Francois Joseph Savoie SOLVED

Oh, and what’s the date of your website? Probably last updated 2022?

Your talk of “must be published before 1836” is nonsense. The letter you don’t believe exists was written in 1638 and the biography published later, that’s all.

The Figli letter is just one example. Either you believe the historian was reading the primary source material or you don’t. Your website is not based on an archive. There are no citations. Now, I’m sure it’s mostly perfectly fine, and the discrepancy can be easily corrected - or your query ignored. But the rest of the world will continue to work with historians.

You are not reading the citations or understanding them, much less doing any real research instead of relying on a typo. If you were, you’d easily see sources are not “regurgitating” a tomb inscription. For example, our ciphering Duke the English ambassador didn’t know Francois’ birth date unless he was invited to a birthday party or something - and he did attend a family party before Victor Amadeus died, with four of his children. And he reported the child duke died, remarking how smart yet sickly he was.

I was just looking at the Italian encyclopedia for Victor Amadeus, with a half page of citations. Did you even check one? Your website is the only place he’s noted as 15. So 400 years of published history is wrong?

Mary, that’s just not true. Most of the published work is based on official chronologies and genealogies from the political entities involved, as well as well known genealogies of Royal families.

You shouldn’t be reliant on just what I try to spoon feed to you, nor are you even looking at Geni. I’ve just updated the Francis Hyacinth, duke of Savoy profile; and so you know, those of us who so medieval genealogy consider the site FMG Medlands the main “go to” these days. I haven’t mentioned it in this discussion because Cawley’s article on these Savoie’s is not (yet) footnoted. But it is rare there mistakes on the site. He omits what he can’t have verified.

This is the Italian encyclopedia for his father, I’ve been more focused on his mother. But this is a drop in the bucket, really. She has published letters for example.

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/vittorio-amedeo-i-di-savoia_%2...

Mary, it’s really not a debate. For whatever reason you’ve glommed onto a “lost prince” story and conflated it with “empty tomb” fantasies. I would leave you to your theories but unfortunately, you are proposing them as if there’s something to them. There isn’t. I can think of many more plausible scenarios for your ancestors origins than a hoary old “he wasn’t really dead” fakery.

This paragraph is not based on a tombstone.

From the prestigious Italian Biographical encyclopedia:

https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/vittorio-amedeo-i-di-savoia_%2...

A distanza dalla tumulazione, come era consueto, a Torino si tennero le esequie nel duomo di S. Giovanni, con un’imponente cerimonia il cui apparato effimero fu realizzato dall’architetto ducale Carlo di Castellamonte (18 dicembre 1637, Torino, Biblioteca Reale, Funerale dell’Altezza Reale di Vittorio Amedeo, Mss., O.I.9). Vi parteciparono, con la famiglia ducale, il nunzio pontificio, il maresciallo de Créqui, l’ambasciatore francese Particelli d’Hémery, portavoce di Richelieu (il garante per la reggenza di Cristina in nome del piccolo Francesco Giacinto, di soli cinque anni), tutti i vescovi, i cavalieri dell’Annunziata, i magistrati e i ranghi della corte al completo.

Google translate:

After the burial, as was customary, the funeral was held in Turin in the cathedral of S. Giovanni, with an imposing ceremony whose ephemeral structure was created by the ducal architect Carlo di Castellamonte (18 December 1637, Turin, Royal Library, Funeral of the Royal Highness of Vittorio Amedeo, Mss., O.I.9). The papal nuncio, marshal de Créqui, the French ambassador Particelli d'Hémery, spokesman for Richelieu (the guarantor for the regency of Cristina in the name of little Francesco Giacinto, who was only five years old) participated with the ducal family, all the bishops, the knights of the Annunciation, the magistrates and the entire ranks of the court.

Done.

• Oral tradition - John Albert Despres <link>
• Oral tradition - Joseph Bolton <link>

Mary - what? The article is about Vittorio, not Francois, who is a footnote in history. Vittorio named his heir, Francois named his heir Carlo, that’s usual, it did not need Vittorio. The issue was that they were infants so a Regency was needed. Evil uncles saw their chance for power. That’s it. Christina won, and her many children were well protected from warfare. However, not so much from childhood maladies.

Also, if you’re going to pick on specific words - get a real Italian to translate for you. Again, your local university can help.

It’s amazing to me how you think your theory is better than a biographical encyclopedia.

1. You are misinterpreting the article.
2. The article is not about his succession. For more on that, read more on Christina.
3. All the available documentation is available to the historians who contributed.
4. All the available documentation has been published. You have chosen not to accept the interpretation of those documents. For example, no, you probably don’t get to look at the original letter held in the French archives. But you can learn who is reliable and who is not.
5. There is a half page of references to Piedmont history in that article. Go read. Go talk to students of the era.
6. Admit that you don’t know, you’re not a historian or a genealogist any more than you’re a geneticist, and that you’re on this earth to learn, not to mislead.

Mary - it’s better documenting practice not to filter through anyone. Just upload to Francois’ profile.

If you don’t accept the citations, why are you wasting our time asking for them? Why is it that you don’t accept a death reported by eyewitnesses, attesting to his age, and do accept a typo?

Go talk to historians.

Mary - see, your own citation.

”in October 1637, Victor Amadeus died, and with his eldest son Francis Hyacinth only five years old, …”

But seriously, this is ridiculous, and also, has nothing to do with the oral tradition.

But there is credence to the old saying, "sometimes truth is stranger than fiction" and our Francois Savoie is a prime example.

Absolutely not, and you’re verging on fraud.

Go talk to historians.

… especially when there is a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence.

The opposite. The theory is increasingly implausible the more details are accrued. Your approach to historic reconstruction is to pick on words out of context and use that as your argument to invalidate any point you don’t agree with. It doesn’t work that way. Rather, it’s on you to provide affirmative evidence. You have not because there is none.

Enough, or I will have this discussion closed.

I can’t see the names on the coins.

So far there’s this one with provenance.

https://www.bridgemanimages.com/de/noartistknown/gold-coin-depictin...

This one does not have dates

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/gold-doppia-worth-4-s...

Looks like Christine (left, adult) and child.

Your point?

Thanks, that’s a lot better.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces315690.html

4 Scudi - Francesco Giacinto
(1637-1638)
Gold (.986) • 12.76 g • ⌀ 35 mm
KM# 162, Fr# 1067, MIR# 724, N# 315690

Obverse
Accolated busts of Francesco Giacinto and his mother to right right

Lettering: +CHR. FR. FR. HYAC. DVCES. SABAV. P. P. PED. R. R. CYPRI.

Reverse
Seated Madonna with Child in laurel wreath

Lettering: DEDVCET. NOS. MIRABILITER. DEXTERA. TVA.