Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-01 > 1073970523

From: "Leo van de Pas" <>
Subject: Re: Fw:
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:14:38 +1100
References: <04de01c3d833$d34bae70$e454f8c1@AnnieMobileUnit> <> <>

I am but I know I shouldn't..............

When genealogies are displayed it is important also to know why they are

Mel Gibson made a rollicking good movie with Braveheart, but to make the
story more compelling he changed some historical and genealogical facts. So
what? It is only a story.

William Shakespeare wrote some rollicking good plays but, in some, to make
the story easier to follow he changed some historical and genealogical
facts. So what? It is the "story" that counts.

For certain reasons the bible has recorded genealogies, I have been told
that the "begats" each name could represent seven (or more) generations.
That genealogy cannot be correct as it is, as it does not cover enough
generations to span the period mankind has been on earth.
In my opinion it is the message and the story that counts, not the

The Bible is a message that has been written for the salvation of mankind,
it is not a history nor a genealogy, it is the story/message that counts,
not the genealogy.

I think religious toes are too sensitive in this case, they want to be
trampled upon. I understand that some parts of the new testament were
written as late as 70 AD. To link anyone mentioned in the bible to people
living later, we need other proof, documentary or otherwise. That proof, I
understand, is very much lacking. Like most people, I would dearly love to
see genealogies going all the way to Noah and beyond, but wishful thinking
is not "proof".

That people on gen-med loathe the idea of God and Country, where does that
come from?
The love for America shines through from many people, so much so that it
almost seems like a religion and that kind of religion, also, should be
respection on gen-med. We are here for genealogical reasons, not politics or

Whether the Bible is true has nothing to do with the linking of present day
people to people mentioned in the bible, the Bible is a unit of its own. A
unit created in the time of Emperor Constantine, the time when it was
decided by men what was part of the bible and what was not. The message of
the bible is there, that some parts of the message may be distorted is being
investigated by many learned people----but not on gen-med where this does
not belong.

The divine right of kings? Who decides on earth who should be king?
Charlemagne became King of the Franks by conquest, was he allowed to do so
by God? Who are we to say this?
Let's assume he, and his descendants were. Like in Scotland, they did not
necessarily stick to the eldest son of the monarch being the next
monarch----how divine is that? It is most definitely more practical, as then
always a mature person is the ruler. But what happened after a while? Hugues
Capet decided, not God, that by Divine Right his lineage were to be kings of
France, to the exclusion of the Carolingians. And as a result France was
stuck with the Capetingians for many centuries.

"You cannot effectively say that a child does not belong to one father until
you can prove that somebody else is the father". Surely, Antoine, these
days, you cannot mean this? How many paternity cases have there been where
DNA and blood tests have excluded a person as father without pointing the
finger at someone else as the father?

I think, what you are trying to say is, that if there is no proof either
way, we have to leave our options open and I agree with that. What do you
suggest what to do with this group of murder suspects? Execute them all
"because one must be guilty", or release all because only one can be guilty?
As far as genealogy is concerned, I rather have no parents than parents who
"possibly could be correct". By assigning wrong or questionable parents, you
also can assign wrong grandparents, great-grandparents and so on, I'd rather
have a blank than an error, and as far as Biblical links is concerned, we
only have blanks.

Am I correct in assuming Antoine is born in 1983 and has a very interesting

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Antoine Freeman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Fw:

> You've trampled on religious toes. I've seen it before, you go out of
> your way to attempt to prove that any connection to any Biblical
> person is false and a forgery. Sure, some of the lines may be
> questionable and there is nothing wrong with examining sources
> closely. The problem is many who come here totally loathe the idea of
> both God and country. They realize, at least subconsciously, that if
> there were a modern connection to Biblical personages then they would
> have to realize the Bible is true, and that's something they don't
> want to do. For then they would have to consider the divine right of
> kings and that kings reign under the Grace of God. They much prefer to
> make kings into robbers and tyrants who got lucky, and they don't
> respect the concept of kingship. This in itself makes their view bias
> and uncouthed, for scholars and researchers must keep an open mind. I
> have seen it said on this board by some that one must prove something
> to be true. I feel safe to say that evidence must also be given to
> disprove something as well. You can not effectively say that a child
> does not belong to one father until you can prove that somebody else
> is the father. The point being, until you can find a source that
> provides more accurate information, who are you to sit as judge and
> say these sources are incorrect. For instance, in a murder case all
> suspects are urged not to leave the area, surely all of them are not
> guilty, but one cannot be sure that one is not. In the name of truth,
> let it be known that it takes evidence to disprove, not only to prove.
> Antoine Freeman,
> Duke of Berry
> --
> Some time after four centuries...a son of royal blood shall he born
> from the race of Artois. He shall govern France with prudence and with
> honour; the spirit of God will be with him, the Spirit said so. - Fr
> Jerome Votin in the 15th century

This thread: