Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

This is a very vague statement, "Historians appear to think that she was made up later"

Who are these "historians"? What do they base their conclusions on? Do they all agree?

Perhaps I should have put the emphasis on NO SOURCES. This is not vague, and it is the reason I'm cutting.
The presence of an absence is the bit you need to disprove if you think she should be there.

In some cases there are later sources, the main reason for "later " I THINK is due to the fact that sources are copied and that originals are destroyed over time, but, I guess that ALL historians THINKS that it's only due to falsification!

Do we have any other members here on this site with a genuin interest in this topic who actually can lay puzzle?, instead of just the ones who puzzle people around with their main goal of cutting off as much as possible wherever they can?

I think it's remarkable that these medieval people, who came from the most noble of families, great wealth and top positions in society, ends up one by one with no forefathers at all...

If you find the sources or the research that suggests that the originals were lost, please post them for us to research here.

I cannot comment on the remarkableness or otherwise of the absence of historical resources. It is what it is. Given the timespan, it doesn't surprise me especially.

is Ansigisel right ??????

Sharon Doubell Whats really disturbing is the method that I often see that some of you curators recently embraced when you can't determine if this son or daughter is the child of X or the sibling Y, or in fact a sibling to their parents, when it's clear that they belong to that family but the exact position in the tree is a bit unclear as some historians favor X, others Y, and the solution you choose, despite the fact that the grandparents are still one and the same, are to cut hem off from their place in the tree, replace their parents with N.N., lock those profile, and that's it! just leaving it.

I find that Quite disturbing because I see that method as a form of vandalism, I'm sorry that we "normal" users can't get together and have those curators stripped of their privileges of handling profiles, all I can hope for is that more users also will find this disturbing enough to start complaining en masse.

I'm sorry that you're so disturbed, Ulf. The decision has been taken by geni to remove fictional profiles from the world tree. This is standard genealogical practice. Proof is a requirement of history, and where there is none, we are not substituting it with opinion.

"Proof is a requirement of history"

Yes, but how about understanding history?

Before the invention of printing press, the only way to preserve or spread text, document, book,was to copy them by hand. The originals often vanished by time and pretty much the majority of was is left is second or third hands copy etc, absolut not contemporary. Unfortunately, many of you so called curators, are biased in that way, that you automatically have determined that most of those copies ain't worth a crap with the result that you rather see them as fakes, fabrications, etc, despite the hard work from certain historians to puzzle the genealogical lines right by trying to detect the errors in the sources. Sometimes, not always, they do a very good work, with a result that seems more then reasonable, in fact more then plausible.

If you actually want to work only with records that holds your standard, then I suggest that you leave the medieval time alone and concentrate your effort in nowadays genealogy where you can check out the profiles and match them with the church records. Why do it harder for yourselves than necessary?

Ulf, the first step is to be able to point to a record at all.
The second step is to figure out how much trust to place in it.

I'm perfectly willing to have a debate about whether we should believe Snorre's statement about Harald Hårfagre's mother's ancestry, but I'm not willing to debate a statement that translates to "because a theory is not utterly incredible, we should enter it on Geni".

Ulf,coincido contigo existen otras fuentes a consultar,en este caso sus padres para Sharon serian NN

CAROLINGIOS (Otros datos)
* Bibliografía:
+ Arnulfingos o Pipinidas: ver cuadro genealógico en Historia Universal, EUNSA, tomo IV, p. 29.
+ Descendencia de Carlos Martel: ver cuadro genealógico en Historia Universal, EUNSA, tomo IV, p. 51.
+ Descendencia de Carlomagno: ver cuadro genealógico en Historia Universal, EUNSA, tomo IV, p. 101.
+ Descendencia de Carlos, "el Calvo": ver cuadro genealógico en Historia Universal, EUNSA, tomo IV, p. 157.
Thierry I, conde de Autun nació hacia el año 730 en Autún, Borgoña, Francia. Murió el 793. Su padre fue Teodorico Pruem (c.705), hijo de Garnier (Bernarius) de Rouerge y Crodelinda de Austrasia (hermana de Bertrada "La Anciana" de Pruem: ver nota 4). Casó con Aude (Aldane) Martel de Francia, y tuvieron por hijos a San Guillermo Gellone, conde de Toulouse (750, ver nota 6) y a Aube de Autún (c.755, que casó con Fredol, embajador y conde de Rouergue: ver Condes de Rouergue).

Private User my Spanish is unfortunately bad, but are you referring to this work?

http://www.eunsa.es/tienda/264-historia-universal

Harald Tveit Alvestrand I see again that you move over the focus from the topic to me, as usual.

What Sharon Doubell does is a capital ground error, first she cuts the lines, then she starts this discussion.

Rule number one, if there exist sources, we should use them, if you think that the sources are fakes,then talk about that and what to do about it.

If experts believes that they (the profiles) were connecting in a certain way, we should weight that against what other experts says, if possible choose the most likely and put footnotes in the profiles clarifying why, and make it clear about any uncertainties.

What some of the curators do when they are working in this old lines, are often nothing else than expressing their personal view reflecting that they know absolutely nothing about how things worked in the medieval societies, believing that anybody random guy always could become anything, what a joke!

Ulf, I see again that you move over the focus from the topic to me, as usual.

This is that Discussion... there are no sources... this isn't my personal view...have you read the profile or the related longstanding projects?
If you want to have a scholarly discussion about this, one of my degrees is in History - I started the Discussion for that reason - stop the mudslinging and have it.

I've put sources that include him too in your co related discussion ( at arnould children)
A book dated 1738, and they were absolute certain about him then, but coiuldn't be of people before st arnould.

Hi Jessica - we need the sources they're working from. Doda is a thousand years before 1738.

I'll try to see the beginning of the book for that, let me put my children in bed, make myself a cup of tea and I am back, okay ?

Oh, I may need your help, I will put a discussion concerning a surname. xxxx

If I disappear it's because we're due to have an electricity (and so wifi :-)) outage anytime now.

The only sources for Doda seem to come from so much after those for Ansigisel that there's no way to tell that he was her son.
What we're using on Geni is the fact that Medievalists don't think there's enough proof for her. (See the Ancestors of Charlemagne Geni Project)
The easy resource to check for original sources is Charles Cawley's online Medlands: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FRANKSMaiordomi.htm; but offline, Christian Settipani is much revered and he also doesn't think there's enough proof.

Jesus, the book is amazing. It has some unknown people in it too and trees, even if you don't understand frenc h you can understand trees.

It's the genealogies of the royal houses of france, dating back to 40 before christ. On the first page, it cites all the different shops/ people they got books from, one named Giffard in paris.

It explains geopolitics, geography, people, all sorts and how they had finally found a descendency to clovis when they had thought there was none and they say they owe it to a german scholar who published a book in 1732.

Généalogie historique de la maison royale de France , exposée dans des ...
De Louis Chasot de Nantigny

https://books.google.fr/books?id=XjNw5prownQC&pg=PA89&lpg=P...

It's written in old french, but it would be worth translating in its entirety. I could do it, but it's a sum of work.

They say one of their sources for Priam is a chronicle by Prosper.

Also Claudien in the panenerique de stilicon talks of priam and brother.

Are we talking about the Iliad here?

Ah, at the end, he said one of the sources is called HUBNER and says ' and other authors"and was approved by " Lord Chancellor" on the 9th of july 1738. It signs " Clairembault"

Also

https://books.google.fr/books?id=w_sRCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcov...

They also worked then with the grand armorial of france, the haraldry college of france,.

The books are a reference as it seems, they are in the national library too ( here is the author and code http://data.bnf.fr/12106914/louis_chasot_de_nantigny/)

Chasot de Nantigny, Louis). Généalogie historique de la Maison Royale - Le Gras - Lamesle - Giffart - Briasson - Chaubert - Veuve Pissot. [932706]

His book is also in the Historical library of france
https://books.google.fr/books?id=W35aAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA469-IA7&...

It all seems very valid to me.

The france of year 1738 bazlidated the lines of royalty and aristocracy in this book. We're almost 400 years later, and a lot of sources got destroyed during the french revolution, but he wrote his book before. So I wouldn't see why the crown and clerics and historians of then validated if ifd weren't true ?

bazlidated Validated

I am googling and not one thing about it being a fake, it was and still is a reference.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilicon

En français
Ernst Stein, Jean-Rémy Palanque, Histoire du Bas-Empire, tome 1, Éditions Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1949.
Émilienne Demougeot, De l’Unité à la division de l’Empire romain 395-410 : Essai sur le gouvernement impérial, Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1951.
Roger Remondon, La Crise de l’Empire romain, PUF, coll. « Nouvelle Clio », Paris, 1964 (2e édition, 1970, pages 188-215, 2° partie, chapitre 8 : « Les problèmes de l'Empire et leurs solutions au temps de Théodose Ier et de Stilicon »).
Paul Petit, Histoire générale de l’Empire romain, livre 3, Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 1974 (ISBN 2020026775).
François Zosso, Christian Zingg, Les empereurs romains : 27 av. J.-C. - 476 ap. J.-C., Éditions Errance, 1995 (ISBN 2877722260).
Marcel Le Glay, Rome : Grandeur et chute de l'Empire, troisième partie, chapitre 4, Éditions Perrin, Paris, 2005 (ISBN 978-2262018986).
Pierre Maraval, Théodose le Grand. Le pouvoir et la foi, Éditions Fayard, Paris, 2009.
En anglais
John Bagnell Bury, History of the later Roman Empire from the death of Theodosius to the death of Justinian (395-565), tome I, chapitre 5, 1923.
Alan Cameron, Claudian. Poetry and propaganda at the court of Honorius, 1970.
John Michael O'Flynn, Generalissimos of the Western Roman Empire, chapitre 1 à 3, 1983, University of Alberta Press.
Justine Davis Randers-Pehrson, Barbarians and Romans: the birth struggle of Europe, A.D. 400-700, 1983, Taylor and Francis.
Arnold Hugh Martin Jones, John Martindale et John Morris, The Prosopography of the later Roman empire: A.D. 260-395, volume 1, 1987, Cambridge University Press.
Thomas S. Burns, Barbarians within the gates of Rome: a study of Roman military policy and the barbarians, ca. 375-425 A.D., 1994, Indiana University Press.
Averil Cameron, Peter Garnsey, The Cambridge ancient history: The late empire, A.D. 337-425, 1998, Cambridge University Press.
James William Ermatinger, The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, 2004, Greenwood Publishing Group.
Peter J. Heather, The fall of the Roman Empire: a new history of Rome and the Barbarians, 2006, Oxford University Press US.
Stephen Mitchell, A history of the later Roman Empire, AD 284-641: the transformation of the ancient world, 2007, Wiley-Blackwell.
Autres langues
Santo Mazzarino, Stilicone: la crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, 1942.
Articles
Jean Doise, « Le commandement de l'armée romaine sous Théodose et les débuts des règnes d'Arcadius et d'Honorius », dans Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, 1949, vol.61, p. 189-193, disponible en ligne sur le site Persée [archive].
Venance Grumel, « L’Illyricum de la mort de Valentinien 1er (375) à la mort de Stilichon (408) », dans Revue des Études byzantines, 1951, vol.9 (p. 25-26).
Yves Modéran, « Gildon, les Maures et l'Afrique », dans Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Antiquité, 1989, vol.101-2, p. 821-872, disponible en ligne sur le site Persée [archive].
Sylvie Valente, « Stilicho, le généralissime contesté », université d'Ottawa, disponible en ligne sur le site de l'UQAM [archive].

The following was written in roma in 1701, they try to discredit, but when you read it ,they admlit they can't and that the old sources were probably right.

https://books.google.fr/books?id=MYdRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA637&lpg=...

Steven Muhlberger. — The Fifth - Century Chroniclers. Prosper, Hydatius, and the Gallic Chronicler of 452, 1990. (ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 27)