1. Pepin (The Young) 751-768
2. Berthe
3. Charles Martel (Acting KiIng of the Franks) 717-741
4. Caribert (Count of Laon)
5. Pepin (Mayor of the Palace) 688/90-714
6. Alpaïde
7. Berthe
8. Ansegisel

A sexta-feira, 1 de julho de 2022 à(s) 14:41:05 UTC+1, Dude escreveu:
> 1. Pepin (The Young) 751-768
> 2. Berthe
> 3. Charles Martel (Acting KiIng of the Franks) 717-741
> 4. Caribert (Count of Laon)
> 5. Pepin (Mayor of the Palace) 688/90-714
> 6. Alpaïde
> 7. Berthe
> 8. Ansegisel
I'd also count Arnulf of Metz, Oda, Pepin of Laden and Ida as proven.

Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5

was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
> https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
>
> was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf

Which is just hypothesis, not a documented connection. Chaume hypothesized (without substantive basis) that she was daughter of one of the Merovingian kings.

taf

On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
> > https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
> >
> > was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf
> Which is just hypothesis, not a documented connection. Chaume hypothesized (without substantive basis) that she was daughter of one of the Merovingian kings.
>
> taf

But this Hugobert was not a King, nor descendant of the Merovingians.....

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 10:33:38 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
> > > https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
> > >
> > > was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf
> > Which is just hypothesis, not a documented connection. Chaume hypothesized (without substantive basis) that she was daughter of one of the Merovingian kings.

> But this Hugobert was not a King, nor descendant of the Merovingians.....

No (at least to the 'king' part - I don't think his ancestry is _known_ well enough to determine whether he might have a Merovingian descent, but that's beside the point). My point was that there are multiple competing hypotheses.

I don't remember who proposed the Hugomert version, Werner? but Settipani made Bertrada Hugobert's daughter-in-law, and as I said, Chaume made her and her 'sisters' children of Theoderic III. Obviously, the second and third are not mutually-exclusive, but just because we can make them both fit doesn't mean we should.

taf

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 10:33:38 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
> > > > https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
> > > >
> > > > was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf
> > > Which is just hypothesis, not a documented connection. Chaume hypothesized (without substantive basis) that she was daughter of one of the Merovingian kings.
> > But this Hugobert was not a King, nor descendant of the Merovingians......
> No (at least to the 'king' part - I don't think his ancestry is _known_ well enough to determine whether he might have a Merovingian descent, but that's beside the point). My point was that there are multiple competing hypotheses.
>
> I don't remember who proposed the Hugomert version, Werner? but Settipani made Bertrada Hugobert's daughter-in-law, and as I said, Chaume made her and her 'sisters' children of Theoderic III. Obviously, the second and third are not mutually-exclusive, but just because we can make them both fit doesn't mean we should.
>
> taf

Leo is quoting Settipani, by making her his daughter.
Unless Leo got that wrong.
He cites Settipani in doing this....

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:23:24 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:16:58 AM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 10:33:38 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 5:15:52 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 11, 2022 at 11:53:03 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Bertrada "the Elder"'s father, according to
> > > > > https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000001&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
> > > > >
> > > > > was Hugobert, Seneschall, Pfalzgraf
> > > > Which is just hypothesis, not a documented connection. Chaume hypothesized (without substantive basis) that she was daughter of one of the Merovingian kings.
> > > But this Hugobert was not a King, nor descendant of the Merovingians......
> > No (at least to the 'king' part - I don't think his ancestry is _known_ well enough to determine whether he might have a Merovingian descent, but that's beside the point). My point was that there are multiple competing hypotheses.
> >
> > I don't remember who proposed the Hugomert version, Werner? but Settipani made Bertrada Hugobert's daughter-in-law, and as I said, Chaume made her and her 'sisters' children of Theoderic III. Obviously, the second and third are not mutually-exclusive, but just because we can make them both fit doesn't mean we should.
> >
> > taf
> Leo is quoting Settipani, by making her his daughter.
> Unless Leo got that wrong.
> He cites Settipani in doing this....

Oops. mea culpa
he is quoting Rösch, Siegfried. 1977

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:24:56 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:

> > Leo is quoting Settipani, by making her his daughter.
> > Unless Leo got that wrong.
> > He cites Settipani in doing this....
> Oops. mea culpa
> he is quoting Rösch, Siegfried. 1977

OK.... so backtracking through the sources, Leo may have gotten this from Rosch or from the Wikipedia article for Hugobert which claims that "some genealogists" attribute her as a daughter of Hugobert and Irmina.

The only source quoted is Settipani's addedum which is publicly available

Settipani, Christian (1990), "Addenda aux "Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 1990" (PDF).
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf

*However*, Settipani does *not* say this.

He has this Hugobert married to Theodrada, having a daughter named Irmina (dotted line) who herself then had a daughter named Bertrada, and that she was the mother of Charibert Count of Laon

So the whole thing is messed up.

On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:24:56 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>
> > > Leo is quoting Settipani, by making her his daughter.
> > > Unless Leo got that wrong.
> > > He cites Settipani in doing this....
> > Oops. mea culpa
> > he is quoting Rösch, Siegfried. 1977
> OK.... so backtracking through the sources, Leo may have gotten this from Rosch or from the Wikipedia article for Hugobert which claims that "some genealogists" attribute her as a daughter of Hugobert and Irmina.
>
> The only source quoted is Settipani's addedum which is publicly available
>
> Settipani, Christian (1990), "Addenda aux "Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 1990" (PDF).
> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf
>
> *However*, Settipani does *not* say this.
>
> He has this Hugobert married to Theodrada, having a daughter named Irmina (dotted line) who herself then had a daughter named Bertrada, and that she was the mother of Charibert Count of Laon
>
> So the whole thing is messed up.

Ok, that's another variant, so I don't know who is responsible for the son-in-law version (I suppose it could have been invented just so that the Hugobert connection could be maintained while still going all in on the highly-desirable Merovingian connection). I seem to remember the Hugobert connection appeared in Werner, Nachkommen Karls des Grossen (1967), but it is packed away so I can't look up whether it originated there.

taf

On 13-Jul-22 5:03 AM, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 11:24:56 AM UTC-7, Will Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>> Leo is quoting Settipani, by making her his daughter.
>>>> Unless Leo got that wrong.
>>>> He cites Settipani in doing this....
>>> Oops. mea culpa
>>> he is quoting Rösch, Siegfried. 1977
>> OK.... so backtracking through the sources, Leo may have gotten this from Rosch or from the Wikipedia article for Hugobert which claims that "some genealogists" attribute her as a daughter of Hugobert and Irmina.
>>
>> The only source quoted is Settipani's addedum which is publicly available
>>
>> Settipani, Christian (1990), "Addenda aux "Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 1990" (PDF).
>> http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~medieval/addcharlENG.pdf
>>
>> *However*, Settipani does *not* say this.
>>
>> He has this Hugobert married to Theodrada, having a daughter named Irmina (dotted line) who herself then had a daughter named Bertrada, and that she was the mother of Charibert Count of Laon
>>
>> So the whole thing is messed up.
>
> Ok, that's another variant, so I don't know who is responsible for the son-in-law version (I suppose it could have been invented just so that the Hugobert connection could be maintained while still going all in on the highly-desirable Merovingian connection). I seem to remember the Hugobert connection appeared in Werner, Nachkommen Karls des Grossen (1967), but it is packed away so I can't look up whether it originated there.

Do you mean Karl Ferdinand Werner, and if so are thinking of 'Bedeutende
Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls des Grossen' in vol. 1 of *Karl der Grosse:
Lebenswerk und Nachleben* (1965) rather than 'Nachkommen' in vol. 4
(1967, which is about Charlemagne's descendants not ancestors)?

Either way, I doubt that he messed anything up in this matter - by my
memory he agreed with Eduard Hlawitschka in 'Die Vorfahren Karls des
Grossen' in vol. 1.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Le vendredi 1 juillet 2022 à 15:41:05 UTC+2, Dude a écrit :
> 1. Pepin (The Young) 751-768
> 2. Berthe
> 3. Charles Martel (Acting KiIng of the Franks) 717-741
> 4. Caribert (Count of Laon)
> 5. Pepin (Mayor of the Palace) 688/90-714
> 6. Alpaïde
> 7. Berthe
> 8. Ansegisel

There are all the proved ancestors in Settipani's "Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 2014 2e édition

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 3:33:57 AM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> Le vendredi 1 juillet 2022 à 15:41:05 UTC+2, Dude a écrit :
> > 1. Pepin (The Young) 751-768
> > 2. Berthe
> > 3. Charles Martel (Acting KiIng of the Franks) 717-741
> > 4. Caribert (Count of Laon)
> > 5. Pepin (Mayor of the Palace) 688/90-714
> > 6. Alpaïde
> > 7. Berthe
> > 8. Ansegisel
> There are all the proved ancestors in Settipani's "Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 2014 2e édition

With much of Setipani's work being hypothesis-based, you are going to have to be more specific which additional ones you consider proven.

taf

Le vendredi 15 juillet 2022 à 15:14:03 UTC+2, taf a écrit :
> On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 3:33:57 AM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> > Le vendredi 1 juillet 2022 à 15:41:05 UTC+2, Dude a écrit :
> > > 1. Pepin (The Young) 751-768
> > > 2. Berthe
> > > 3. Charles Martel (Acting KiIng of the Franks) 717-741
> > > 4. Caribert (Count of Laon)
> > > 5. Pepin (Mayor of the Palace) 688/90-714
> > > 6. Alpaïde
> > > 7. Berthe
> > > 8. Ansegisel
> > There are all the proved ancestors in Settipani's "Les Ancêtres de Charlemagne", 2014 2e édition
> With much of Setipani's work being hypothesis-based, you are going to have to be more specific which additional ones you consider proven.
>
> taf
I misspoke: only the 8 people mentioned are considered proven ancestors of Charlemagne.

On Thursday, July 21, 2022 at 4:52:53 AM UTC-5, Olivier wrote:
> I misspoke: only the 8 people mentioned are considered proven ancestors of Charlemagne.

It would be better to say that in Settipani's opinion, these eight individuals are the ancestors of Charlemagne who are documented by solid contemporary evidence. Despite my admiration for Settipani's work in general, his emphasis of this point has always left a bad taste in my mouth. Since the list excludes some individuals (such as Bishop Arnulf of Metz) whose evidence for being ancestors of Charlemagne is very good (if not strictly contemporary), this approach almost seems like an excuse to lower standards. After all, if Arnulf is only a 98.7% proven ancestor of Charlemagne (a percentage I just now invented for the sake of argument), shouldn't we also include 95% proven ancestors, 90% proven, 80%, 70%, . . . ? Where do we draw the line? In fact, as any experienced genealogist knows, there are a multitude of shades of grey between "solidly documented" and "false" (to which "percentages" cannot be reasonably assigned). Perhaps I was overreacting, but I felt that putting Arnulf in the same "category" as some questionable "ancestors" had the effect of giving the latter more status than they deserved.

Stewart Baldwin