Bernard 'le Danois' de Pont-Audemer de Harcourt, vicomte de Rouen - Bernard the Dane

Can you prove otherwise?

@ Kenneth Joseph Bagg Neder Read a book written in 1921 and it says that Bernard the Dane is not the father of Torf Seigneur de Torville.

It has been suggested that he was a son of Bernard the Dane, the most powerful of the feudal nobles of Normandy during the reign of Duke William I. (927-943) and Regent during the minority of Duke Richard I. (943-955); but this claim has not been proved. This is why on my tree it is not there. I am his 29th Great Grandson.

MM one of those ! Similar answers from 3 others here on Geni today . 32 profiles and not one source on any one of them .

Bernard 'le Danois', Vicomte de Pont-Audemer is your 31st great grandfather.

Rodney Piper -- link to book would be helpful .

Bernard 'le Danois', Vicomte de Pont-Audemer is your 31st great grandfather.

Rodney Piper -- link to book would be helpful .

Son of Duke of the Angrian Saxons BRUNO and Princess of the Holstein Saxons HASALA

AKA Bernard "le Danois"

Founding father of the House of Harcourt

What follows in the Harcourt line comes mainly from the book called

" A History of the Family Harcourt " written by William Harcourt-Bath in1930. I have a copy.

Chief counsellor to Rollo in the conquest of Normandy, France. Rollo's wife and Bernard's wife are sisters.

His descendents followed William the Conqueror into England.

The family is a direct descendent of Charlemagne and the Trojan Senator Antenor

The name seems to come from "Herr" ( A Teuteonic courtesy title), meaning lord or gentleman and court meaning hall or mansion. I.E."HerrCourt" .

The name has evolved over the years, Herecourt , Harecourt , Harcourt.

b. ABT 904, Normandy, France

b. ABT. 860, Saxony or Maer,Norway

d. ABT. 950, Normandy,France

d. 955

Married Sprota (Sprote) de Berengaria or BOUGOGNE (880-936)

Children:

1. TORF I,Seigneur de Tourville (901-970)

References: [RFC]

•43. Bernard "The Dane" Prince of Denmark AKA Bernard "le Danois"

Founding father of the House of Harcourt What follows in the Harcourt line comes mainly from the book called " A History of the Family Harcourt " written by William Harcourt-Bath in1930. I have a copy. Chief counsellor to Rollo in the conquest of Normandy,France.Rollo's wifeand Bernard's wife are sisters. His descendents followed " William the Conqueror " into England. Thefamily is a direct descendent of " Charlemagne " and the Trojan SenatorAntenor The name seems to come from "Herr" ( A Teuteonic courtesy title), meaning lord or gentleman and court meaning hall or mansion. I.E."HerrCourt" . The name has evolved over the years, Herecourt , Harecourt , Harcourt. * b. ABT 904, Normandy, France

b. ABT. 860, Saxony or Maer,Norway
d. ABT. 950, Normandy,France
d. 955
m. Sprota (Sprote) de Berengaria or BOUGOGNE ABT 900, Normandy, France
b. ABT. 880, Normandy,France
d. ABT. 936, Normandy,France
daughter of Count of Senlis HUBERT
ch: *TORF I,Seigneur de Tourville [Next Generation]

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pmcbride/rfc/l315.htm

Torf de Harcourt

Regarding historical files, there are three kinds: 1. those with good/adequate source citations; 2. those with worthless/substandard source citations; 3. those with none at all. We have been reminded again and again that curatorial work is all voluntary, implying that is why so many MP profiles lack good (or any) source citations and organized development.

Time really is valuable. It is much faster to plead "lack of evidence" and be done with it and then move on to the next 10,000 managed profiles, than to invest in research and add proper sources. Many far less famous 'historical' MPs than this one are stubbornly defended with 'sources' far less substantial than seen here. Some 'sources' apparently exist only as vague ideas, with zero concrete text or actual references cited. So to understand them one would need to be a mind-reader. Judgments must be made and quickly decided. Nevertheless, "authority" is no source.

It is reasonable to ask why Rodney Piper refutes this historical profile's unquestioned existence since 2007. Unquestioned because seasoned history buffs and genealogists are familiar with it, as it is *common knowledge*. There will always be unread / undereducated skeptics and doubters, who can't be bothered to study the subject they don't understand. So an explanation of the basis behind your complaint against this profile might be more persuasive.

You seem to strongly favor Rodney's position, Sharon. I hope that doesn't mean you have taken sides, or that you have already reached an agreement with him aside from this post. Because if so, the "discussion" would be over before it even began.

Why isn't Bernard the Dane real to you? Are there scholarly papers that have been published that argue against it on good authority (i.e. by professional historians and/or early medieval genealogists)? If so, they have gone unmentioned. Yet if this ancient legend was truly problematic, I'd think some respectable historian might have questioned or refuted it before now.

As we've seen time after time, adding obscure primary sources in archaic languages utterly incomprehensible to the average amateur genealogist is rarely effective and often just a waste of time and energy. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty at least to try.
__________________________________________________________

References

1. Dudon de Saint-Quentin , "De gestis Normanniae ducum seu de moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum", J. Lair (ed.),

Memoir of the Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, volume XXIII, 1865, p. 189-190. The list of Rollo's companions is controversial, but Dudo's citation lends some credibility to Bernard's inclusion in this list.

2. François Neveux, La Normandie dukes kings: x e the xii th century, Rennes, Ouest France,1998, 611 p., 21 cm (online presentation [archive]), 1- Rise of the duchy and Norman expansion (911-1066), chap. 1 (“The Foundation”), p. 35.

3. Ernest d'Hauterive, "Intermediary of researchers and curious about Normandy", Catholic review of history, archeology and literature of Normandy, Caen; Evreux, sl, vol. 35,1926, p. 166 (ISSN 1245-6241).

4. Jean Dubuc, Chronological history of Normandy and the Normans: from the origins to 1204, Marigny, Eurocibles, coll. "Unpublished and untraceable" (no 15), 2003, 576 p., 22 cm (ISBN 978-2-914541-30-5), p. 156.

5. Guillaume de Jumièges, History of the Normans, ed. Guizot, Brière, 1826, Book IV, p. 79 (French translation of Gesta Normannorum ducum written around 1172).

6. Guillaume de Jumièges, Ibid., p. 88. Flodoard presents him rather as a Norman chief from the Bayeux region.

7. Gilles-André de La Roque, Genealogical History of the House of Harcourt, 1662, t. I, t. III and t. IV.

8. Louis XIV, Lettres patent for the erection of the marquisate of Harcourt as a hereditary duchy, 1700:

“his house originates from Bernard the Dane, one of the lords of Denmark, who came to Normandy with Rollo, who was its first duke, in the year 876, from which Bernard the Danish had the seigneury of Harcourt and several other lands; He was also governor of Normandy and guardian of Richard Ist, grand-son of the Duke Rollo, and the descendants of this Bernard were coated first loads and strong alliances illustrious."

...In P. Anselme, Genealogical and chronological history of the royal house of France, of the peers, great officers of the Crown, of the Maison du Roy and of the former barons of the kingdom…, 1726-1733.

I forgot to mention the fourth kind: those that go unread with comprehension. That is a valid category.

Kenneth Joseph Bagg Neder PRO
Yesterday at 7:29 PM
Report

Can you prove otherwise?

Think this is not the right approach --have to prove a relationship with valid reliable sources not disprove them with valid reliable sources .

Debra Denman good point but remember often sources contradict and the questions start .
maybe Rodney Piper just need to go through sources and info in overview -----

https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/citing-your-sources/what-common-...

However, what may be common knowledge in one culture, nation, academic discipline or peer group may not be common knowledge in another.

Refuting facts " It is reasonable to ask why Rodney Piper refutes this historical profile's unquestioned existence since 2007. Unquestioned because seasoned history buffs and genealogists are familiar with it, as it is *common knowledge*. There will always be unread / undereducated skeptics and doubters, who can't be bothered to study the subject they don't understand. So an explanation of the basis behind your complaint against this profile might be more persuasive. "

I have challenged facts on GENI since GENI started and had sources to prove my new facts that refuted what was accepted as " common knowledge " GENI

New research have given us new improved information --we might still find that Barack Obama was NOT the first mixed race President of the USA .
Like all the WHITE south African leaders we can see on GENI that were actually MIXED Race not 100 % European or White .

It is fair to say that since even Louis XIV was familiar with Bernard the Dane as a *legal entity,* then this profile fits the definition of "common knowledge" among academic historians and professional medieval genealogists. Certain historic figures are rightfully acknowledged without arbitrary demands of proof.

That doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist or didn't exist at some time in the distant past. Only that it is (or should be) unnecessary for confirmed historical figures to produce their birth certificates for every student who has never heard of them before. If you just happen to have the primary text, expertly translated into modern English, wonderful. But most of us don't have the luxury.

Comparing Bernard the Dane to Mickey Mouse?

Did Bernard's wife also wear shoes like Minerva ?

Wikipedia seems to answer most of those questions allready ,but even Wikipedia not infallible.

Finding proper new sources might just change what was accepted as common knowledge.
Heliocentric concept was as Everyone knew and common knowledge in 1615 as all nonsense and definitely not true.

Debra your own DNA results challenge accepted common knowledge ( in USA ) and the status quo.
We must ask questions to improve our knowledge anyone I believe can challenge any accepted fact. We all then always then discover new facts and info none of us knew even about a different subject.

Alex - read all the info in overview of his profile .
Some reasonable research and arguments for his info abd children on GENI .
Herr court to Har court a jump but not farfetched or impossible.

So nothing here really done an dusted ' common knowledge " but still needs further research and investigation .