The section from Medlands we've both referred to states very clearly that no information has been found to corroborate the assumption made about her parentage.
While Medlands states she was a Greek princess, it says it doesn't give her name or origin, which I took to mean referred to her who her parents were, not which country she was from. However, Medlands does state that while she's referred to as a Greek princess, there is no Greek source that mentions her.
The whole point of the discussion was to sort assumptions from facts. It's the assumptions that has clouded the issues. It doesn't do any of us any good to have ''assumed" ancestries and kinship paths. I go into these discussion seeking clarification and further documention, not with the goal to cut valid connections but rather to sort which are vaild and which aren't. I'm open either way but rather err on the side of better documentation than this profile has.
If someone can find further documentation to prove what her name was, explain why she's called a Greek princess and yet there is no Greek record of her, as well as documentation rather than assumptions of who her parents were, all of us in this discussion would welcome it.
That's not being childish, that's just wanting good genealogy. I hadn't read a single comment that indicated anyone was behaving like a child. If you have better documentation, provide it. If you don't, you should be pleased to see others working diligently to make sure the connections are correct.
Everyone who is related to a line has as much right as anyone else to inquire about, to investigate further into whatever documentation may or may not be available, etc. It's time-consuming and often frustrating and only those who really care about accuracy will even take the time. So to be disrespectful about it is what's childish.
We can make personal trees on other sites and connect them any way we want to. I have some lines I have connected differently in my personal tree than how they're connected on Geni for one reason or another, but I like it when we can collaborate and make sure things are correct so I can have my personal tree and the world tree match.
I think it's a better practice to base connections on what has been validated rather than assumed. If new information comes forth that validates what has been assumed, wonderful. Things can always be updated. That just seems to be solid genealogy vs. 'ify' connections.
If Medlands felt the son was the 'proof', the statements about assumptions and lack of corroboration wouldn't have been necessary. So your argument isn't with us but with the Medlands research and ignoring the further evidence that Erica provided.
Rather than your conclusion that it's clear without any doubts what is true overlooks the red flags such as " It is unlikely that she was the daughter of the Emperor Konstantinos himself as he is not recorded in Greek sources as having had children by any of his wives or mistresses..." and then the further information Erica provided.
If there is a blood connection to the Monomachos family, it seems pretty obvious that it's not thorough the Emperor, which brings it all full circle back to the fact that her parents are unknown and we have no idea how she was connected to that family. We aren't saying she's not from them 'somehow', but we can't just make up connections that fit how we'd like it to be if there's no proof for it.
I trust Erica's research and am glad she was able to find further information that shed more light on the fact about the Emperor not having had any children. So I'm convinced we've sorted this out as well as can be.
