Direct Descent from Antipater, Regent for Alexander the Great and the Seleucids
Antipater (Regent for Alexander “the Great”)
Phila (Seleucid)
Antiochus I Soter m. Stratonice (Seleucid)
Antiochus II Theos (Seleucid)
ANTIOCHIS
PTOLEMY I, King of Commagene ca 163 BCE
SAMUS I, King of Commagene ca 140 BE
MITHRADATES I, King of Commagene (96-70 BCE)
ANTIOCHUS I, King of Commagene (69-39)
Dau m ORODES II, Arsacid Great King of Parthia (ca 55-38 BCE)
PHRAATES IV, Great King of Parthia (38-2 BCE when murdered by 5th son PHRAATACES) ,
had by wife THESMUSA (formerly an Italian slave-girl given him by Marc Antony)
PHRAATACES, Great King of Parthia (2 BCE -4 CE)
VONONES II, Great King of Parthia (51 CE)
VOLOGASES, Great King of Parthia (51-55 & 58-78)
PAKORUS II, Great King of Parthia (78-105)
MEHERDATES
SANATROIKES
VOLOGASES III, Great King of Parthia (105-147)
VOLOGASES IV, Great King of Parthia (148-190)
VOLOGASES V, Great King of Parthia (190-208) m dau of PHARASMENES, King of Iberia (132-82)
KHOSROES I, made King of Armenia (191-216 when kidnapped by Roman Emperor Caracalla)
TIRIDATES I (TRDAT), King of Armenia (217-222)
TIRIDATES II (TRDAT II), King of Armenia (238-52 & 279-85)
TIRIDATES III (TRDAT III), made King of Armenia in 288 by Roman Emperor Diocletian but became a Persian vassal when Armenia later came under Sassanid domination, d 342
KHOSROES II (KHOSROV II)"the Valiant", King of Western Armenia (285-297)
TIGRANES "Helios", 1st Christian King of Armenia (349-63), m PHARRANTSEM
Son 2
CHOSROES III, King of Armenia (390-92 & 412-13)
BAMBISHN, m ATHENOGARNES, greatgrandson of GRIGOR PARTEV (St. GREGORY the Illuminator, 1st Katholicos of the Armenia Church
St. NERSES, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (355-73), m a Mamikonian princess
St. ISAAC, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (378-438), founded separate Armenian church
SAHAKAMOYSH, the Gregorid heiress, m HAMAZASP I, Prince of the Mamikonids (387-432)
HAMAZASPIAN MAMIKONIAN, killed 451
HMAYCEK MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal
MUSHEL MAMIKONIAN, a Byzantine vassal alive 555
DAVID MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal alive ca 600
HAMAZASP II MAMIKONIAN, Ostikan of Armenia (655-8)
HRAHAT, a Mamikonid Prince under Arab suzerainty
DAVID, a Mamikonid Prince, d 744
SAMUEL, Prince of the Mamikonids, the Gregorid heir, killed 772
Dau, m SMBAT VI, Prince of the Bagratids
HAMYEAK, Prince of the Mamikonids, m dau of LEO V, Emperor of Byzantium
KONSTANTINOS, b 785, m PANCALO
BARDAS, a magistros
BASILEOS
GREGORIA, m NIKETAS SKLEROS
BARDAS SKLEROS, anti-Emperor (976-9, 987 & 989)
ROMANOS SKLEROS, m dau of ABU TAGLIB FAD’LALLAH of Mosul
BASILEIOS SKLEROS, magistros ca 1028, m PULCHERIA
ARGYRA, m Emp CONSTANTINE IX "Monomachus" (1042-55)
MARÍA, m VSÉVOLOD I, Great Prince of Kiev (1078-93)
VLADIMIR II, Great Prince of Kiev, d 1125, m GYTHA, dau of King HAROLD II of England
MSTISLAV I (Harald), Great Prince of Kiev & Novgorod, d 1132, m CHRISTINA
ISIASLAV II, d 1154
HELENA (EUPHRASYNA), m GEYSA II of Hungary
BÉLA III, King of Hungary, d 1196, m ANNE de CHÂTILLON
ANDREAS II, King of Hungary (1205-35), m 2ndly YOLANDE de COURTENAY
VIOLANTE, m JAYME I of Aragón and Majorca (1213-1276)
ISABELLA, m as 1st wife of PHILIPPE III "the Bold", King of France (1270-85)
PHILIPPE IV, "the Fair", King of France (1285-1314), b 1268, JEANNE, Queen of Navarre
ISABELLA, d 1357, m King EDWARD II of England (1307-27)
King EDWARD III (1327-77), m PHILIPPA of Hainault
JOHN "of Gaunt", Earl of Richmond, Duke of Lancaster, 3rdly m in 1396 KATHRYN de SWYNFORD. Before their marriage JOHN and KATHRYN had
JOHN BEAUFORT, Earl of Somerset, m MARGARET dau of Earl THOMAS de HOLLAND
JOHN BEAUFORT, Duke of Somerset, m MARGARET, dau of Baron JOHN BEAUCHAMP
MARGARET, m 2ndly EDMUND TUDOR 1st Earl of Richmond
HENRY VII, King of England (1485-1509), m ELIZABETH, dau of King EDWARD IV
MARGARET, b 1489, d 1541, m 1stly in 1503 JAMES IV, King of Scots (1488-1513)
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Conservatives on Mental Illness: Demons or Denial
Conservatives on Mental Illness: Demons or Denial
Why do religious conservatives have such a difficult time admitting mental illness exists? This question mystified me for a long time, until I asked my wife. Now, I get it. It goes back to demons. Conservatives generally support religion, while they tend to reject science. Poll how many conservatives believe in evolution and how many liberals believe in evolution. You get my gist. Some conservative still believe the earth is the center of the universe, but I doubt a single liberal does. Psychology is a science, and for that, I can see how it would alienate conservatives. Differently, religion and history go hand in hand. In religion, demons cause mental illness. Consequently, a brain that gravitates toward religion, specifically Christianity, will often explain mental illness through demons, rather than using the modern lingo.
Unfortunately, this has consequences. By neglecting the modern lingo, conservatives often neglect modern treatment for mental illness. It is as if the very idea of a psychiatrist is downright spooky to many conservatives. That is a shame because it results in denial of mental illnesses, especially untreated depression or bipolar.
Right away I’m sure many conservatives just wrote me off. I wrote bipolar, and for many conservatives, bipolar doesn’t exist. Perhaps, this is a result of failure of modern psychology. It got too complicated for the patient and families of the mentally ill to understand. Not everyone is capable being an expert on bipolar for sure. Not everyone needs to read a book on their illness to find out what is wrong. However, this is a minor error. The far greater error is to outright deny mental illness exists.
That is, I don’t care if you believe bipolar exists, but I do care if you believe mental illness is possible, specifically mental illness other than depression. This is because I care whether or not you are willing to step out of denial and treat a mental illness, not over some trifling words such as ADD, anxiety, or bipolar. No, I don’t believe that they are demons. I believe that these things are physiological problems that come from messed up metabolic pathways, and neurotransmitter function. That is, if you are mentally ill, then you need to go to your doctor and get and take your pills though not every doctor is a good one. Work with your doctor, and not against him or her, as they probably have a lot of education and you might even find that they actually do know what they are talking about.
The problem with mental illnesses is that some of them have stigma. Bipolar certainly does. Schizophrenia does. However, if you say you have some attention problems, then probably nobody will look at you funny. Yet, they may look at you funny if you say that you have ADHD. When you do have mental illness, then you are forced into trying to be politically correct about everything. Strangely, bipolar people rarely want anything to do with being politically correct. I know I don’t. That’s why I speak my mind in my blog. I no longer worry about people saying, I heard about you. I just go all out. I’ll tell anybody. I don’t care. It’s better than being paranoid that your past is coming to haunt you.
Maybe, with this attitude we see why conservatives don’t like words like bipolar. They say, is there such a thing as hyper-religiosity? Likewise, a common one is, isn’t hyper-religiosity a good thing? Then, the depression hits! All because the conservative could not recognize that hyper-religiosity is in fact a real problem! The doctor wasn’t listened to. Somebody in the family thought he or she knew best! This denial works until your loved one commits suicide, as bipolar depressions can often be prevented if the mania is prevented. You might wonder, as I do, how this sort of denial can help any family.
Why do religious conservatives have such a difficult time admitting mental illness exists? This question mystified me for a long time, until I asked my wife. Now, I get it. It goes back to demons. Conservatives generally support religion, while they tend to reject science. Poll how many conservatives believe in evolution and how many liberals believe in evolution. You get my gist. Some conservative still believe the earth is the center of the universe, but I doubt a single liberal does. Psychology is a science, and for that, I can see how it would alienate conservatives. Differently, religion and history go hand in hand. In religion, demons cause mental illness. Consequently, a brain that gravitates toward religion, specifically Christianity, will often explain mental illness through demons, rather than using the modern lingo.
Unfortunately, this has consequences. By neglecting the modern lingo, conservatives often neglect modern treatment for mental illness. It is as if the very idea of a psychiatrist is downright spooky to many conservatives. That is a shame because it results in denial of mental illnesses, especially untreated depression or bipolar.
Right away I’m sure many conservatives just wrote me off. I wrote bipolar, and for many conservatives, bipolar doesn’t exist. Perhaps, this is a result of failure of modern psychology. It got too complicated for the patient and families of the mentally ill to understand. Not everyone is capable being an expert on bipolar for sure. Not everyone needs to read a book on their illness to find out what is wrong. However, this is a minor error. The far greater error is to outright deny mental illness exists.
That is, I don’t care if you believe bipolar exists, but I do care if you believe mental illness is possible, specifically mental illness other than depression. This is because I care whether or not you are willing to step out of denial and treat a mental illness, not over some trifling words such as ADD, anxiety, or bipolar. No, I don’t believe that they are demons. I believe that these things are physiological problems that come from messed up metabolic pathways, and neurotransmitter function. That is, if you are mentally ill, then you need to go to your doctor and get and take your pills though not every doctor is a good one. Work with your doctor, and not against him or her, as they probably have a lot of education and you might even find that they actually do know what they are talking about.
The problem with mental illnesses is that some of them have stigma. Bipolar certainly does. Schizophrenia does. However, if you say you have some attention problems, then probably nobody will look at you funny. Yet, they may look at you funny if you say that you have ADHD. When you do have mental illness, then you are forced into trying to be politically correct about everything. Strangely, bipolar people rarely want anything to do with being politically correct. I know I don’t. That’s why I speak my mind in my blog. I no longer worry about people saying, I heard about you. I just go all out. I’ll tell anybody. I don’t care. It’s better than being paranoid that your past is coming to haunt you.
Maybe, with this attitude we see why conservatives don’t like words like bipolar. They say, is there such a thing as hyper-religiosity? Likewise, a common one is, isn’t hyper-religiosity a good thing? Then, the depression hits! All because the conservative could not recognize that hyper-religiosity is in fact a real problem! The doctor wasn’t listened to. Somebody in the family thought he or she knew best! This denial works until your loved one commits suicide, as bipolar depressions can often be prevented if the mania is prevented. You might wonder, as I do, how this sort of denial can help any family.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Conservatives: Big On Family or Big on Big Business. What’s it going to be?
Conservatives: Big On Family or Big on Big Business. What’s it going to be?
Most the paradoxes of the Republicans, particularly conservatives, stem from conflicting views on support of big business versus support of the family. The campaign funds have to come from somewhere. As a result, the republicans have ship wrecked their party in favor of big business. The values of big business are entirely antithetical to family values. Through being so competitive, businesses like Wal-Mart jeopardize the very idea of the family.
Big business is a reason for counterculture. People like Igor Panarin, a predictor the end of the USA, often site countercultures as a strong reason for their beliefs. We are Rome! The fights we see on television might as well be the fights of gladiators. These fights are brought to you by big business. The problem is lots of financial oppression and too much liberal thinking on subjects such as feminism and homosexuality. Historically attitudes toward homosexuality are important, and Igor Panarin agrees. People might say that we live well now. However, this neglects that we not only have things like cell phones, but that we also need them in order to function.
Big business supports the Marylyn Manson and Korn tour, “Family Values.” After all, a band like Korn is big business. These are not family values though, but if it sells, then big business will sell it. Korn is counterculture. It is not art. Counter culture is not kids wearing black clothes. That is just a trend. However, counterculture is prostituted art that has no talent. Big business is thus void of morals because it will support art that has no talent. It is greedy people simply wanting another dollar lining their pocket. Real family values have nothing to do with big business, so what is with neoconservatives supporting it? Such is my claim that the neoconservative ideal is just another brand of liberal thinking.
The USA is so liberal that even the conservatives split. Now there are the neoconservatives and the paleoconservatives. Don’t get me wrong I’m a liberal myself. However, there is such a thing as a culture that is too liberal, such as one that tolerates human fighting as a blood sport with fewer and fewer rules. The neoconservatives are the new political evil, as bad as a march for gay rights, and don’t get me wrong, I support gay rights, just not the outright picketing and parades. There is no heterosexual parade. I don’t see why there should be a parade in honor of gay people. Such a parade is moral corruption, and contrary to family values.
Neoconservatives are strongly in favor not regulating capitalism, laissez faire, but these fakes would just prefer to make any counter culture illegal. The core of conservative thinking is the family, not big business. Again, I am liberal. However, I see superfluous liberal activity as more of a symptom than anything else. Suppression is the way of the neoconservatives, and it is rather nonsensical, as big business is known for suppression, while neoconservatives seek to end counterculture by taking away outlets for the downtrodden. Why is it that neoconservatives make more outlets for the downtrodden and then ridicule the downtrodden for partaking in these outlets?
Another problem is that our country has a money plumbing problem, such that countercultures arose and then became mainstream. Morally, we’ve sprung a leak, and I don’t know how to fix it. The big business that supports Korn doesn’t support spreading the wealth and is anti-family. Capitalists simply don’t let people have money. You have to force them to pay their workers. More programs are not the answer, but perhaps less. Wealth redistribution needs to occur, living wage.
Most the paradoxes of the Republicans, particularly conservatives, stem from conflicting views on support of big business versus support of the family. The campaign funds have to come from somewhere. As a result, the republicans have ship wrecked their party in favor of big business. The values of big business are entirely antithetical to family values. Through being so competitive, businesses like Wal-Mart jeopardize the very idea of the family.
Big business is a reason for counterculture. People like Igor Panarin, a predictor the end of the USA, often site countercultures as a strong reason for their beliefs. We are Rome! The fights we see on television might as well be the fights of gladiators. These fights are brought to you by big business. The problem is lots of financial oppression and too much liberal thinking on subjects such as feminism and homosexuality. Historically attitudes toward homosexuality are important, and Igor Panarin agrees. People might say that we live well now. However, this neglects that we not only have things like cell phones, but that we also need them in order to function.
Big business supports the Marylyn Manson and Korn tour, “Family Values.” After all, a band like Korn is big business. These are not family values though, but if it sells, then big business will sell it. Korn is counterculture. It is not art. Counter culture is not kids wearing black clothes. That is just a trend. However, counterculture is prostituted art that has no talent. Big business is thus void of morals because it will support art that has no talent. It is greedy people simply wanting another dollar lining their pocket. Real family values have nothing to do with big business, so what is with neoconservatives supporting it? Such is my claim that the neoconservative ideal is just another brand of liberal thinking.
The USA is so liberal that even the conservatives split. Now there are the neoconservatives and the paleoconservatives. Don’t get me wrong I’m a liberal myself. However, there is such a thing as a culture that is too liberal, such as one that tolerates human fighting as a blood sport with fewer and fewer rules. The neoconservatives are the new political evil, as bad as a march for gay rights, and don’t get me wrong, I support gay rights, just not the outright picketing and parades. There is no heterosexual parade. I don’t see why there should be a parade in honor of gay people. Such a parade is moral corruption, and contrary to family values.
Neoconservatives are strongly in favor not regulating capitalism, laissez faire, but these fakes would just prefer to make any counter culture illegal. The core of conservative thinking is the family, not big business. Again, I am liberal. However, I see superfluous liberal activity as more of a symptom than anything else. Suppression is the way of the neoconservatives, and it is rather nonsensical, as big business is known for suppression, while neoconservatives seek to end counterculture by taking away outlets for the downtrodden. Why is it that neoconservatives make more outlets for the downtrodden and then ridicule the downtrodden for partaking in these outlets?
Another problem is that our country has a money plumbing problem, such that countercultures arose and then became mainstream. Morally, we’ve sprung a leak, and I don’t know how to fix it. The big business that supports Korn doesn’t support spreading the wealth and is anti-family. Capitalists simply don’t let people have money. You have to force them to pay their workers. More programs are not the answer, but perhaps less. Wealth redistribution needs to occur, living wage.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Who Is a Jew? Tribal Inclusion versus Exclusion
Who Is a Jew? Tribal Inclusion versus Exclusion
I hope Judaism can change so that it won’t be cut and dry as to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. An important aspect of being a Jew is going beyond the letter of the Law. In this essay, I indicate that going beyond the letter of the law is synonymous with leniency and inclusion in the debate over who is a Jew. It is a reoccurring theme in Judaism that everything is perfect, while Jewish ancestries aren’t perfect, and neither are the histories for that matter, such as historicity of the Exodus from Egypt or the numbers in the desert census of Bamidbar. Thus, in the argument over who is a Jew why pretend like anything has the semblance of perfection in Judaism?
Issues over who is a Jew often stem from the origin of the mother. From what I read, all it says is that in intermarriage the father will turn away the son, but it doesn’t say that the son will actually be turned away in adulthood. What’s wrong with leaving that case open, saying some people pursue Judaism, while some don’t, rather than being so cut and dry, requiring a conversion? Over time, exclusion of children born to gentile mothers could hurt the cause of Judaism. People get angry when they are excluded over birth. Judaism shouldn’t make people angry.
It is also true that now many gentiles are circumcised. This dates Maimonides. His teachings are only relevant so much as they can be, and in the melting pot of cultures that is America, this has implications to Judaism. As a result, I feel comfortable disagreeing with him that one does not have an obligation to a non-Jew to observe Shabbat, nor hardly any other obligation at all. Because there are less cultural differences now between Jews and gentiles, Jews should feel an obligation to be more inclusive, and this already happens much more outside of synagogues.
Who should we help observe Shabbat, but anyone that wants to observe Shabbat? Though the popularity of Shabbat observance is waning, as more and more stores operate on Sunday, there is potentially the possibility that it becomes popular, especially since God rests a day in the story of the creation week. Yet, this is an opportunity for more people to observe on the proper day, Saturday, as not taking a weekly rest can only last so long. Eventually, some people will choose to take a rest, and some might even choose to observe Shabbat in the Jewish way.
As with Shabbat, the same with circumcision: where more and more Jews are opting not to circumcise. I don’t understand how a Jewish marriage where the parents do not circumcise results in a Jewish male, where a male that intermarries, but has his son circumcised results in a gentile male. That seems like a contradiction, and though now it is more and more a reality. There are certain truths in Judaism that are not absolute, and the issue of Jewish identity is one of them. It never has been, especially not since R. Akiva commented the lost tribes of Israel are lost forever due to assimilation. If Jewish identity were absolute, then the lost tribes could not lose their identity. Let’s not pretend like its absolute.
Historically, a non-circumcised male is cut off from his people, but there is no need for his people to make this happen. The same is true for people that are not Jewish, to cut them off from the Jewish people because of their mother. Importantly, in Maimonides time, the line over who is a Jew was more cut and dry, but now it is very blurred because there are so many intermarriages, and the popularity of Judaism in this melting pot America. Similarities in behavior mean that exclusive Jewish attitudes should be a thing of the past, as if the worst thing imaginable would be someone attempting to do a mitzvah and failing for lack of proper understanding of how to observe a tradition. For what purpose is exclusion, unless for elitism? The purpose of elitism was Maimonides thinking of the time back when only Jews were circumcised, but times are different! Jews now attend secular colleges, where these anachronistic separatist ideas no longer work or even seem reasonable.
The future promises that gentiles will often be circumcised because they feel it is important to their religion, Christianity or Islam, while more Jews will not circumcise. This is already happening today, as the amount of those getting circumcised decreases now that the medical establishment doesn’t support that circumcision is any better than not having it.
There is also the possibility of pockets of Judaism developing within Christianity, where people report that Jesus was only a human teacher, but will circumcise their young, as is the case with many in the Unitarian Church. This can only mean one thing. Judaism is more accepted, and this acceptance should be returned with more leniencies from rabbis on the issue over who is a Jew or it might mean more cults if Judaism does not make an effort to be more lenient, where observant gentiles might start a Jewish cult.
The line of thinking where obligations change according to whether or not one is Jewish or gentile in my opinion ought to be defined partly by behavior and partly by ancestry, and this much Torah supports. Rabbis can recognize Jewish behavior, but that should be more important to a rabbi rather than how one is behaving relative to the origin of that person’s mother. Judaism has always been a religion of behavior, and that should be a rabbis’ concern for adults. Obviously, one behaves like one’s parents, usually, so naturally there is parental inheritance of a Jewish idea and/or behavior. However, unless a person is a jerk, one does not enter a synagogue without intentions of learning Jewish behavior, where I think an attitude of including someone to Jewish behavior is important. After all, these behaviors are healthy for anyone to perform, not just Jews.
Tests for determining who is a sincere convert, or is sincere in behavior never work. People are fickle, one minute they appear sincere the next they don’t. There is no protection to this. Sure, rabbis hope to attain a natural push and pull with the subject matter, and if that is the goal, then go for it, but encouraging one to one’s national identity over Judaism is a fraud. Maybe we could do that if we could identify the other Torah nations, but as of now Jews have a lot to offer as a nation, and the event of the lost tribes is every reason to extend love to one’s neighbor, be he/she Jewish or not. What we don’t want are people that would pass the test for sincerity operating outside the religion, and that will happen if the wrong person is turned away.
Ruth had no mikvah in her conversion, but a mikvah can be valuable in demonstrating that one is sincere. The Torah also knows of half-tribes, and paternal ascent, such that in intermarriage, one should be able to indicate that they are Jewish, but not necessarily have to walk into the mikvah as a non-Jew, and emerge as a Jew. Bathing is more common these days, and the powers of a mikvah aren’t supernatural, as the ritual would have us believe. The lost and Christianized Ethiopian Jews will gain nothing supernatural from ritual immersion, except a firm belief that they are doing something Jewish. Yet, mikvahs are not a protection that future generations of Ethiopian Jews won’t convert back to Christianity, or face some other sort of assimilation, so let’s not pretend. Consequently, the Tanach’s idea of conversion is not what it is in modernity, and maybe it is time to revert to the historic idea of conversion, as it was with Ruth.
Though ritual purity, the laws of mikvah, is an entire volume of the Talmud, it is certainly not as important to be as one of the six pillars of Judaism, over history or Hebrew. My feeling is that most of R. Judah haNassi’s version of the Mishnah has its origins during the Davidic kingdom, which had also been combined with the words G-d gave to accompany the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Thus, the Mishnah largely represents the Jewish legal system during the first and second Temple periods. Before this it is likely Celtic people were Israelites, before there were laws of ritual immersion. Thus, there was a great period of time where the Israelites were tribes both before and after the Exodus. My reasoning is that Jews are white, and thus genetically probably have a common ancestor 50,000 years ago with Celtic people, according to science. In my theory, the Exodus occurred some 50,000 years ago. Maybe this date is exaggerated, but the point is made. White people have a recent origin in human DNA, most likely from living in Nordic areas and this includes both Celtic people and Jews. The nation of Abraham, the Chaldeans is white. Thus, at some time Celtic people separated from the people that became known as the Jews, and that this became very apparent during the Davidic kingdom in roughly 1,000 BCE. Additionally, there is genetic reason to believe in the Adam and Eve story, as genetically there is evidence that all humans descend from the same two humans and the Noah story, as there is historical evidence that at one time humans were an endangered species.
Jews that go to college are often more welcoming than traditional Judaism requires. This is the spirit of going beyond what the Law requires! More exclusion is not the spirit of Judaism, by its followers, though many rabbis seem unsure of this, but that is only a historical perspective and it no longer represents the modern reality. This is the modern reality. I would expect that if an average Jew observed Shabbat at a college that his door would not only be open, but he would be happy and thankful for any company, such that he would eagerly assist someone interested in joining him regardless of the origin that his fellow student’s mother. I use Shabbat as an example because the Talmud says that Shabbat observance is the barometer for determining who is a Jew. Consequently, Judaism should adapt by showing obligation to help any person that wants to observe Shabbat fostering an attitude of inclusion rather than exclusion, as this represents how the majority of Jews feel.
I hope Judaism can change so that it won’t be cut and dry as to who is Jewish and who is not Jewish. An important aspect of being a Jew is going beyond the letter of the Law. In this essay, I indicate that going beyond the letter of the law is synonymous with leniency and inclusion in the debate over who is a Jew. It is a reoccurring theme in Judaism that everything is perfect, while Jewish ancestries aren’t perfect, and neither are the histories for that matter, such as historicity of the Exodus from Egypt or the numbers in the desert census of Bamidbar. Thus, in the argument over who is a Jew why pretend like anything has the semblance of perfection in Judaism?
Issues over who is a Jew often stem from the origin of the mother. From what I read, all it says is that in intermarriage the father will turn away the son, but it doesn’t say that the son will actually be turned away in adulthood. What’s wrong with leaving that case open, saying some people pursue Judaism, while some don’t, rather than being so cut and dry, requiring a conversion? Over time, exclusion of children born to gentile mothers could hurt the cause of Judaism. People get angry when they are excluded over birth. Judaism shouldn’t make people angry.
It is also true that now many gentiles are circumcised. This dates Maimonides. His teachings are only relevant so much as they can be, and in the melting pot of cultures that is America, this has implications to Judaism. As a result, I feel comfortable disagreeing with him that one does not have an obligation to a non-Jew to observe Shabbat, nor hardly any other obligation at all. Because there are less cultural differences now between Jews and gentiles, Jews should feel an obligation to be more inclusive, and this already happens much more outside of synagogues.
Who should we help observe Shabbat, but anyone that wants to observe Shabbat? Though the popularity of Shabbat observance is waning, as more and more stores operate on Sunday, there is potentially the possibility that it becomes popular, especially since God rests a day in the story of the creation week. Yet, this is an opportunity for more people to observe on the proper day, Saturday, as not taking a weekly rest can only last so long. Eventually, some people will choose to take a rest, and some might even choose to observe Shabbat in the Jewish way.
As with Shabbat, the same with circumcision: where more and more Jews are opting not to circumcise. I don’t understand how a Jewish marriage where the parents do not circumcise results in a Jewish male, where a male that intermarries, but has his son circumcised results in a gentile male. That seems like a contradiction, and though now it is more and more a reality. There are certain truths in Judaism that are not absolute, and the issue of Jewish identity is one of them. It never has been, especially not since R. Akiva commented the lost tribes of Israel are lost forever due to assimilation. If Jewish identity were absolute, then the lost tribes could not lose their identity. Let’s not pretend like its absolute.
Historically, a non-circumcised male is cut off from his people, but there is no need for his people to make this happen. The same is true for people that are not Jewish, to cut them off from the Jewish people because of their mother. Importantly, in Maimonides time, the line over who is a Jew was more cut and dry, but now it is very blurred because there are so many intermarriages, and the popularity of Judaism in this melting pot America. Similarities in behavior mean that exclusive Jewish attitudes should be a thing of the past, as if the worst thing imaginable would be someone attempting to do a mitzvah and failing for lack of proper understanding of how to observe a tradition. For what purpose is exclusion, unless for elitism? The purpose of elitism was Maimonides thinking of the time back when only Jews were circumcised, but times are different! Jews now attend secular colleges, where these anachronistic separatist ideas no longer work or even seem reasonable.
The future promises that gentiles will often be circumcised because they feel it is important to their religion, Christianity or Islam, while more Jews will not circumcise. This is already happening today, as the amount of those getting circumcised decreases now that the medical establishment doesn’t support that circumcision is any better than not having it.
There is also the possibility of pockets of Judaism developing within Christianity, where people report that Jesus was only a human teacher, but will circumcise their young, as is the case with many in the Unitarian Church. This can only mean one thing. Judaism is more accepted, and this acceptance should be returned with more leniencies from rabbis on the issue over who is a Jew or it might mean more cults if Judaism does not make an effort to be more lenient, where observant gentiles might start a Jewish cult.
The line of thinking where obligations change according to whether or not one is Jewish or gentile in my opinion ought to be defined partly by behavior and partly by ancestry, and this much Torah supports. Rabbis can recognize Jewish behavior, but that should be more important to a rabbi rather than how one is behaving relative to the origin of that person’s mother. Judaism has always been a religion of behavior, and that should be a rabbis’ concern for adults. Obviously, one behaves like one’s parents, usually, so naturally there is parental inheritance of a Jewish idea and/or behavior. However, unless a person is a jerk, one does not enter a synagogue without intentions of learning Jewish behavior, where I think an attitude of including someone to Jewish behavior is important. After all, these behaviors are healthy for anyone to perform, not just Jews.
Tests for determining who is a sincere convert, or is sincere in behavior never work. People are fickle, one minute they appear sincere the next they don’t. There is no protection to this. Sure, rabbis hope to attain a natural push and pull with the subject matter, and if that is the goal, then go for it, but encouraging one to one’s national identity over Judaism is a fraud. Maybe we could do that if we could identify the other Torah nations, but as of now Jews have a lot to offer as a nation, and the event of the lost tribes is every reason to extend love to one’s neighbor, be he/she Jewish or not. What we don’t want are people that would pass the test for sincerity operating outside the religion, and that will happen if the wrong person is turned away.
Ruth had no mikvah in her conversion, but a mikvah can be valuable in demonstrating that one is sincere. The Torah also knows of half-tribes, and paternal ascent, such that in intermarriage, one should be able to indicate that they are Jewish, but not necessarily have to walk into the mikvah as a non-Jew, and emerge as a Jew. Bathing is more common these days, and the powers of a mikvah aren’t supernatural, as the ritual would have us believe. The lost and Christianized Ethiopian Jews will gain nothing supernatural from ritual immersion, except a firm belief that they are doing something Jewish. Yet, mikvahs are not a protection that future generations of Ethiopian Jews won’t convert back to Christianity, or face some other sort of assimilation, so let’s not pretend. Consequently, the Tanach’s idea of conversion is not what it is in modernity, and maybe it is time to revert to the historic idea of conversion, as it was with Ruth.
Though ritual purity, the laws of mikvah, is an entire volume of the Talmud, it is certainly not as important to be as one of the six pillars of Judaism, over history or Hebrew. My feeling is that most of R. Judah haNassi’s version of the Mishnah has its origins during the Davidic kingdom, which had also been combined with the words G-d gave to accompany the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Thus, the Mishnah largely represents the Jewish legal system during the first and second Temple periods. Before this it is likely Celtic people were Israelites, before there were laws of ritual immersion. Thus, there was a great period of time where the Israelites were tribes both before and after the Exodus. My reasoning is that Jews are white, and thus genetically probably have a common ancestor 50,000 years ago with Celtic people, according to science. In my theory, the Exodus occurred some 50,000 years ago. Maybe this date is exaggerated, but the point is made. White people have a recent origin in human DNA, most likely from living in Nordic areas and this includes both Celtic people and Jews. The nation of Abraham, the Chaldeans is white. Thus, at some time Celtic people separated from the people that became known as the Jews, and that this became very apparent during the Davidic kingdom in roughly 1,000 BCE. Additionally, there is genetic reason to believe in the Adam and Eve story, as genetically there is evidence that all humans descend from the same two humans and the Noah story, as there is historical evidence that at one time humans were an endangered species.
Jews that go to college are often more welcoming than traditional Judaism requires. This is the spirit of going beyond what the Law requires! More exclusion is not the spirit of Judaism, by its followers, though many rabbis seem unsure of this, but that is only a historical perspective and it no longer represents the modern reality. This is the modern reality. I would expect that if an average Jew observed Shabbat at a college that his door would not only be open, but he would be happy and thankful for any company, such that he would eagerly assist someone interested in joining him regardless of the origin that his fellow student’s mother. I use Shabbat as an example because the Talmud says that Shabbat observance is the barometer for determining who is a Jew. Consequently, Judaism should adapt by showing obligation to help any person that wants to observe Shabbat fostering an attitude of inclusion rather than exclusion, as this represents how the majority of Jews feel.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
My Relation to George III [American Revolution Loser] and Q. Elizabeth II
My Relation to George III [American Revolution Loser] and Q. Elizabeth II
Genealogy #1
King James II
King James III
James IV (common ancestor and my great x15 grandfather)
James V – associated with King James Bible (great x14 uncle)
Mary, Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III – Ruled over 13 American Colonies, Lost Power in American Revolution (9th cousin 6x removed)
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II – (15th cousin same generation or not removed), present monarch
Genealogy #2 – more distant relationship than above
King James II
James, 1st Lord Hamilton and Mary of Scotland (common ancestors)
Elizabeth Hamilton and Matthew Stewart 2nd Earl of Lennox
John Stewart 3rd Earl of Lennox
Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox
Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II
Note: Mary of Scotland is not Mary Queen of Scots
Genealogy #1
King James II
King James III
James IV (common ancestor and my great x15 grandfather)
James V – associated with King James Bible (great x14 uncle)
Mary, Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III – Ruled over 13 American Colonies, Lost Power in American Revolution (9th cousin 6x removed)
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II – (15th cousin same generation or not removed), present monarch
Genealogy #2 – more distant relationship than above
King James II
James, 1st Lord Hamilton and Mary of Scotland (common ancestors)
Elizabeth Hamilton and Matthew Stewart 2nd Earl of Lennox
John Stewart 3rd Earl of Lennox
Matthew Stewart 4th Earl of Lennox
Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley and Mary Queen of Scots
James VI
Elizabeth
Sophia
George I
George II
Fredrick Louis prince of Wales
George III
Edward duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VII
George V
George VI
Elizabeth II
Note: Mary of Scotland is not Mary Queen of Scots
Direct Descent from the semi-legendary King Arthur
Direct Descent from the semi-legendary King Arthur
Arthur of Dyfed ~590 CE
Nowy
Sanan
Elisedd
Brochfael
Cadell
Nest
Rhodri Mawr
Cadell
Hywel Dda
Owain
Einion
Cadell
Tewdwr
Rhys
Gruffydd
The Lord Rhys
Gruffydd
Owain
Maredudd
Owain
Llywellyn
Thomas
Margaret
Maredudd ap Tudor
Owen Tudor
Edmund Tudor
Henry VII
Margaret Tudor
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Arthur of Dyfed ~590 CE
Nowy
Sanan
Elisedd
Brochfael
Cadell
Nest
Rhodri Mawr
Cadell
Hywel Dda
Owain
Einion
Cadell
Tewdwr
Rhys
Gruffydd
The Lord Rhys
Gruffydd
Owain
Maredudd
Owain
Llywellyn
Thomas
Margaret
Maredudd ap Tudor
Owen Tudor
Edmund Tudor
Henry VII
Margaret Tudor
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
2nd, 3rd and 4th descent from K. Henry II Anjou
2nd, 3rd and 4th descent from K. Henry II Anjou
Henry II Anjou (Descent #2 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Lionel duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh
Philippa Edmund Mortimer 3rd Earl of March
Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March and Eleanor Holland
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #3 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Edmund duke of York
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #4 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp
Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #2 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Lionel duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh
Philippa Edmund Mortimer 3rd Earl of March
Roger Mortimer 4th Earl of March and Eleanor Holland
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #3 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
Edmund duke of York
Anne Mortimer and Richard Earl of Cambridge
Richard duke of York and Cecilia Neville
Edward IV
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Henry II Anjou (Descent #4 by Descent #2 from King James IV)
John
Henry III
Edward I
Edward II
Edward III
John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Holland
John Beaufort earl of Somerset and Margaret Beauchamp
Edmund Tudor and Margaret Beaufort
Henry VII and Elizabeth of York
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Sunday, September 13, 2009
$11.8T In Debt Is Just the Beginning!
$11.8T In Debt Is Just the Beginning!
Social Security and Medicare $59.0 trillion total $192,068 per person
Private Debt $7.4 trillion $24,095 per person
National debt $11.8 trillion $38,412 per person
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-05-28-debt_N.htm
Also figure in:
$81,594 average in mortgages owed per capita
$29,694 in military retirement owed per capita
$15,851 in civil servant retirement owed per capita
I was unable to find the amount of State and Local Government Debt.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Judah, Father of Kings and Presidents + Reference List
This blog site contain several ancestries that go through Persia, Greece, Trojan and European rulers. These ancestries proove one tribe has ruled the world, Judah. The ancestries, 5 separate ones that separate and rejoin, go through Armenia, Turkey, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, France, and Britain. The data covers over 3,000yrs worth of time that the tribe of Judah has been in power. One king beget another. That is most people that call themselves Jews do not descend from Judah, but from converts. The nation of Abraham was thus christianized, except for a few individuals. The trend of Judah's ruling has continued in the USA, as many Presidents, if not all, trace their lineage to a king. That is even former President George Bush Jr. and President Barrack Obama trace their lineage to a king, Barrack through his mother.
"The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his." - Genesis 49:10
"And I will bless her [Sarah], and I will give you a son from her, and I will bless her, and she will become [a mother of] nations; kings of nations will be from her. " - Genesis 17:16
Here are links of the 5 ancestries from Judah that go up through modern rulers:
These might seem like wild claims, so I will also leave you a long list of references, primary texts not internet only books, I used to support the claims made in these 5 ancestries.
Additionally, I used the referenced site http://www.thepeerage.com to do my own ancestry.
For lack of a better source, the list of Presidents that have king ancestors is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_genealogical_relationship. The link to the list, which I put on my website is: http://craig-myspace-sandwich.blogspot.com/2009/04/presidential-king.html
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Direct Descent from Zerah through Darius the Great
Direct Descent from Zerah through Darius the Great
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Zerah m. Danae
Perseus (Plato, Alcibaides)
Teispes
DARIUS I,Great King of Persia (521-485 BCE)
XERXES, Great King of Persia (485-465/4 BCE)
ARTAXERXES I, Great King of Persia (464-424 BCE)
DARIUS III, Great King of Persia (424-404 BCE) m his half-sister PARYSATIS (1 Maccabees 12 – “Darius our brethren”)
ARTAXERXES, Great King of Persia (404-358 BCE)
RHODOGUNDE m ORONTES II, Satrap of Armenia
ORONTES (AROANDES) III, Satrap of Armenia, becoming King in 331 BCE
MITHRANES I, King of Armenia (331-ca 318 BCE)
AROANDES, King of Armenia (ca 318-ca 260 BCE)
SAMOS I, King of Armenia (ca 260 BCE)
ARSAMES I, King of Armenia (ca 259-after 228 BCE)
XERXES, King of Armenia (ca 227-after 212 BCE), m ANTIOCHIS dau of ANTIOCHUS II, Seleucid King of Syria (262/1-246 BCE)
PTOLEMY I, King of Commagene ca 163 BCE
SAMUS I, King of Commagene ca 140 BE
MITHRADATES I, King of Commagene (96-70 BCE)
ANTIOCHUS I, King of Commagene (69-39)
Dau m ORODES II, Arsacid Great King of Parthia (ca 55-38 BCE)
PHRAATES IV, Great King of Parthia (38-2 BCE when murdered by 5th son PHRAATACES) ,
had by wife THESMUSA (formerly an Italian slave-girl given him by Marc Antony)
PHRAATACES, Great King of Parthia (2 BCE -4 CE)
VONONES II, Great King of Parthia (51 CE)
VOLOGASES, Great King of Parthia (51-55 & 58-78)
PAKORUS II, Great King of Parthia (78-105)
MEHERDATES
SANATROIKES
VOLOGASES III, Great King of Parthia (105-147)
VOLOGASES IV, Great King of Parthia (148-190)
VOLOGASES V, Great King of Parthia (190-208) m dau of PHARASMENES, King of Iberia (132-82)
KHOSROES I, made King of Armenia (191-216 when kidnapped by Roman Emperor Caracalla)
TIRIDATES I (TRDAT), King of Armenia (217-222)
TIRIDATES II (TRDAT II), King of Armenia (238-52 & 279-85)
TIRIDATES III (TRDAT III), made King of Armenia in 288 by Roman Emperor Diocletian but became a Persian vassal when Armenia later came under Sassanid domination, d 342
KHOSROES II (KHOSROV II)"the Valiant", King of Western Armenia (285-297)
TIGRANES "Helios", 1st Christian King of Armenia (349-63), m PHARRANTSEM
Son 2
CHOSROES III, King of Armenia (390-92 & 412-13)
BAMBISHN, m ATHENOGARNES, greatgrandson of GRIGOR PARTEV (St. GREGORY the Illuminator, 1st Katholicos of the Armenia Church
St. NERSES, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (355-73), m a Mamikonian princess
St. ISAAC, hereditary Katholicos of Armenia (378-438), founded separate Armenian church
SAHAKAMOYSH, the Gregorid heiress, m HAMAZASP I, Prince of the Mamikonids (387-432)
HAMAZASPIAN MAMIKONIAN, killed 451
HMAYCEK MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal
MUSHEL MAMIKONIAN, a Byzantine vassal alive 555
DAVID MAMIKONIAN, a Persian vassal alive ca 600
HAMAZASP II MAMIKONIAN, Ostikan of Armenia (655-8)
HRAHAT, a Mamikonid Prince under Arab suzerainty
DAVID, a Mamikonid Prince, d 744
SAMUEL, Prince of the Mamikonids, the Gregorid heir, killed 772
Dau, m SMBAT VI, Prince of the Bagratids
HAMYEAK, Prince of the Mamikonids, m dau of LEO V, Emperor of Byzantium
KONSTANTINOS, b 785, m PANCALO
BARDAS, a magistros
BASILEOS
GREGORIA, m NIKETAS SKLEROS
BARDAS SKLEROS, anti-Emperor (976-9, 987 & 989)
ROMANOS SKLEROS, m dau of ABU TAGLIB FAD’LALLAH of Mosul
BASILEIOS SKLEROS, magistros ca 1028, m PULCHERIA
ARGYRA, m Emp CONSTANTINE IX "Monomachus" (1042-55)
MARÍA, m VSÉVOLOD I, Great Prince of Kiev (1078-93)
VLADIMIR II, Great Prince of Kiev, d 1125, m GYTHA, dau of King HAROLD II of England
MSTISLAV I (Harald), Great Prince of Kiev & Novgorod, d 1132, m CHRISTINA
ISIASLAV II, d 1154
HELENA (EUPHRASYNA), m GEYSA II of Hungary
BÉLA III, King of Hungary, d 1196, m ANNE de CHÂTILLON
ANDREAS II, King of Hungary (1205-35), m 2ndly YOLANDE de COURTENAY
VIOLANTE, m JAYME I of Aragón and Majorca (1213-1276)
ISABELLA, m as 1st wife of PHILIPPE III "the Bold", King of France (1270-85)
PHILIPPE IV, "the Fair", King of France (1285-1314), b 1268, JEANNE, Queen of Navarre
ISABELLA, d 1357, m King EDWARD II of England (1307-27)
King EDWARD III (1327-77), m PHILIPPA of Hainault
JOHN "of Gaunt", Earl of Richmond, Duke of Lancaster, 3rdly m in 1396 KATHRYN de SWYNFORD. Before their marriage JOHN and KATHRYN had
JOHN BEAUFORT, Earl of Somerset, m MARGARET dau of Earl THOMAS de HOLLAND
JOHN BEAUFORT, Duke of Somerset, m MARGARET, dau of Baron JOHN BEAUCHAMP
MARGARET, m 2ndly EDMUND TUDOR 1st Earl of Richmond
HENRY VII, King of England (1485-1509), m ELIZABETH, dau of King EDWARD IV
MARGARET, b 1489, d 1541, m 1stly in 1503 JAMES IV, King of Scots (1488-1513)
James IV
Catherine Stewart and James Douglas,3rd Earl of Morton
Lady Margaret Douglas
Claud Hamilton 1st Lord Paisley
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Abercorn
Sir George Hamilton 1st Baronet, of Donalong
James Hamilton Groom of the Chamber to Charles II
Sir James Hamilton 6th Earl of Abercorn
James the seventh Earl of Abercorn, Lord Paisley
Hon. John Hamilton/Sgt. John O Hamilton Sr. in American Revolution
David/Jacob Hamilton
Levi Weirick Hamilton
William Newton Hamilton
Harry Hamilton
Howard Hamilton
Craig Hamilton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)