I thougth the idea to examine our Plantagenet ancestors was an excellent one. But we're getting into territory here that strays pretty far off the subject. Nobody has offered any line i've seen that connects to any bible characters. So how we got here I don't know. And we're real close to this becoming a religious discussion on a genealogy list. Anybody else think we should get back on the subject? Marc Support Care2 Email: Stop "scientific" whaling, the whale-killing loophole http://www.care2.com/go/z/12803

I agree completely. We know we all descend from people living in Biblical times, the problem is to find the links, and we have to start at our end. And, we may never find them. Very few documents from ancient times have survived, and very few of our ancestors were literate anyhow. In my opinion, our best chances lie through the mixing of Iberian Muslims and Christians. We may yet find some links there. Islamic culture was much more literate and much more has been preserved of those days. (incidentally, the link to Zaida Denia in Royalty for Commoners is in the opinion of most if not all of the experts, false.) On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:25, JF wrote: > Gordon, > > No question, you've raised a very valid point here. But how did we get > to examining this end of the line? Isn't a genealogy built one person at > a time, starting with yourself and working backwards? So why are we way > back here when we should be trying to determine if connections, many > centuries earlier, are even valid? You, me, nobody else is at fault > here. We just somehow, collectively, got sucked into examining the wrong > end of the horse here. And this just seems like a good point to > interject this thought before we get into this too far. Couldn't we > perhaps back up and examine (and exchange information on) key ancestors > who may or may not connect us to Biblical personages? > > Jim > > > > > > > > Gordon Banks wrote: > > >Matthew: > > > > 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the > >son of Abraham. > >2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and > >his brethren; > >3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; > >and Esrom begat Aram; > >4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson > >begat Salmon; > >5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and > >Obed begat Jesse; > >6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of > >her that had been the wife of Urias; > >7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; > >8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat > >Ozias; > >9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat > >Ezekias; > >10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat > >Josias; > >11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they > >were carried away to Babylon: > >12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; > >and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; > >13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim > >begat Azor; > >14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; > >15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan > >begat Jacob; > >16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, > >who is called Christ. > > > >Luke: > > > >23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as > >was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, > >24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was > >the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of > >Joseph, > >25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which > >was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of > >Nagge, > >26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which > >was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of > >Juda, > >27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was > >the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son > >of Neri, > >28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was > >the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, > >29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was > >the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of > >Levi, > >30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was > >the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of > >Eliakim, > >31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was > >the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of > >David, > >32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the > >son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, > >33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was > >the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of > >Juda, > >34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was > >the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of > >Nachor, > >35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was > >the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of > >Sala, > >36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which > >was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of > >Lamech, > >37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which > >was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son > >of Cainan, > >38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the > >son of Adam, which was the son of God. > > > >So which genealogy is correct? > > > >Q.E.D. > > > >On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > > > > > >>" Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. > >> > >>What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is > >>a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it > >>so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than > >>something written by man? > >>I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no > >>problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct > >>just what Ive read in the Bible. > >>Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the > >>Bible in to trash it. > >>Eve > >> > >> > >> > >>============================== > >>Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >>Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >> > >> > > > > > >============================== > >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

It's been worked on in the lines of the Irish kings, trying to figure it out. One test is how many generations occur over what number of years. Of course if you really believe people could live to age 900, I guess that isn't convincing either. I recommend Stewart Baldwin's site for those who are interested in how to pursue the boundary between the real and mythical. http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/home.htm He has a lot of Celtic stuff there as well as "The Henry Project" which all of us here should find relevant. On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 13:12, Jim wrote: > Gordon you brought up a great point. I was thinking about that today > while having lunch. I remember reading about the Picts and how they had > no history, and forgive me for being so vague without looking this all > up again, so someone created one for them. I'm sure a lot of "poetic > license" was used when these ancient genealogies were written down for > the reigning Royal famillies...to do exactly that...give them legitimacy > and a connection with the "Greats" that preceeded them. > > So it would be interesting to ascertain approximately when the > transition from reality to folklore, fairy tale, mythology...what ever > we would like to call it, occurred. > > Gordon wrote: > > "King Priam may have existed, but the links to European Royalty are > mythical. > > You will also find we are descended from the Norse gods, such as Odin. > > Kings liked to have genealogies that went back to gods, characters such > as Aeneas and Priam, and (later) Biblical characters. It made them more > legit." > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:44, SnowBeri@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/29/2004 3:57:31 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > > gym4jim@bellsouth.net writes: > > And did King Priam of Troy (my 75th ggf) really exist? Was his son > Helenus > > also > > called Paris as in the upcoming movie "Troy"? And Noah? When does real > > life end and myths and Bible stories take over. I am seriously > curious. > > As we learn in this "hobby", verifying and double verifying sources is > > important. Any thoughts?>> > > > > > > Yes, King Priam and Troy really existed. Once they were thought of as > part > > of Homer's stories until the site of the city was discovered. We have > > > archaeological proof of the city, and also the "massive burning of the > city" which > > gives direct correlation to the story of the Trojan horse. There are > also sites > > where ships were sunken, giving more support of the fleet involved. > Was > > EVERYTHING in Homer true? Of course not. Just like the Bible books. > It's a > > story, to teach, to amuse. Are there shreds of truth in some of what > is written. > > Yes. Does it make everything true? <G> Nope. Just like a lot of > mistaken > > websites out there. > > > > PS--I don't know if the movie Troy is based on history or what Homer > wrote. > > But I'm eager to see it. It certainly looks more historically > accurate than > > the Troy movie on cable recently. Having soldiers dressed in Roman > uniforms > > is just too much of a stretch. > > > > > > ============================== > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > ______________________________ > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Kevin Actually, I wasn't particularly sure as to the absolute technical meaning of "demonstrated marital alliance". I stole it and "Modern standards of proof" from your earlier post. Ergo the quotation marks. And as to your correction of my saying it was "ALL supposition" I agree to agree with you. Your point is well taken. I forgot the ladies in waiting. That's reassuring. And as another example of nobles acknowledging their offspring, truth be told our Sutton Dudley line to the Plantagenets would have ended abruptly with Elizabeth Tomlinson, my 9th great grandmother the well-known mistress of Edward Lord Dudley and mother of his 12 children were that not true. Instead, his will shows she and her children inherited from him. I'm learning so much. Thanks. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: KBradford@lourdes-pad.org [mailto:KBradford@lourdes-pad.org] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:20 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors Barbara, I think what you mean by "demonstrated marital alliance" is the fact that, in some instances, a line may be interrupted by a false paternity event (gotta love those techno-euphemisms). While these "false events" undoubtedly occured here and there, what is far more common to be observed in medieval genealogy are extra-marital alliances. The Beaufort branch of the Plantagenets, which produced the last of the reigning Lancaster and Yorkist kings, found its origins in the illegitimate union of John of Gaunt & Katherine Swynford. Nobles and kings, and lesser gentry, were remarkably responsible to their progeny. One finds examples of this care in the legacies left to their heirs, both legally and "naturally" conceived. Many of these "bastards of the king" were provided sizeable legacies and expansive titles. The actual paternity of the queen's offspring was a bit more dicey to try to conceal: she was rarely out of sight of her ladies-in-waiting, even in the boudoir. One can thus be confident that Edward III, despite having a father more interested in his pals than in his queen, was in fact sired by Edward II of England. Apologies to Hollywood and Mel Gibson. As far as original events and facts in the distant past being "all" supposition, we may have to agree to disagree. Hardly anyone disputes the fact that Edward III was the reigning monarch of England from 1327 to 1377, yet there are no living witnesses to this fact. What we know was recorded for us. "Absolute" proof is not necessary for us to be confident in the facts of history or lineage, provided we learn how to seek out the best sources of that history. Educating oneself in this category is a lifetime process, but it does become easier with practice. Best, Kevin "Barbara" <ladybbug@earthlink.ne To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com t> cc: Subject: RE: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors 04/30/2004 12:26 PM Please respond to PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANT S-PROJECT-L Of course, whatever one's genealogical chart might show of our "contemporaneously documented Plantagenet ancestors", notwithstanding "Modern standards of proof" there is always the distinct possibility that one or two out of those many generations of offspring was not - shall I delicately say - strictly from the demonstrated marital alliance - human nature being what it is. In actuality, if DNA were available from some of these guys, we might find we are all descended from the gardener and not the kings at all. In fact, there IS no ABSOLUTE proof of our ancestry. It's ALL supposition. I just like the thought of having a king, a notably romantic part of world history, for a grampa. And mowing the weeds in my yard in my tiara from time to time has earned me a certain status, if you will, in my neighborhood. I prefer to think our real inheritance from our forebears is attitudinal and cultural. (And, when there's an ancestor who particularly embarrasses me I can always claim illegitimacy in my mind.) It's nice I have such nice smart cousins on this list who are so genealogically generous. Love, "Lady Barbara" ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

I was kidding.... ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:23:46 -0700 To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > Might as well be. No, it is from a book called something like "Holy > Blood, Holy Grail". The current bestseller "The Da Vinci Code" also is > based on similar myths, viz. that Jesus had offspring by Mary Magdelene > who were ancestors to the Merovignian kings of France. It's fun, but > genealogical nonsense. > > > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 11:58, Donna Delgadillo wrote: > > Is that Monty Python? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> > > Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:53:22 -0700 > > To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > > > > > This is from the "Holy Grail" books. It is myth, not documented. > > > > -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

I think that idea (that he was not begotten in the flesh by Joseph) came along a bit later than those gospels, but I'm sure you won't agree. In Luke someone wrote in "(as was supposed)," probably later. I imagine those genealogies were an embarrassment for the later theologians. On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 12:27, Wrenn, Bubba wrote: > Why the writer chose to use Joseph's genealogy is a curiousity since he was technically the son of God. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wrenn, Bubba > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:21 PM > To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? > > > Actually both. Joseph's genealogy is that featured in Matthew and Mary's in Luke. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Banks [mailto:geb@gordonbanks.com] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:14 PM > To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? > > > Matthew: > > 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the > son of Abraham. > 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and > his brethren; > 3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; > and Esrom begat Aram; > 4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson > begat Salmon; > 5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and > Obed begat Jesse; > 6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of > her that had been the wife of Urias; > 7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; > 8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat > Ozias; > 9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat > Ezekias; > 10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat > Josias; > 11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they > were carried away to Babylon: > 12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; > and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; > 13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim > begat Azor; > 14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; > 15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan > begat Jacob; > 16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, > who is called Christ. > > Luke: > > 23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as > was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, > 24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was > the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of > Joseph, > 25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which > was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of > Nagge, > 26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which > was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of > Juda, > 27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was > the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son > of Neri, > 28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was > the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, > 29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was > the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of > Levi, > 30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was > the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of > Eliakim, > 31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was > the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of > David, > 32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the > son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, > 33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was > the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of > Juda, > 34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was > the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of > Nachor, > 35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was > the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of > Sala, > 36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which > was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of > Lamech, > 37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which > was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son > of Cainan, > 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the > son of Adam, which was the son of God. > > So which genealogy is correct? > > Q.E.D. > > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > > " Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. > > > > What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is > > a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it > > so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than > > something written by man? > > I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no > > problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct > > just what Ive read in the Bible. > > Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the > > Bible in to trash it. > > Eve > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

I see. Funny Luke doesn't mention Mary. On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 12:21, Wrenn, Bubba wrote: > Actually both. Joseph's genealogy is that featured in Matthew and Mary's in Luke. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gordon Banks [mailto:geb@gordonbanks.com] > Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:14 PM > To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? > > > Matthew: > > 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the > son of Abraham. > 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and > his brethren; > 3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; > and Esrom begat Aram; > 4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson > begat Salmon; > 5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and > Obed begat Jesse; > 6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of > her that had been the wife of Urias; > 7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; > 8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat > Ozias; > 9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat > Ezekias; > 10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat > Josias; > 11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they > were carried away to Babylon: > 12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; > and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; > 13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim > begat Azor; > 14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; > 15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan > begat Jacob; > 16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, > who is called Christ. > > Luke: > > 23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as > was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, > 24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was > the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of > Joseph, > 25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which > was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of > Nagge, > 26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which > was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of > Juda, > 27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was > the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son > of Neri, > 28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was > the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, > 29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was > the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of > Levi, > 30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was > the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of > Eliakim, > 31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was > the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of > David, > 32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the > son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, > 33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was > the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of > Juda, > 34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was > the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of > Nachor, > 35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was > the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of > Sala, > 36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which > was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of > Lamech, > 37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which > was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son > of Cainan, > 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the > son of Adam, which was the son of God. > > So which genealogy is correct? > > Q.E.D. > > On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > > " Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. > > > > What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is > > a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it > > so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than > > something written by man? > > I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no > > problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct > > just what Ive read in the Bible. > > Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the > > Bible in to trash it. > > Eve > > > > > > > > ============================== > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

A look at what our ancestors wore, nicely categorized by chronology and occupation (54 slides, with a catchy midi file for your entertainment): http://romancereaderatheart.com/medieval/timeline/ Best, Kevin CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Eve, As the utterer of the "hogwash" comment, let me just say that I did not mean the Bible. Not at all. In fact, as an ordained pentecostal minister I DO believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I believe that the genealogies in the Bible are true. What I MEANT was that some of the "Gateway" ancestors used to get us, say, from the Merovingians to the House of David, or from the ancient Kings of Ireland and Scotland to King David, are a bit "iffy." They're always based on statements like, "Dardanus MAY BE the same as Darda of the Bible," or my favorite, which always appears alongside the former, "Judah MAY BE the same person as the greek god Zeus." The forebear of the Merovingians, I believe it was Clodius I, is said to be a descendant of David, but his mother conceived him not only by her Frankish husband, but also by a mysterious Sea-Creature (who was, apparently, of the line of David.) See what I mean? I'm not making ANY of this stuff up, it's all readily available ! on the good old internet. As Yogi Berra said, "You could look it up." Chris --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs

Why the writer chose to use Joseph's genealogy is a curiousity since he was technically the son of God. -----Original Message----- From: Wrenn, Bubba Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:21 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? Actually both. Joseph's genealogy is that featured in Matthew and Mary's in Luke. -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Banks [mailto:geb@gordonbanks.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:14 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? Matthew: 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke: 23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. So which genealogy is correct? Q.E.D. On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > " Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. > > What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is > a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it > so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than > something written by man? > I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no > problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct > just what Ive read in the Bible. > Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the > Bible in to trash it. > Eve > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Gordon, No question, you've raised a very valid point here. But how did we get to examining this end of the line? Isn't a genealogy built one person at a time, starting with yourself and working backwards? So why are we way back here when we should be trying to determine if connections, many centuries earlier, are even valid? You, me, nobody else is at fault here. We just somehow, collectively, got sucked into examining the wrong end of the horse here. And this just seems like a good point to interject this thought before we get into this too far. Couldn't we perhaps back up and examine (and exchange information on) key ancestors who may or may not connect us to Biblical personages? Jim Gordon Banks wrote: >Matthew: > > 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the >son of Abraham. >2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and >his brethren; >3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; >and Esrom begat Aram; >4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson >begat Salmon; >5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and >Obed begat Jesse; >6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of >her that had been the wife of Urias; >7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; >8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat >Ozias; >9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat >Ezekias; >10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat >Josias; >11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they >were carried away to Babylon: >12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; >and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; >13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim >begat Azor; >14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; >15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan >begat Jacob; >16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, >who is called Christ. > >Luke: > >23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as >was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, >24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was >the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of >Joseph, >25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which >was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of >Nagge, >26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which >was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of >Juda, >27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was >the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son >of Neri, >28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was >the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, >29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was >the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of >Levi, >30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was >the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of >Eliakim, >31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was >the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of >David, >32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the >son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, >33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was >the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of >Juda, >34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was >the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of >Nachor, >35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was >the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of >Sala, >36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which >was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of >Lamech, >37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which >was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son >of Cainan, >38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the >son of Adam, which was the son of God. > >So which genealogy is correct? > >Q.E.D. > >On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > > >>" Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. >> >>What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is >>a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it >>so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than >>something written by man? >>I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no >>problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct >>just what Ive read in the Bible. >>Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the >>Bible in to trash it. >>Eve >> >> >> >>============================== >>Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >>Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >> >> > > >============================== >Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration >Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > > > >

Actually both. Joseph's genealogy is that featured in Matthew and Mary's in Luke. -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Banks [mailto:geb@gordonbanks.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:14 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Re:Hogwash??? Matthew: 1: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2: Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 3: And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 4: And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 5: And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6: And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 7: And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 9: And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 10: And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 11: And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 13: And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14: And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15: And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16: And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke: 23: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24: Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25: Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26: Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28: Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29: Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30: Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31: Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32: Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33: Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34: Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35: Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36: Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37: Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. So which genealogy is correct? Q.E.D. On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:25, VIRFM@aol.com wrote: > " Unfortunately, it's all a lot of hogwash. > > What is hogwash? Not the Bible I hope you are not saying this. The Bible is > a lot more factual than a lot of the genealogy lists man has made. Why is it > so impossible to believe something written with God inspired facts than > something written by man? > I have found sites with my line back to Noah and Adam and Eve I have no > problem with that but I must admit I dont think everything in the line is correct > just what Ive read in the Bible. > Didnt mean to bring Christianity into this list but please dont bring the > Bible in to trash it. > Eve > > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

How does a link to a "god" make one more legit? I thought only surgeons were scion of the gods. And how come all those pretty Greeks in that new movie are blond? Couldn't they find any pretty brunettes? Sorry, I'm getting punchy. Someone said there were plenty of ancestors to be proud of and included Charlemagne in the bunch, I'm more proud of Charlemagne's wife than of the man himself. After all, she was reported to have fought off a wild boar to save her man's life and she was probably pregnant at the time considering how many children she bore and how young she was when she died. And if that portrait is to be believed, she fought the boar and rode a horse all while naked! Anyway, she showed true bravery while Charlemagne ordered 2800 people put to death in one day for refusing to convert to Catholicism. Not brave, not admirable. Not proud of Charlemagne. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:57:34 -0700 To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > King Priam may have existed, but the links to European Royalty are > mythical. > > You will also find we are descended from the Norse gods, such as Odin. > > Kings liked to have genealogies that went back to gods, characters such > as Aeneas and Priam, and (later) Biblical characters. It made them more > legit. > > On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:44, SnowBeri@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 4/29/2004 3:57:31 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > > gym4jim@bellsouth.net writes: > > And did King Priam of Troy (my 75th ggf) really exist? Was his son Helenus > > also > > called Paris as in the upcoming movie "Troy"? And Noah? When does real > > life end and myths and Bible stories take over. I am seriously curious. > > As we learn in this "hobby", verifying and double verifying sources is > > important. Any thoughts?>> > > > > > > Yes, King Priam and Troy really existed. Once they were thought of as part > > of Homer's stories until the site of the city was discovered. We have > > archaeological proof of the city, and also the "massive burning of the city" which > > gives direct correlation to the story of the Trojan horse. There are also sites > > where ships were sunken, giving more support of the fleet involved. Was > > EVERYTHING in Homer true? Of course not. Just like the Bible books. It's a > > story, to teach, to amuse. Are there shreds of truth in some of what is written. > > Yes. Does it make everything true? <G> Nope. Just like a lot of mistaken > > websites out there. > > > > PS--I don't know if the movie Troy is based on history or what Homer wrote. > > But I'm eager to see it. It certainly looks more historically accurate than > > the Troy movie on cable recently. Having soldiers dressed in Roman uniforms > > is just too much of a stretch. > > -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (by Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln) is as fictious as Monty Python's "Holy Grail," but not nearly as humorous. Baigent, et. al are trying to convince the world that a descendant of Merovee, Jesus Christ and the Plantagenet dynasty will rise up and form a world government in the last days. The wisdom of issuing day passes has saved treatment facilities tremendous amounts of money. Best, Kevin "Donna Delgadillo" <donna.d@mail.com> To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com cc: 04/30/2004 01:58 PM Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors Please respond to PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANT S-PROJECT-L Is that Monty Python? ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:53:22 -0700 To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > This is from the "Holy Grail" books. It is myth, not documented. > -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Could this be the source of the "divine right" of kings to rule? I mean think about the history sequence here. Pharoahs made themselves gods..Greeks claimed descent from the Olympians etc... -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Banks [mailto:geb@gordonbanks.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 1:58 PM To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors King Priam may have existed, but the links to European Royalty are mythical. You will also find we are descended from the Norse gods, such as Odin. Kings liked to have genealogies that went back to gods, characters such as Aeneas and Priam, and (later) Biblical characters. It made them more legit. On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 15:44, SnowBeri@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/29/2004 3:57:31 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > gym4jim@bellsouth.net writes: > And did King Priam of Troy (my 75th ggf) really exist? Was his son Helenus > also > called Paris as in the upcoming movie "Troy"? And Noah? When does real > life end and myths and Bible stories take over. I am seriously curious. > As we learn in this "hobby", verifying and double verifying sources is > important. Any thoughts?>> > > > Yes, King Priam and Troy really existed. Once they were thought of as part > of Homer's stories until the site of the city was discovered. We have > archaeological proof of the city, and also the "massive burning of the city" which > gives direct correlation to the story of the Trojan horse. There are also sites > where ships were sunken, giving more support of the fleet involved. Was > EVERYTHING in Homer true? Of course not. Just like the Bible books. It's a > story, to teach, to amuse. Are there shreds of truth in some of what is written. > Yes. Does it make everything true? <G> Nope. Just like a lot of mistaken > websites out there. > > PS--I don't know if the movie Troy is based on history or what Homer wrote. > But I'm eager to see it. It certainly looks more historically accurate than > the Troy movie on cable recently. Having soldiers dressed in Roman uniforms > is just too much of a stretch. > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237

Is that Monty Python? ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:53:22 -0700 To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > This is from the "Holy Grail" books. It is myth, not documented. > -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

Kevin, KBradford@lourdes-pad.org wrote: >"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (by Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln) is as fictious as >Monty Python's "Holy Grail," but not nearly as humorous. Baigent, et. al >are trying to convince the world that a descendant of Merovee, Jesus Christ >and the Plantagenet dynasty will rise up and form a world government in the >last days. The wisdom of issuing day passes has saved treatment facilities >tremendous amounts of money. > Actually, if anything, it's perhaps worse than fictitious. If it were all fiction, it could be very easily dismissed. I've read the book and it's far more. It's fact, mixed with supposition, with doses of conspiracy theory throughout. Look at the back cover, it asks questions like: "Is it possible that parchments found in the south of France a century ago reveal one of the best kept secrets in Christendom?" If you work history that way, sure anything is possible. And if you subtly try to change the rules in doing it, you might just get your revisionist history point across without proving a darn thing. Jim

Lady Belle & Lady Barbara, Your ladyship's participation is greatly appreciated. Best, Kevin "Belle Shepherd" <belleshep@cox.net> To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com cc: 04/30/2004 02:44 PM Subject: Re: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors Please respond to PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANT S-PROJECT-L Great comment. I appreciate your sense of humor. Lady Belle ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara" <ladybbug@earthlink.net> To: <PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 10:26 AM Subject: RE: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors > Of course, whatever one's genealogical chart might show of our > "contemporaneously documented Plantagenet ancestors", notwithstanding > "Modern standards of proof" there is always the distinct possibility that > one or two out of those many generations of offspring was not - shall I > delicately say - strictly from the demonstrated marital alliance - human > nature being what it is. In actuality, if DNA were available from some of > these guys, we might find we are all descended from the gardener and not the > kings at all. > In fact, there IS no ABSOLUTE proof of our ancestry. It's ALL supposition. > I just like the thought of having a king, a notably romantic part of world > history, for a grampa. And mowing the weeds in my yard in my tiara from time > to time has earned me a certain status, if you will, in my neighborhood. > I prefer to think our real inheritance from our forebears is attitudinal and > cultural. (And, when there's an ancestor who particularly embarrasses me I > can always claim illegitimacy in my mind.) > It's nice I have such nice smart cousins on this list who are so > genealogically generous. > Love, > "Lady Barbara" > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Of course, whatever one's genealogical chart might show of our "contemporaneously documented Plantagenet ancestors", notwithstanding "Modern standards of proof" there is always the distinct possibility that one or two out of those many generations of offspring was not - shall I delicately say - strictly from the demonstrated marital alliance - human nature being what it is. In actuality, if DNA were available from some of these guys, we might find we are all descended from the gardener and not the kings at all. In fact, there IS no ABSOLUTE proof of our ancestry. It's ALL supposition. I just like the thought of having a king, a notably romantic part of world history, for a grampa. And mowing the weeds in my yard in my tiara from time to time has earned me a certain status, if you will, in my neighborhood. I prefer to think our real inheritance from our forebears is attitudinal and cultural. (And, when there's an ancestor who particularly embarrasses me I can always claim illegitimacy in my mind.) It's nice I have such nice smart cousins on this list who are so genealogically generous. Love, "Lady Barbara"

Barbara, I think what you mean by "demonstrated marital alliance" is the fact that, in some instances, a line may be interrupted by a false paternity event (gotta love those techno-euphemisms). While these "false events" undoubtedly occured here and there, what is far more common to be observed in medieval genealogy are extra-marital alliances. The Beaufort branch of the Plantagenets, which produced the last of the reigning Lancaster and Yorkist kings, found its origins in the illegitimate union of John of Gaunt & Katherine Swynford. Nobles and kings, and lesser gentry, were remarkably responsible to their progeny. One finds examples of this care in the legacies left to their heirs, both legally and "naturally" conceived. Many of these "bastards of the king" were provided sizeable legacies and expansive titles. The actual paternity of the queen's offspring was a bit more dicey to try to conceal: she was rarely out of sight of her ladies-in-waiting, even in the boudoir. One can thus be confident that Edward III, despite having a father more interested in his pals than in his queen, was in fact sired by Edward II of England. Apologies to Hollywood and Mel Gibson. As far as original events and facts in the distant past being "all" supposition, we may have to agree to disagree. Hardly anyone disputes the fact that Edward III was the reigning monarch of England from 1327 to 1377, yet there are no living witnesses to this fact. What we know was recorded for us. "Absolute" proof is not necessary for us to be confident in the facts of history or lineage, provided we learn how to seek out the best sources of that history. Educating oneself in this category is a lifetime process, but it does become easier with practice. Best, Kevin "Barbara" <ladybbug@earthlink.ne To: PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANTS-PROJECT-L@rootsweb.com t> cc: Subject: RE: [PDP] Ancestors of our ancestors 04/30/2004 12:26 PM Please respond to PLANTAGENET-DESCENDANT S-PROJECT-L Of course, whatever one's genealogical chart might show of our "contemporaneously documented Plantagenet ancestors", notwithstanding "Modern standards of proof" there is always the distinct possibility that one or two out of those many generations of offspring was not - shall I delicately say - strictly from the demonstrated marital alliance - human nature being what it is. In actuality, if DNA were available from some of these guys, we might find we are all descended from the gardener and not the kings at all. In fact, there IS no ABSOLUTE proof of our ancestry. It's ALL supposition. I just like the thought of having a king, a notably romantic part of world history, for a grampa. And mowing the weeds in my yard in my tiara from time to time has earned me a certain status, if you will, in my neighborhood. I prefer to think our real inheritance from our forebears is attitudinal and cultural. (And, when there's an ancestor who particularly embarrasses me I can always claim illegitimacy in my mind.) It's nice I have such nice smart cousins on this list who are so genealogically generous. Love, "Lady Barbara" ============================== Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.