Theophanu, Empress Consort - @ Theophanu Skleraina

Many thanks, Everard.

You all had the time to read this information I think the only conclusion you can draw is
"According to the marriage certificate issued on 14 April 972—a masterpiece of the Ottonian Renaissance—Theophanu is identified as the neptis (niece or granddaughter) of Emperor John I Tzimiskes (925–976) who was of Armenian descent."

So let change it. I think we have had enough time to read it and draw your own conclusion.

Change it? Change what?

She must have been a niece or granddaughter. That does not give us an exact relationship. Any link we make would be a guess that goes beyond the actual evidence.

The latest I heard it is the most likely situation. Family research is not an exact science. Even with DNA there will be reason for guessing.

But modern genealogy proceeds according to certain rules. If any other solution is reasonably possible you don't make the leap.

Subject: Theophano.
Sources:
1. https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco...
Hlawitschka, Eduard, Die Ahnen der hochmitteralterlichen deutschen Konige, Kaiser und ihrer Gemahlinnen, Ein kommentiertes Tafelwerk, Band I: 911-1137, Teil 2, Hannover 2006. ISBN 978-3-7752-1132-1. Pp. 145-153
2. Davids, Adelbert. The Empress Theophano: Byzantium and the West at the turn of the first millennium, 2002. ISBN 0-521-52467-9. pp. 79-80
3. Schwab, Sandra (2009). Theophanu: eine oströmische Prinzessin als weströmische Kaiserin (in German). GRIN Verlag. ISBN 978-3-640-27041-5. p. 14
4. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantherios_Skleros
Christian Settipani: Continuité des élites à Byzance durant les siècles obscurs. Les princes Caucasiens et l´empire du VIe au IXe siècle. De Boccard, Paris 2006, ISBN 978-2-7018-0226-8. Pp. 244-245

Theophano Skleraina (*c.960-991)
We know from the marriage certificate of Theophano with Otto II that, she is a cousin of Emperor John I Tzimiskes. We also know that her birth data is not on the certificate and her parents are not on it either.

We know that in 968 the diplomat Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona, was sent to Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas and negotiated, to get Anna Porphyrogenita the daughter of the former Emperor Romanus II as bride to Otto II. That did not go well because in Bari the Byzantine troops and those of Otto had been slaughtered shortly before. In 971 Gero, Archbishop of Cologne was sent to Constantinople to negotiate with new Emperor John I Tzimiskes to get Anna as a wife for Otto II.
To disappointment of the Germans, not Anna but Theophano a princess of a lower level came to Ravenna. The new Emperor John I Tzimiskes had decided otherwise.
Theophano came in 972 on time, in grand style and accompanied by great riches. Theophano also brought a very welcome wedding gift, the areas Benevento and Capua.
After an acquaintance of the bride and groom, they found out that they were okay with each other.

Prof. dr. Settipani and prof. dr. Hlawitschka of both published a book in 2006 (see the sources).
Recent research (see sources 1) tends to concur (Hlawitschka[2006], Swab[2009], Davids[2002], Settipani[2006]) that she was MOST PROBABLY THE DAUGHTER of Tzimiskes' brother-in-law (from his first marriage) Constantine Skleros (c. 920–989), and of Sophia Phokaina, who was Tzimiskes' cousin as the daughter of Kouropalatēs Leo Phokas, brother of Emperor Nikephoros II (c. 912–969).[1][2][3][4]

From the above
"According to the marriage certificate issued on 14 April 972—a masterpiece of the Ottonian Renaissance—Theophanu is identified as the neptis (niece or granddaughter) of Emperor John I Tzimiskes (925–976) who was of Armenian descent."

"that she was MOST PROBABLY THE DAUGHTER of Tzimiskes' brother-in-law (from his first marriage) Constantine Skleros (c. 920–989), and of Sophia Phokaina, who was Tzimiskes' cousin as the daughter of Kouropalatēs Leo Phokas, brother of Emperor Nikephoros II (c. 912–969)"

"We know from the marriage certificate of Theophano with Otto II that, she is a cousin of Emperor John I Tzimiskes. We also know that her birth data is not on the certificate and her parents are not on it either."

In these three sentences alone there are differing opinions on her exact relationship.
* she is the niece of John I Tzimiskes (925–976)
* she is the granddaughter of John I Tzimiskes (925–976)
* she is the cousin of John I Tzimiskes (925–976)
* she is the daughter of Constantine Skleros (c. 920–989) and Sophia Phokaina

Shouldn't all of the possible parents be included in her overview rather than linking her to "probable" parents?

"Recent prosopographical work on the established dynastic families has confirmed that she was the daughter of two high-born members of the aristocracy, Constantine Skleros and Sophia Phokas. Her motherwas a niece of the emperor Nikephoros II Phokas and she was thus his great niece."
https://books.google.se/books?id=Db9Z_BagLw8C&lpg=PA80&vq=T...

I like it when our curators just neglect studies in the subject and hold on to the very idea, THAT, anyone could have been her parents, thus she have none.

Ulf, it would be helpful if you would stop the mudslinging and focus on discussing the evidence.

That she was the daughter of Constantine Skleros and Sophia Phokas was the conclusion of G. Wolf in Wer war Theophanu (1988).

You will see this if you look at the footnotes in your link.

This theory has been influential but not everyone agrees.

A different analysis here:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM.htm#Theophanodied991

The structure of Geni does not support possible, probable, likely or almost certain. It is binary, yes or no.

Is she the daughter of X or not?
Is she the daughter of Y or not?
If you can say YES without having to qualify it then make the connection, otherwise do not.

Leanne has the measure of things given the current structure, explain the theory including hyperlinks in the About text.

Dear Justin,
If the rules are so. Then it is not possible to connect the parents, I can not change the rules.
We know on that way, there are many profiles who had to be changed or deleted in Geni before 1400.
I wish that in Geni the tree is like a empty house.
You know I am not happy with that rule.
Gr Everard.

Justin,
There is a smal mistake in the mail before.

I wish that in Geni the tree is not like a empty house.

Missing the word "not".
Everard.

I understand, Everard van Dijk.

Justin Durand no it's not mudslinging, you ant to use modern standard that fits om modern genealogy with complete records on medieval genealogy that in many cases needs to be dealt as a puzzle by using detectiv work. We should have more room for plausible connections in these older lines, otherwise, we ends up just where we are today, with a bunch of profiles disconnected from their supposed parents, but I can agree to some extent, all people are not fitted to the a good or a exelent work, which is really needed in this kind of work. Maybe I'm also not skilled enough, but I reached the same conclusion without reading G. Wolf in Wer war Theophanu (1988), to my surprise in my solution, she was a double cousin with her husband Otto,it wouldn't surprise me at all if true either.

Private User, people see it differently. For me it's hard to understand why someone would come to a website expecting to work with other people then demand that they change. On Geni we take a more conservative approach because the tree is the common heritage of everyone. If someone wants their own private version there are many other websites.

Personally, I don't see the point of jumping the line. That's just me. I don't have the kind of mind that worries if there isn't an answer to everything. I can live with ambiguity and unknowns.

But you Justin might be a bit overly negtively biased to have the last word in some of the profile subjects, for instance, you think that copies of texts which was made 100-300 years after a person died must be forgeries, when the originals have been lost and the copies are all that is left, thus more or less worthless to function as a source.

At least that is what you have expressed several times in different threads, and I wonder why people like you even bother to do medieval profiles at all, you should focus on people who actually have modern birthcertificates, or do something completly else that better suits your profile of perfection.

Of course we can survive without complete threes here on Geni, but if we want to get as far back as possible on every ancestor and reach the real dead end, we should be a little bit more flexible and daring when it comes to using very "plausible" connections, because they can always be changed if new evidence turns up, or if something ?completely disproves it, but until then, we should keep the door open instead of shut, that's my philosophy. No one doing genealogy should be excessively skeptical, beause then we wouldn't have any tree at all, ( THAT IS INFACT VERY TRUE).

Ulf, you are misrepresenting my position. You often do this.

Am I really? I do think (know) that you're both intelligent and well informed, have a genuine interest in genealogy, but still, are a bit too bias, is that misrepresenting?

Ulf, telling me I believe things I do not believe does not advance the discussion. Telling me I've said things I didn't say does not advance the discussion. They are just another installment of your personal attacks.

Please focus on the facts and the subject. Play on the ball and not on the players. So the discussion is about who are the parents and can we use the webservice Geni for this situation.

Or is the software too modern to use it for this case. We can solve it on paper with questions marks, but not in Geni.

Please telll me if I wrong or not and we are all working very hard to get the ball in the same goal or not.

Hi Jereon, in Geni you can attach a set of patents to a profile. The software does not know if the parents are correct or not. It is not a software problem.

The problem is that opinion differs on who the parents actually were. Just from the above alone there are many possible parents and many theories about why one set is and others are not the parents.

Until scholars can agree it would be incorrect for us to add one set over another as parents in the profile.

In the overview you can add hyperlinks to the possible parents.

Ie in the overview
Whilst it is known that she is a relative of ccccc her exact relationship to him is not known as there are different opinions on who her parents are
* Research by .... suggests xxxx and yyyy as her parents - (link to the research)
* Research by ... suggests aaaa and bbbb as her parents - (link to the research)

Also you can include where previous theories have been debunked which might not be the case for this profile. (This is particularly useful for profiles that keep being reattached to disproven parents)

Yes, that is a way to solve this problem. I leave this situation as it is for the moment. Disconnected, but yes making a connection in the about text is also technical solution. It does right to the fact a lot of work is done to find the correct parents.