Poppa !! Daughter of Berenguer of Bayeux

I'm not quite sure what you are asking.

Gange Hrolfr 'ROLLO' Ragnvaldsson are the same person.

Poppa of Bayeux was connected to him as his second wife, or a mistress -- the sources are unclear on this. Her parentage is likewise unclear, which is why we have two here -- Poppa of Bayeux -- connected to Rollo, and Poppa de Bayeux (de Sulzback), who possibly was the same person, but medieval genealogists are not in agreement as to Poppa's parentage.

Sorry -- left a bit out of one of my sentences; Rollo of Normandy and Gange Hrolfr 'ROLLO' Ragnvaldsson are the same person.

Good morning Anne,
Thank you for the quick response, I spent all day (Sunday) going through any and everything on POPPA..and finally came to the same conclusion as you..so have changed my tree to reflect the same.
So how did she have a surname of de Salzbach..was this from her father possibly !!!, In my tree there is a gap of 2-3 generations and I have a Judith 'POPPA' (sorry cant remember the last name), that shows up in the tree, definitely not the same person..
Its funny depending on what sites you use, all the dates are different ...there are no two sites using the same dates, to date I have approx. 23k in my tree and that's with out the extended family, cousins etc, so get frustrated with people who just put down a date with out verification. How can a child be born after the mother death date, or the fathers ...silly mistakes like that. According to Heritage I have about 2500 inconsistencies and that's Ancestry adding to my tree.
Enough of my tirade.

Once again thank you..

Regards,

Keith Powell
aka Du Rhone be Beauvair

This is why it’s very important, with medieval and early profiles, to stick to sites that cite the primary documents, and ignore the rest.

Thank you for your help and feedback.

Regards,

Keith Powell

Actually, "Rollo" of Normandy and "Ganger-Hrolf" both are and aren't the same person. Rollo the founder of the Norman duchy is as "historical" as we can make him, just the facts, thank you. Ganger-Hrolf is a collection of myths and legends that have attached themselves to the historical person, aren't consistent even with each other, and are inherently undocumentable (except when they can be disproved).

This kind of paradox is fairly common in pre-medieval genealogy (and not unknown in much later times).

The man and the myth, so to speak.

Hi All,

I have signed up with 4 different sites and have found major discrepancies with all of them, so find myself working twice as hard trying to tie all the information together but eventually settle for what i think may be the right answer and information. In all the experiences ..which site is the best of them all..
Sites: Ancestry, Heritage, Geni, Geneanet
and of course not forgetting Wikipedia, Google, Wikitree, Family Tree and so on..Amen

Keith Robert Powell none of those sites are worth much.

If you're going to work the medieval era your first point of reference should be https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/

Have fun, but be warned genealogy is bad for your health. All genealogists eventually die!

Thanks...Love the humour,
Will check the link and see how far i get, but do appreciate anything that you may have, basically i need all the help i can get.

Keith Robert Powell -- when you look at Medlands, what you will see is that it tells you exactly where the information it has came from. Click on the citation numbers, and they will take you down to the place at the bottom of the page which will tell you what primary document -- or in some cases what reliable secondary document -- is the reference.

Medieval genealogy, as with medieval history, is not easy. There are many places where you can get "information" -- that information is only as good as the primary sources, and the interpretation of them.

Misunderstandings, and even outright lies, can get copied all over the internet. That's not useful.

Wikipedia can be useful, when it points you to good sources. You have to check the citations to see what's going on.

And occasionally the family trees cite reliable sources. But they are not in the majority.

Alex is right, Medlands is really the place to start, when you are working in the early Tree.

And here is how I read the Wikipedia article --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppa_of_Bayeux --

the citation for "Christian wife or mistress" takes me to https://web.archive.org/web/20180929043557/http://home.earthlink.ne...

Which explains the sources from which we get her name (unreliable) and that she was a Christian (reliable).

The formating of the page looks hinky to me, but the citation has said that it's archived from the original -- and of course, it's on a site that captures web pages before they disappear. But I want to know where it comes from.

So I look up the author. and here he is: https://fasg.org/fellows/current-fellows/stewart-baldwin/ -- he's a mathematician who has worked in the early medieval Tree, and is respected. Fair enough.

So, THAT information seems to me to be reliable.

If you can't do that, with any site you are looking at, walk away.

@Anne Brannen Since when is Stewart Baldwin a specialist on European genealogy? He has been more or less disputed by respectable European genealogists. I sincerely doubt that he has read one line of any manuscript that exist over here in Europe or done any serious research in the Archives that exist all around Europe like any other serious European genealogist has done. Or is the "American" version of European genealogy the only true genealogy today, just because some Americans have taken interest in our, I repeat, OUR genealogy over here in Europe?

Fair enough! Happy to throw him out, too. Just going by accreditation.

Keith Robert Powell — ignore the Wikipedia article as well.

https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/poppa000.htm

Would of course love to read more people who have taken an interest.

Private User

"Since when is Stewart Baldwin a specialist on European genealogy? He has been more or less disputed by respectable European genealogists. I sincerely doubt ..."

Baldwin has a long list of published historical/ genealogical papers, he has two areas of interest one being early medieval European royalty.
Who are these "respectable" Europeans that dispute him? Do they dispute every single statement he's ever made or just some?

Your doubts, however sincerely you hold them, see unfounded on any sort of facts. I forget, other than being born in Iceland what is your qualification to determine who is or is not to be considered allowed to study European history?

PS i am not an American so my interest in YOUR genealogy "over there" is not affected by that world view.

Thank you Ms. Brennen,

I do have alot of work ahead of me and will definitley try MedLands, starting today..
The dissapointing Site is Ancestry, as they just add partial trees to your web without telling you who it is part of..so saying that i must have atleast 2000 persons that dont belong in my tree.
I will perserver...

Thank you all. for the help.

Regards,

Keith Powell

I call it "Ancestryitis" Keith Robert Powell and it is an infectious disease that systematically wrecks everything you have worked on and makes everyone think they descend from Thomas Jefferson or Pocahontas. I keep a subscription for access to the records and documents that I can't find on My Heritage or Family Search as I am working mostly in the American tree trying to sort and clean situations that have been neglected in my geographic region. It is useful for that, but the "hints" are as likely to be wrong as right.

Ancestry.com, to be blunt, is not worth the money.

Private User -- I'm actually genuinely interested in understanding your position.

You had said that another researcher has been disputed by respected European genealogists.
When Alex Moes asked you who those genealogists are, you told him that he did not understand academic procedures.

I'm pretty sure that academic procedures involve stating one's sources and authorities, so I don't understand why, when he asked you who they are, he got insulted, instead of getting an answer.

I don't care about Baldwin. I'm just interested in following the logic of the rhetorical move you made, cause it's eluding me.

Sounds to me like European snottiness about "inferior" American scholarship.

Mr. Baldwin is best known for the "Henry Project" (ancestors of Henry II of England), which he has been maintaining for over twenty years. https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/2020preface.htm

Detailed bibliographies are provided on each and every page.

Note to Anne Brannen: I suspect that Settipani is at least part of the problem. His conclusions are by no means universally accepted, and Baldwin does tend to give them full credence as valid analyses.

Then again, the argument may be *entirely* about Rollo, since persons of Icleandic ancestry tend to get very, very bent whenever anyone questions his relationship to Rognvaldr of More.

(We get the same thing from Hungarians, who throw tantrums if the ancestry of the mysterious Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile, is suggested to be anything but Hungarian.)

"Icleandic " = Icelandic, sorry for the typo.

Whoa.. All,
Enough of the sarcastic retorts as I do gratefully appreciate the help, seems I have disturbed a hornets nest.
Promise I do not have a hidden agenda, like changing all the royal families data, so please answer questions and banter/debate topics, without getting upset with persons protecting their backgrounds, ethnicity and the such. It just happens to be their own personnel thoughts, comes down to freedom of speech, thought and acting on them.

To all who responded to my original request and thereafter..THANK YOU

The bottom line is that there just *isn't* any primary documentation on "Poppa", not even her name, and the best that can be done is to make what we can out of relatively "recent" (to the events) secondary sources that may or may not have reliable information.

I have always wished we had "like" buttons for comments.

@Anne Brannen would you know who these scholars where even if I presented their names to you in truckloads, centuries back? And wouldn't you find a way to challenge their integrity and their work? I was referring to a long list of genealogists over here in Europe who have done thorough research on the manuscripts they had access to hundreds of years back.

Good to learn that you are open minded in your research as I am and that you have an open mind towards the sciences that genealogy is based. I noticed that you have pointed out that we should rely on reliable sources so I pointed out that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If that is an "insult" to anyone - is a bit over the top drama in my opinion.

Then, many of us genealogists and researchers have stopped contributing to Geni because of many reasons I'm not going to list here. Hope I haven't "insulted" you...

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is news so old it was chiseled on stone tablets in Mesopotamia (this is a *slight* exaggeration).

Sad to say, there is no one, NO ONE, who left reliable records *during* Rollo's (and Poppa's) lifetime. There are a few charters that name him (as "Rollo") and a handful of accounts of what he did, and that's about it.

The closest thing we have to contemporary documentation are annals and chronicles written by Flodoard (c894-966), Richerus (fl. up to c. 995), and Dudo of St Quentin (c. 965-c. 1043). Of these, Flodoard comes closest to being a contemporary, but his interests were predominantly ecclesiastical and he didn't know anything about Rollo prior to his raiding in France. Richerus named him "Rollone filio Catilli", implying that his father was one Ketil (probably *not* Keti Flat-Nose) - this may be, so or he may have been Making Stuff Up. Dudo was *not* a contemporary, and since he was commissioned by the first (official) Dukes of Normandy to write their history, his objectivity may well be questioned. And everybody who followed after kept picking over the scraps of fact and rearranging them to suit themselves.