GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1002396762


From: "dgwald" <>
Subject: Re: Faramund [Pharamond] of the West Franks
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:32:42 -0600
References: <20011006.091821.-3942337.0.davteague@juno.com>, <6yGv7.9087$98.45418@news1.rivrw1.nsw.optushome.com.au>


Hussain-

I believe (but I'm far from an expert) that there are no contemporary
records of Faramund. He only appears in much later lists of "kings" that
are traced back to antiquity and biblical characters. Even Gregory of
Tours, writing in the late 6th century, is unsure of the ancestry of
Merovech - "[the consular lists] also say that Clodio, a man of high birth
and marked ability among his people, was King of the Franks... Some say
that Merovech, the father of Childeric, was descended from Clodio."

Europische Stammtafeln (Schwennicke) starts its Merovingian pedigree with
Merovech (no title), and calling his son Childeric I King of the Franks.

David Waldman

PS Please ignore D. Spencer Hines. He's a bitter man with no friends and
nothing constuctive to say. Pity him, but don't respond. ;-)


"Hussain de la Croix" <> wrote in message
news:6yGv7.9087$...
> I won't claim to be an expert on the exact "ins and out's" of genealogic
> history, which I am not. Therefore I cannot comment with relative accuracy
> as I would like, about the true ancestral nature of Faramund, King of the
> Franks. However I will say that if he was a "King of the Franks", then
there
> would be the existence of a reigning date, and in this case circa 419 AD
to
> 430AD was the time of his reign. It would then be logical to say "...what
> connection does he have with the next monarch of the Franks?" be it
> inheritable, matrimonial or even won over in battle, there would be some
> historical evidence to suggest such an occurrence.
>
> How is it that we term him as "...legendary or mythical..."?
>
> And thank you for your input into the correct usage of the title, "King of
> the Franks"
>
> HM



This thread: