Home Pedigree Histories Reports Photos Gravestones More
Ancestry of Pehr Bengtsson Norby
By Darrell McGowen,
(rev. Aug. 18, 2007)
Statement of Purpose
This
note focuses on evidence supporting the writer's conclusion that Pehr Bengtsson
Norby (b. abt 1590, d. 1655) was in fact a descendant of Sören Severin Andersen
Norby (b. abt 1470, d. 1530). There are no birth certificates, marriage
records, church records, wills or land records from which one can marshal facts
sufficient to support conclusions regarding this ancestry. However, modern
researchers are left with a substantial body of historical detail, legend, oral
family history and discussion bearing on the issue.1/
Background
In
1620, as the Danish era was nearing its end on the Baltic island of Gotland, Pehr Bengtsson Norby was installed as
the vicar (or priest) of Rone and Eke, in southern Gotland.2/ The island of
Gotland lies 50-60 miles off the east coast of Sweden and about 80 miles from
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to its east. Situated as it is,
From
1517 to 1525, Sören Severin Andersen Norby was the Danish governor or
"Länsherrar" on
Sören
Norby did much to engender the hatred of the Swedes. The apex of this hatred
was probably reached in 1520 when Admiral Sören Norby participated in the siege
of
On
In
the months preceding the "Bloodbath," Admiral Sören Norby was one of
three military leaders responsible for establishing the Danish presence in
In
August 1521, Kristina Gyllenstierna was transported by the Danes to
Sören
Norby was the father of one or more illegitimate children born in the 1517-25
time-frame. The mother of his children is unknown, however, legend suggests
that the mother was Margit Christensdatter, who was in charge of housekeeping
at Visborgs Castle.16/ While no inferences should be drawn from the chronology,
it is noted that in July, 1525, Swedish King Gustav Vasa's forces captured
Kalmar Castle from Bernt von Mehlen 17/ and took as prisoners Kristina
Gyllenstierna's young son Nils Stensson Sture,18/ Leonard Norby (a servant or
son of Sören Norby), and a Sören Norby daughter.19/ (See discussion infra.,
"Identity of the Norby Child for
Whom von Mehlen Was Godfather.") At the time the Norby/Sture children
were captured at Kalmar Castle, von Mehlen and Kristina Gyllenstierna were in
Blekinge 20/ (probably at Sölvesborg Castle), which was under the control of
Sören Norby.21/
Moving
forward in time to about 1611, we find Pehr Bengtsson Norby, the vicar of Rone
and Eke on
Evidence of Pehr Bengtsson Norby's
Ancestry.
The
ancestry of Pehr Bengtsson Norby can be established to a reasonable certainty,
but not to an absolute certainty. Absent scientific testing, most genealogy
researchers do not expect paternal ancestry to be established to an absolute
certainty. It follows that the degree of certainty necessary to establish
ancestry is best left to the individual researcher. However, the more tenuous
the evidence supporting a pedigree, the more essential it is that such evidence
be fully stated. Disclosure provides those who might rely on the pedigree a
basis for accepting or rejecting its conclusions. Accordingly, the writer here
attempts to marshal the facts and circumstances which support the conclusion
that Pehr Bengtsson Norby was in fact descended from Sören Norby. Conclusions
to the contrary have been well-stated by others, particularly Tommy Sundberg in
"Sören Norrby - Anfadern."22/
The
Baron von Lingen Pedigree Submission.
The
Baron von Lingen pedigree submission is central to the writer's conclusion that
Pehr Bengtsson Norby was descended from Sören
Norby. In about 1663, Christina Norby (b. abt 1634, d. 1673), daughter of Pehr Bengtsson
Norby, married Johan Classon von Lingen.23/ According to noted Swedish
genealogist Holger Rosman, their grandson, Baron Reinhold Johan von Lingen (b.
1708, d. 1785) stated in pedigree material dated in 1764 and submitted to The
House of the Nobility (i.e., Riddarhuset), that his grandmother, Christina
Norby, was a descendant of "Sever. Norrby."24/ Tommy Sundberg takes a
skeptical view of the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the von Lingen
pedigree representation. However, he dutifully notes that:
"[a]
check of von Lingen's genealogy, dated in 1764 in Kristianstad and signed by
Reinhold Johan von Lingen, shows that Rosman's information is correct. In this
genealogy it was noted that Johan Classon von Lingen was 'married in
It
should be made clear that Sundberg does not accept the ancestry assertion of
Baron von Lingen, rather he states that he too has checked the von Lingen
genealogy information submitted to The House of The Nobility and that Holger
Rosman correctly states its content.
Sundberg goes on to reject the Pehr Bengtsson Norby ancestry because, in his
opinion, it is based on legend or tradition unsupported by proof, and because
he believes it is contrary to several historical points.
It
is respectfully submitted that Sundberg mistakenly characterizes the oral family
history incorporated in the von Lingen pedigree as "legend." This
erroneous characterization creates a faulty premise for dismissing von Lingen's
record of oral family history by treating it as mere "legend." This
may result from Sundberg's blending the much later Bernt - Bengt
"legend" (discussed infra.) with the oral family history incorporated
in the von Lingen pedigree. It seems to this writer that discussion must be had
regarding some of the important differences between "legend" and
"oral family history."
The
Baron von Lingen Pedigree Submission - Legend or Family History?
In
the context of genealogy, uncorroborated "legend" is unreliable and
unacceptable as proof of ancestry. The originator and subsequent contributors
to a legend are almost always unknown. The core of a legend may or may not be
based on a documented historical event. As the core element is repeated by
numerous unidentified story tellers, there is a natural evolution of the
legend. This evolution or "gloss" can be attributed to the way people
remember and repeat what they hear and read, and to the natural inclination to
make a good story better. There is usually no reason for those who repeat the
legend to remain faithful to the original version. Indeed, they may have no
idea what the original version was.
In
contrast, oral family history usually originates within the family. The core
element, e.g., "Christina Norby is a descendant of Soren Norby," is
likely to remain the same as it is passed from generation to generation. Unlike
legend, there is usually no reason for those within the family generational
chain to alter the message being passed from one generation to the next. In the
absence of evidence to the contrary, or evidence of a motive to fabricate, oral
family history is reliable evidence of ancestry.
The
simple, unadorned statement in the von Lingen pedigree that his grandfather,
"Johan Classon von Lingen was 'married in
The
three generation gap in the von Lingen pedigree is bridged with the
over-arching representation that Christina Norrby was of the "Sever.
Norrby" family. It is likely that the connecting generations were never
known to Baron von Lingen; or, they were known and then forgotten with the
passage of time. This is the nature of oral family history - unlike legend; the
gaps are not filled so that an interesting story can be told. So, the three
generation gap or imperfection in a five generation segment of the pedigree
helps to identify von Lingen's source as oral family history, as opposed to
legend.
And
finally, a legend which simply says that Christina Norby was a descendant of
Sören Norby would not survive very long. This statement does not convey a very
exciting story and is certainly not the kind of material which would bear repetition
as a legend. In short, this statement does not look or sound like legend. The
fact that this piece of oral family history may have been incorporated into the
so-called Bernt - Bengt legend 50 to 100 years later does not convert it from
oral family history to mere legend.
In
summary, Baron von Lingen was a sophisticated and presumably well educated
person who would have readily recognized the difference between romanticized
legend and oral family history. He was in the family generational chain and was
in a position to weigh and determine the credibility of his family source. He
obviously determined that the information he received was reliable and that it
was worthy of inclusion in his pedigree submission to The House of The
Nobility. The von Lingen submission has none of the hallmarks of
"legend," and all the hallmarks of oral family history handed down
from generation to generation. For this and other reasons discussed below,
including a myriad of consistent circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the
von Lingen pedigree submission was based on mere "legend" or on
fabricated oral family history. Therefore, the von Lingen submission is treated
in this note as a record of reliable "oral family history" and not as
mere "legend."
Even
though oral family history is inherently more reliable than "legend,"
when relying on oral family history it is prudent to look for evidence of
fabrication or for a motive to fabricate. Even if fabrication is not indicated,
a clear motive to fabricate weakens the credibility of oral family history.
The
Baron von Lingen Pedigree Submission - Fact or Fabrication.
Tommy
Sundberg, in presenting his case against Pehr Bengtsson Norby being a
descendant of Sören Norby, writes that there are many family traditions
(stories?) in which people report that they are descended from a King and a
maid.25/ Sundberg is quite correct, there are individuals who want to be
descended from royalty or from otherwise famous or notorious individuals. In
such instances, fantasy sometimes overwhelms reality and a false pedigree or
false oral family history is created. However, Sören Norby was no fairy tale
"King," and when viewed in the context of the times (discussed
infra), it is highly doubtful that anyone not truly descended from Sören Norby
would seek to falsely insinuate themselves into his bloodline.
Since
the Baron von Lingen pedigree is likely to have been the first recordation of
the Norby oral family history on Gotland, it is necessary to look for
indications that von Lingen or preceding
generations fabricated the pedigree connecting Christina Norby (and by
implication, Pehr Bengtsson Norby) to Sören Norby. Even if there is no evidence
of fabrication, if the events being recorded in the oral family history lend
themselves to being attacked as fabrications, the cautious researcher will
examine the facts and circumstances to ascertain whether there might have been
a plausible motive to fabricate.
It
could be argued that von Lingen had an incentive to fabricate in that he was
petitioning for friherre status (i.e., to become a baron). In the 1760’s one of the primary benefits of
this status was freedom from the payment of taxes. Because of these benefits,
pedigrees submitted in support of friherre status are thought by some to be
unreliable (i.e., fabrications) and worthless as evidence of pedigree. If
accepted, such a rationale would create a presumption of falsity as to all such
documents. This is something akin to being presumed guilty until proven
innocent. Because of the heavy reliance placed on the von Lingen pedigree
submission, the fidelity of the submission and the question of von Lingen’s
motive are addressed below.
As
a generality, it is conceded that the benefits of friherre status in 1764 might
have provided a person of weak character with an incentive to falsify a
petition for the status. However, and more specifically, the relevant inquiry
must be, did the benefits of friherre status induce von Lingen to file a false
application for monetary gain? Is there anything in the historical record of
von Lingen’s background which suggests he was dishonest or weak in
character? The strength of von Lingen’s
character is relevant to the issue of whether he would knowingly and
purposefully file a false and fraudulent application in order to become a baron
and gain a monetary benefit in the form being exempt from taxes. False
statements made with the intent to obtain or retain money that a person knows
he/she is not otherwise entitled to obtain or retain involves moral turpitude
and may even constitute a crime.
Von
Lingen was about 56 years old when he submitted his baronic application. Thus, he was certainly a mature individual
and presumably had the good judgment that might be expected of a mature adult with
his attainments. Von Lingen’s maturity
and strength of character is evidenced by his reputation and accomplishments.
He had been ennobled in 1743 at the age of 35. He was a Lieutenant General in
the Swedish military and the county governor of (and commander over)
Kristianstad. Some of Von Lingen’s
accomplishments, including his rise through the military ranks, are outlined
below (untranslated Swedish):
* * * * *
*Företog 1725-04-01 en sjöresa på ett
handelsfartyg från Göteborg, vilket skulle gå till
*Gemen vid överste Lencks regemente i
fransk tjänst 1727-01-01.
*Avsked 1729-11-04.
*Kornetts fullm. i Sverige 1730-04-27.
*Premiärlöjtnant vid Weimarska
regementet till fot i Sachsen s. å. 10/8.
*Kapten därst. 1735-04-14.
*Avsked 1736-12-12.
*Sekundmajor vid Wiborgska eller l.
Moskowska regementet i Ryssland
1737-01-15.
*Premiärmajor därst. s. å. 5/9.
*Överstelöjtnant vid Kievska regementet
1739-06-01.
*Avsked 1741-01-01.
*Överstelöjtnant i svensk tjänst
1742-03-29.
*Marskalk på svenska ambassaden till
fredskongressen i Åbo s. å.
*Adlad 1743-09-11 (introd. s. å. under
nr 1875).
*Överste i hessisk tjänst 1743-09-30.
*Överstelöjtnant vid Västgötadals
regemente 1744-04-25.
*Översteskaraktär 1747-11-12.
*RSO 1748-09-26.
*Överste för Älvsborgs regemente
1751-07-19. Generalmajor 1757-05-26.
*KSO 1759-09-26 (26/11).
*Generallöjtnant 1761-01-12.
*Landshövding och överkommendant i
Kristianstad 1763-08-15.
*Friherre 1764-02-04. (Introd. 1783
under nr 305).
*Landshövding i Malmöhus län
1772-08-03. Avsked s. å. 17/8. Död 1785-09-30.
[Source: Document provided by
Riddarhuset,
* * * * *
The
historical record bears strong witness that Baron Reinhold Johan von Lingen was
a man of high character, achievement, and distinction. As such he had no need
to rely on a spurious pedigree to support his application for friherre status.
Thus, it cannot be said that he had a motive
to falsify his pedigree. Moreover, based on von Lingen’s personal record and in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, it cannot be presumed that he lied
about his ancestry by submitting a false and fraudulent pedigree.
The
general wisdom voiced by some that petitions in support of friherre status were
usually false constitutes a bald assertion devoid of evidentiary value and is
nothing more than an assumption or speculation. Such an assumption of falsity
(i.e., fraud) is utterly lacking as proof. Indeed, in the absence of probative
evidence to the contrary, it is presumed
that a person has not engaged in
criminal wrongdoing or conduct involving moral turpitude. Thus, the correct
presumption is that von Lingen did not submit a false pedigree in support of
his application for friherre status. Moreover, the presumed regularity of von
Lingen’s pedigree is corroborated by the historical record outlined above, and
by circumstantial evidence supporting his descendancy from Sören Norby,
discussed later in this note.
The
friherre status issue discussed above is personal to von Lingen and does not
speak to possible motives that von Lingen’s ancestors might have had to
fabricate a blood relationship to Sören Norby. In considering possible motives
to fabricate an ancestry from a national or international historical figure
such as Sören Norby, it is important to assess the national and community attitudes
held toward that figure at various times prior to the first recordation of the
oral family history. These attitudes may in turn influence the attitudes of
those in the community who might seek to falsely create a relationship to the
historical figure in question. Thus, the objective here is to determine whether
the community attitudes were such that Gotlanders, including von Lingen’s Norby
ancestors, might have created false pedigrees descending themselves from Sören
Norby.
The
analysis of attitudes here is made more complicated by virtue of the fact that
the period separating Sören Norby and Baron von Lingen is split between two
different eras, each with a different perspective. By virtue of the treaty of
Brömsebro (
Swedish Era Attitudes toward Sören
Norby (1645 to 1764). No evidence
has been found which shows or even suggests that Baron Reinhold Johan von
Lingen's Norby pedigree was fabricated. We must nevertheless inquire as to
whether von Lingen’s (b. 1708, d. 1785),26/ Swedish era ancestors back to and
including Pehr Bengtsson Norby, had a motive to fabricate a claim of being
descended from Sören Norby.
Preliminarily
it is noted that
In
the early stages of the Swedish era, which began in 1645, Admiral Sören Norby
was considered a notorious Danish buccaneer. But even more damming was his
involvement with Christian II ("The Tyrant") in one of the most
treacherous and heinous atrocities in Swedish history. As stated previously,
although there is no evidence that Sören Norby was directly involved in carrying
out the atrocities of November 7-8, 1520 (i.e., "Stockholm
Bloodbath"), he is reported to have participated in the process of
gathering up the Swedes who were designated to stand trial for heresy in an
ecclesiastical court. Moreover, Norby was very much involved in the Danish
military campaign leading up to the fall of
It
is in the above context that we consider whether Baron von Lingen and his
Swedish era ancestors, back to and including Pehr Bengtsson Norby, had a motive
to falsely claim descendancy from Admiral Sören Norby. Light is shed on the Norby family's attitude
toward Sören Norby by virtue of objective manifestations bearing on how they
felt about the name "Norby."
Thus, in determining the attitude of the Norby family members toward
their name, we must look to their actions. During the first 100 years of the
Swedish era, the only conduct which arguably reflects their attitude, and
inferentially the attitude of the community, is the fact that two of Pehr
Bengtsson Norby’s descendants went so far as to shed public vestiges of the
Norby name. Thomas Pehrsson Norby (b. abt 1626, d. abt 1673), priest at Rone
and Eke and the oldest son of Pehr Bengtsson Norby, discarded the Norby name
for that of "Ronander." Thomas Pehrsson (Norby) Ronander lived in a
time frame only one or two generations earlier than Baron von Lingen, who was
born in 1708 and died in 1785. As early as 1732, still another Norby priest
abandoned the Norby name for that of "Gardell." At least one
prominent Swedish genealogist and family historian from the 1800's states that
Thomas Pehrsson Ronander abandoned the Norby name to escape the disgrace of
being descended from Sweden's old enemy.28/
Since
common sense suggests that a person does not generally abandon a family name
he/she is proud of, it is inferred that those who abandon a family name
generally do so because they are not proud of it.
If
some of Pehr Bengtsson Norby’s descendants were not proud of the Norby name and
abandoned it to escape the disgrace of being associated with the name, why
didn’t other Norby descendants also abandon the name? It is difficult to divine
why two Norby priests abandoned the name and others did not. Perhaps those who
abandoned the family name did not want their children to have to live with the
name. Perhaps abandonment was necessary in order to ease the path up the
clerical ladder. It may be significant that Nils Gardell (b. 1736, d. 1813),
son of Lars Gardell, grandson of Hans Norby, great grandson of Bertel Persson
Norby, and great-great grandson of Pehr Bengtsson Norby, became the Bishop of
Gotland. The church account books for Garde and Etelhem parishes indicate that
Lars Gardell took the name of “Gardell” as early as 1731.
It
is obvious that the two Norby clerics who abandoned their family name were
intent on initiating a new family name for themselves and for their children.
Since a person does not abandon a family name they are proud of, it is
reasonable to conclude that the Norby clerics (i.e., Ronander and Gardell) were
not proud of the name; and/or, they feared that the name might serve to remind
Swedish government and church officials of their (and their childrens’) blood
relationship to Sweden’s old Danish enemy, Sören Norby. If there are other more
likely reasons, they are not readily apparent.
Swedish
era fact and circumstances support the conclusion that Pehr Bengtsson Norby and
his Swedish era (post-1645) descendants did not have a motive to fabricate an
ancestral relationship to Sören Norby. If they had a motive at all, it was to
obscure or to down-play that relationship. This was done, in part, by
abandoning the name. The motive to hide or obscure descendancy from Sören Norby
may explain why researchers, past and present, have found it extremely
difficult to trace the ancestry of Pehr Bengtsson Norby.
Danish Era Attitudes toward Sören
Norby (1524-1645). Again, no
evidence has been found which suggests the oral family history incorporated in
the von Lingen pedigree was fabricated during the Danish era. However, because
it may have a bearing on the weight or degree of credibility to be attributed
to the von Lingen pedigree, the issue of motive must again be addressed. Did
Pehr Bengtsson Norby or his Danish era ancestors have a motive to fabricate
their oral family history to include Sören Norby? We are concerned here with
Danish attitudes toward Sören Norby from about 1524 to 1645 and whether these
attitudes were such that Gotlanders shopping for a fabricated ancestry would
have had a motive to falsely claim Admiral Sören Norby as the anchor of their
family tree.
To
better understand the Danish political climate and concomitant attitudes, it is
important to understand that Sören Norby's ambitions and reputation were
inextricably tied to Christian II (The Tyrant). At the outset, note is taken of
the "Stockholm Bloodbath" (occurring in 1520) and the effect it must
have had on the reputations of King Christian II and his Admiral, Sören Norby.
As heinous as it was, the "Stockholm Bloodbath," which followed
perfunctory heresy trials, probably did not create the same reaction in
Aside
from the Danish excesses in Stockholm, the decline of Sören Norby's fortunes
accelerated when, in 1523, King Christian II went into exile in the Netherlands
and was replaced as King of Denmark by his uncle, King Frederik I. Sören Norby
spent the next 3 years of his life, from about 1523 to 1526, taking the battle
to King Gustav Vasa of Sweden and to the King's Hanseatic financiers and
mercenaries in a valiant but vain effort to undermine King Frederik I and to regain
the Danish throne for Christian II. At the same time, he was working with Bernt
von Mehlen and the Sture party, symbolically represented by Kristina
Gyllenstierna (widow of Sten Sture), to gain the Swedish throne on behalf of
Kristina's young son, Nils Stensson Sture.
At least one respected Swedish historian states that Norby coveted the
Swedish and Danish crowns for himself.29.1/
Except
for the Danish farmer/peasant class, King Christian II and Sören Norby were
hated and feared by the Danish elite, i.e., nobles and clergy. Prior to going
into exile in 1523, Christian II had developed a good relationship with the
It
is not clear when Norby’s popularity on
Near
the end of 1525, Sören Norby's loyalty to former King Christian II was more
than Frederik I could tolerate. So long as Norby continued to carry the banner
for King Christian II, Frederik's crown would be in jeopardy. Likewise, Norby
posed an even greater threat to the Swedish crown of King Gustav Vasa. Clearly,
Norby was a threat to both kings and this threat served as a catalyst in
uniting them in a successful defense of their self-interests. Moreover, it was
in the best interest of the Hansa to support
Norby
was forced to abandon his mainland holdings and flee with his fleet to
If
Sören Norby can fairly be accused of "piracy," it would be as a
result of his non-state sponsored activities while he was in Ivangorad in 1526
and 1527. Norby’s only possible state
authority was the Russians and the tattered cloak of authority handed him by
his exiled king, Christian II. On the issue of whether Norby was acting on
behalf of the Russians, the Russian’s deftly engaged in a modern rendition of
“plausible deniability” regarding Norby's maritime service on behalf of their
merchants. However, it is not deniable that Vasilii III, the Russian Czar, was
virtually without a maritime fleet or sea power. It is also well established
that Norby was transporting Russian merchants and their goods and merchandise
throughout the Baltic region.31/ Notwithstanding Russian denials; it appears
that they saw, and took advantage of, an opportunity to covertly obtain
maritime power without formally having a maritime fleet. Moreover, even though
their complicity was apparent, in the world of 16th century
diplomacy they effectively denied responsibility for any of the maritime
excesses engaged in by Norby and the Russian merchants.
In
May of 1528, Norby departed
It
is unlikely that Sören Norby’s escape to
In
the end, the farmer/peasants on
In
light of the foregoing, it seems that being descended from Sören Norby during
the time frame of 1524 to 1645 would have been more of an embarrassment than a
matter of pride. It is difficult to understand why a prominent family, or
anyone else on Danish Gotland not actually descended from Sören Norby, would
have been motivated to claim him as an ancestor if such a claim were not true.
Simply put, the Norby generations preceding Pehr Bengtsson Norby would have had
little or no reason to want to create a fabricated descendancy from Sören
Norby; and, equally as important, there is no evidence to suggest that such a
false descendancy was in fact created.
If
Sören Norby had been a folk hero that Gotlanders were motivated to falsely
claim as an ancestor, one would think that this might be reflected in the names
that the general population bestowed upon their babies. During 1500 to 1699, which
spans both the Danish and Swedish eras on Gotland, the given name of
"Soren," appears fewer than 25 times in Olle Överby's "Gotlänska
släkter" database.36/ Standing alone, no inference can be drawn from the
paucity of children given the name "Soren," however, when viewed in
the totality of facts and circumstances, it does confirm that during this time
frame Sören Norby's popularity was not such that people were naming their
babies after him. This in turn suggests that whatever the level of his popularity,
it was not such that he was in demand as a fabricated ancestor.
And
finally, even if there were peasants on
Having
presented the many reasons why Sören Norby was not held in particularly high
esteem on
‘No,
Christiern, this employment is not suited for me. I am a soldier, not an
executioner. I have learnt to obey you, but without shame, and without crime.
Command me, and, if it be necessary, I will brave a thousand deaths; spare
neither my property nor my life, for they belong to my king – my honour alone
belongs to myself.’ 37/
This
passage “. . . draws the line of obedience, even to a military chieftain; and
it asserts that a soldier, because he is under absolute command, is not bound
to sacrifice his honour.” 38/
The
Baron von Lingen Pedigree Submission - Effect of Three Generation Omission.
The
most common characteristic of oral family histories covering several
generations is that insignificant or undistinguished individuals will
eventually be omitted from the oral re-telling of the family history or
pedigree. The usual reason an ancestor might continue to be identified after
two or three generations is because he or she, a) participated in significant
historic events which are the subject of re-telling from generation to
generation; or, b) reached a high level of fame, wealth or notoriety which is
recounted from generation to generation.
Because
of his participation in historical events and his fame and notoriety, Sören
Norby is precisely the kind of ancestor who is remembered from one generation
to the next. The generations omitted from the von Lingen pedigree submission
simply exemplify how oral family history perpetuates the identities of the
famous or notorious from generation to generation, while the identities of the
undistinguished are allowed to fade away in the fog of time.
The
omissions or gaps in the von Lingen pedigree submission do not affect the core
proposition, i.e., Christina Norby and, by implication, her father, Pehr
Bengtsson Norby, were descendants of Sören Norby. Oral family history does not
gain credibility in direct proportion to its completeness; to the contrary, if
oral family history is too complete in its reach back in time for
undistinguished ancestors, it may be suspect.
While
there is no empirical evidence on the subject, few people (not engaged in
genealogical research of their ancestors) know the names of their
undistinguished great-great grandparents. Common sense tells us that if a
great-great grandparent or one of his/her ancestors was a significant
historical figure, such as Sören Norby, this fact would be talked about (within
the family) from generation to generation. It seems obvious; such a fact does
not become less of a fact simply because the identities of some intervening
generations have failed to survive the passage of time.
While
not essential to the von Lingen submission's adequacy in establishing that Pehr
Bengtsson Norby was descended from Sören Norby, there is "legend"
which purports to provide the names for the two missing ancestors (discussed
below).
The
Baron von Lingen Pedigree Submission - Identity of Two Omitted Generations.
The
von Lingen pedigree submission omits reference to Pehr Bengtsson Norby and two
other generations. Since there is no question regarding Pehr Bengtsson Norby
being the father of Christina Norby, only two of von Lingen's three omitted
generations need be dealt with here. There is legend of undetermined origin and
reliability which provides the names of “Bernt” and “Bengt” Norby as the two
omitted generations falling between Sören and Pehr Bengtsson Norby. Holger
Rosman and Tommy Sundberg have both addressed this legend.39/
According
to the legend, Sören Norby was never married but had several children; one
named "Bernt" (whose godfather was purported to be Bernt von Mehlen),
who remained on Gotland and was the father of "Bengt" Norby who, in
turn, was the father of Pehr Bengtsson Norby.40/ Tommy Sundberg finds no
evidence supporting the existence of "Bernt" and "Bengt"
and concludes that there are indications against the existence of
"Bengt;"41/ whereas, Holger Rosman simply accepts "Bernt"
and "Bengt" as reliable legend, but not subject to
documentation.42/ While Pehr Bengtsson
Norby, Christina Norby's father, is also missing from the von Lingen
submission, the fact of his existence is understandably not questioned by
either author.
Bengt Norby. During the 1500's and 1600's, it seems that the
names Bent, Bendt, Bengdt and Bengt were used interchangeably on Danish/Swedish
Gotland. As to the existence or non-existence of "Bengt," a 1664 epitaphium displayed in the Rone church represents
near contemporaneous documentation of the facts stated therein, namely that
Pehr Bengtsson Norby's most immediate paternal ancestor was in fact named
"Bent" the Danish equivalent of "Bengt."43/ So, contrary to
Sundberg's position that there is no evidence that "Bengt" ever
existed, the epitaphium is clear and convincing evidence that "Bengt"
not only existed, but that he was the father of Pehr Bengtsson (i.e., Bentson)
Norby. Of course, the epitaphium must be read in conjunction with the von
Lingen pedigree submission in order to arrive at the conclusion that Pehr
Bengtsson Norby's father, ("Bent," also called, "Bengt")
was descended from Sören Norby.
Holger
Rosman reports that Sören Norby's grandson, Bengt Norby, owned Takstens and
several other farms on northern
Tommy
Sundberg, who apparently has had access to Holger Rosman's handwritten research
notes, states that Rosman also reported that Sören Norby's son
"Bengt" (should probably read "Bernt") was the owner of
Fardume in Rute and that Sören Norby's grandson "Bengt" was a later
owner of Fardume, as well as Takstens and Hundstäde in Lärbro.45/
It
is Tommy Sundberg's position that there is no evidence that Sören Norby or any
of his descendants ever owned Fardume in Rute or that a "Bengt" ever
owned Takstens and Hundstäde in Lärbro. Sundberg adds to this that there is no
documentation or confirmation that Sören Norby had a son named Bernt and a
grandson named Bengt. In support of his position, Sundberg points to the fact
that his research shows that in the 1570's, when "legend" has it that
Bengt Norby would have owned Fardume, Taksten and Hundstäde, these places were
owned by others. He reports that Fardume was owned by a Dominius; Takstens was
owned by an Olluff and a Peder; and, Hundstäde (also referred to as Vikers
Lilla grund) was owned by four farmers (none named Bengt).46/ Sundberg suggests
that in the absence of documentary evidence that Bengt was an owner of one or
more of these properties, it is fair to infer that Bengt never existed and that
the "legend" is without basis.
As
to the existence or non-existence of "Bengt" Norby, the 1664 epitaphium
referred to earlier conclusively establishes that "Bengt" or
"Bent" did in fact exist
and therefore leaves open the possibility, as suggested by legend, that he
owned properties such as Fardume, Taksten and/or Hundstäde. Before embarking on
a discussion of the ownership of these properties, the reader is again reminded
that the von Lingen pedigree stands on its own. The function of this discussion
is to rebut any attempt to negate or disprove the Norby "legend" with
what may be inadequate evidence.
First
to Fardume - contrary to Sundberg's position, the fact that Fardume was owned
at a particular point in time in the 1570's by a person designated
"Dominius" does not negate the "legend" that Fardume had
been owned earlier by Sören Norby and his
It
should be remembered that Sören Norby held
We
turn now to Takstens and to Tommy Sundberg's point that during the 1570's
Takstens was owned by a person named "Olluff" and a person named
"Peder." Apparently this is all that was revealed by the
This
means that Sören Norby's son Oluf could be the same "Oluff" who,
according to Sundberg, is shown as owning Takstens sometime in the 1570's. The
"Olluff" implication is discussed in more detail, infra. While this
writer draws no inference from the name "Peder," it is nevertheless
noted that the Danish rendition of Pehr Bengtsson Norby's name was "Peder Bentsön Norbÿ." This is not
to suggest that they are one and the same, but only that Pehr may have been
named after a Norby relative who lived at Takstens.
It
has not been disputed that Gotland's incomplete records of land ownership show
that in the 1600's and 1700's Pehr Bengtsson Norby's descendants - Per
Christensson Norby and Christian Norby - in fact owned Takstens.
In
the final analysis, the proponents of
the view that Pehr Bengtsson Norby was descended from Sören Norby gain
considerably from the Takstens ownership issue - the opponents of the view gain nothing. This conclusion is based on the
inference that an "Olluff" Norby owned Takstens in the 1500's.
(Discussed in more detail, infra.) The conclusion is strengthened by Norby
ownership of Takstens in the 1600's and 1700's and by the fact that farms
generally stayed in the family from generation to generation. Thus, the
strength of the inference that Norbys owned Takstens in the 1500's is enhanced
by Norby ownership in the 1600's and 1700's.
At
a minimum the “legend,” as it applies to Bengt Norby, is very much alive and is
consistent with the foregoing circumstantial evidence.
Bernt Norby. Continuing with the "legend" - the
central proof that Sören Norby had a son named "Bernt" is evidenced
by the fact that in 1524, Bernt von Mehlen stood as godfather to at least one
of Sören Norby's children at Visborg Castle in Visby.49/ It is assumed that it
was not unusual in the middle ages for a child to be named after his godfather.
There are two near contemporaneous written reports, one authored by Peder Swart
and the other by Clement Rensel, which record that in 1524 von Mehlen stood as
godfather to at least one of Sören Norby's children. However, Sundberg
discounts these reports on the ground that Swart was allegedly one of King
Gustav's propagandists and that Rensel, who was present on von Mehlen's 1524
mission to Gotland, might have authored his account to accommodate the Swedish
King's propaganda agenda.50/ These arguments clearly go to the weight or degree
of credibility one wishes to attribute to the reports in question. Assuming arguendo that the interests of Swart and
Rensel were precisely as stated by Sundberg, it does not follow that their
written reports were untrue and it certainly does not follow that these reports
are without any evidentiary value.
If
a person of Bernt von Mehlen's prominence in fact stood as godfather to one or
more of Sören Norby's children in 1524, this would lend some support to the
subsequent legend that Sören Norby had a son named "Bernt." But the
point made by Sundberg is that we don't even know the gender of the child for
whom von Mehlen purportedly stood as godfather. Sundberg notes that the child
was probably Sören Norby's daughter,
the daughter who was in von Mehlen's
Identity of the Norby Child for Whom
von Mehlen Was Godfather. Sundberg
supports his female child thesis with quotes from a letter that Sören Norby
sent to King Gustav Vasa. According to Sundberg this letter, among other
things, inquires about:
"om myne thiennere Söffuerin brwn,
leonardus,
mith barn, och the andher myne
swena."52/
[Writer's
Translation: "about my servant
Söffuerin Brun, leonardus, my child,
and the
andher my swena."
Writer is uncertain about
proper translation of italicized text, see below.]
Sundberg
goes on to explain that the Norby letter has been misconstrued by others to
mean that "leonardus" was a Norby child, when in fact he was a
servant, and that the reference to "my child" is to a Norby daughter.
He concludes that this daughter is probably the child for whom von Mehlen stood
as godfather in 1524.
Sundberg
does not say what is meant by the last phrase, "och the andher myne
swena." The words "the andher"
and the word "swena" are
not found in the Swedish dictionary. The word "andher" might be a misspelling or a word derived from the
Swedish word "andet" which translates to the English word
"other"; and, the word "swena"
appears from the context in which it is used to be in reference to another
class of person. Research reveals that the word "svena" in Old
Swedish means, "youth, young person, or young man." Thus, the last
clause might be translated, as follows: "and my other youth" or
"and my other young person" or "and my other young man." If
this is a correct translation, the person referenced in the last clause is a
young male. The use of the word "my" in this clause suggests that the
person is an adolescent son of Sören Norby; however, the reference could be to
a youthful servant (other than Brun).
The
above quoted text from the Sören Norby letter suggests that he was inquiring
about his servant, Söffuerin Brun; about Leonardus; about his child; and, about
his young son or servant. As to "leonardus, my child," while on first
impression it appears that Sören Norby is referring to him as his
"child," when the language of the letter is considered in its
entirety, it follows that he is inquiring about at least 4 people.
Additionally, Sundberg states that he has had access to other letters from
Norby to King Gustav Vasa and that these letters clearly indicate that
"leonardus" was a Norby servant. If "my child" is in
reference to "leonardus," then the letter would be silent as to the
daughter taken by King Gustav Vasa. This would not make sense. Sören Norby
would surely make inquiry regarding his young daughter. Thus, Sundberg is
undoubtedly correct in concluding that the reference to "my child" is
to the Norby daughter. The Norby letter seems to be referring to a
"Söffuerin brwn" as the servant. Sundberg does not address
"Söffuerin brwn," and the matter will remain unaddressed except to
note that some authors refer to a "Severin Brun," one of Sören
Norby's most trusted men, who was captured at the time the daughter was taken
by King Gustav Vasa. It was Brun's fate to be executed in
Sundberg
concludes, in part from the Norby letter and from the fact that a Norby
daughter was taken captive when
As
can be seen from the foregoing discussion, Sundberg's point that the Bernt
Norby of "legend" is not supported by fact depends on how one views
the facts. It can also be said that the legend is not rebutted by the facts.
Further, while there is no way of knowing the individual's age, the Lärbro
Gotland parish account ledger for 1604 shows that there was in fact a
"Bernt" (could be read as “Bengt”) associated with Takstens in 1604.
54/ It is not possible to say whether this might be the same "Bernt"
for whom Bernt von Mehlen purportedly stood as godfather in 1524. Nevertheless,
the fact that there appears to have been a "Bernt" at Takstens in
1604 is consistent with the legend that Sören Norby had a son named
"Bernt," although by 1604 he would have been at least 80 years of
age. While very difficult to sort out, it can be seen that the
"Bernt" aspect of the legend may have a circumstantial underpinning.
Much would depend on a correct reading of the name. It is more likely that this
is Pehr Bengtsson Norby’s father “Bengt” as he appears again in the 1610 church
account records as “Herr Bengt” (could be read as “Bernt” or “Bent”).
Oluf
Norby, The Missing Link?
Tommy
Sundberg may be correct in concluding that Sören Norby did not have a son named
"Bernt." However, there is little question but that Sören Norby had a
son named "Oluf." Thus, if one accepts the von Lingen pedigree as
proof of Pehr Bengtsson Norby's descent from Sören Norby, it is then highly
likely that Oluf was the father of Bengt (Bent) Norby and the grandfather of
Pehr Bengtsson Norby.
In
providing reasonable hypotheses regarding the identities of the generations
separating Sören and Pehr Bengtsson Norby, further discussion of Oluf Norby is
necessary. If Sören Norby was the progenitor of the Norby dynasty of priests on