Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium MONOMAHINYA - Parents Identity of Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium MONOMAHINYA

Hi Sabine,

I agree with you and second your motion,

Further until recently "Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzanteum" also had mother namely:
Helena "Pulcheria" Skleraina

someone made an unilateral decision to go and delete both of her parents from the world family tree?

Emperor Konstantinos IX is attached again as the father of Anastasia. It is probable that among his 6 partners now mentioned, at least 2 or 3 are the same person. But we’ll wait some time for further opinions.

Regards, CGV

There must be a link also with the real parents of Theophano, empress-consort of the Holy Roman Empire.

Actually the info in her About section says that the Medlands source ' does not name her or give her origin[1694]. The primary source which states her name has not so far been identified.' and goes on to say it's unlikely she's the Emperor's daughter;

So, I think it was appropriate that her parents were disconnected because in tracing pathways to other kin, I keep running into this and the pathways are 'ify' at best to my relationship to people connected via the unproven parentage.

Unless it can be resolved without speculation, it's best not to have questionable parents connected that mess up other pathways.

Reread what it says in this excerpt from her About section:

No doubt her belonging to the Monomachos family has been assumed, firstly because her son is generally known as "Vladimir Monomakh", and secondly because Emperor Konstantinos IX Monomachos ruled in Byzantium at the date of her marriage, but no information has been found to corroborate this. It is unlikely that she was the daughter of the Emperor Konstantinos himself as he is not recorded in Greek sources as having had children by any of his wives or mistresses...

Jason Scott Wills

Hi Jason, tagging you as the curator since us regular folks aren't supposed to make changes to these ancient lines, but you can read previous posts indicating that her parental connections aren't validated and should be disconnected. They had been disconnected and some folks seemed to persist in wanting the connections to remain in spite of evidence to the contrary of any validity.

If fixed again, perhaps locking her profile to avoid having unvalidated parentage reconnected to her would be appropriate.

im aware of it. but there are a group of people on geni obsessed with keeping every fake line on geni and if i cut it ill be publicly attacked like usual

I'd rather have my lines cut than have fake ancestry. Most folks actually want to know who their real ancestors were. That's true genealogy. That's why we have the option on Geni to question connections and get them sorted out correctly, in an effort to have valid kinship pathways on Geni. So it's distressing to know there is a small group of such people as you describe who get to dictate whether we have accuracy or not and who are albe to basically bully curators into leaving fake connections in place.

Disconnected as child of Constantine IX Monomachos, byzantine emperor and Helen Monamachos

Send bullyers to me.

The Wikipedia article was updated and now mention no children of the Emperor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_IX_Monomachos

Constantine tried to intervene, but he fell ill and died on 11 January of the following year.[31] He was persuaded by his councillors, chiefly the logothetes tou dromou John, to ignore the rights of the elderly Theodora, daughter of Constantine VIII, and to pass the throne to the doux of Bulgaria, Nikephoros Proteuon.[32] However, Theodora was recalled from her retirement and named empress.[33]

Erica, you ROCK! lol

Wow! Apparently, Anastasia Irene Maria Monomachos of Byzantium is my 31st Great Grandmother.
... This is why I really enjoy following these discussions.

Me too! I never know until it comes up.

More about the Emperor had no children ...

“Psellos mentions no children in his detailed review of the events of his reign.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Psellos

Psellos was universally educated and had a reputation for being one of the most learned men of his time ...

—-

This man was a courtier and knew the family well. He would have noticed a daughter.

How did she get so many names attached to her? Medlands states:

1. [MARIA] [Irena] ([1030/35])-1067). The Primary Chronicle refers to the wife of Vsevolod as "the Greek princess" but does not name her or give her origin[1694]. The primary source which states her name has not so far been identified. Apparently she and her marriage are not referred to in Greek sources.

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM.htm#MariaMonomachedied1067

Which just shows 'Maria' and yet says her name is unknown. But she has the whole Anastasia Irene Maria etc. going on. lol

yeah just "greek princess" and photo removed

You act like children, Владимир Всеволодович Мономах is the proof that his mother was belonging to the Monomachos family, "No doubt her belonging to the Monomachos family has been assumed, firstly because her son is generally known as "Vladimir Monomakh", and secondly because Emperor Konstantinos IX Monomachos ruled in Byzantium at the date of her marriage, but no information has been found to corroborate this."
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BYZANTIUM.htm#MariaMonomachedied1067

The son of Vsevolod Yaroslavich IS THE PROOF!
"The Primary Chronicle refers to the wife of Vsevolod as "the Greek princess" but does not name her or give her origin", Hey, does not give her origin??? It says GREEK princess...

Cut the lines as you always does when the reality seems to hard to swallow. The truth lies here inbedded in the whole context, not the missing parts that clearly without doubts states what's true.

The section from Medlands we've both referred to states very clearly that no information has been found to corroborate the assumption made about her parentage.

While Medlands states she was a Greek princess, it says it doesn't give her name or origin, which I took to mean referred to her who her parents were, not which country she was from. However, Medlands does state that while she's referred to as a Greek princess, there is no Greek source that mentions her.

The whole point of the discussion was to sort assumptions from facts. It's the assumptions that has clouded the issues. It doesn't do any of us any good to have ''assumed" ancestries and kinship paths. I go into these discussion seeking clarification and further documention, not with the goal to cut valid connections but rather to sort which are vaild and which aren't. I'm open either way but rather err on the side of better documentation than this profile has.

If someone can find further documentation to prove what her name was, explain why she's called a Greek princess and yet there is no Greek record of her, as well as documentation rather than assumptions of who her parents were, all of us in this discussion would welcome it.

That's not being childish, that's just wanting good genealogy. I hadn't read a single comment that indicated anyone was behaving like a child. If you have better documentation, provide it. If you don't, you should be pleased to see others working diligently to make sure the connections are correct.

Everyone who is related to a line has as much right as anyone else to inquire about, to investigate further into whatever documentation may or may not be available, etc. It's time-consuming and often frustrating and only those who really care about accuracy will even take the time. So to be disrespectful about it is what's childish.

We can make personal trees on other sites and connect them any way we want to. I have some lines I have connected differently in my personal tree than how they're connected on Geni for one reason or another, but I like it when we can collaborate and make sure things are correct so I can have my personal tree and the world tree match.

I think it's a better practice to base connections on what has been validated rather than assumed. If new information comes forth that validates what has been assumed, wonderful. Things can always be updated. That just seems to be solid genealogy vs. 'ify' connections.

If Medlands felt the son was the 'proof', the statements about assumptions and lack of corroboration wouldn't have been necessary. So your argument isn't with us but with the Medlands research and ignoring the further evidence that Erica provided.

Rather than your conclusion that it's clear without any doubts what is true overlooks the red flags such as " It is unlikely that she was the daughter of the Emperor Konstantinos himself as he is not recorded in Greek sources as having had children by any of his wives or mistresses..." and then the further information Erica provided.

If there is a blood connection to the Monomachos family, it seems pretty obvious that it's not thorough the Emperor, which brings it all full circle back to the fact that her parents are unknown and we have no idea how she was connected to that family. We aren't saying she's not from them 'somehow', but we can't just make up connections that fit how we'd like it to be if there's no proof for it.

I trust Erica's research and am glad she was able to find further information that shed more light on the fact about the Emperor not having had any children. So I'm convinced we've sorted this out as well as can be.

Just quoting what others have stated:

“The Byzantine emperor Constantine IX did marry his daughter to one
of Grand Prince Yaroslav’s sons, Vsevolod, in 1046, probably hoping to
guarantee peace with Rus’; their child, Vladimir, eventually took the
Kievan throne and proudly used his mother’s family name, Monomach, as
his sobriquet.” -- G. Majeska, “Rus’ and the Byzantine empire,” in_A
companion to Russian studies_, ed. A. Gleason (Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2007), 58.

“In 1043, a fleet arrived to attack Constantinople, but after it was
defeated and burned by the Byzantine navy, Yaroslav I gratefully
accepted the illegitimate daughter of Constantine IX Monomakhos for
his son Vsevolod, the future prince of Kiev.” – E. N. Luttwak,_The
grand strategy of the Byzantine empire_(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press, 2009), 219.

Early medieval princesses are an endangered species around here. Hunted like big game. This makes the third one that I'm aware of. They must make great trophies.

Private User, you said quoting what others have stated but neither of the quotes you posted had been shared on here before, as far as I've seen. Excellent find!

I know we can't always believe everything we read in books. I've found errors in genealogy books I've purchased. But these aren't genealogy references but historical references and one of the books was printed by Harvard Unviersity Press, so I think these sources should be very reliable.

Erica Howton, Markku Sarubin posted a couple of quotes that validate the connection to Constantine IX, one listing her as his illegitimate daughter! This definitely is different from what is on Wikipedia, Medlands, etc. but are from histories of the Byzantine empire.

Thanks to Markku, we now have actual documentation validating a daughter of Constantine IX! This is the documentation that belongs in her About section! I'd say this finally clears it up! I'm excited! A happy ending for all of us!

Markku, can't thank you enough!

Erica, I'm guessing after reading Markuu's quotes that perhaps she wasn't mentioned as a child of Constantine's because she was illegitimate and that's also probably why her mother isn't named. What do you think after reading what Markku shared?

I feel we started with dubious connections that weren't supported, Erica found more lack of evidence than otherwise in the works she shared, and then Markku gave us just what has been needed. So the discussion served a huge purpose, in my opinion. If we hadn't had the discussion, the info from Markku wouldn't have surfaced for us to add to her profile and remove the question-mark on her genealogy.

It all starts with someone questioning the mother, it ends with nobodys cutting off both parents, when in fact, the only uncertainty would be the given name of that Greek princess. It's a fact by conclusion that she was 1, a princess, 2, belonged to the Monomachos family, 3 was a daughter of a mistress, and the mistress, yes, she was Maria Skleraina...

Just cut the lines on Geni and then go to wikipedia, erase the child there, and then feel proud of doing, what? History falsification! You should be ashamed.

The source history looks good.

https://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Luttwak_GrandStrategyByzEmp.htm

No one here edited Wikipedia. Nor does the name of the son prove the mother, just indicates which house she’s from. Nor do we yet know which mistress, do we?

Private User Do you have live links to your source and / or even better, page scans to upload and attach to profiles?

Particularly interested in what primary sources Luttwak used for his claim of parentage; that would be useful indeed.

Re: I'm guessing after reading Markuu's quotes that perhaps she wasn't mentioned as a child of Constantine's because she was illegitimate and that's also probably why her mother isn't named.

No. She would have been a bargaining asset regardless of legitimacy. Might be able to work out which mistress (earlier ? Later ?) or find sources.

What do you think after reading what Markku shared?

I think that we don’t do relationships in the same way today as they did in 1042 so we need to be very careful about making connections. What impresses me about Luttwack is it seems he was able to find more sourcing than the Psellos Books Cawley uses in Medlands (who is the contemporaneous historian of excellent reputation, so ...)

I'm very happy that Markku shared those quotes. I agree with you that the son doesn't prove the mother's parentage. That's what Medlands pointed out, that she's 'somehow' related to that family but didn't have any source to prove her parentage. What Markku shared sheds better light on her connections. I think we've gone about trying to verify the connections correctly rather than accepting assumptions.

It still doesn't give us her name, just 'the illegitimate daughter of Constantine IX' but does confirm her marriage to Vsevolod, which Medlands had said: "...Apparently she and her marriage are not referred to in Greek sources."

This does bring up another matter. Medlands is so often the go-to source for such early genealogy / history. This is the first time I've seen Medlands' info be so incorrect / incomplete. Just goes to show that all sites have errors and/or incomplete documentation. So now when using Medlands as 'the' source for these periods, seems it's now in the category with everything else as being 'a' source but now with the knowledge it's not the 'be all and end all' it has typically been used as.

Again, I have to say that the info Markku shared just shows how important collaboration is since that has much more detail on the issues in this discussion than the other sources. Markku, I'm impressed with your research!

This is a side issue but relates to why documentation is so important. I was reading some posts in a genealogy research group I'm in this morning and they were putting down hard and heavy on people whose trees they've visited show nobility and royalty in their ancestry. They called it 'wishtory' rather than history. It's always best to have the kind of documentation Markku provided so when naye-sayers like that start making noise about how we can't possibly be descendants of Constantine IX, just as the example in this case, we can actually prove our lines. The people with all the negativity in the posts were going so far as to dismiss published noble / royal genealogies as serving their own agenda and not being factual. They dismissed The Peerage and other sources. It was one of those group discussions where all the naye-sayers were in agreement and basically patting each other on the back for not believing regular people like them or ous could have royal ancestors. I knew better than to comment because they have closed minds about it. But it's wonderful when questioned in a less negative discussion when you can actually refer them to something that proves the genealogy. It's things like that why documenting this princess is so exciting!