemente con el propósito de dedicar su vida a Dios . Pero mientras tanto, la sedeepiscopal de Metz quedó vacante. Arnulf fue designado universalmente como un candidato digno para el cargo, y fue consagrado obispo de esa sede alrededor del 611. En su nuevo cargo, dio ejemplo de una vida virtuosa a sus súbditos y atendió asuntos de gobierno eclesiástico . En 625 participó en un concilio celebrado por los obispos francos en Reims. Con todo esto Arnulf conservó su puesto en la corte del rey, y tomó una parte prominente en la vida nacional de su pueblo. En 613, después de la muerte de Teodeberto, él, con Pipino de Landen y otros nobles, llamó a Austrasia Clothaire II, rey de Neustria. Cuando, en 625, el reino de Austrasia fue confiado a los reyes hijo Dagoberto, Arnulf se convirtió no solo en el tutor, sino también en el primer ministro, del joven rey. En el momento de la separación entre los dos reyes, y 625, Arnulfo con otros obispos y nobles trató de efectuar una reconciliación. Pero Arnulf temía las responsabilidades de la oficina episcopal y se cansó de la vida en la corte. Alrededor del año 626 obtuvo el nombramiento de un sucesor de la sedeepiscopal de Metz; él y su amigo Romaricus se retiraron a un lugar solitario en las montañas de los Vosgos. Allí vivió en comunión con Dios hasta su muerte. Sus restos, enterrados por Romaricus, fueron trasladados aproximadamente un año después, por el obispo Goeric, a la basílica de los Santos Apóstoles en Metz.
De los dos hijos de Arnulf, Clodulf se convirtió en su tercer sucesor en la Sede de Metz . Anseghisel permaneció al servicio del Estado; de su unión con Begga, una hija de Pepin de Landen, nació Pepin de Heristal, el fundador de la dinastía carolingia . De esta manera Arnulf fue el antepasado de los poderosos gobernantes de esa casa. La vida o Arnulf exhibe hasta cierto punto la oficina episcopal y la carrera en el Estado merovingio. Los obispos fueron muy considerados en la corte; sus consejos fueron escuchados; tomaron parte en la dispensa de justicia por los tribunales; tenían voz en el nombramiento de oficiales reales; a menudo se usaban como embajadores del rey y ocupaban altos cargos administrativos. Para las personas bajo su cuidado, ellos eran los protectores de sus derechos , sus portavoces ante el rey y el vínculo que unía a la realeza con sus súbditos. Las oportunidades para el bien fueron así ilimitadas; y Arnulf los usó para una buena ventaja.
Citación de MLA. Schaefer, Francis. "San Arnulfo de Metz". La Enciclopedia Católica. Vol. 1. Nueva York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 30 de junio de 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01752b.htm&gt;.
No veo que hable de milagros sobre la cerveza,aunque la tome durante cuarenta años ahora no.

Juan Carlos, same problem here. This is old material. Legend. Recorded too late to be fully reliable.

Some advice about working with medieval lines. Don't just read modern sources and let them interpret the evidence for you. Search out the original texts, then read them critically.

The original text is particularly important for descriptions of relationships. These might be translated differently or glossed over in modern translations. If the text says "ex genere" or "consanguineus" or (especially) "nepos", think about what the terms meant , and what different translations you see. Also remember that some terms didn't have the same meaning in medieval Latin that they have in classical Latin.

Remember too that old texts often contain important information that you might not recognize as being important. If the text describes someone as "ex genere Francorum" they are not "ex genere Romano". Those were very different and important categories. And ""ex genere senatorum" is something very different from "Francorum ex genere primæ nobilitatis progenitus".

Finally, don't just slide past the date of the text looking for something more interesting. If the text is a "9th century genealogy" alarm bells should be going off for you. Stop and think about the history you know. 9th century means the 800s. Charlemagne was crowned Christmas Day 800, so the text is during or after Charlemagne, when the Carolingians had deposed the old Merovingian dynasty. Anything in a 9th century text that gives "new" information about Charlemagne's ancestors should be cause for skepticism.

Fun stuff.

Oh, my goodness! You people are over doing it on here. Your comments are so long and wording that it is way too much to consume. I think for the most you have all over done it. It is way more info then needed. None of you are winning at this point. You are wearing me out. I hope you can agree to disagree and move on. Good luck on that one. You should spend more time on the subject , then on insulting each other.

Thanks Justin, I really enjoy the learning process you initiate with these responses. This, for example, had never dawned on me using google translate "Also remember that some terms didn't have the same meaning in medieval Latin that they have in classical Latin."

Thanks, Sharon. This is the kind of thing you generally find in bits and pieces, unless you're taken a course in Medieval Latin. I never did. I should have.

Instead, I learned by watching how the experts handle the problems. Using them as a model to learn how to do the same thing.

Kinship terms are particularly difficult in medieval Latin. The ones I watch for especially are proavus, abavus, atavus, and nepos. All of these are used more loosely in medieval Latin than in classical Latin.

Here is a general list of kinship terms in classical Latin:

* https://www.thoughtco.com/latin-kinship-terms-for-roman-relationshi...

And here is a short article on the ways medieval Latin extended these terms:

* http://www.enlaplage.com/prosop/relation.htm

And another article, from ORB. that gives a more academic framework:

* http://the-orb.arlima.net/essays/text03.html

Then, as examples of the problems, here is a discussion about translating atavus in a particular case:

* https://books.google.com/books?id=hpfHfnm2hjkC&amp;pg=PA267&amp;lpg...

And two examples that involve problems interpreting nepos:

* https://books.google.com/books?id=YmmaIaeBUSQC&amp;pg=PA204&amp;lpg...

* https://books.google.com/books?id=Iz8QspFVASIC&amp;pg=PA416&amp;lpg...

"How then does one differentiate the varied potential uses of kinship terminology in the Middle Ages? Sometimes simply and sometimes with great difficulty."

Como dije antes disculpen mi ignorancia, hablo y escribo español nací en Argentina Sud América,nieto de INMIGRANTES Holandeses,Danes,Sefardies,vaskos todos estos en la segunda o tercera generación ,motivo por el por el cual elegí GENI quería saber mis orígenes y luego entre en esta discusión sin sentido perdonen por su tiempo Gracias.

Not a problem. Geni is great way to learn while you do research.

Justin Durand writes <Thanks, Sharon. This is the kind of thing you generally find in bits and pieces, unless you're taken a course in Medieval Latin. I never did. I should have.>

Ha ha! Ha ha ha!

That might or might not have been useful, sugar. My ENTIRE Medieval Latin course consisted of reading Alain de Lille’s “De planctu naturae,” which was totally useless to my later career. And annoying to boot.

Nope. One learns the Medieval Latin needed for documents either in a course specifically targeting that (and who does that anymore) or the way we mostly all learn it, which is by using the dictionaries and the transcripts and sitting in archives reading the stuff and finding other experts and having discussions and occasionally arguments.

De planctu naturae indeed. He made words up. How useful is that to anybody who isn’t an Alain de Lille scholar.

Such as that particular professor. She was finishing up a book.