Beatrice of Savoy - Wonderful

Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

The rulers of Savoy seem to have been overly fond of the name Beatrice (Beatrix) - Amedeus IV had a sister and *two* daughters by that name, and that's just for starters.

The Beatrix who married Raymond Berenger was his sister.

His daughter Beatrix the elder married the two Manfreds.

As to Beatrix the younger: m firstly (21 Oct 1268) PIERRE "le Bouvier" de Salins Seigneur de Châtelbelin, son of JEAN I "l'Antique/le Sage" Seigneur de Salins [Bourgogne-Comté] & his second wife Isabelle de Courtenay (-[21 Jul 1272/29 Apr 1274]). m secondly (1275) as his second wife, Infante don MANUEL de Castilla y León, Señor de Escalona y Peñafiel, son of FERNANDO III “el Santo” King of Castile & his first wife Elisabeth von Hohenstaufen (Carrión de los Condes 1234-Peñafiel 25 Dec 1283, bur Uclés, Santiago convent).

There was also a *niece* Beatrix (daughter of his brother Pierre), who m firstly (Betrothed 4 Dec 1241, [before 22 Apr 1253]) GUIGUES Dauphin de Viennois Comte d'Albon, son of ANDRE Comte d´Albon [Bourgogne-Capet] & his third wife Beatrice di Monferrato ([1225]-[Aug/Nov] 1269, bur Chartreuse Abbaye de Prémol). m secondly (contract 2 Apr 1273) as his second wife, GASTON VII Vicomte de Béarn, son of GUILLEN de Moncada Vicomte de Béarn & his wife Gersende de Provence [Aragon-Barcelona] (1225-26 Apr 1290).

https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SAVOY.htm

I guess the good news is there actually isn't much to rework.

All I know is geni says they are both my grandmothers....

https://www.geni.com/path/Diana+is+related+to+B%C3%A9atrice-de-Savo...

https://www.geni.com/path/Diana+is+related+to+Beatrice-of-Savoy?fro...

I already finished correcting it. It only took a couple minutes. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing when you already have most all of someone's ancestors in your tree and can just import them and their line every time they turn up.

I use a different program/service to build my tree. I imagine Geni works in a similar manner.

how do we know "your real tree" is accurate? my "real tree" from another database could be more correct than the geni tree or less (each entry is a research project on its own). yet you claim your "real tree" is the right one.

proof, examples, diagrams, charts, screenshots.

give us something other than your ?word.

drsjp

Depends. If it matches up with MedLands it *may* be accurate (to the extent that MedLands is), and if it doesn't....

So far I have found *very few* instances where MedLands was just plain wrong.

I didn't claim or say any of that. I had a conflicting entry that I believed to be wrong and wanted to verify that it was before I started making changes.

It turned out to be minor as I had the correct person but had attached to her the genealogy of her aunt, who has the same name.

By "real tree" I meant I have an actual tree elsewhere as my tree on this site is not real. I thought that was obvious.

I don't know why I am writing any of this. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting by saying this, but you've given me the impression you have dyslexia.

Well, Buster, if you REALLY want to be helpful, you can come down off your snooty patooty high horse and help the rest of us unsnarl the incredibly tangled messed-up MESS this part of the tree has been turned into.

And if you don't want to help, shut up and go away.

I was responding to Dr. Stephen who reminds me of another Dr. Steve who sometimes has difficulty with words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzSEd7e6tdc

There are no private conversations in Discussions. Anything and everything you say is public. And anyone and everyone can kibitz.

So we have four Beatrices, they are *supposedly* correctly sorted, and the subject can now be closed. If you two want to continue to harangue each other, please take it to GeniMail, or better yet off the site.

So there wasn't actually an issue regarding what was correct. The issue was I made an error and applied the parentage and genealogy of Beatrice's aunt to her. I don't remember when or why I did this, but I can understand how I made the error given the similarities. I probably left off one day, then came back to it another, searched for where I left off, and then screwed it all up because it wasn't fresh on my mind, I wasn't familiar with the material, and I didn't do a sufficient job of correctly identifying where I left off.

I assume this is what happened because it's not the first time it has happened.

The issue with Stephen is different. Yes, Stephen. I have a doctorate. Almost everyone I know aside from childhood friends has either a research or professional doctorate. That's unavoidable when you choose such a path. Anyway, it's awkward and weird to use the honorifics amongst each other. It doesn't sit right, and if someone you know insists on using them or having you use them, well then, that's a person you want to avoid. I just can't, and I won't. Other than the Esq., why do you think I have such silly honorifics and titles? It's all a joke to me because none of it makes you special. I think for maybe about a year or two after I graduated I thought I was special. Yeah, that goes away.

Anyway, Stephen just doesn't like me, but that's fine; he's certainly not alone.

Test. I haven't had time to come on in 4 weeks. Am I banned from commenting? Question of the day.

Guess not.

Hi Maven, what is MedLands?

https://fmg.ac. The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (FMG) was established in 2001 to promote the study of genealogy and prosopography for the period before 1500 AD, and to publish the results of those studies, AKA Medlands.

Thanks, Marvin. I had to look up prosopography. LOL