• General Notes

  [Johnson.FTW]
  
  [1144734.FTW]
  
  Custom Field:<_FA#> AKA the Great Duke of Russia and the Prince of Holmgarth.@@S 005967@@Has her daughter of John FitzAlan de Arundel who died at sea in 1379 (in my db, her grandfather) & Eleanore Matravers (in my db, her grandmother)
  Cust om Field:<_FA#> Grand Duke of Kiev, Grand Prince of Novgorod & Kiev.@@S005856@@@@S 005967@@Has her daughter of John FitzAlan de Arundel who died at sea in 1379 (in my db, her grandfather) & Eleanore Matravers (in my db, her grandmother)
  REFN : 4198
  [G675.ged]
  Burke calls him Great Duke of Russia. Snorri Sturlasson cal l him Prince of
  Holmgarth and shows his children as Holti-Nimble, Vissivald, E llisif.
  Donald Lines Jacobus (1883-1970), the "Founder of Scientific
  Genealog y in America" wrote an article in The American Genealogist (TAG)
  9:13-15 entit led "The House of Rurik."  I quote:  "To correct the many
  errors that have app eared in print, and to aid those who follow the
  pastime
  of tracing "royal an cestry," the following condensed account of the early
  Rurikides is here printe d.  It is based in large part on "Genealogies et
  Mariages Occidentaux des Ruri kides Russes du Xe au XIIIe Siecle,"
  published
  at Rome in 1927 as Vol. IX, N o. 1, of *Orientalia Christiana.* The author,
  N. de Baumgarten, is probably th e best living authority on early Russian
  history, and every statement made on the fourteen genealogical tables of
  his monograph is fully supported by the ci tation of contemporary documents
  and chronicles."
  I am not attacking Jacobus, who is a giant among genealogists and
  certainly needs no defenders.  Neither am I disagreeing with Alexander
  Agamov, in Moscow, who has pointed out that th ere is no credible evidence
  that Rurik was ever "Prince of Kiev" and progenito r of the line beginning
  with Igor, Grand Prince of Kiev, who married Olga. I h ope Alexander Agamov
  is reading this.  Some historians and genealogists, Russi ans in
  particular,
  have taken sharp issue with the theory that the Kievan Ru s was founded by
  a "Dane" rather than a "Slav"----and the evidence for "The Va rangian
  Theory" seems fragmentary and inconclusive, at best.
  G. Andrews Moria rty and Walter L. Sheppard in TAG 28:91-95 also
  quote the N. de Baumgarten mat erial as authoritative [specifically
  "Orientalia Christiana, No. 119, N. de Ba umgarten, "Aux Origines de la
  Russie," p. 79.  Both Jacobus and Moriarty/Shepp ard headline their charts
  with "Rurik (d. 879) Grand Prince of Kiev."  Jacobus probably did not read
  10th to 13th century Russian. But--- some of us may.
  F or anyone who might conceivably have access to the original,
  1927,
  N. de Bau mgarten source---is it provable that, "every statement made on
  the
  fourteen genealogical tables of his monograph is fully supported by the
  citation of con temporary documents and chronicles?"
  Or, is it possible that Jacobus and the o ther experts simply
  trusted in N. de Baumgarten's scholarship and professional ism---and did
  not
  really check out the facts themselves. The Editor of a jou rnal, such as
  TAG, certainly cannot check out every fact and document himself. But, in
  this particular case, Jacobus gives the N. de Baumgarten material his
  personal imprimatur, as cited above [TAG 9:13, Paragraph 2]
  So----has N. de Baumgarten in his "Orientalia
  Christiana"---dealing
  with "The House of Rurik "---been totally discredited by subsequent
  rigorous
  scholarship---or does hi s judgment still seem credible to some serious
  scholars----or are there altern ate explanations?
  This is an intriguing question of interest to many folks who are
  descended from Anne of Kiev (c. 1024-c.1066) [Anna Yaroslavna] who marrie d
  Henry I, King of France.

Details of Yaroslav I Vladimirovich the's family with Ingigerd (Anna) of Sweden Olafsdottir