"connexions plus ou moins directes" do not a Merovingian make; direct patrilineal descent does.
My grandfather and father were Demarest/Des Marets in a direct line of sons from knights of the Crusades. The names of every one of these ancestors appeared in my first book years ago, provided by the same Museum Directors who first visited my grandmother and copied our family Bibles (as mentioned in the Introduction).
Not interested in "knights", Sue - there were hundreds of simple squires who went on crusade. You've been claiming "kings" in this family. When I contact the Blauvelt-Demarest Foundation I'll be sure to give them your name and request information on "their" research regarding these phantom des Marets kings you keep mentioning.
I did not include Des Marets lineages in the revised edition of my book because I felt this was no longer relevant nor necessary to the main topics of the book, which is not about my ‘bloodline’.
Yet you keep bringing them up here.
History is full of false claimants and wanna-be's. I covered some of the better known ones (Anna Anderson and Michael La Fosse) in my previous edition.
Gee, I wonder what your motivation for doing that might have been?
I recall that even TCP himself sought his 'bloodline' and family Coat of Arms and published these on the Internet. To what purpose did this serve him? Should he be attacked for this? Did he have a motive, or was it pure ego?
I did so to silence the irritating libels of a critic - one well known to this and other forums for years and who's been banned from most of them. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.
Why does anyone do these things? I tried to answer that question in the final chapter of my book.
You seem to be putting up a lot of shields in this regard Sue. Why might that be? Are you concerned that you might be categorized with the Anna Andersons, Michael Lafosses and Kathleen McGowans you so readily disparage?
Many of the records were originally kept by the King(s) of France because this represented their lineage too, and this included the des Marets lineage.
Naturally the French royal house maintained its own records. I doubt they would have had much interest in your des Marets ancestors, who were merely one of many hundreds of feudal families held in liege to the crown.
So much has been written and so many lineages have been traced, and this line is so well established that it would be hard to fake. Quite the contrary! It is very easy to prove.
But you're the only one claiming they were royalty.
Many thousands of these descendants can and have written books about this family. I am neither the first nor the only DesMarets in the world.
Here are just a few of the hundreds of links about the Des Marets genealogy from the Crusades to the present. When I tried to highlight these links, I could not post, so I have had to remove the www. part of the url.
A perfectly respectable line of Norman nobles. No kings though.
At last, a king - but nobody here named des Marets. This one died childless and thus has no descendants. Why on earth would you throw this one in, Sue?
Lovely article - "The Architectural Antiquities of Normandy" - but not a single mention of anyone named des Marets.
Curious - you present Baldwin IV of Jersualem again, the one with no descendants. Not a single mention of anyone named des Marets in the entire article though.
Oh, wait...wait, wait, wait, wait wait...we're staring to get some clarity now...a pattern is forming...
Going back to your first link - the only one that has any des Marets genealogical data in it - I notice the names of the lords of this particular Norman seigneurie: Baldwin I des Marets (c.1076-c.1140), Baldwin II des Marets (c. 1113-c.1145), Baldwin III des Marets (c.1144-?), Baldwin IV des Marets (c.1184-1239), Baldwin V des Marets (c.1216-?), etc. etc.
You aren't by any chance conflating this line of Seigneurs des Marets, who did participate in the Crusades and were given land in the Crusader states, with the actual Kings
of Jerusalem, i.e. Baldwin de Boulogne (Baldwin I, 1100–1118), Baldwin du Bourg (Baldwin II, 1118–1131), Baldwin d'Anjou (Baldwin III, 1143–1162), Baldwin d'Anjou (Baldwin IV, 1174–1185), Baldwin de Montferrat (Baldwin V, 1183–1186), are you?
Oh, Sue, say it isn't so!