On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:

> Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.

I have to backtrack a bit
It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree..

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:05:24 PM UTC-6, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:

> However should we address your claim that Harald Fairhair was born *in* 950 (or 951) at all?
> Since the majority of academics do not think that Harald "fairhair" ever existed in the first place

While skepticism regarding Harald Fairhair is justified, I think that this statement goes too far in the negative direction, assuming that we wish to avoid being completely literal to the point of being misleading. Certainly, if "ever existed" is interpreted as meaning that there was a king Harald nicknamed "Fairhair" in his own lifetime who was responsible for unifying Norway in the ninth century, then the "existence" of such a king could be regarded as doubtful. However, I think that it would be widely accepted as at least plausible (if not directly proven by contemporary evidence) that there was a shadowy king Harald (called son of Halfdan in the poetic sources naming him) who may have been the father of the kings called Erik "Bloodaxe" and Hakon. Erik "Bloodaxe" can plausibly (but not certainly) be identified with the king of York of that name, who is called a son of an unidentified Harald in tenth century English sources. It seems likely that the English sources are correct in giving the nickname "Fairhair" to the king Harald (maternal half-brother of St. Olaf) who was killed at Stamford Bridge in 1066, called "Hardrada" in the Icelandic and Norwegian sources. rather than to the vague earlier Harald, but I don't think the confusion regarding the nickname is sufficient to disprove the existence of the earlier Harald. That being said, even assuming that the earlier Harald existed, it is of course ridiculous to suggest that any detailed outline to his career can be extracted, or that a supposed ninth century month and year of birth can be deduced from vague statements made hundreds of years later.

Stewart Baldwin

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:34:54 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
>
> > Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
> I have to backtrack a bit
> It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree..
Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this here Frankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.

Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 15:36:24 UTC+1 schreef Darrell E. Larocque:

> Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research.<
[knip]
> So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given. <
>
> Darrell E. Larocque

Darrell,

True, we are on the same line of thought. Looking back I should have better stated:
Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true in what not can be proven or disproven. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail.

In my case the story about the origins of the castellans of Montfoort goes as follows.
Something happened around 1260 and a younger son of the Lords of Rode had to flee the Dutchy of Brabant and came to the court of the count of Holland and the bishop of Utrecht. In due time he was installed as the Castellan of Montfoort, his mother being a younger daughter of a former castellan, the elder married daughter being dead without children. In 1448 a later castellan was imprisoned by his son and before he died he told what he knew about his ancestors to a servant or confidant. This person wrote the story down en the parchment with the story was handed down the family to a grandson who died c.1530. The parchment survived and became noticed in the academic world of the 16th and 17th century. The story was published in print in 1719 in a 'general work' about the diocese of Utrecht.
In 1957 it was critically reviewed in a thesis on the castellans of Montfoort.

Yes, the orally handed down story and the written down version had shortcomings: mixed-up persons and chronological events. As the castellans were prominent in the history of Utrecht and Holland these items could easily be checked.

About the ancestor (the first castellan) it became likely that his story had integrated a remarkeble event from his own father, who probably was the person who had to flee. Although these events (elder brother dying leaving two daughters who lavishly donated ecclesiastical institutions, canonical murder and mayhem) are not known in Brabant some aspects in the story ring true. Before that time there were indeed Lords of Rode and according the local custom and the right of succession the younger son would have become Lord of Rode bypassing the daughters of his deceased brother. The Lords of Rode are also attested in having a attachment to two of the three ecclesiastical institutions. As several generations of castellans are known to have short fuses it is very imaginable that the ancestor was shorttempered in his trying to revers the pious donations of his nieces.

That's what I mean with the remark, one never knows for sure if there are kernels in a oral story that hold up if you look deeper. One should be critical but also aware that something indeed could have happened. In the above example we have an event around 1260 (in Brabant) told and written down in 1448 (in Utrecht) and published in 1719 that is indeed possible and likely if we view it in a bigger historical and genealogical picture. It gave me an inside in reviewing the Brabantse family of the Lords of Rode and their junior branches and descendants. The future will tell if academic circles will accept my hypothesis.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:51:26 AM UTC, AC Grant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:34:54 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
> > I have to backtrack a bit
> > It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.
> Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this here Frankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.
Sorry.... hyperbole obviously

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> I meant of course ca 860
I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering..

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 12:51:26 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 2:34:54 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 3:58:35 PM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Josephus, whom you quote, also stated that Herod himself was a Hasmonean, at least he implies it, if you put together various statements he makes in various parts of his work. So he wasn't just killing off the last ruling family, but his own kin. A great deal of ink has been spilled detailing the entire family and we don't find anyone who could be Joseph or Mary in those trees.
> > I have to backtrack a bit
> > It now seems clear that *someone* has done original research into synthesizing several statements of Josephus into a line extending from the Maccabees to Herod. This line appears to be spurious however, as many other writers state explicitly that Herod's father was an Idumaean and even the priest of a temple to Apollo. So clearly not a member of the Hasmonean family tree.
> Err.... no.... you need to backtrack a LOT. Someone tried to use my papers about Jesus as a slur against me, so I felt the need to respond, but there is no way the time of Jesus could be labelled "mediaeval" so I will refrain from pursuing this here Frankly you should have joined the academia discussion at the time. Also I think, Will, that posting here exacerbates your tendency to hyperbola (as pointed out passim) because you are declaiming to an audience.

Yes. I stand alone. On a mountainside. Preaching the Truth to the captive masses below.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > I meant of course ca 860
> I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door).. The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.

OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?

He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?

Just to catch everyone up.
Here are some sources with the text extracted....

I don't see where he was 70 when he died

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMANDY.htm

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > I meant of course ca 860
> > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).

It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
>
> He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
Will

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 9:05:58 PM UTC, AC Grant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > > I meant of course ca 860
> > > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> > OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> > What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
> None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
> Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
> By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
> YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my book).
>
> It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
> Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
> >
> > He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
> It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> > So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
> Broadly yes. These marriages were political.

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 9:05:58 PM UTC, AC Grant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > > I meant of course ca 860
> > > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> > OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> > What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
> None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
> Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
> By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
> YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
>
> It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
> Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
> >
> > He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
> It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> > So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
> Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
> Will
Err... for "paper" read "book".

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > > I meant of course ca 860
> > > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> > OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> > What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
> None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
> Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
> By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
> YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
>
> It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
> Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
> >
> > He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
> It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> > So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
> Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
> Will

They can't be "broadly" of the right age to marry each other, without any evidence of their age.
You could say a man of 70 is broadly the right age to marry a girl of 12
It's a meaningless statement

I did not claim that people saying c860 were "authorities""
I said if you were using credible sources, this is most commonly cited birth information for Rollo

I believe personally, this sort of artifice to be a crutch used by the feeble minded
We can say well he was living in 928 and no one mentioned how incredibly aged he was, so perhaps he was only say 80 at that time. We can say well he appears to have been active as a leader in battle in 900 so he was probably at least 30

We can make statements like that based on the extant sources
What we cannot say is that he was born *in* 846 or even 860 or any other particular year, without a source stating that, or a source from which an approximation that closely, can be made. We don't have that in the case of Rollo or even Ganger-Hrolf if you think they are separate people.

We might say, he was *living* in 910.....
The only acceptable sources are actual *credible* sources

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:26:55 AM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 1:05:58 PM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 8:48:17 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 7:20:54 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 9:05:24 PM UTC, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:.
> > > > > I meant of course ca 860
> > > > I wonder, Will, whether you ever stopped for a moment to consider where this 860 date came from?
> > > > The answer is easy and is "obvious" to any sophomore who thinks that Hrolfr and Hrollaug are interchangeable (not that I am laying that at you door). The 860 date is arrived at by starting with the death of Rollo (now called Robert) c930 and going back 70 years: kinda obvious (to any sophomore). So this date entirely depends on the conflation.
> > > > As I have shown my date not only fits the rest of the family tree, but it also conforms with the analysis of the Landnamabok. But my analysis would fail completely if Rolf=Rollo. I also show WHY Rolf called his son Rollo (and his other one Guthrum) and his daughter Caitlin. Not only that but Rollo was of the right age to marry Poppa and was still young enough to be marrying Giselle in 911 (given that this one at least was a Christian marriage we have to assume that Poppa had died in the interim, but her family remained important to the Dukes right through to the invasion of England).
> > > > Given that Rolf was so "stout" that no horse could carry him (whence "Gangu") it is not feasible to consider a long life for him (imagine the wear and tear on his hips and knees alone!). Actually 65 is doing well, considering.
> > > OK and what is your basis for 'going back 70 years'
> > > What is the source that states that he died aged 70 ?
> > None... that's the point.... whoever offered this date was plucking a number out of air (yet you claim whoever it may be as an authority)..
> > Nothing to do with me.... Don't ask me to justify the stupidity of sophomores.
> > By the way fmg clearly supposes that Rolf and Rollo are one person. They say "he" died c930. I accept the time window for the death of Rollo.
> > YOU claim people say "he" was born 960. I have explained why they say that. They are wrong (for which see my paper).
> >
> > It is clear to me that it was his father's death which allowed Rollo to bend the knee to the French king - a thing Rolf would never have done.
> > Rolf could have died before 911 - even 900 (but I think he didn't).
> > >
> > > He "was of the right age" to marry a woman who we hae no idea when she was born ?
> > It does not matter beyond that (as in the case of Rolf) he would have been 65 when marrying Giselle and I think that would be a bit steep even for a king of France.
> > > So for neither of them, do we know within perhaps five or ten years either side when they were born, but they were of the right age to marry each other?
> > Broadly yes. These marriages were political.
> > Will
> They can't be "broadly" of the right age to marry each other, without any evidence of their age.
> You could say a man of 70 is broadly the right age to marry a girl of 12
> It's a meaningless statement
>
> I did not claim that people saying c860 were "authorities""
> I said if you were using credible sources, this is most commonly cited birth information for Rollo
>
> I believe personally, this sort of artifice to be a crutch used by the feeble minded
> We can say well he was living in 928 and no one mentioned how incredibly aged he was, so perhaps he was only say 80 at that time. We can say well he appears to have been active as a leader in battle in 900 so he was probably at least 30
>
> We can make statements like that based on the extant sources
> What we cannot say is that he was born *in* 846 or even 860 or any other particular year, without a source stating that, or a source from which an approximation that closely, can be made. We don't have that in the case of Rollo or even Ganger-Hrolf if you think they are separate people.
>
> We might say, he was *living* in 910.....
> The only acceptable sources are actual *credible* sources

**You are now trying to make a faux distinction between "authorities" and "credible sources" - and "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder - adding rotational velocity. Men have not yet made a pin sharp enough to account for this attempt at dancing.
**You keep on referring to "him" when "he" is really "they" (Why do you disrespect Old Norse so much? Errr.... don't answer this; the question is rhetorical.)
**Clearly you assert that you belong to the pedant school of history which is why the discipline has stultified. A huge amount of history has no "source" of the sort you claim to require - and so if any progress is to be made, interpolation and extrapolation is required and the way that progress is made is by subjecting any such to vigorous examination (ironically your 860 date is precisely that sort of extrapolation and I have examined it and found it wanting) - but that is NOT what you are doing or even attempting to do. I will leave you in your putrid pool of unknowing.
You already have all the answers you could possibly need and anyone else who may, for some bizarre reason, be continuing to follow this "thread" knows this perfectly well. The silence from elsewhere demonstrates that for any rational person this exchange had already exceeded common sense and I will indulge you no further. So far as I can see what you want is the last word.. If so go ahead and reply to this....

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 1:48:36 AM UTC-8, AC Grant wrote:
> **You are now trying to make a faux distinction between "authorities" and "credible sources" - and "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder - adding rotational velocity. Men have not yet made a pin sharp enough to account for this attempt at dancing.
> **You keep on referring to "him" when "he" is really "they" (Why do you disrespect Old Norse so much? Errr.... don't answer this; the question is rhetorical.)
> **Clearly you assert that you belong to the pedant school of history which is why the discipline has stultified. A huge amount of history has no "source" of the sort you claim to require - and so if any progress is to be made, interpolation and extrapolation is required and the way that progress is made is by subjecting any such to vigorous examination (ironically your 860 date is precisely that sort of extrapolation and I have examined it and found it wanting) - but that is NOT what you are doing or even attempting to do. I will leave you in your putrid pool of unknowing.
>
> You already have all the answers you could possibly need and anyone else who may, for some bizarre reason, be continuing to follow this "thread" knows this perfectly well. The silence from elsewhere demonstrates that for any rational person this exchange had already exceeded common sense and I will indulge you no further. So far as I can see what you want is the last word. If so go ahead and reply to this....

You keep insisting you are going to stop relying and then keep replying.
However I'm not stating that the ca 860 date itself is "credible" or "authoritative"
I'm only stating that within more credible sources then your invisible ones you have cited and not cited, that those more credible actual sources use "ca 860".

I personally think that this "ca 860" is as meaningless as "ca 850" or "ca870" even
There is no logic to just grabbing a particular decade and claiming this *is* the decade, esp. as his "life" is subject to such a wide range of credulousness and scrutiny both

Yes thank you I am a pedant. I insist on sources for claims such as"his birth year of 846 is *secure*"

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 4:35:47 AM UTC-5, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op zaterdag 8 januari 2022 om 15:36:24 UTC+1 schreef Darrell E. Larocque:
> > Oral history is problematic and shouldn't be trusted as gospel, only as a guide by which to conduct further research.<
> [knip]
> > So you see I have no trust whatsoever in oral history and to continue to use it as a trusted source without question is reckless and irresponsible.. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used, but extreme caution should be used and perspective given. <
> >
> > Darrell E. Larocque
> Darrell,
>
> True, we are on the same line of thought. Looking back I should have better stated:
> Long story short. Oral history has its shortcomings but you may never now what can be true in what not can be proven or disproven. Or better said, what can be explained better by someone who happens to trip over a detail.
>
> In my case the story about the origins of the castellans of Montfoort goes as follows.
> Something happened around 1260 and a younger son of the Lords of Rode had to flee the Dutchy of Brabant and came to the court of the count of Holland and the bishop of Utrecht. In due time he was installed as the Castellan of Montfoort, his mother being a younger daughter of a former castellan, the elder married daughter being dead without children. In 1448 a later castellan was imprisoned by his son and before he died he told what he knew about his ancestors to a servant or confidant. This person wrote the story down en the parchment with the story was handed down the family to a grandson who died c.1530. The parchment survived and became noticed in the academic world of the 16th and 17th century. The story was published in print in 1719 in a 'general work' about the diocese of Utrecht.
> In 1957 it was critically reviewed in a thesis on the castellans of Montfoort.
>
> Yes, the orally handed down story and the written down version had shortcomings: mixed-up persons and chronological events. As the castellans were prominent in the history of Utrecht and Holland these items could easily be checked.
>
> About the ancestor (the first castellan) it became likely that his story had integrated a remarkeble event from his own father, who probably was the person who had to flee. Although these events (elder brother dying leaving two daughters who lavishly donated ecclesiastical institutions, canonical murder and mayhem) are not known in Brabant some aspects in the story ring true. Before that time there were indeed Lords of Rode and according the local custom and the right of succession the younger son would have become Lord of Rode bypassing the daughters of his deceased brother. The Lords of Rode are also attested in having a attachment to two of the three ecclesiastical institutions. As several generations of castellans are known to have short fuses it is very imaginable that the ancestor was shorttempered in his trying to revers the pious donations of his nieces.
>
> That's what I mean with the remark, one never knows for sure if there are kernels in a oral story that hold up if you look deeper. One should be critical but also aware that something indeed could have happened. In the above example we have an event around 1260 (in Brabant) told and written down in 1448 (in Utrecht) and published in 1719 that is indeed possible and likely if we view it in a bigger historical and genealogical picture. It gave me an inside in reviewing the Brabantse family of the Lords of Rode and their junior branches and descendants. The future will tell if academic circles will accept my hypothesis.
>
> With regards,
> Hans Vogels

Hans,

No need to explain yourself... I understood where you were coming from. I have been working on my research pretty hard over the last few days and I apologize for not responding sooner!

I have no experience with records from the Netherlands as I have had no real cause to consult them, but the ancestry of the Halewijn and van der Clyte families are eventually going to have to be on my list, but only if the Robert de Joyeuse problem is explained in my ancestry from someone who actually has access to records from France. It stems from oral history of course in a 1733 notarial act, someone claiming that they were the descendant of a disinherited son, Francois. It's a mess so I have chosen not to go down that road because I cannot simply fly to France and it is unfortunate.

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/champorret.htm#FrancoisJoyeusedied1556B

Thanks again for your responses and I wish you luck on the acceptance of your work!

Darrell