Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:22:43 PM UTC-7, Rhue wrote:
> Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.

This is irrelevant. It certainly isn't genealogy.

On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:22:43 PM UTC-7, Rhue wrote:
> Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.

Says the person who then immediately makes a blanket negative characterization of an entire race (the very definition of racism) and follows it with the bigots' trifecta of racism, sexism and agism.

The point Leo was making remains valid. The term 'moor' used to describe Afonso's mistress was not a racial characterization, it was a religious characterization. It did not equate with 'black'. That leaves us with no information regarding her race. Likewise, Leo was correct in dismissing a fiction he found online (unclear to what he was referring) regarding a British king going to Africa and marrying there.

Just the other day, I came across a YouTube video presenting a genealogical tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to a Muslim ancestor, a Black ancestor, and a Jewish ancestor, all Iberian. The first was hilariously wrong (tracing her from the childless Sancho, son of Alfonso VI - apparently an error for his (? half-)sister Sancha, but that would also be wrong, just not as absurdly). The second was based on this 'moor means from North Africa and everyone from anywhere in Africa is Black' doubly-flawed nonsense. The third (involving 'Paloma') is just generally untrustworthy, but potentially true in substance if not in its specifics, and is not the only claimed avenue for Jewish ancestry.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:22:43 AM UTC-4, Rhue wrote:
> Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.

Sounds like you are the obsessed one to come here and talk about a dead man with such generalities which is shameful and abhorrent. Take your stereotyping and hypocrisy somewhere else, because this is a place for serious genealogical research, not for your blather.

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 9:14:50 AM UTC+2, taf wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:22:43 PM UTC-7, Rhue wrote:
> > Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.
> Says the person who then immediately makes a blanket negative characterization of an entire race (the very definition of racism) and follows it with the bigots' trifecta of racism, sexism and agism.
>
> The point Leo was making remains valid. The term 'moor' used to describe Afonso's mistress was not a racial characterization, it was a religious characterization. It did not equate with 'black'. That leaves us with no information regarding her race. Likewise, Leo was correct in dismissing a fiction he found online (unclear to what he was referring) regarding a British king going to Africa and marrying there.
>
> Just the other day, I came across a YouTube video presenting a genealogical tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to a Muslim ancestor, a Black ancestor, and a Jewish ancestor, all Iberian. The first was hilariously wrong (tracing her from the childless Sancho, son of Alfonso VI - apparently an error for his (? half-)sister Sancha, but that would also be wrong, just not as absurdly). The second was based on this 'moor means from North Africa and everyone from anywhere in Africa is Black' doubly-flawed nonsense. The third (involving 'Paloma') is just generally untrustworthy, but potentially true in substance if not in its specifics, and is not the only claimed avenue for Jewish ancestry.

With Iberian medieval genealogy being so difficult, I would be interested to know taf whether there are any reasonably strong and/or interesting cases for non-European ancestry among the shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty.

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 9:44:20 AM UTC-7, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> With Iberian medieval genealogy being so difficult, I would be interested to know taf whether there are any reasonably strong and/or interesting cases for non-European ancestry among the shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty.

Not in the sense that I think you mean (see below), at least not that I am aware of. There is one documented case of adoption of a non-Iberian-derived king into the Spanish nobility, but I don't think he can be counted among the 'shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty', his progeny being much more limited (though I could be wrong on this). The other claims I am aware of are fantastical for one reason or another, representing medieval legends or arising from credulous 17th/19th century pseudo-scholarship, or have been made up by modern scholars trying too hard, making suppositions based on their desire for such a descent to exist, using unsound onomastics, misreading the sources, and often all the above. There a few documented unions (marriages or liaisons producing children) but with descents that are invented (e.g. claims of descent from King Mauregato, who probably had non-European maternal ancestry but any lines from him are made up).

Back to your question, as asked, the following comes to mind: Jaime I of Aragon married Violant of Hungary, granddaughter of Agnes of Antioch, granddaughter of Alice of Jerusalem, granddaughter of the Armenian Gabriel of Meletene. Her daughters married kings of Castile and France, and from there this non-European ancestry spread throughout the royalty of Europe.

taf

On 10-Jun-23 5:14 PM, taf wrote:
> On Friday, June 9, 2023 at 9:22:43 PM UTC-7, Rhue wrote:
>> Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.
>
> Says the person who then immediately makes a blanket negative characterization of an entire race (the very definition of racism) and follows it with the bigots' trifecta of racism, sexism and agism.
>
> The point Leo was making remains valid. The term 'moor' used to describe Afonso's mistress was not a racial characterization, it was a religious characterization. It did not equate with 'black'. That leaves us with no information regarding her race. Likewise, Leo was correct in dismissing a fiction he found online (unclear to what he was referring) regarding a British king going to Africa and marrying there.
>
> Just the other day, I came across a YouTube video presenting a genealogical tree tracing Queen Elizabeth to a Muslim ancestor, a Black ancestor, and a Jewish ancestor, all Iberian. The first was hilariously wrong (tracing her from the childless Sancho, son of Alfonso VI - apparently an error for his (? half-)sister Sancha, but that would also be wrong, just not as absurdly). The second was based on this 'moor means from North Africa and everyone from anywhere in Africa is Black' doubly-flawed nonsense. The third (involving 'Paloma') is just generally untrustworthy, but potentially true in substance if not in its specifics, and is not the only claimed avenue for Jewish ancestry.

As for Leo's attitude to black African ancestry, I know from private
correspondence that he was delighted to include in his database
descendants of the Russian poet Pushkin (whose mother was a grandaughter
of Peter the Great's general Abram Gannibal, born in Cameroon),
including the present duke of Westminster and marquess of Milford Haven
(a relative of King Charles) through a morganatic Romanov marriage, see
here:
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00068783&tree=LEO,
here:
https://www.genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00068783&tree=LEO&display=block&generations=8
and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abram_Petrovich_Gannibal.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 12:22:43 AM UTC-4, Rhue wrote:
> Leo was a racist. This thread is lame. White people are so obsessed with race and color. I suspect Leo was roughly 70 years old. In America, that is when white men usually can no longer hold in their true feelings and come out.

Also, Leo was not "in America," and was not an American (he was Dutch as well as "Aussie" after immigration).

On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 9:44:20 AM UTC-7, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > With Iberian medieval genealogy being so difficult, I would be interested to know taf whether there are any reasonably strong and/or interesting cases for non-European ancestry among the shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty.
> Not in the sense that I think you mean (see below), at least not that I am aware of. There is one documented case of adoption of a non-Iberian-derived king into the Spanish nobility, but I don't think he can be counted among the 'shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty', his progeny being much more limited (though I could be wrong on this). The other claims I am aware of are fantastical for one reason or another, representing medieval legends or arising from credulous 17th/19th century pseudo-scholarship, or have been made up by modern scholars trying too hard, making suppositions based on their desire for such a descent to exist, using unsound onomastics, misreading the sources, and often all the above. There a few documented unions (marriages or liaisons producing children) but with descents that are invented (e.g. claims of descent from King Mauregato, who probably had non-European maternal ancestry but any lines from him are made up).
>
> Back to your question, as asked, the following comes to mind: Jaime I of Aragon married Violant of Hungary, granddaughter of Agnes of Antioch, granddaughter of Alice of Jerusalem, granddaughter of the Armenian Gabriel of Meletene. Her daughters married kings of Castile and France, and from there this non-European ancestry spread throughout the royalty of Europe.
>

Along these lines, I just came across what appears to have resulted from someone's spell-checker run amok, but which will likely now give rise to another such claim of extra-European ancestry.

An online pedigree tracing the ancestry of the Barroso/de Basto showed Egas Gomez Barroso married to Urraca Vazquez de Ambia, daughter of Vasco Gadelha de Ambia, son of Guedo de ZAMBIA.

taf

On 19-Jun-23 7:07 AM, taf wrote:
> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 9:44:20 AM UTC-7, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> With Iberian medieval genealogy being so difficult, I would be interested to know taf whether there are any reasonably strong and/or interesting cases for non-European ancestry among the shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty.
>> Not in the sense that I think you mean (see below), at least not that I am aware of. There is one documented case of adoption of a non-Iberian-derived king into the Spanish nobility, but I don't think he can be counted among the 'shared Iberian ancestors of general European royalty', his progeny being much more limited (though I could be wrong on this). The other claims I am aware of are fantastical for one reason or another, representing medieval legends or arising from credulous 17th/19th century pseudo-scholarship, or have been made up by modern scholars trying too hard, making suppositions based on their desire for such a descent to exist, using unsound onomastics, misreading the sources, and often all the above. There a few documented unions (marriages or liaisons producing children) but with descents that are invented (e.g. claims of descent from King Mauregato, who probably had non-European maternal ancestry but any lines from him are made up).
>>
>> Back to your question, as asked, the following comes to mind: Jaime I of Aragon married Violant of Hungary, granddaughter of Agnes of Antioch, granddaughter of Alice of Jerusalem, granddaughter of the Armenian Gabriel of Meletene. Her daughters married kings of Castile and France, and from there this non-European ancestry spread throughout the royalty of Europe.
>>
>
> Along these lines, I just came across what appears to have resulted from someone's spell-checker run amok, but which will likely now give rise to another such claim of extra-European ancestry.
>
> An online pedigree tracing the ancestry of the Barroso/de Basto showed Egas Gomez Barroso married to Urraca Vazquez de Ambia, daughter of Vasco Gadelha de Ambia, son of Guedo de ZAMBIA.

Ah, but extra-European ancestry will not be denied by such an obvious
error for Guedo de GAMBIA.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 2:07:39 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:

> Along these lines, I just came across what appears to have resulted from someone's spell-checker run amok, but which will likely now give rise to another such claim of extra-European ancestry.
>
> An online pedigree tracing the ancestry of the Barroso/de Basto showed Egas Gomez Barroso married to Urraca Vazquez de Ambia, daughter of Vasco Gadelha de Ambia, son of Guedo de ZAMBIA.
>

Just as a genealogical aside, Guido is an unlikely basis for the patronymic Gadelha.

taf