Talk:Venissa

Complete rewrite

I've rewritten the article completely. The previous version of this article was so far off being right it wasn't even wrong.

• "Julia" as part of her name is not attested.

• Not only is she not in the Historia Britonnum, the Historia Britonnum isn't Anglo-Saxon, it's Welsh Latin.

• Caratacus wasn't Silurian, he was from Essex: he did join up with the Silures after the conquest, but that's not where he came from. And (this page) "Caratacus" isn't a Roman version of Caradog, Caradog is a modern Welsh version of Caratacus, and he was the son of a king, so "prince" is reasonable.

• The bit about Boudicca and her descendants is completely made up. Boudicca does not appear anywhere in British legend, and the names of her daughters don't appear anywhere but in fiction.

--Nicknack009 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

This entry of legendary genealogy was misleading as originally presented, as if it were history. A little suggestion of its legendary nature keeps Wikipedia honest. Wetman 09:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although I had never seen nor heard of your source, I don't doubt your statements. The link you made to Caratacus, however, is not the same person as my Caradoc. Since I have no other data on him, I'll let it stand. Thanks for your input. Pinkfud

The Historia Britonum is available in translation, maybe even as e-text on the Internet. The early sections are fantasies. Could there then have been more than one British "prince" Caradoc/Caratacus in the 1st century CE? "Caratacus" and "Caractacus" are merely Roman versions of "Caradoc."Wetman 18:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and those names were very common at the time. The Caratacus of the link warred constantly against Rome until he was finally captured in 51 CE. He somehow managed to talk his way out of execution and was allowed to live in Rome. My Caradoc was not a "prince", he merely came from Siluria. Pinkfud 20:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now the hard part - how to categorize? Legendary or real, or should/is there be a "doubtful existence" category? Stan 16:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stan: I don't think there's any real doubt she existed. My info came from ancient church records, Burke's Peerage, etc. I've spent nearly two years tracking it down for a project of my own. I didn't know the 9th Century work existed, and that bothers me a bit because some of my data could well have originated from it via other sources. But I have the unbroken lineage to living persons today, and I believe it's accurate. Pinkfud 16:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I only added the article because I read the excellent article on Claudius and realized I had information that relates significantly to it. I could go on and on with early British and Scots history, but I'm not sure there would be any real interest. Pinkfud 16:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What makes it suspicious is that reliable authorities like Tacitus and Suetonius wrote extensively on the activities of Claudius, down to and including palace gossip, and it's nearly inconceivable that a daughter could have been sent off to the ends of the earth without them saying anything about it. It's far more likely that a later scribe "cleaned up" garbled local legends by assuming they were connected to familiar names. While it's a fun game to try to connect modern genealogies to ancient Romans, the original sources are so garbled and internally inconsistent that it's hard to be sure of anything. For instance, we'll often hear of one early king succeeding another, but the source has no actual statement as to whether the successor was a blood relative, or some random guy elected by the thanes. If you don't know which is the case, you've lost your genealogy link. Stan 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The newly-arrived Tudor families that were the original market for these "genealogies" were impressed with their own newly discovered antiquity. Later and more historical generations have found them droll. There are no "ancient church records" mentioning Julia Venissa. None. Nowadays, with the collapse of a critical sense of history, they are credited, because they're "old." If Julia Venissa does appear as a genuine ancestor in a Burke's Peerage genealogy, the particular genealogy should be identified. Not the details of course, just which lines credit her as an ancestor. Her entirely paper reality rests in these traditional genealogies, which trace lineages to Noah's sons and princes of Troy too, remember! Wetman 18:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

None of my work claims anyone from Troy and certainly not from Noah's time. I'll dig through the stuff I researched and see if I can find the references. I only kept the results on hand because I never expected to have to prove anything. I'm beginning to regret having added the article! :) Pinkfud 20:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's great to have this article, because the name certainly shows up in a lot of genealogical tables, with not much explanation. In fact I think this article is now the net's leading source of information on Julia Venissa. Stan 21:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. It looks like you win, though. My original data was from the online Burke's Peerage entry for Sir Richard Thomas Williams-Bulkeley. Upon going back to that reference, I find that the former information has been replaced with "The descent formerly claimed for this family from the legendary figure Coel Hen (The Old) is not now regarded as tenable." As Coel Hen was critical in the line (two generations from Julia and Caradoc), that loss of data means I can't prove anything. So categorize the article as legendary if you wish. Pinkfud 21:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh no no no, I just want to see an accurate entry without hurt feelings. If we could work out how the genealogical legends were spread, and who they were meant to flatter, then we'd have history. If you're willing, why not report who mentioned Julia Venissa and when? Get the quote from the Historia Britonum for a starting point and set it into the entry. Wetman 23:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Later) I've now checked through Historia Brittonum at (The Latin Library and there's no mention of this story. A thread at RootsWeb traces the Venissa story to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the origin of so many will o' the wisps. Anyone want to confirm the following and work it into the entry?

"I am trying to find a source to confirm GEOFFERY OF MONMOUTH's GENISSA story written in the 1100s in his "History of the Kings of Britain".

"GEOFFERY says the Roman EMPEROR CLAUDIUS was fighting ARVIRAGUS KING OF THE TRINOVANTES BRITONS and won the battle. ARVIRAGUS retreated to Colchester and CLAUDIUS decided to besiege the city. When ARVIRAGUS learned of this he threw open the gates and went out to attack the Romans.

"Rather than risk a battle CLAUDIUS asked only that ARVIRAGUS submit to Roman rule and would remain in charge of his own lands. He would also give ARVIRAGUS his daughter GENISSA as his wife. ARVIRAGUS' nobles advised him to accept and he did. CLAUDIUS sent to Rome for GENISSA and ARVIRAGUS was so enchanted by her that he built a city on the spot where they were married."

The name of Venissa/Genissa's mother, given as Urgulanilla in a lot of the Web genealogies, is just an impossibility! A website I checked in this chase starts off by saying "Everyone living in the world today has royal ancestors who lived somewhere, sometime. Everyone - regardless of race, nationality or personal circumstances. The mathematics of genealogy and demography (below) force this assertion." Oh dear oh dear where to begin?.... Wetman 00:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it isn't in Historia Brittonum, that explains why I didn't know of the work. With all the searching I did, it seems I should have found it had it contained any reference. I am aware of Geoffery's work, but didn't use it because I don't have a copy, and I gather it's also not considered very reliable. However, the Arviragus mentioned above certainly could have been the man I think of as Caradoc, if there's any truth to it. I personally suspect Julia was illegitimate, possibly by a slave girl. Otherwise, she ought to be properly listed somewhere. If that was the case, Claudius may also have thought it a good idea to get her out of Rome. A Roman Emporer didn't care much about public opinion, but if a blot can be removed and a deal made in the bargain, well, it makes a lot of sense. (On the other hand, much of the false "history" came about simply because it "made sense" to someone. Sense doesn't necessarily equal truth). Pinkfud 01:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

She is mentioend in the Welsh Chronicle. http://www.annomundi.com/history/chronicle_of_the_early_britons.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea. One doesn't hear much about important Romans fathering children on slaves, but it's not clear whether it rarely happened, or if it was so commonplace that no one ever remarked on it. Roman mores were such that they were more horrified by Claudius' stuttering and limping than just about anything else he did. Stan 04:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

"The name of Venissa/Genissa's mother, given as Urgulanilla in a lot of the Web genealogies, is just an impossibility!"

Why is Plautia Urgulanilla any more unlikely as the mother of a child of Claudius than Agrippina the younger? Or for that matter Aelia Paetina and Messalina? All four were wives of Claudius at one time or another. User: Dimadick