| As of 18 August 2010, you must register to edit pages on Rodovid (except Rodovid Engine). |
User talk:Almoustine
From Rodovid EN
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 05:41, 14 March 2010 (edit) Almoustine (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 08:35, 14 March 2010 (edit) (undo) Almoustine (Talk | contribs) (Removing all content from page) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ==Sandbox== | ||
| - | |||
| - | ---- | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==POST A QUESTION OR COMMENT== | ||
| - | |||
| - | ---- | ||
| - | == About including Gods in the Family Tree == | ||
| - | Please Don't! I understand that legendary and mythical kings may appear in lineages... that is fine as long as we realize they were once ordinary or extraordinary men and women and there is some form of documentation to substantiate the claim. However there are many times when I find a God listed instead of the ancestor (or lineage) who properly belongs there. Athough a Gods name can give us clues where to look to find the ancestor we are searching for, putting in the ultimate creator in that spot caps off the lineage and makes us think we have reached our ultimate end point for that lineage. | ||
| - | Such a practice is unfair to the actual living human being who should be represented in that spot. I will unlink Gods if I find them. Also...for fundamentalists among us that believe the world is only 6000 years old...get a clue! Some DFA lineages go back to 3000 and 4000 bc. Please don't put God in there if he doesnt belong (I don't care what you call him/her) or else bewilling to accept the notion that God wasn't actually a god but an ordinary being who may or may not be correctly identified and may end up being deleted. If we want to document Pantheons let's have Baya create a separate database to hold that data and not mix it in with our family trees. [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 21:32, 19 May 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | :You should move this discussion to the main page´s discussion or to the help page, because it's a very important topic to resolve in the Rodovid´s community. regards--[[User:R0MAN0|R0MAN0]] 21:47, 19 May 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Wessex vs. Atheling == | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hi, I see that you have reverted some of my changes to various Kings of Wessex. I think "Wessex" is more appropriate given that they are members of the House of Wessex, while "Atheling" is merely an Anglo-Saxon term for someone with royal blood, but was not used as an actual name until much later. Can we dialog about this before we get into an edit war? Thanks! [[User:Stephen Carlson|Stephen Carlson]] 07:11, 13 March 2008 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hello Steven, | ||
| - | Sure, see my comments on your discussion page. [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 17:18, 13 March 2008 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | :(moved from my talk page to here so we can keep the discussion in one place) Hello Steven, Sure, Here is the deal. Wessex is a location. There are many intermarrying lineages within Wessex and Kent. To designate them all as Wessex masks some important interrelationships between tribes. BTW... the name Atheling does mean noble but also is the proper clan designation for the decendents of Athelwulf who happened to be the clan chief from whom the kings of Wessex derive their identity. Athel means nobleone not necessarily "royalty". These kings and their children were actually identified by the surname appellate "The Atheling" in records other than English (I.e. France, Spain, and Italy). If we continue to call them Wessex then we will end up with all kinds of trouble when the lineages start to mix and when the children start to inherit from their mothers. There is a reason for Clan name... and it is not to describe locale but rather line of descent. Wessex may be a proper term to use for these kings in terms of history papers... but when it comes to genealogy it really needs to be a relevant clan name, in which case Atheling as the descendents of Athelwulf. Almoustine 17:18, 13 March 2008 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | ::OK, I agree that Wessex is a location, and that Aetheling was used as a clan designation post-Aethelwulf (post-Egbert, really), so we agree on that point. I am mostly concerned about consistency, so I don't much care whether we go with Wessex or Aetheling, but it seems to me that we should have a consistent clan name for all the members of the House of Wessex, from Cerdic onwards, and Aetheling doesn't apply to anyone before Aethelwulf. Or is the point that you are making is that there are other descendants from the house of Wessex ruling other kingdoms, and to call them all Wessex masks the special line of descent from Aethelwulf that is ancestor to the later kings of England? If that's the case, I'm cool with changing them all to Atheling. Can we use "Ætheling" though, just to be more respectful of the Old English spelling? [[User:Stephen Carlson|Stephen Carlson]] 20:42, 13 March 2008 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hi Steven, you are correct in your assertion that the term Ætheling would not apply to anyone before Aethelwulf. However they were a patrilineage so any of his children (legitimate or awknowledged) would be Athelings. The Athelings passed from power but still hung around to blend with the Normans, Welsh ans Scots, so yes. Naming them Wessex masks the extent to which this family intermarried and passed down through the generations. I have been doing a great deal of investigation on the use of tribal designations among the various races in England just prior to the advent of the Athelings. I believe if we use those it would give a clearer picture of the genealogical relationships between the tribes that could help us push past some traditional barriers in researching further back. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Naming in England has always been problematic. This issue with the Atheling kings of Wessex and Kent, becomes problematic again after the Norman Invasion where the surname of the English Kings would "Knytling" (Descent from Canute) To "Norman" (descent from Rollo) until the advent of the Plantagenets through intermarriage with the Normans, Athough it stays relatively stable as Plantagenent until the ascent of the Welsh Tudors. | ||
| - | |||
| - | However with regard to Wessex/Atheling the Scots at the time of the Athelings were undergoing a radical change in social structure with the crossover inheritance patterns in the families descended from both the Norse/Irish (Patrilineages) and the Dalriada/Pictic (Matrilineages) so St. Margaret the Atheling is going to be a problem any suggestion? | ||
| - | |||
| - | I am good with Ætheling but am a pragmatist who recognizes that a more useful standard for the majority of the users in this space will be Atheling. Perhaps we can edit the Atheling Surname page to make note of the spelling! :) [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 20:59, 13 March 2008 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Odin / Aulus Didius Gallus == | ||
| - | |||
| - | Regarding [[Person:58467]]: I'm wondering what your sources are for the statement that they are one and the same. I'd be interested in finding more about this; also, that statement's likely to be challenged. --[[engine:User:Wikiacc|Wikiacc]] ([[engine:User talk:Wikiacc|≈]]) 01:27, 17 July 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | Without getting into a whole essay. The traditional sources of this information come from the Poetic Edda, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, cross referenced against Roman Histories, letters, and occupational records. Various other ready references were used such as compiled lists of Odin's names, Lists of his supposed descendants, archaelogical records, artifacts, and modern DNA findings to establish migration patterns and racial mix of the European and Central Asian people during the centuries 400BC-100AD. Artifacts such as the Gundestrup Cauldron and other gravegoods and archaeological artifacts show a heavy influx of Gaelic/Celtic influence in the area of Denmark, Jutland, Saxony as well as Roman Occupation in the region during the time of the proposed historical Odin (some artifacts depict Odin astride an 8 legged horse, while others show him riding in a chariot (2 horses = 8 legs). | ||
| - | |||
| - | The evidence to support the widespread worship of Odin prior to 350-400AD does not exist. Most religious practices prior to this in the area of Scandinavia and northern Germany indicate a mix of Shamanistic and Fertility cults. It is evident then that the cult of Odin was not established until after approximately 100-300 AD and rapidly spread from the continent northward dragging Christianity in its wake. That Scandinavia was late to Christianize was due largely to the fact that Rome had fallen prior to the arrival of Christianity and without the Roman driving influence the movement of Christianity to Scandinavia was slow. Unlike Germania, Scandinavia was left to nourish and cultivate the Asartro (Cult of Odin) to its full flower before being called upon to deal with the Cult of Christ. The pantheon and mythological underpinnings such as the location of heaven and the status of the dead bear elements of Roman, Celtic (Druidic), and Persian (Mithraic) influence, while the myths and sagas themselves preserve a measure of historical accuracy in its mention of Locations and Races albeit in an allegorical manner suitable for meadhall entertainment. Peel off the layers of fiction and you are left with a surprisingly meaty kernal of historical context. | ||
| - | |||
| - | In the sagas Odin is referred to Eylúðr Darradr and elsewhere as Audun Langbarðr. Again in the Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál, and Grímnismál, he is called "Þriði (Thridi or the Third) which corresponds to the Roman Tertio/Tertius or Gallic "Tres" Welsh Tirs/Tyrs (meaning The Third) Which leads me to believe that the mythic Odin is actually a composite God whose nature reflects the combination of several historic men from the same Gens/Family. Again the three generation family of [[Person:58467]] considered together provide the most likely candidates for a composite Odin. The family/gens name of the three men, ''Aula'', means I see (''Aulus'' I am seeing). And the Pronomen Caesius is a color used to describe individuals with Blue/Green Eyes. When considered together with the historical Odin Waelsing (Likely a descendant himself of Aulus) thrown into the mix, we end up with a pretty likely candidate for a common human progenitor. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Though, until the smoking gun is found, I will go ahead and post a notice on [[Person:58467]] to alert fellow researchers that this is based on some new research that still has not yet been fully proven and is still largely circumstancial. (No smoking gun). [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 12:44, 18 July 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Using The Title Event == | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hello, I think that it will be more convenient and more interesting to use event "title" instead of put title of person into notes. With title event users can use special page Titleline (example: [[Special:Titleline/King of England]]) --[[engine:User:Baya|Baya]] 10:27, 15 October 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Will Do :) [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 15:40, 15 October 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Also, title value must be placed into event notes but not in place field. Cheese )) --[[engine:User:Baya|Baya]] 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Baya, I will admit I am a bit confused... can you post a couple of links... one where it is done incorrectly, and one where it is done correctly. That way I know what kind of changes to make... and where. :) [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 16:38, 23 October 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==The Kinship of Macbeth and William the Conquerer== | ||
| - | A study of the Scottish clan genealogies following the death of Macbeth reveal that his legacy survived in the lineage of the Stewart kings. Because of this, Shakespeare and Elizabethan (Tudor) historians had a vested interest in rewriting history to legitimize the Plantagenet/Tudor claim at the expense of the Norman/Stewarts. One of the ways to achieve this without doing outright harm to William was to downplay or hide his Scottish ties while playing up the Atheling claim through Matilda. That William had direct ties to Scotland is evident when one looks carefully. | ||
| - | |||
| - | In 1052, Macbeth received a number of Norman exiles from England in his court, perhaps becoming the first king of Scots to introduce Norman feudalism to Scotland. A careful study of Scottish surnames compared with the Domesday registry reveal that a great number of Norman nobles that accompanied William the Conquerer had in fact already preceeded him in the prior generation and and were already firmly established in their lands and fiefdoms in Scotland, Northern Wales and Northumberland prior to 1066. | ||
| - | |||
| - | The research sources of Nigel Tranter contains accounts of Macbeth's trip to Rome to petition the Pope for reconciliation on behalf of the Celtic Catholic Church. Macbeth traveled to Rome in the longships of his Norman kinsman [identified as his brother]. The kinsman in question would have been his brother-in-law Robert (the Devil) FitzRichard d'Everaux. Robert was the husband of Harelete (Arlette) and the father of William the Conquerer. William's mother Arlette (Harelete) was a daughter of Doda (Doada) MacMalcoluim by her first marriage to the French noble Fuhlburt Tonnerre d'Falaise who died in 1017. Doada returned to Scotland where she was married to Findlaech of Moray as his second "Norse" (Norman) wife. By Findlaech she had a son Maelbaetha MacFindlach (Macbeth) who inherited from his father the Pictish title Mormaer of Moray, and was elected by the Scottish nobles as regent and successor to his uncle Duncan MacMalcouim. Arlette's subsequent marriage to a minor noble engendered a son who accompanied the conquerer in 1066. Holingshead referrs to Robert de Burgh as Seigneur de Beart (Beathe/Baibd). This name is clearly Gaelic from the South of France; related surnames include Beaton, Burd, Monibhard, Tullibardin. It is interesting that this surname appears in the lineages of both King Macbeth (Macbeatha MacFindlach) and his Lady Grouch (Gruocj nicBoedhe MacCinaeda) which lends weight to the argument that Robert de Burgh was the grandson of Doda MacMalcolm the Princess of Scotland through the 2nd marriage of his mother Herleve d'Falaise. | ||
| - | |||
| - | As the son of the king's sister, William the Conquerer was recognized by a contingent of Scottish Nobles (with Pictish and Norman heritage) as a Tánaise Ríg with a legitimate claim to the throne of Scotland through the Pictish laws of Tanistry. In response to the ensuing political unrest in the British Isles resulting from Atheling support (for a paternal inheritance system) for the invasion of Scotland (with aims to restore Malcolm III to the throne of Scotland) William unites the Norman and French nobles to press his claim to for a united England and Scotland by invading England in 1066. (This by virtue of his wife Matilda's claim to the Atheling legacy, as well as his own to the throne of Scotland.) [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 15:59, 15 October 2008 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | == John Welles == | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hi, | ||
| - | |||
| - | Do you know what evidence there is to suggest that, as stated at http://en.rodovid.org/wk/Person:50887, | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | birth: 1450, Welles, Lincolnshire, England | ||
| - | death: 9 February 1499, Pasmers Place, Westminster, Middlesex, England | ||
| - | |||
| - | had a son. The only records I can find say he left only one daughter, Anne. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Thanks, | ||
| - | Jamie. | ||
| - | jvans@dsl.pipex.com | ||
| - | |||
| - | Hi Jamie, | ||
| - | Yes. The information on that line came from stirnet.net a genealogy line from the UK. Since you mention a possible discrepancy I will double check sources. It may take a month or so in my spare time to double check. I would be interested in seeing your information on the daughter Anne if you could register an account on rodovid and add that information to the tree (including sources) that might help me in my verification process. | ||
| - | Cheers....[[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 17:22, 20 October 2009 (EEST) | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==Hi== | ||
| - | Hi Almoustine. | ||
| - | I'm sorry for your strange blocking from a brazilian sysop. I guess that even some sysops still do not understand how rodovid works... --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 21:13, 1 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | ==[[Person:27759]] what a strange mix== | ||
| - | Almoustine, you should'nt mix records like that. This corrupts Rodovid's credibility, this is a pity! --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 19:51, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | This is not a strange mix. This is a matter of finding biological persons whose records have been preserved through study of the Egyptian, Assyrian, Mesopotamian, Greek and Hebrew records. They all had different languages and recorded these persons in different dialects however the person existed. Since these cultures share a common origin the various mythologies match. I am merely reconciling the various records which is the entire reason that Rodovid exists. [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 19:58, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | :I think you make a big mistake, this needs a public discussion between all administrators of Rodovid. Because of these kind of mixes, royal genealogical trees are unreadable in rodovid, mixed with that strange soup, where Adam and Eve lay beside Isis and Osiris. | ||
| - | :I think we should all discuss on [http://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Rd_Engine:Village_pump http://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Rd_Engine:Village_pump] --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 20:19, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | :: I do not agree about deletion but we must provide some signs that this record is under discussion. I ask you all to find different examples of records which are problematic to understand how can we resolve this problem. --[[User:Igor roz|Igor]] 20:27, 21 February 2010 (EET) Put them in Engine. | ||
| - | :::Hi Igor! I do not agree with deletion too. This kind of work should be apart the rest of genealogical trees because this is a too particular point of view. Could we take a decision, just like Wikipédia admins do? Don't you think we need to talk about this in Engine instead of Almoustine's discussion page? --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 20:47, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | :::: it's general problem - it's for engine --[[User:Igor roz|Igor]] 20:49, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | I agree totally I do not at all believe in cluttering up Rodovid with make-believe people. But there is a difference between mythological/legendary and make-believe. Make believe are people who are purely fictional and never existed (like Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter). But if through careful study of several comparative mythologies and reconciliation to the archaeological record indicate that a mythological/legendary person probably did exist in a given time and place and had a relationship to a person who can be historically verified then they deserve to be included right? | ||
| - | |||
| - | As an anthropologist I am trained to identify relationship through the use of Genetics, comparative records analysis, linguistics, and archaological record. If I am able to identify in the historical and archaelogical record a real person (whatever their name) using these means and am thereby able to locate a lost common ancestor then I should show it right? And I should include each name that they are known by in the records of their various descendants right? Well there are many who would argue that the Hebrew/English name Adam is not any less a mythological appellation (name) than Zeus or Osirius. After all, he appears in only one book (OK.. three books if you count the Bible, Talmud, and Quran... or 4 books if you include the Pearl of Great Price)... my point is that if I can show through comparative research (of these mentioned books, and the clay tablets of Mesopotamia, and the new emerging pre-diluvian Egyptian records) that Adam did more than likely exist and was a political leader in the Mesopotamian region then I have done nothing but bolster the validity of the Genealogical Record. | ||
| - | |||
| - | If you read through the notes in the English version of this database you will see that I have explanation of the identities and why they are linked into the record. This is in no way different than saying that Willem von Normandie is = to William the Bastard or William the Conqueror. These individuals were called different things by different people with different languages and cultures. But if they can be identified as individuals who lived or quite possibly have lived then they deserve recognition in the historical and genealogical record. Understanding this is what allows us as Historians and Anthropologists to push back the boundaries of man's limited understanding. So unlike Bishop Assur's handling of the genealogy of Alfred the Great. I have no interest in showing that humans were descended from make believe entities such as Gods. But I do know enough about archeology and history to realize that if enough time goes by even men become gods in the shared racial memory. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Ordinarily I would not touch the surname designations in other databases, but the generations from Adam to Noah were already corrupted to the point that everyone appeared the same color when you viewed the genealogical tree and it was incredibly difficult to view the extended relationships which is the entire point of having clan designations. I did not change anyone who was not already there. I only changed the clan designations to show who were the descendants of Seth and who were the descendants of Cain as reconciled between the Egyptian/Assyrian/and Hebrew records. By the way, if our purpose is to avoid mythological record then I do believe that Dynasty 0-C and Dynasty 0-S is historically and genealogically more accurate than "Sons of God". [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 20:55, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | :::Please see my answer [http://engine.rodovid.org/wk/Rd_Engine:Village_pump here]. What is tne meaning of ''make-believe''? --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 21:18, 21 February 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | ==Project DFA== | ||
| - | This is a pity. You're destroying a wonderfull idea: Rodovid. --[[User:Tesson|Christophe Tesson]] 03:16, 14 March 2010 (EET) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Tesson... lets make it clear that you are the one forcing the separation by refusing to awknowledge the historical record in favor of a strictly Christian view. Pity! If separating the records is the option then I will stick with the historical record, thank you! And invite anyone out there looking for the truth of genealogical and historical accuracy to join me [[User:Almoustine|Almoustine]] 07:41, 14 March 2010 (EET) | ||
