A quinta-feira, 6 de agosto de 2020 à(s) 04:09:05 UTC+1, sba...@mindspring.com escreveu:
> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 6:07:41 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
> > On 05-Aug-20 2:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > > terça-feira, 4 de Agosto de 2020 às 15:20:48 UTC+1, joseph cook escreveu:
> > >> On Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 10:06:55 AM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thing is, even the generally skeptical Stewart Baldwin accepts discontinuous descents. Indeed, he prefers it to conjecturing exact descent.
> This is misleading, and easily misinterpreted. While I have no objection to conjectures in principle, provided that the uncertainties are adequately stated (often not the case), I have little taste for strings of conjectures that have been made solely for the purpose of filling in the "generations" between one person and an alleged ancestor. Temporarily making such conjectures may sometimes be convenient at an intermediate stage of the research in order to decide where to look next, but they need to be abandoned if supporting evidence is not found. Far too often, such conjectures take on a life of their own, and this can often happen when the goal becomes to find a line of descent between X and Y without first having any clear evidence that such a descent exists.
> > >> I think it is wise not to speak for people who are present here and can ably speak for themselves. However, nobody "prefers" "discontinuous descents", whatever that phrase is supposed to mean. It absolutely does not fall under the category of "Genealogy" however.
> I would have to disagree. To take a simple case, someone might name a person as their grandson in their last will and testament. If the identity of the intervening generation cannot be established by other evidence, then you have an example of a what I have called a "discontinuous" genealogical relationship.
>
> Another example, with a possibly uncertain number of generations, can come from knowing that someone was the legal heir of a certain individual. To mention another possibility that has recently become available, Y-DNA tests can be used to prove that individuals descend from the same direct male line. While such tests do not usually prove that one individual was a descendant of another, it is sometimes that case that a direct descent can be proven by Y-DNA evidence. This is another case that definitely falls into the category of genealogy. (Of course, attempts to fill in the missing generations with undocumented conjectures is not genealogy in any serious scholarly sense.)
> > >> If your statement is meant simply to say someone prefers not making up facts from no evidence.... I think we are all in agreement on that. It is in no case a counter-argument to Peter's point.
> > >>
> > >> We are all descended from fish. While this is interesting from a scientific perspective, it is not genealogy. And I would argue investigating how we are descended from fish is *far* more interesting than knowing vaguely, that maybe, there is an Achaemenid ancestor in our tree.
> > >>
> > >> --Joe Cook
> > >
> > > I meant that, in this kind of cases, Stewart Baldwin is willing to accept that X was probably descended from Y but not conjecture an exact line of descent.
> > >
> >
> > I agree with Joe's well-made points.
> >
> > Like everyone else living today, I am descended from countless people
> > who lived in antiquity; but I can't identify any one of them or trace
> > any line to that time which is even nearly continuous - and I don't care
> > a fig. It would provide nothing but a momentary vainglorious buzz if I
> > could, and it would provide nothing at all but a worthless curiosity to
> > anyone else.
> I'm not sure that you should be speaking for others with regard to how much interest they might have in such a long descent. Trying to find a long ancestry has been a major motivating factor to many genealogists, and this is not changed by the fact that so many of them do poor research.
> > The point of medieval genealogy is to substantiate as full a picture as
> > practicable through interpretation of documents or failing that through
> > deduction from circumstantial evidence.
> >
> > Pre-supposing a result and then jamming odd jigsaw pieces together in
> > order to achieve a distorted semblance of that imagined picture is not
> > at all the same pursuit. I still do not understand why some people
> > expend time and effort on this kind of futile chase after will-o-the-wisps.
> I agree with much of this, but I would not apply the term "will-o-the-wisps" to all DFA research. For example, as I stated in an earlier posting, a reasonably good (but not certain) case can be made that the nineteenth century Bagratid king of Georgia were descended from the Arsacids, by a "discontinuous" descent that ran through the Mamikonids and Gregorids. The fact that an approximate route can be specified for this descent makes this a reasonably good candidate for a "discontinuous DFA." This example needs to be distinguished from the attempts to link this line to the medieval European nobility through the Byzantines, which are largely guesswork, or the even more questionable attempts to link back to the Achaemenids or further.
>
> Stewart Baldwin
Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.

On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.

I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.

Stewart Baldwin

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:

>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.

> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
> recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.

> Stewart Baldwin

Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the Savoyards? Wernt
the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was George XII d1800 who had 23
kids] descended from the Bagratids or Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in
Armenia and Georgia in the Middle Ages? I saw somewhere in the media that
the 2 rival lines of Georgian claimants had recently reunited at a wedding. So
there are plenty of descendants of the Bagratids hopping about still, surely the
problem areas are before the 8th and ninth century, and while there have been
many attempts to connect the medieval Bagratids with earlier families
such as the mamikonians by the usual suspects in DFA studies, they all seem
to involve a lot of people called NN, [..] or unknown.

Mike

mike

On 2/18/2024 10:12 AM, miked wrote:
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
>>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy
>>> has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity,
>>> don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the
>>> Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the
>>> Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
>
>> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry.  I vaguely remember
>> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but
>> my recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>
>> Stewart Baldwin
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the Savoyards?
> Wernt the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was George XII
> d1800 who had 23 kids] descended from the Bagratids or
> Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in Armenia and Georgia in the
> Middle Ages?

For whatever reason, there is interest in identifying connections to
Western European dynasties. For those, even for the dodgy ones (dodgy
connections, not necessarily dodgy dynasties), you often end up with a
medieval tie-in to the Bagratids rather than a modern one.

taf

On 19-Feb-24 1:11 PM, taf wrote:
> On 2/18/2024 10:12 AM, miked wrote:
>> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy
>>>> has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity,
>>>> don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the
>>>> Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the
>>>> Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry.  I vaguely remember
>>> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but
>>> my recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>>
>>> Stewart Baldwin
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the
>> Savoyards? Wernt the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was
>> George XII d1800 who had 23 kids] descended from the Bagratids or
>> Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in Armenia and Georgia in the
>> Middle Ages?
>
> For whatever reason, there is interest in identifying connections to
> Western European dynasties. For those, even for the dodgy ones (dodgy
> connections, not necessarily dodgy dynasties), you often end up with a
> medieval tie-in to the Bagratids rather than a modern one.

Maybe it's because Western European dynasts tend to have been not so
much Bagratids as Ratbagids, and even a fantasy DNA might make them seem
more respectable.

But still no-one has substantiated to my mind that this could ever have
value beyond satisfying an optimistic curiosity. Almost any tidbit of
actual history can have interest and value as adding to knowledge and
understanding of humankind. "Horizontal" genealogy included, as
relationships between individuals and families in their own time and
even across living-memory stretches of time can illuminate behaviours.
But "vertical" genealogy across millennia - surely not so much.

Peter Stewart

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

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> > Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
> recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

test

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>
> > Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
> recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Yes just so. The purported line which makes the House of Savoy descend from the Bagratid's has a lot of guesses and hand waving in it.

On 2/21/2024 9:51 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
>> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
>> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
>> recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>>
>> Stewart Baldwin
>
> Yes just so. The purported line which makes the House of Savoy descend from the Bagratid's has a lot of guesses and hand waving in it.

Just as a general rule, the more exotic/desirable the line, the more
relaxed the standards of evidence tend to become.

taf

A quarta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2024 à(s) 17:52:00 UTC, Will Johnson escreveu:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> > On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity, don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
> > I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry. I vaguely remember
> > something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but my
> > recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
> >
> > Stewart Baldwin
> Yes just so. The purported line which makes the House of Savoy descend from the Bagratid's has a lot of guesses and hand waving in it.
Please, elaborate.

taf wrote:

> On 2/18/2024 10:12 AM, miked wrote:
>> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/15/2024 10:24 AM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Stewart, I know this was back in 2020, but the House of Savoy
>>>> has known Bagratid ancestry. That leads to a Descent From Antiquity,
>>>> don't you think? The Bagratids married with the senior branch of the
>>>> Mamikonids which can be assumed to be descended from the
>>>> Gregorid-Mamikonid marriage.
>>
>>> I'm not so sure about "known" Bagratid ancestry.  I vaguely remember
>>> something along those lines (going through the kings of Cyprus?), but
>>> my recollection is that it included a large amount of guesswork.
>>
>>> Stewart Baldwin
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance, but why bother with a dodgy line via the Savoyards?
>> Wernt the later kings of Georgia [i believe the last was George XII
>> d1800 who had 23 kids] descended from the Bagratids or
>> Bagratuni/Bagration dynasts who ruled in Armenia and Georgia in the
>> Middle Ages?

> For whatever reason, there is interest in identifying connections to
> Western European dynasties. For those, even for the dodgy ones (dodgy
> connections, not necessarily dodgy dynasties), you often end up with a
> medieval tie-in to the Bagratids rather than a modern one.

> taf

I have a bit more interest in DFA research, but I notice that most of the researchers
into this tend to be 'believers' whereas i tend to be sceptical that we can ever
confirm a particular line especially if it has to descend to western europe. So a DFA
from Confucius isnt any use unless it ends in the west! But i get your point as
most of the interest is from people in the west.

However any DFA that come via the Mamikonians raises problems as that family is poorly
documented, even though descents from them have regularly been posted here for discussion over
many years. Usually its just lines from a secondary source, such as Settipani's Nos Ancetres de
l'Antiquite. To be fair to these researchers, like Settipani & Toumanoff etc, their
tables and trees are usually replete with dotted lines, which are then made solid by subsequent
posters on the net. However theres not usually been much discussion on what are the primary
sources for all this speculation. As I see it such lines depend on a series of gateway ancestors
who form links to other familes or dynasties. As I am not so upto speed on all the various
individuals in the chain I shall just deal with certain vital links.

1 AIUI a primary source [?Moses of Khoren] says that Hamazasp Mamikonian married the daughter
of the Patriarch Isaac (d439). She was a descendant of Gregory the Illuminator (d328?) son
of Anak the Suren, who was the cousin of the first christian king of Armenia, Tiridates III
[dc330] a descendant of Vologeses V of Parthia [d208]. The relationships of various Arsacids
are also rather poorly documented but at least we are in late antiquity. So here is the
Arsacid - Mamikonian link.

2 Jumping forward 3 centuries, Sembat VII Bagratuni [d775] who was the ancestor of the later
Bagratids of Armenia and maybe Iberia as well, is often said on the net to be the son in
law of Samuel Mamikonian. I dont know what the source is for this. The question then even
so is whether this Samuel is descended from Hamazasp. This was Toumanoffs belief [Cyrille
Toumanoff, Manuel de Généalogie et de Chronologie pour l'histoire de la Caucasie Chrétienne
(Arménie - Géorgie - Albanie) table 15 and table 71, are the refs I've seen on the net], but
if he was descended from another branch of the family, this rather kills any DFA at this point.
Anyway this is the Mamikonian - Bagratid link.

3 After this there have been a number of proposed routes which link the Bagratids to
various Crusader dynasts and families. Most recently discussed on this group was
the Taronites, so called after the Bagratid princes of Taron or Taroun in Armenia
in the 9th-10th centuries and the Byzantine aristocratic family of the same name. Anyway
Sembat VII was the father of Ashot Msaker [d826] whose descendants ruled Taron until they
surrendered it to the Byzantines in 968, and the family then appears in Byzantine service
for the next 200 years. Such is the Bagratid - Taron link.

4 Again Byzantine families are notoriously difficult to reconstruct, but a Taronitissa
[later she was called Maria apparently] was the mother of Maria Comnena [d1217] who
married Amalric I [d1174] and she was the mother of Queen Isabella I of Jerusalem [d1205]
This is the Taronites - Crusader link.

5 From Queen Isabella, there are a number of descents from her 4 daughters, but for UK-USA
the significant 1 is her daughter Alice [d1246] who married Hugh I of Cyprus [d1218]
and was the ancestor of Jacquette of Luxembourg-St.Pol Duchess of Bedford [d1472], who by
her 2nd marriage to Richard Woodville was the mother of Elizabeth Woodville [d1492] who married
Edward IV from whom 000s descend. This was discussed just a few years ago on this group
so I assume its correct.

Concerning the original query about the Savoyards, Louis Duke of Savoy (d1465) married Anne
daughter of John/Janus king of Cyprus a descendant of Alice, and they had many descendants.

On these links 1-5, I would say that only 3 and 5 seem reasonably solid, and I have not
looked at them all in detail, but they are accepted by historians. I have looked briefly
at nos 2 and 4, which definitely appear to be of the dotted line type, where random
mentions of people with the same name in documentary sources down the years are made into
direct line descendants generation after generation. As for 1, its impossible to say
whether this belongs to legend or history, it depends on what you want to believe.

Mike

On 2/21/2024 4:37 PM, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> A quarta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2024 à(s) 17:52:00 UTC, Will Johnson escreveu:

>> Yes just so. The purported line which makes the House of Savoy descend from the Bagratid's has a lot of guesses and hand waving in it.

> Please, elaborate.

There is no reason that someone needs to elaborate on their reasons for
doubting a fanciful theory for which no reasonable evidence has been put
forward. The burden of proof lies with whoever wishes to claim that a
link is true.

Stewart Baldwin