as far as I understand,
Konstantin Yuriyevich, prince of Obolensk, is attested as late as in 1360s.
His alleged grandfather, Michael of Chernigov, was killed by Mongols in 1246, as an elderly man.

120 years is an axtraordinarily lengthy period for one's grandson yet be flourishing. It rather creates a suspicion that it's not a grandson, that there could be other things suspect in the alleged pedigree too, and so forth.

Now, another factual set puts the male-line descent from the Michael of Chernigov to:
- Konstantin of Obolensk, and
- his alleged brother, the ancestor of the Volkonsky
under suspicion. Actually, in face of genetical evidence, those two brothers seemingly cannot be Rurikids.
(Because, the Puzyna are Rurikids and a few lines of Monomakhids are attested Rurikids and line of Staridub are Rurikids, all of these having essentially the same y DNA)
The y-DNA results are in:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~mozhayski/teksty/yd...

On how firm basis are traditional genealogies, making Konstantin of Obolensk and the princes of Volkonsk as male-line descendants of Michael of Chernigov (who himself probably was a genetical Rurikid) ?
What do near-contemporary sources actually say? Could Konstantin and his father (Georgiy ?), be male-line Polish (Poles) also in light of near-contemporary sources, instead of being male-line Rurikids?

dear 50 and 60 years oldsters and others,

there is one fatal mistake in your arguments about this point of seniority and senility: you are repeating the year of BIRTH of your grandfather. I based my questioning on the year of DEATH of the alleged grandfather of the medieval case.

Could you kindly re-calculate YOUR cases: what happens if your grandfather had DIED 120 years ago.

Martin

the problem, of course, is in the fact that a person born 83 years ago, if living in medieval Russia, is not highly likely to be alive, and yet less likely to be actively present in a military clash. As was the aforementioned Konstantin of Obolensk.

Of course, if you see *nothing* odd in an idea that your 83-yo parent could be that active in medieval-type warfare, then the problem in this senility analysis really is yours.

If you read carefully the first message, you see that it questions the likelihood, though does not assert outright impossibility.

--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Richard Carruthers a.k.a. Carruthers-Zurowski <leliw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I guess you used to the word 'technically' because you also know of such modern cases as that of the family of the noble philosopher Bertrand Russell? I have studied this case a) because my housemaster at Shawnigan was a fan of the philosopher and a history master of mine who got me to read about him and b) because my own schizophrenic 1/2 second cousin in England* was a great chum of Bertrand Russell's unfortunate eldest son John, 4th Lord Russell, alas, another schizophrenic, and of one or more of his daughters (two out of three of whom are, unfortunately also schizophrenics).

Bertrand Russell's own father, John Russell, Lord Amberley, died in 1876, when, admittedly, he was still young, and his son, Bertrand, was brought up, in part, in the household of his paternal grandfather, the erstwhile British prime minister, Lord John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (1792-1878), to whom after his elder brother, Frank (2nd Earl Russell), he was eventual heir.

Now, the philosopher's youngest son was the historian Conrad Russell who died four years ago at the relatively young (in modern "First World" terms, at least) age of 67 (though this would have made him "aged", if not exactly "ancient" by most, if not all, mediaeval standards (say a monastery which might be a fosterer of agedness and "ancients"), I would imagine).

Now consider the two generations ascendant to and descendant from the great "Whig" (;0) philosopher...

Ia. Nicholas Russell, 6th and present Earl Russell, born Sept. 1968 so not yet 40 and his brother, Ib. the Hon. John Russell born 1971. Living in 2008 and both under 40 (just)
sons
II. Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell (1937-2004) born when his father was 65.
son of
III. (Praepositus) Bertrand Russell, 5th Earl Russell (1872-1970) who nearly died in 1948 when he would have already been 76 and certainly 'aged' in most historical periods (whereas he died at 97 when he was 'super' aged for the period)
son of
IV. John Russell, Viscount Amberley (1842-1876) died aged 34.
son of
V. Lord John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (1792-1878) died aged 86.

The interval between death of aged grandfather (V supra) and aged grandson (III supra) is 92 years, and yet what of the 3rd Lord Russell's two grandchildren born when he was in his mid to late 90s (Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell born 1968 and his bro. the Hon. John Russell, born 1971)? They could live on well into the late 21st century and maybe longer given modern medical advances and their own demonstrable genetic heritage (at least on the Russell line).

Now, if their grandfather had died in 1948, that would already be 60 years ago, and yet he would only have been aged rather than extraordinarily aged.

The current generation of Russell men (Ia & b, supra) would only have to die in another 20 years or so years to be "well-aged" by mediaeval standards, 30 years to be be "truly aged" and in 40 years to be "well and truly aged" by medieval and even most current standards (using those descriptors as reasonable modifications of the original epithet "aged").

Yet, in both cases, and, especially, in their particular (and admittedly remarkable [hence my knowledge of it]) family, it would not be exactly unheard of or unexpected for their longevity to reach 50 years and make them "super-aged", or 60 years to meet the challenge of the 120 year span spoken of.

Yet again, consider this: all that their paterrnal grandfather needed to do so sire their father was live to 1936  (as the 5th Lord Russell was born in April 1937 presumably around full term of his mother's pregnancy) when he was already well-aged by mediaeval standards (being about 64). Yet his grandsons born in 1968 and 1971 are still young (said the 45-year-old) by modern standards and certainly not particularly old or 'aged' by mediaeval ones.

Take three possible scenarios:

Bertrand born 1876 died 1970 narrowly escaped death in 1948 and need only have lived to say, Aug. 1936 to sire...
Conrad born April 1937 and died in 2004, and sired
Nicholas born Sept. 1968 and John born in 1971

Leaving
38 years since Bertrand's actual death at 97
two grandsons aged 39 and 36/7. Who could die anytime from now to, say, 2160 (to put them in their late 80s or early 90s) and 2200+ to give them their possible oats taking modern medical advances and their own personal genetic and/or familial predispositions into account.

Yet had Bertrand died in  Aug. 1936, when already 64 (he was born in May 1872), he would have exceeded most 1930s general standards of longevity and been more-or-less "aged" by mediaeval ones. That would place his death as coming on 72 years ago, and yet his grandsons could easily live on another 48 years and outstrip the 120 year limit, and well-beyond that of course, and one must remember that their father, Bertrand's son, Conrad, could have sired sons later in life and he died aged 67 in 2004. Had he done so, well within the realm of possibility, he could have left a toddler (now) of 3 to 5 as Bertrand's youngest grandchild, and the same applies, of course, to Bertrand, himself, whose youngest child would now be 37-39 had he sired a final child before dying in 1970.

And those children could have children alive well-into the 2200s or later.

If Bertrand's child were born in 1970/1 and sired or bore a child as late as 65 for a woman or more likely up to 50 then that child would not be born til 2020 or so (not considering frozen embryos). A male child born in 1970/1 could sire a grandchild of Bertrand up to his dotage say anywhere from 2050-2070 (and possibly later, even naturally, and without sperm freezing and all that).

One need hardly consider the possibilities of the present Lord Russell and his brother (but we shall): Nicholas born 1968 and John born 1971, now under 40, could sire children until their deaths anywhere from now til, say, 2060 (conservative estimate), and those children would be 44 when the centenary of their Russell grandfather's death rolled round in 2104. And remember, they could be sired later, though this seems unlikely (and one could argue that siring children in one's 90s in unlikely even now, and even less likely in the mediaeval period, and I would say, granted!).

Returning to a mediaeval time scale then, I still think one could adapt this foregoing model of a modern real British noble family (not a bad analogy for this weblist) to one from the Middle Ages. Indeed, there may be examples of same on record.

For your consideration....

Best,

Richard
Vancouver, CANADA
*=whom I knew while I was up at Oxford 25 years ago as my mother and his father were 1st cousins, and my maternal grandfather nursed his father after he was released from a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp at the end of WWII

John Russell (1766-1839), 6th Duke of Bedford

Will Johnson

http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Bertrand_Russell_to...

Will Johnson