Was William the Conqueror's mother Jewish?

[oriental]

[h=1]Did William the Conqueror Have a Jewish Mother?[/h]

May 2 2016

---

82 0 Print Email


It is known that the Norman king was the illegitimate son of the previous duke of Normandy and a woman name Herleva, whose father was a tanner. Joshua Gelernter examines some circumstantial evidence that she might have been Jewish:
According to the 19th-century historian Edward Freeman, William the Conqueror, who was also known as William the Bastard, was sometimes known as “William the Mamzer.” This is where things get interesting. Mamzer is a Hebrew pejorative meaning the child of an illegitimate sexual relationship, such as adultery or incest. In Europe, it may have entered the vernacular as a pejorative for the offspring of a particular type of illegitimate relationship—one between a Christian man and a Jewish woman. . . . [Furthermore], in medieval Europe, tanners were frequently Jews. . . .
We know that in the 11th century Normandy was home to a large number of Jews. By some estimates, its capital Rouen began that century with a population that was one-fifth Jewish. And we know that William was relatively fond of the Jews: after his Conquest, he suggested Normandy’s children of Israel resettle in England—a surprising invitation, even for someone interested in developing trade and finance. . . .
Does any of this prove that England as we know it was founded by a Jew? Of course not. But it’s something to chew on.

http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2016/05/did-william-the-conqueror-have-a-jewish-mother/

 

[Maciamo]

If that is true, it would have huge historical implications. I can't wait for William I's DNA to be tested. His Y-DNA and aDNA were already a matter of much speculation. Was he truly descended from the Viking Rollo? If so, was he I1, I2a2a, R1b-S21, or another completely unexpected lineage? How much French vs Viking ancestry did he carry? But now if we see that his aDNA is half Jewish, that would be quite flabbergasting.

 

[Rethel]

If that is true, it would have huge historical implications.

But now if we see that his aDNA is half Jewish, that would be quite flabbergasting.

Why?
Even if he had jewish mother it is meaningless.

 

[Angela]

The only Josh Gerlertner with whom I'm familiar is a politics writer.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/josh_gelernter/

What's his expertise in these matters?

I did a quick search and found a statement on Historum that according to Jewish sources, Jewish tanners didn't even appear in that area until 100 years after 1066.

I haven't checked that out for myself, however.

bject.

http://historum.com/european-history/4573-duke-william-jewish-ancestry.html

 

[Maciamo]

Why?
Even if he had jewish mother it is meaningless.

Jewishness is passed through one's mother. If William I's mother was Jewish, it means that he was automatically Jewish too (or at least it could be argued that way). Saying that the oldest surviving monarchy in Europe was founded by a Jew is bound to cause some controversy, to put it mildly. Then 1000 years ago, Jews surely had much less European admixture than they have today, so William would have looked more like southern European (or some modern American Jews with about half of European ancestry) than a Viking. It doesn't really matter, but it does change the way people imagine and represent him. It's a bit as if Egyptians learned that some of the greatest pharaohs were foreign Indo-Europeans, or if Christians learned that Jesus was half-Sub-Saharan African instead of fully Jewish, or if the Japanese learned that their imperial family were originally Chinese invaders. It can cause a psychological shock to some people. It doesn't matter to me because I am ready to accept anything fact as long as it is the truth. But I know for a fact that most people aren't like me.

 

[Rethel]

Jewishness is passed through one's mother.

Religion is passed by mother.
And we know that he was not a judaist, so he was not jew.
Btw, he was born in european house, not in jewish one, so
patrilineality bound him at the first place.

If William I's mother was Jewish, it means that he was automatically Jewish too (or at least it could be argued that way). Saying that the oldest surviving monarchy in Europe was founded by a Jew is bound to cause some controversy, to put it mildly. Then 1000 years ago, Jews surely had much less European admixture than they have today, so William would have looked more like southern European (or some modern American Jews with about half of European ancestry) than a Viking. It doesn't really matter, but it does change the way people imagine and represent him.

Jewish concubine can't make anyone even a little jewish.
She provided a norman warrior, not jewish rabbi - this is a fact.

It's a bit as if Egyptians learned that some of the greatest pharaohs were foreign Indo-Europeans,

But they werent IEs because of some concubine of some egyptian guy...

or if Christians learned that Jesus was half-Sub-Saharan African instead of fully Jewish,

It doesn't matter, becasue identity of Jesus was not autosomal, but patrilineal.

or if the Japanese learned that their imperial family were originally Chinese invaders.

It is well known fact, that many Japanese came from China, they even have chinese
culture and writing system, so, it shouldn't be a big deal, exept for some people who
really belive, that emperor is descending from gods... But Idk what for Japaneses
is better: that their emperor is descendent from China, or that he is an Ainu?

 

[Angela]

Jewish law since at some point during the early centuries of the C.E. holds that any child born of a Jewish mother is Jewish and thus can make up a minyan, in the modern day can emigrate to Israel, etc. It doesn't matter if the child was or was not instructed in Judaism. It doesn't matter if the child considers him or herself Jewish. That's because Judaism is as much an ethnicity as it is strictly a set of religious beliefs. I know a lot of Jewish atheists or agnostics who still consider themselves Jewish and are considered Jewish by the Jewish community. Therefore, by Jewish law, if William the Conqueror's mother was Jewish, then he was Jewish. Unless his children were born of a Jewish mother, they would not be considered Jews.

Genetics is a totally different matter, as is how he would be viewed by non-Jews, which coincides with genetics. Obviously, a child with either an Ashkenazi mother or father is half Ashkenazi. Their children, if they don't marry back into the fold, are a quarter Ashkenazi, and so on. People who take the 23andme test can reliably trace Ashkenazi dna back to the great-great-great grandparent level. At the 1/64 or 1/128 level it becomes more difficult to trace. Now, in the case of William the Conqueror, I don't know if the specifically "Ashkenazi" ethnic group had even "formed" yet, so it might not be traceable even if we got all the bones, but his genome would certainly not look like that of other members of his aristocratic circle.

As to how religion, as a set of theological and ethical beliefs, is passed on, it is often done by mothers in our western world. It certainly is not done that way in the Muslim world. A Muslim man may marry a non Muslim woman, or a non-Muslim concubine, and she may retain her religious beliefs, but he would in most cases have the child instructed in Islam. You can't generalize in the way you are doing.

The reason it would matter to some people is because of their prejudices. There's nothing rational about it. I have to admit, as Maciamo pointed out, it would be quite the irony given how Jews were treated in Europe for two millennia. In the other examples Maciamo gave, it's prejudice mixed with nationalism.

All of that said, there is no evidence whatsoever that I can discover for this wild speculation. It all seems to be based on one reference describing William as a "mamzer", and the fact that his mother is sometimes described as the daughter of a tanner, and there were Jewish tanners in his birth city. Unfortunately, there's no proof of them being in the city until long, long, after his birth.

It's not like the case of the Spanish royals, where there is very good evidence that Ferdinand (1/8) and Isabella each had some Jewish ancestry.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6083-ferdinand-and-isabella

 

[oriental]

I read about that long ago but I didn't bring it up as it would controversial. Tannery was a trade of Jews at that time. Anyway Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge's, mother's name was Goldsmith so she could be Jewish as Gold is associated with Jews. I heard that when Jews entered Germany, Germans officials way back in history gave them derogatory name like 'stein' meaning stone like one famous Einstein, metals like gold. silver and so on. My German professor also tells me his family name was treated the same way by American immigration officers at Staten Island so he had to live with his distorted name without the umlaut.

 

[Angela]

Except that no Jewish tanners were in the area until generations later. Did you miss that piece of information?

The fact that Kate Middleton's mother's family name was Goldsmith does not necessarily mean that they were Jewish. Is there any proof that the family was ever listed as Jewish in any records? If not, it's just more meaningless gossip.

 

[Aaron1981]

I heard through the grapevine Rollo was a less common branch of R1b-P312. Although this result isn't coming first hand, but through hearsay on a French forum.

 

[Aaron1981]

Jewishness is passed through one's mother. If William I's mother was Jewish, it means that he was automatically Jewish too (or at least it could be argued that way). Saying that the oldest surviving monarchy in Europe was founded by a Jew is bound to cause some controversy, to put it mildly. Then 1000 years ago, Jews surely had much less European admixture than they have today, so William would have looked more like southern European (or some modern American Jews with about half of European ancestry) than a Viking. It doesn't really matter, but it does change the way people imagine and represent him. It's a bit as if Egyptians learned that some of the greatest pharaohs were foreign Indo-Europeans, or if Christians learned that Jesus was half-Sub-Saharan African instead of fully Jewish, or if the Japanese learned that their imperial family were originally Chinese invaders. It can cause a psychological shock to some people. It doesn't matter to me because I am ready to accept anything fact as long as it is the truth. But I know for a fact that most people aren't like me.

Well King Tut did carry a AMH-like R1b haplotype, deny it all you want. If you accept Ramses III was E1b1a through a predictor that isn't even close, you must accept the R1b result as equally valid.

 

[Angela]

Well King Tut did carry a AMH-like R1b haplotype, deny it all you want. If you accept Ramses III was E1b1a through a predictor that isn't even close, you must accept the R1b result as equally valid.

Wait, though. Who says that what appeared on that computer screen was Tut's result versus that of some researcher for explanation purposes.

I'm not saying it wasn't; I'm just saying that I don't see how we can possibly know.

I also think that I wouldn't be at all surprised by an R1b V88 result, I think it would be extremely surprising if he carried some really downstream clade, which I think is what the screenshot showed, yes?

On the other hand, I don't see why Ramses III being E1b1a would be at all surprising. One only needs to look at some of the Pharaohs. I think there was probably constant gene flow north along the Nile.

As to Rollo, that wouldn't turn out to be a surprising result either, given the haplogroup distribution in Scandinavia today.

 

[Sile]

Religion is passed by mother.
And we know that he was not a judaist, so he was not jew.
Btw, he was born in european house, not in jewish one, so
patrilineality bound him at the first place.



Jewish concubine can't make anyone even a little jewish.
She provided a norman warrior, not jewish rabbi - this is a fact.



But they werent IEs because of some concubine of some egyptian guy...



It doesn't matter, becasue identity of Jesus was not autosomal, but patrilineal.



It is well known fact, that many Japanese came from China, they even have chinese
culture and writing system, so, it shouldn't be a big deal, exept for some people who
really belive, that emperor is descending from gods... But Idk what for Japaneses
is better: that their emperor is descendent from China, or that he is an Ainu?

Even if he had a jewish mother, he would be cast as a non-jew after the mother married a non-jew , that's the rules

So this system in the jewish religious community really plays havoc with "jewish SNP markers"

 

[Aaron1981]

Wait, though. Who says that what appeared on that computer screen was Tut's result versus that of some researcher for explanation purposes.

I'm not saying it wasn't; I'm just saying that I don't see how we can possibly know.

I know the argument is circular, but when several independent parties confronted the authors on the matter, they declined to comment. A simple Yes or No would have been sufficient. It seemed far too political for my liking. The Ramses III haplotype wasn't close to any known haplotypes and on the Y-STR predictors of the time, fit somewhere between E1b1a and E1b1b1. It was inconclusive...whether it was even E1b1 at all. There is a good chance it was though. Likewise, authors who refuse to answer simple questions are clearly pushing a political agenda.

 

[Angela]

Not if they signed a confidentiality agreement, Aaron. You should say nothing or "No Comment", which amounts to the same thing. Forget getting sued; you won't be asked to test any remains in the future.

That just isn't enough, in my opinion, to support such a seemingly incongruous result, but who knows.