I've found Roskildehistorie to be a fairly good source once I compared its
data to publications; as you say, some data proved inaccurate. The
inaccuracies I came across were almost entirely in older lines. It's
understandable that DAA's reliability is variable; I'd assume fantastic
connections made it into twentieth century issues as well. Apparently a
1925 DAA indicated that one of the earlier Gyldenstierne/Gyllenstiernas
was
the son of Erik Langben, a grandson of King Abel of Denmark. I've never
heard of this connection anywhere else, and it's probably wrong. I'm not
sure what to think about the Eberstein line, either.
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM, M.Sjostrom <qsj5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I warn to rely much on any Roskildehistorie trees.
> while they often have much historical truth in them, I
> have on several occasions came across with some
> completely problematic points in lineages in that
> material. Even such that a careful person would have
> seen that the chronology cannot hold water. I tend to
> think that those who have written those trees to
> Roskildehistorie, have had often some 'brain farts'
> when doing the work there.
> (I presume they actually have just copied DAA
> materials to fancy graphics...)
> Because of such occasional problems, anything in those
> tables should not be relied too much, but to check
> from more careful and more reliable secondary
> material.
>
> The Roskildehistorie author has, imo, made a dog's
> dinner reguarly of filiations of persons whose father
> married more than once. Do not rely on any maternity
> there indicated, if the father had several wives. And
> have a sound suspicion towards even those tables where
> the father shows to have had only one wife - the good
> author may simply have omitted some other wife from
> that place...
>
> Then, speaking about DAA series, an obvious source of
> that material and obvious source of almost any Danish
> noble genealogy:
> beware.
> There are good genealogies and not so good genealogies
> in the DAA series.
> I remind that DAA has been getting published along
> over a hundred years now. Plenty of different
> genealogists have contributed. The quality CANNOT be
> even.
>
> a general observation: in recent decades, DAA old
> genealogy articles (= those which are as appendixes)
> have been of high quality.
> But in earlier decades, there has been found to be
> lots of problems.
>
> For example, many unfounded, but traditionally
> believed (family legends) genealogies have found their
> way to DAA yearbooks of 1800s and first decades of
> 1900s.
> They actually seem to have almost a regular lack of
> source critical approach - which disturbs reliability
> particularly in their medieval ****tions, I think.
> (Obviously, not everything in them is wrong - some
> parts of some lineages are so well known that not even
> a family lore gullible genealogist of 1800s has been
> able to make complete dog's dinner out of them.)
> The problem is, you never know what is solid and what
> less so, in them.
> At least, not if you haven't wide knowledge of related
> histories and some sixth sense in digging up the good
> parts...
>
> so, my advice is to use Roskildehistorie tables only
> as explorative map exercises, then go to check DAA
> yearbooks. Of DAA, try to find articles in decades
> after 1910s (and, preferably, latest decades if
> possible).
> Use oldest DAA material only as some sort of rough
> guide for exploration.
> And dismiss practically all lineages of early-decades
> DAAs as much as they present lineage before, say,
> 1400. There is much higher likelihood that even oldest
> DAA yearbooks have not managed to make total dog's
> dinner out of 1400s-1600s genealogies;
> but I say there is a high likelihood to sup****t my
> presumption that oldest DAA genealogies, parts prior
> 1350 or 1400, represent more something like family
> lore and wishful thinking, than solid lineages of
> historically attested persons.
>
>
> all that said,
> the AT you presented -while I have not (yet) checked
> those details from, for example, DAA-
> looks like there could be some solid parts too, not
> everything needs to be total bogus.
>
> and remember, not even the noble Danes did generally
> use noble surnames before c1530, the point when King
> Frederick I ordered his nobility to take surnames.
> You shouldn't believe too much in those surnames
> presented all around in the internet.
>
> also, to mention a reminiscence: Some article(s) I
> have now only a distant reminiscence about, iirc have
> shown that there has been some bogus in some people's
> claims to have descended from counts of Everstein in
> Denmark.
> As far as I gather, counts were attractive to be
> descended from, and such invented genealogies
> seemingly flourished in later centuries; but more
> rigorous research then showed that one or a few female
> linkages in such do not hold water (in the sense of
> historical attestability) or is even a fabrication.
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
|
