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

Tor Bjarne Olsen, we know that many of the old stories were just stories. The only way to know which ones are true is to look for contemporary evidence. If someone who was alive at the time says it, we can have more confidence it's true. If the first person to say it lived 400 years or 600 years or 1000 years later -- well, you can believe it if you want, but most people would be skeptical.

It really comes down to a problem of how gullible some people are.

In a nutshell!
Exactly as Shakespeare said: "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

How do you know what is fictional or not, just like today, the discussion about fake News. Just as I said about the bible, at discovery they claim that the old Gods where aliens, Everyone can make their own truth about the past or the future. I just say that neither you or the People that say they relay on some few People, that where (some of them) ablidged to the Catholic Church about what they said. To be a scholar in the first year had to deliver their work to the Vatican, therefor it was in a way a cencuring of what was written. just look at the protestant they tried to Write what they saw as the correct Version of the bible and it ended in bloodbath, because of the Catholic Church. Books where burned and People prosecuted. When someone says we know the truth their just like the catholics during the reffformation, we do not Accept anything that is another story. Be open to knew information even when you can't find it. This do not mean that all Things a true but as I said to Sharon, when I put out the official line for the French Kings so you can have the official truth and you do not even look at it to correct what is wrong ???. The chart does not say all about all the People in the lines there are more, but the most important is lined up.

You're on the right track, Tor, but keep thinking.

If anyone can choose their own genealogy because it's not possible to really know the truth, then there is no point to doing genealogy in cooperation with other people. You know your truth because you decided it.

But modern genealogists and historians have defined genealogy as something very different than that. Hundreds of thousands of genealogists and hundreds of standards organizations have all agreed to play by the same rule -- genealogy without sources is mythology.

If there isn't contemporary evidence for a relationship or an event, then it's in the same category as sea monsters and space aliens.

I find it hard to cope with the fact, that most modern people doesn't know the meaning of the word fact at all, a thing (or something) that is indisputably the case. I see many times that the experts who is laying the puzzle from the facts, then they and others call it a theory...it's time to wake up maybe?

One other strange thing that is typically among some accepted form of doubts (mostly the anglicisationed parts of the world), is when someone claims that they can't know if the man or wife had more than one husband or wife, or if that other (100% hypothetical) husband or wife could have had the same name as the only one that they actually know by name from the source, how it then turns into a guilty reason for cutting off the only known husband or wife, why? How do you actually reason in cases like this, please make me understand?

Once again you look trye the Message and answer to Your benefit of conviction. As I tried to tell you many People have declamed that their right because they say the Sources say so, that is why I used the bible. All the religions in the world claims their right, can anyone say they know who is right. All claims they have evidence for their claim. Who is right?
I know for a fact that genealogists of today claim they are right, because of the evidence but do they have all the evidence have they investigated enough. If yjey were right my fiance is not born, just an example of genealogy work. The most importent man in nothern Germany is mentioned by a few lines, because of the same thing.DDa in denmark does the same claims that People are Danish nobility when they actually are form Germany. This is established genealogist of today, some of them is the People that you relay on as the truth. Do not mean to be wrong or rude but as I said when you have done work on Geni for 10 Yers and serch for the evidence of what I say for 17 yers, I get a bit frustareted about some of the answers or lack of answers I get. Now I have given you Three exaples of modern genealogy that, from what you tell, should use the same criteria as you. I just say that there are more info about this than what you are refering too.

Tor, I think you are missing the answer to your question by not reading the answers.

Who decides? Contemporary evidence. That's the beginning and end of it. Lots of people might believe in the Bible, but that's religious belief not academic evidence.

All genealogists (real genealogists, that is) are on a cooperative quest to weed out the old myths. Sources like DDa too. There's so much garbage still that it's very time consuming to go back over and over and over to look for places where old stories and wrong assumptions are still being repeated.

The work gets better over time. You shouldn't stress if a source you like still has problems. They all do, including Geni. The trick is to keep asking for, pushing for, demanding, the primary sources for everything.

Ulf, there are very few facts in genealogy, at least not the way you mean it. We can't prove something by replicating an experiment. Genealogy is not the same as gravity or atomic fission.

In genealogy our facts are that a particular source says something. We know the facts only because we have a source. No source, no facts. Bad source, questionable facts.

I do understand the Things yousay, but not old stories are junk. Example: Staverskov in Denmark was told that she had no nobility from the established nobility in Denmark, She proved her nobility in a cloth which now is at one of the Castles in Denmark and is taken out every Christmas at the order of Queen Magrete, another was told that he had no nobility from DDA when they started, he gave them his noble linage of 14 generations oral, they checked what he said and had to include him in DDA. Just like my fiance, who never was born according to Dam in Denmark, like Klitgaard that refuses to Accept Things that are documented in Urkundlich book in Germany. This are real genealogists as you say that was wrong in what the claimed to be the truth.
To much of this makes problems instead of solving questions because they knew this Things from Sources. As I said there are alot of Sources out there which you don't find par example online, you have to og there. Eks. The remains ampulle that had the oil who was used when Clovis was baptised, is at the arhbishop in France. It was broken when the old Basilica burned Down. The Picture in the profile of Clovis shows a relikvie which are in Reim a copy is at Louvre Museum, I have been both Places.
Regrding the other topic, so yes that is religion but religion have caused more WARs and killings than the I and 2 world war, because they have the truth. All scholars tells different Versions of these religions, The truth of this is that there has been a religion war in Europe for 2000 years and all claims they are right because of the Sources (Bible; Koranen etc) this is what comes out of claiming Sources are right, even though all religions have a lot of the same said in diferent ways and inturpet diferently. Sources ????

Justin, yes, and we could add that all ancestors are presumed, unless DNA tells us another story, so why not use plausible when the source points in favor at one direction?

When I add profile, I have done some thinking before, I have come up with an solution that fits the sources, sometimes the solution derived from an idea that turned up to be verifiable, and I have success in what I'm doing, meaning, I must be thinking right!

Either my analytical abilities are well developed, in terms of logical conclusions, or I'm just a good damn lucky guy who happens to have had a royal flush on my hand for the last 9600+ times...the amount of profiles added, well, forget that fortune of luck, it doesn't exist, not in this world anyway, so I conclude it as simple as possible, I do think right!

To be able to draw the right conclusions is one of the main ingredients when it comes to find those actual names on the "presumed" forefathers that we (in one way or another) generally wants to find or are searching for.

I'm not an expert, I do not boast to have any higher education from any kind of academic research community, history, language or trained in genealogy or whatever, but I do know that I think right and I'm able to draw the right conclusions from any texts, and just as good that I'm able to see the matches, I also see the all the flaws and errors when I stumble upon them, and that's just the way I am, and yes, without sources we wouldn't be able to add much at all, but the ability to read them and overlapping different sources to compensate missing sources is one key to success when it comes to place badly sourced profiles at the right place, but without skills, most such people would think of that to be equal with a guesswork, but in the academic world, the term would be a theory.

So, someone can be highly schooled and educated, another can be a natural gift, and none of you can weight the latter above the former, due to being stuck in the very idea and believe in academic supremacy. Well, as long as my error rate are less than 0,001%, I actually don't care much about what you personally think of me Justin.

Tor, it's not exactly a scandal that someone found new evidence. That's rather the point of genealogical research ;)

Up above you were upset because I told you all those ancient kings back to Priam of Troy are fakes. They were invented as propaganda in the 16th and 17th centuries by the French.

Now all you have to do to prove me wrong is go find primary sources for them. I'll wait here.

Ulf, you're asking the same question you always ask:

> why not use plausible when the source points in favor at one direction

So I'll give you the same answer I always give you -- because a theory is not the same thing as a fact.

And no, the Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid are *not* primary sources - they're just rousing good stories. Historical fiction.

No, I was not upset and I will tell you why.
You say in Your answer that this was propaganda from the French and therefore not true.
Ok, lets give it a try, because you are using some books as Reference to the truth, that's just fine but regarding these books that you refer to as truth it says in Lieber Historia Francum that it is a Reference to among other Things Marcomar in a short brevarium, yet you said in 2015 that it was all fictional. When Your own Source refer to that he has lived is it still fictional to put him in the tree of Clovis, if so why are the rest of this book truth but not this part.
This shows that some of the Things that are said regarding lines of Clovis (among others) are contradictory.

Justin, yes it's the same theme, because I don't think that those profiles are written in stone, they can always be change depending on new findings, but until that appear, they due as a temporary solution. Plausible profiles are not any roadblocks, people will not stop discovering new pieces that will preserve or change the way it is laid out, but until something new arrives or a better solution evolves, we should use what we have, and see it just as a work in progress.

I think you're too much stuck with your head in the idea that contemporary sources are all that counts and nothing else is as valid, thus misses out that even a rewritten source, actually in most cases are a replacement of a contemporary source that has been damaged due to the ravages of time and needed to be rewritten in order to preserve it, and that oral tradition also at one point have been written down, which also not means that it has not any trace of value t all left, but at the contrary contains the value in not being written history.

In Scandinavia we had a tradition of skalds, most king had one and as they replaced each-other continuously so did the skalds, so we have had skalds covering the kings between the years 900-1250, and surely, before that as well as after that, but they finally got replaced at the same time people started to write down everything that they thought was important by themselves in form of their own selected historians, and if anyone writes down his own history or pay someone to do it, it will certainly be even more biased and contain more faults than if someone who already got paid and have finished his work just tell someone else what he actually have witnessed.

The operational center for this was Island, the Icelandic skalds had the training and skills and was highly appreciated in the courts all over Scandinavia, and when they went back they exchange their information with each other until it was written down, those list of kings are in fact just as good as any contemporary source, and in many cases, king named have been confirmed to have existed by other contemporary sources in other countries, it like, we have: A, B, C, where C is mentioned in a contemporary latin text found in another land, than we have D, E, where E is also named just in a way as C, then we have, F, and G, and everyone knows that G was real, in my mind, they are all real, proven by C, E and G, not fantasy, or mythological kings.

Nothing says that it was created as a fabrication when walking in real life beside all of those capital letters, there has been a skald documenting, who has served, got paid and finally brought his information back to Iceland, for generations transmitting and preserved their knowledge, so I find it tragic that some of the curators here, can't grasp this at all, dismissing it as more or less worthless, which at the same time just proves a headless lack of insight summoned up in; - I don't know anything, I can't validate it, I just cut the shit off, end of discussions!

Thanks, Tor. Now I see why you are making such silly accusations and arguments. You are not distinguishing between fictional people and fictional relationships. A person can be real or plausibly real according to a particular source, yet have fictional or probably fictional relationships attributed to him by another source.

Ulf, I don't think you see, and maybe will never see, that if there is more than one way to interpret the evidence then you have a theory not a fact. And, there is no particular reason for the rest of us to believe Ulf's version over the version of actual experts ;)

You have a very specific style of reasoning that always leaves out the null hypothesis. Always.

If we have Famous Ancestor, and the possible fathers are (A), (B), or (C), you always choose one of them and never even for a moment consider that (D) None of the Above is also a possibility.

It's that rush to certainty that undermines your credibility. A good researcher has to be content with the idea that "we don't know" is a valid answer.

I see what You Write but there is yet another book that means Priam and Pharamond are real People in the line of Clovis : Genealogi Historic De la Maison Royale de France, according to this there is now two books who say they are in the line of Clovis (not necceserely as Kings but as war lords) and two who says they are fictional. One of the books is a Reference that you Your self have been using, the other you probably don't know about. Then you use the term plausible to particulare Source and fictional or prbably fictional in another Source. I see this but who are the one who is the right one. As I have said earlier there are more documents to the story than the one you prefer to refer to. There are more evidence to back up the "story" of Clovis-Priam than it is to discredit the line. As you mantioned in Your comment to Ulf about the famous ancester, is my statement thet the title does not interest me but the lines should be correct regardless of that.
My silly accusations and arguments are not so silly after all if you take the time to think them trough instead of just thinking of defending the statements that you already have made.
There is nothing wrong in admitting thet you as a curator also can make mistakes, like all the rest. nobody has the Whole truth about Things, if they think they do they would be desribed as narsisists. As I have learned from a long life there are only one who has the truth and he is not present on this Earth in the shape of a man today.
I feel that if you as a curator who is so certain that you are right, you should not use the Language that you do (and other curators too) in Your answers. Even if those who make comments about Things use faul Language then you as curators should not go to the same Level, not if there are real certainty about yor answer and not just assumptions.

Tor, you are struggling with your own imagination because you don't seem to understand how to evaluate sources. I think you imagine all sources are the same quality, all sources were compiled by people with the same level of skill and knowledge, and no scholarly work has ever been done anywhere.

The source you're referring to -- Généalogie historique de la maison royale de France -- is an 18th century work that was the culmination of 200 years of French royal propaganda.

That's not a work anyone would trust. And what's the first book you liked so much? Was it the 19th century collection of saints' lives? Because, yeah, St. Arnoul really did turn one tankard of beer into enough for 5000 people. So, even though modern historians think it's a bunch of myth jumbled together with a few possible facts, you think they're all stupid and wrong.

No one thinks Priam was a real person, although his story might be based on a real person. But even if he was real, there are no surviving records that would show how anyone today is descended from him. The line you like so much is French propaganda from 2500 years later.

And most modern scholars think Pharamond is also an invention, although I think it's possible to make an argument he was a real person. But, just like Priam, if he was a real person there are no surviving records that would show how anyone today is descended from him.

If you want to keep going with this argument about imaginary lines, you need to get to the point where you are citing real sources, not historical fiction.

Genealogi historique de la Maison Royale de France is accepted as a textbook for French students and Jessica Moira Sabine Christophe-Dymock says that she have checked it online and can not find anything that tells it to be fake/prpaganda.
You hold on to the information know and reject everything else. That is not Research, as I've said earlier, we have traveled throgu Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and France looking for the genealogy branches of decendants. That is why I say there are a lot more out there to Research than what you can find online regarding old documents of families. You claim everybody else are wrong and that you are the person who really knows this Things.
Let me ask you a question: Can you give me a name of the man who defeted the ruling of the slave in Northern and eastern Germany, who has 385 noble families after him (Direct lines) and 785 Noble families (indirect lines) and has lines back to Clovis.
You see there are millions of People today that are related to Clovis. So it is not so big deal ta have him in the lines and that is not the point but the lines should be correct and you may say everthing is fictiv and fake/false info.
I said earlier that Gregory of Tours o wich you relay on, was a priest for the catholic Church and did as all the rest wrote Down what the Church would here (this is still going on) that is the truth wich ar given out to the Public, the Archives in the Vatican has not anyone Access to according to the Vatican itself..

Saint Arnoul, Bishop of Metz is Raúl Castro Chacón, Capitán de Navio's 33rd great grandfather!
Raúl Castro Chacón, Capitán de Navio
Tú → Raúl Castro Puga
your father → Aurora Puga del Valle
his mother → Raimundo Puga Puga
her father → José María Puga Sepúlveda
his father → José de Puga y Figueroa
his father → Petronila Córdoba-Figueroa Solar
his mother → Pedro Pascual de Córdova Figueroa y Miers de Arce, autor Historia del Reino de Chile
her father → Alonso de Córdova Figueroa Salgado de Rivera
his father → Antonia Salgado de Ribera Gallego de Rubias
his mother → Petronila Gallegos de Rubias y Barba Acuña Torres
her mother → María Mencía Barba Acuña
her mother → Luis Barba Cabeza de Vaca y Acuña, Capitán
her father → Luis Barba y Cabeza de Vaca, Señor de Castrofuerte y Castilfalé
his father → Pedro Barba Acuña, Señor de Castrofuerte y Castilfalé
his father → Pedro Barba de Campos, Señor de Castrofuerte y Castifalé, Virrey de Venecia
his father → Pedro Barba de Campos, III Señor de Castrofuerte y Castifalé
his father → Dn. Ruy Barba, Señor de Castrofuerte y Castilfalé
his father → Dn. Ruy García Villamayor, el Viejo
his father → Señor de Villamayor, Pancorbo y Celada García Ordóñez
his father → Dn. Ordoño García de Aza
his father → Da. Urraca Garcés de Navarra, sinyora d'Alberite
his mother → Da. Estefanía de Foix, reina de Navarra
her mother → Da. Beatriz xx, comtessa consort de Fois
her mother → Ricarda d'Astarac, Comtessa consort de Bigòrra
her mother → N.N. de Bigorre
her mother → Dat Donato II de Bigorre, Comte de Bigorre
her father → Lope IV, Count Of Bigorre
his father → Donat Lop, Comde de Bigòrra
his father → Loup III de Gascogne, duc de Gascogne
his father → Centule de Gascogne
his father → Lopo I, Wasconorum Princeps
his father → Hatto, duke of Gascony
his father → Waltrude d'Orléans
his mother → Walechise, comte de Verdun
her father → Saint Arnoul, Bishop of Metz
his father

Tor, your argument here is very muddled. You seem to be missing the most basic points.

Modern genealogy is based on the idea that everything must be supported by contemporary, primary sources. This is not my rule. It's not the curators' rule. It's the centerpiece of genealogy standards, and it equates to the principles of modern historiography.

A secondary source must cite the primary sources on which it is based, else it is worthless as evidence. (It might still have value as a clue where to look for more information.)

The Généalogie historique was compiled in the 1730s. It does not cite its sources. Therefore, it is not itself a good source for anything. Checking against good sources, you will find very quickly that it is very mixed quality. There is good information, bad information, and invented information.

It is the same with Saints' Lives. These are just pious compilations made at different times in history. They tell faith stories, with many miracles. The genealogical information in them is secondary, and should be checked against primary sources.

We probably aren't going to be able to continue this discussion much longer. As long as you reject the idea of using primary sources we aren't going to be able to find common ground on any other point.

I can only hope that the French are not teaching their children that there is an historically valid line from Priam. That would say shocking things about French education.

Justin is going the extra mile in letting you guys string him out while you have to say nothing that is historically valid. He's said everything there is to say about what constitutes primary and secondary sources. Until this Discussion is about that, I have nothing further to contribute.

Thanks, Sharon. I think the French are probably caught up with the modern world ;)

Tor says Généalogie Historique gives the line back to Priam but that's not correct. It starts the French kings with Pharamond, and has only a laconic note that many claim the Carolingians (Arnoul) were descended from the Merovingians, but it gives no details about that claim.

This is Enlightenment stuff. It's the point where our ancestors began to reject the accumulation of legend. Généalogie Historique is interesting because it is both the culmination of centuries of invention and the turning point. It scales back the legends,

I said above that Généalogie Historique does not cite its sources, but I was wrong about that. It's Grandes Chroniques that does not cite its sources.

Ok, I see but this is not the way you use it, because Gregory of Tours lived from 538 and Childric lived from 436, is the story that is told by Gregory just storys, ?. Because he tells this story over a 100 years later, story or historie.
Liber Historiquee Fracnrum is mostly based on Gregorys writings, With some arguments and paralells, it starts With the Works first report of Clothair II.Where are the begining of the historie, thats right they aknowledge up to Marcomar in the first section, (which you earlier have denied), the other book Genealogy historiquc makes the same line as Liber and Gregory, but that is no truth. If they put out the same branches in all Three books, why is one fake but not the other two. Archeologists makes Priam a person that have lived and that he was a gladiator in the roman army who fled.
As I said (which you called mulded) i've been aound in Europe on Archives to find documents that verifies Our lines (thats why I asked about those nobles), This is lines that I certain about that is why it has taken us 17 years of work. I do not jump on what everybody Writes as lines, (eks. everybody can find a Count called Heinrich in Germany and say they are relatives) I found the sir name of the People that are related and followed the lines using th sir name not the title.
I see also that Sharon is back to try to stop the discussion I will just say that have not got all on Clovis right, now Clothair the old is without a mother.
So much for contributing With info wich now lays as photo under Clovis, but that may not be enough for you, even though it is the French state that sell it as a truth.

Tor, you seem to be struggling here. So let's do it this way. Show us the evidence for your claim:

> "Archeologists makes Priam a person that have lived and that he was a gladiator in the roman army who fled."

Totally looking forward to that proof.

That's ROFL stuff, Justin! :-D There *were no* Romans back when the Trojan War was supposedly fought - there was no Rome, there were no gladiators.

Troy itself was written off as "mythical" until Heinrich Schliemann went a-digging near Hissarlik. He was unfortunately a very careless archaeologist and prone to slapping dramatic labels on his finds, whether they were correct or not (he didn't really care, as long as he got the publicity and more money to do more digging).

Yes.

On the mother of Clovis I the Great, King of the Franks 's son , Chlothar I "the Old" King of the Franks - it would really not have been difficult to message me that he wasn't linking in properly, given the hours I'd just spent sorting out the line at your request! Especially as my curator note indicated that.
Just human!
(Unlike Priam!)

i'm so glad you know it all.
It sprises me that you do use Gregory of tour as a primary Source for some of Your statement, when he actualle based a lot of his writing on the books of Sulspicius Alexander who should be mentioned as the primary Source. Both Gregory and Sulspicius
are on the same Level to Pharamond and to Marcomar./Marcomir, also called Marcomir IV, it is said that he is a decendeat of Priam Podarcers of Troy. I also have to say to some of the remarks that there are actually contemprary historie about Troy. I feel now when there are four curators in this discussion that it is not me that are in deep water. If it where so, you should not have had a problem to take this discussion on civil way but instead you try to ridicule those who do not agree in Your statment. I have not seen any proof of what you are saying exept for Gregory wich you have used before and Infact it shows that what you said in 2014 contradict the Source you use now, strange