Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Contemporary or not?

- "The Genoese historian Antonio Gallo who knew the Columbus family, wrote in 1506 an account of his expedition. This he began with the following words: "Christopher and Bartholomew Columbus, brothers, of the Ligurian nation, sprung from plebeian parentage.""
You are wrong again. The fact is that 5 out of 9 copies of the manuscripts attributed to "Gallo" DO NOT mention the "Columbus" brothers. The other four manuscripts that mention the "Columbus" brothers, the short passage is written at the end of the manuscript. Yes, it is written after Gallo's signed off on the manuscript. Furthermore, of those 4 Codexes where the "Columbus" brothers are mentioned, NOT ONE is from the 16th Century. They are from the 17th and 18th Centuries. I suggest you and your cronies go read more and write less. Go read "Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Raccolta degli Storici Italiani del Cinquecento al millecinquento, ordinata da L.A. Muratori..." there you will read that those four manuscripts containing the "Columbus" account are these:

• British Codex - written in the seventeenth century
• Torino Codex - written in the eighteenth century
• Civica Genoa Codex - written in the seventeenth century
• Federici Codex - written in the seventeenth century

Interestingly the Codex stored in the Library of Kopenagen "Ms. Reale antico fondo n. 2205" the oldest writing from the sixteenth century - therefore written long before the British, Torino, Civica and Federici codexes - has nothing about "Columbus brothers"! Why is that? Did Gallo's ghost came to write it in the seventeenth century? As you can see the so-called "Gallo accounts" are not Contemporary.
Furthermore, Hernando Colon NEVER said his father was "Genoese" and blamed Agostino Giustiniani for writing lies in his book about Hernando's father. Again your sources are non-contemporary and unreliable. Gallo's manuscripts are not his but copies from centuries later. The same thing happened with the first English translation of Peter Martyr's Opera. Legatio Babilonica Occeanea Decas. Poemata done by Richard Eden in 1555 Martyr's words were falsified by the statement "otherwise called Columbus". Peter Martyr wrote: "Christophorus Quidam Colonus Ligur Vir Regibus Proposuit..." while Richard Eden wrote "Christophorus Colonus (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua, perswaded Fernando and Elyzabeth..." As has been the case with most writers, Richard Eden, INVENTED this (otherwise called Columbus) A gentilman of Italy, borne in the citie of Genua as if Peter Martyr had written it, which Peter Martyr HAD NOT written "Columbus" nor "Genoese". You can do the same exercise with all your other "contemporary sources" and you find that they are NOT contemporary nor copied in an accurate manner. The wool-weaver Columbus has been a red herring that served its purpose well for 500 years. We are now dealing with the facts not the fantasy of a peasant marrying a noble lady. Remember this was medieval Europe. Peasants were not even allowed to talk to noble ladies.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Colon-el-Nuevo on this and with Miltiades Varvounis's expert opinion presented in the Lithuanian Heritage article, when he writes that "Rosa's book is a magnum opus and by no means should be considered a work of pseudo history or just another source of nutty conspiracy theories... The History of Columbus has many mixed-up facts and personalities, and maybe the time has come for the discoverer's life to be finally rewritten." After considering all the facts presented, I would say that Columbus history will be rewritten and that we should not let ourselves be fooled by old twisted tales of peasants marrying nobles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.217.2 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, that would be very exciting. Of course, Wikipedia is not the place that it will be rewritten. Wikipedia follows the sources. When the overall historical consensus has changed, then, and only then, will Wikipedia be changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The "father" of Christopher Columbus

Jan Długosz, the Polish analyst, has described for the first time a homosexual incidence among rulers concerning King Wladyslaw III Jagiellon called Warneńczyk, who never got married. [Source: Annals or Chronicles of the Famous Kingdom of Poland]

The Church o-f-f-i-c-i-a-l-l-y recognised his homosexuality and because of that, Wladyslaw is only King Crusader who has never been beatified. "Professor" Rosa is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish your original research, or promote fringe research by others. I am not taking your word for that, nor should anyone else.

Wladyslaw was fighting with Turkey in the defence of Christian Europe (formally it was a crusade) and he was killed during a battle in 1444 near Warna (seven years before Christopher Columbus was born!). The King’s corpse has never been found. There are several legends about his further history. One of them suggests that the King survived and escaped to Turkey with his lover. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in saying "There are several legends about his further history." One of those legends is that the king was "homosexual" the other that he "died" in battle. How many rulers had boys as sexual toys throughout history? Did that make them "homosexual" - are "homosexuals" unable to father children? Poor arguments for poor history! Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop discussing primary sources with Colon-El-Nuevo. Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources - any further discussion of primary sources is likely to in flame the discussion with Colon-el-nuevo. Please just ignore him.

You do not need to keep defending the genoese theory - every one who is not fanatically invested in a particular alternative theory already knows that this is the vas majority consensus. Just keep working on improving the article while ignoring disruptive elements. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Kolumb byl Plakiem?

Christopher Columbus’s True Identity Unmasked: A Lithuanian Prince? By Jon Platakis - Founder/Chairman of the National Lithuanian American Hall of Fame, exclusive for the Lithuania Tribune - http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/31724/christopher-columbuss-true-identity-unmasked-a-lithuanian-prince-201331724/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.234.135 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As Colon-el-Nuevo mentioned time and again, Manuel Rosa has shown that the history books will need to be re-written. There is no way that a peasant could marry nobility in the 1400s and this makes the whole Colombo/Columbus history a lie. The man was not called Colombo but Colon and Rosa presents the most plausible explanation for all of the secrecy. He was the son of a king in self exile who wanted his identity to remain secret, not because he was a Jew, a peasant or an enemy of King Fernando.

Bien que el coerpo ande aca el coracon esta ali de continuo...

(Though my body is here, my heart is constantly there...)

One of the phrases used for the allegedly Genoese origin, clearly shows that this is not his origin!!!!!

In italian this phrase is: "Anche se il mio corpo è qui, il mio cuore è sempre lì ...", you see any diference???:

"Bien que el coerpo ande aca el coracon esta ali de continuo" "Anche se il mio corpo è qui, il mio cuore è sempre lì ..."

Mmmmm....in portuguese the letter Z of Corazón (spanish to Heart) is ç, and him writte "coracon"...--186.62.161.14 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for you to engage in original research about Columbus. Our only purpose here is to discuss how to improve the article, which will always be based only on reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

COLUMBUS AN ARMENIAN ?

On April 27, 1922, the New York Times reported that Christopher Columbus, explorer for Spain, was an Armenian.

COLUMBUS AN ARMENIAN ? So Miss Olivia Hill Says, Quoting Prominent Armenian Scholars. [1]

Many people think that the history of the U.S. begins with the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492. But that's not really true. The majority of the Armenians scholars came to the conclusion that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1485. --SuperArmenian (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so one person in 1922 put forward a theory, and it got written up in a local newspaper. Was it ever published in an academic press? Did it ever get the benefit of peer review? This one tiny newspaper article is not important enough to include unless there's more to the story (see WP:UNDUE). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It sort of illustrates the point that maybe some of the one-off news stories, like the Scottish theory for example, are really about as notable as this Armenian one.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Origin Theory

He was Chinese I tell you! It's the only hypothesis that makes any sense! XD 108.9.107.123 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-write, please

This reads like a freshman term paper. Is someone willing to suitably edit this article? Tomking505 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Galician origin theory

I left a link where you can read more information (until 100 reasons) about the galician origin of Cristobal Colón = Pedro Madruga: (http://www.cristobal-colon.es/christopher-columbus-galician/) DesdeGparaelmundo (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (DesdeGparaelmundo. August2013)

There is a calligraphic study made in 2009 indicating that Christopher Columbus and Pedro Sotomayor Alvarez (Pedro Madruga)were the same person:

http://cristobal-colon-su-historia.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/estudio-pericial-sobre-la-identidad.html

Neither of these can be used in the article as they fail our criteria for sources at WP:RS, and this page is meant only to discuss the article, not the origin of Columbus. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, but in wikipedia texts on Colon used as argument of his italian origin data that have been proven false. Why?

I truly believe that those who write more about Colon, are the least known of its history. Colombo wasn't Colon, that is absolutely proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.45.40 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

---

FamilyTreeDNA, the most important genetic analysis company, has discovered in their databases that two of his clients, a descendant of Pedro Alvarez de Sotomayor (currently professor at Illinois University) and other of Cristobal Colon, currently living in USA and Puerto Rico share a common ancestor in the XV century:

http://biografiaehistoria.com/la-prueba-adn-y-y-la-teoria-colon-sotomayor-resultados-preliminares/

Include more details about the publication of "The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand"

The section "The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand" should include important details about how Historie was published--details that are contained in Benjamin Keen's translation and that provide irrefutable, indirect evidence about the Genoese origin of the Discoverer. Fernando's manuscript was inherited by his nephew Luis, the playboy grandson of the Discoverer. Luis was always strapped for money and sold the manuscript to Baliano de Fornari, "a wealthy and public-spirited Genoese physician." On page xv, Keen wrote:

"In the depth of winter the aged Fornari set out for Venice, the publishing center of Italy, to supervise the translation and publication of the book."

On page xxiv, the April 25, 1571 Dedication by Giuseppe Moleto states:

"Your Lordship [Fornari], then, being an honorable and generous gentleman, desiring to make immortal the memory of this great man, heedless of your Lordship's seventy years, of the season of the year, and of the length of the journey, came from Genoa to Venice with the aim of publishing the aforementioned book ... that the exploits of this eminent man, the true glory of Italy and especially of your Lordship's native city, might be made known."

Why would Fornari have done this if he had not been certain that the Discoverer was Genoese?Italus (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC) :There is so much fraud in the Genoese documents it is unbelievable how that "Genoese" fantasy still stands as history. Read Kolumb. Historia nieznana and you will be amazed what that author has exposed. He even presents one blatant example in his blog here: http://1492us.blogspot.com/2012/12/false-documents-of-christopher-columbus.html - I saw him i New York a few weeks back and everyone in the hall became convinced the current Columbus history is a monumental fraud as even this TV reporter admits all I got to say after seeing Rosa's lecture is that the whole story needs a rewrite. So Columbus was never his name and he was Polish (Krzysztof Kolumbowski – agent templariuszy. Polskie korzenie odkrywcy Ameryki) not Italian. Kolumbski (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are basically never reliable sources for Wikipedia, even for fringe theories (especially?). Please provide reliable sources or there's nothing we can do. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

One source that shows fraudulent Genoese documents is Kolumb Historia nieznana, Manuel Rosa, Rebis, Poland, 2012 and another is right on that blog: Christopher Columbus and the Bank of Saint George, Henry Harrisse, Chiswick press; C. Wittingham and co., London, 1888

::::Yet another supporting text is this: Professor João Abel da Fonseca, Deputy Secretary-General of the Marine Academy, Secretary of the Class of Maritime History, Academic Correspondent of the Portuguese Academy of History, Vice-President of the Division of History of the Geographical Society of Lisbon, and Chairman of the Council of the Institute of European Culture and Atlantic, said: "Any historian who is lucid (also if he is not lucid he can hardly be called a historian), given the knowledge of the social relations that prevailed at the time, cannot have any doubt of the FACT, that is more than obvious, that CRISTÓBAL COLÓN HAD TO BE SOMEONE OF THE HIGHEST NOBILITY. Regarding this fact, END OF DISCUSSION. The evidence is so plentiful that one merely needs to enumerate them to come to this obvious conclusion. It [the high nobility birth] is an issue that is no longer worth wasting time debating." Kolumbski (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Back to You, Colon-el-Nuevo. The writing style is the same. You were not banned from Wikipedia [2], [3], [4] [5] etc. ? You have nothing to do all day ? --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Striking through sock edits, the IP he also used geolocates to Chapel Hill which is where Duke is located. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

He will return ! --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

He did not speak Italian

There was no Italian language in Columbus' time (just as there was no Italy in Columbus' time). If he spoke/wrote the language of his homeland (as seems likely), that would have been Ligurian, which is understood to be a different language (though related) from the one we now call Italian. 76.118.178.18 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Spanish Academy of History showed in 1921 that Colombo wasn't Colon and was't tested Genoese origin of Cristobal Colon.

http://www.cristobal-colon.com/cristobal-colon-y-cristoforo-columbo-por-ricardo-beltran-y-rozpide-1921/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.45.40 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

---

There are several hundred words that Columbus used in his writings that are exclusive use of Galician language. Not used in Portuguese, very similar lenguaje, or castilian also similar. Examples: abalar, agardar, agora, amortecido, arreo, arriscar, asesar, corredios, crimes, debuxar, despois, enxerir, escaramouxo, espeto, fagades, falar, fame, forza, froitifero, longura, mercar....

Colon very rarely used in his writings the form 'preterito perfect' in verbs, a typical characteristic of the Galicians who speak or write in Castilian, still fully normal today , because there is no such verb conjugation in Galician, and use the preterite imperfect. In Castilian is backwards: it usually uses the perfect, the imperfect is more casual.

There are over a hundred place names in America baptized by Columbus in his trips with same place names that exist in Galician coasts (neither an Italian place), including the first, S. Salvador, the Patron Saint of his birthplace at Poio (Pontevedra's suburbs), Rio Minho, Rio Xallas, Isla de Gracia, Santiago Island, many capes, bays, ...... Columbus on his first voyage made ​​festive just one day on 18 December, the Virgen de la O, the Patron Saint of sailors of Pontevedra.

Map of Ria of Pontevedra estuary, by Spain Govern, Ministry_of_Public_Works_and_Transport, places baptized by Colon in America: http://celsogarciadelariega.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/c416-en-etrs-89_color.jpg

View all original travel diaries of Columbus, no modern Castilian translations.

Agree. Linguistic evidence is often the one thing that reveals the truth because it is difficult to fake it or lie about it. Many otherwise perfect frauds have been undone by subtle flaws. The linguistic evidence - primarily the fact that Columbus used Spanish in his private notes instead of Italian - is overwhelming. The problem is, if historians concede he was Spanish, then the question arises of why he and his employers (the King and Queen) would want to hide his true identity. The facts point to a shady career as a pirate or privateer before Columbus became the respected mass-murder he is today. Maybe school children will not be taught to sing songs and perform plays about Columbus anymore as a consequence of acknowledging his true identity, but plenty is already known and accepted by historians about his barbaric murdering and thieving. There's not much left to defend by insisting Columbus is Italian when the linguistic evidence persuasively shows he was a speaker of Spanish, not Italian. Badon (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Genoese Documents are false

Angel de Altolaguirre y Duvale admitted in October 1935 that many of the Raccolta Colombiana documents published by the City of Genoa were false and that he himself had advised the City of Genoa, when they presented Altolaguirre with the First volume as a gift, that Genoa should have left out those false documents as being worthless!!! Source: www.revistas.usp.br/revhistoria/article/download/37382/40103‎ - what a wicked web of lies we wave when we want to deceive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The article focuses solely on Patriarchal line

Is there absolutely no evidence from his matriarchal line? 97.85.173.38 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Columbus Was Not Italian?

COLUMBUS: The Untold Story at Florida International University “CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS: A HISTORY OF FRAUD & DECEPTIONS" Turns out Columbus was not Italian after all but descendant of Polish Royalty! Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2015, 11:00AM MEUCE/Polish Lecture Series: Book Presentation on "Columbus" (FIU) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:C45A:B604:599D:5473 (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

University Professors Now Doubt Columbus Origins

It seems Colon-El-Nuevo was on the right track all those years.
"As regras do tempo mostram-nos que um plebeu nunca se casava com uma nobre, pelo que a origem de Colombo é assaz duvidosa."
Translation:
"The social rules at the time confirm that a peasant could never marry a noble by which the [peasant] origins of Columbus are thus, highly doubtful"
Who wrote this? Of course Manuel Rosa insisted on this point in his books beginning in 2006, now Prof. João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, History Chair at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and Director of Centro de História Além-Mar along with Prof. José Damião Rodrigues and Prof. Pedro Aires Oliveira now declare it in a new book titled, 'História da Expansão e do Império Português' Lisboa: A Esfera dos Livros, 2014. ISBN: 9789896266271, p. 78 - .
... it's only logical that once professors know the true facts of the noble Cristóbal Colón's life the fantasy tale of the peasant weaver Colombo from Genoa can only be denied - to keep insisting the was a peasant would be foolish of any academic today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk • contribs)

Note that the IP address is Duke University IP address, and Rosa is an IT help desk worker there. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Colon was not Columbus and was Not Italian?

New Academic article in the SPANISH LEGAL HISTORY REVIEW sinks the Italian Columbus once and for all.

ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: Admiral Don Cristóbal Colón*, discoverer of the New World, and the Genoese wool-weaver, Cristoforo Colombo, were two completely different persons. The official history continues to be supported by vague sources that do not stand up when confronted with the actual facts of Colón’s life. One of those important disregarded facts was the Admiral’s 1479 marriage to the noble Portuguese Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, Comendadora in the All-Saints monastery, a Commandery of the Military Order of Santiago. Filipa’s social status at the time was incompatible with that of the Cristoforo Colombo, weaver from Genoa. Colón’s close connections to King João II of Portugal and the high consideration that he and his sons received from the court of Castile indicate that Colón was a person of a social status incompatible with the weaver presented in the famous Raccolta. Admiral D. Cristóbal Colón’s life remains, in many aspects, shrouded in mystery by his own deliberate implementation. Colón hid his true identity and family origins, even though, by all aspects, he was a nobleman with a coat of arms and was elevated to Viceroy of the Indies. His preponderance for lying misleads us about the shipwreck of the Santa Maria on December 24, 1492, which as shown below, was intentionally beached at today’s Caracol beach in Haiti to serve as the beginnings of Fort Natividad. Oh-oh! soon Wikipedia will be out-of-date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The article in e-Spanish Legal History Review is by Manuel Rosa, an IT help desk worker at Duke University. The IP posts from Duke, mainly about Rosa. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, you keep sticking your nose in this and you have no idea what you are talking about. Rosa had published his first book, resulting from 15 years of research, at least 2 years before he became an IT guy at Duke, if you took the time to review the Duke Article you would know this. Furthermore, the e-Spanish Legal History Review is an academic journal led by some of the top scholars in the world. If you had taken the time to review the journals website you would have seen them, including the following Professors, who had to have reviewed Rosa's article for publication:

• DIRECTOR Dr. José Manuel Pérez-Prendes Muñoz-Arraco, Catedrático emérito de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Var. Academiae, Dr, h, c, de la Universidad “Carlos III” de Madrid, et alii
• DIRECTORA ADJUNTA, Dra. Remedios Morán Martín, Catedrática de Historia del Derecho y de las Instituciones. UNED (Madrid), De la Academia Portuguesa de la Historia

CONSEJO EDITORIAL

• Dra. Manuela Mendonça (Presidenta de la Academia Portuguesa de la Historia. Catedrática de Historia Moderna. Universidade de Lisboa)
• Dr. Pedro Ortego Gil (Catedrático de Historia del Derecho y de las Instituciones. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela)
• Dr. Antonio P. Vicente (Catedrático emérito de Historia Constitucional. Universidade Nova de Lisboa)
• Dr. Julio Medina Font (Ex.Vicerrector de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Profesor Titular de Historia del Derecho y de las Instituciones. UCM)
• Dra. Raquel Medina Plana (Profesora Titular de Historia del Derecho y de las Instituciones.UCM)
• Dra. D.ª Mónica Muessman Torres (Profesora Ordinaria de Historia del Derecho y de las Instituciones. Colegio Universitario “Villanueva”. Madrid)

CONSEJO ASESOR

• Dr. Michael Stolleis (Doctor Director del Max-Planck-Institut für Europäische Rechsgeschichte. Catedrático emérito de Derecho público. Universidad de Frankfurt am Main);
• Dr. Manuel Cobo del Rosal (Catedrático de Derecho penal. Universidad Complutense de Madrid);
• Dr. Manuel Cuadrado Iglesias (Profesor Titular de Derecho civil. Universidad Complutense de Madrid);
• Dra. Concepción Escobar Hernández (Catedrática de Derecho internacional Público. Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia);
• Dr. Francisco Ramos Bossini (Profesor Titular de Historia del Derecho. Universidad de Granada);
• Dr. Rafael Hinojosa Segovia (Profesor Titular de Derecho procesal. Universidad Complutense de Madrid);
• Dr. Mario Hernández Sánchez-Barba (Catedrático de Historia de América. Universidad Complutense de Madrid);
• Dr. Mario Julio Brito de Almeida Costa (Catedrático de História do Direito Portugués. Universidade Nova de Lisboa);
• Dr. Enrique Menéndez Ureña (Catedrático Filosofía. Universidad Pontificia de Comillas. Canto Blanco);
• Dr. Georges Martin (Catedrático, UFR Études Ibériques et latino-américaines. Universidad de París-Sorbona, París IV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:90D7:8681:5A5D:BF4A (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Eliot Morison has cast no doubts

Can someone explain What os meant by this statement "However, Samuel Eliot Morison has cast no doubts regarding Columbus's marriage to the Portuguese noblewoman Filipa Perestrello.[28]" - Are we saying that Morison has no doubts Filipa was noble? or Are we saying that peasant could marry nobles and thus the peasant weaver would have no problems marrying a noblewoman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

edits eliminated

The following source had been added under Documents then removed by DOUGWELLER - what is wrong with this statement that it had to be removed? Navarrette wrote that "nowhere in the archives is there an original in handwriting of Columbus, nor signed by him, nor a legalized copy with all the formalities as in the preceding Royal Patent to institute the Majorat" Martín Fernández de Navarrete, Colección de los viajes y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los españoles (Buenos Aires: Editorial Guaranía, 1945-46). (First Edition printed in Madrid, 1825). Vol. II, p. 235.

Under POLISH theory this edit was introduced but again removed by DOUGWELLER. What is wrong with this edit?

In the book Rosa claims that Columbus was born Segismundo Henriques, the son of the exiled Polish King Władysław III, resident in the island of Madeira, and of a Portuguese noblewoman. The author believes Columbus was a Portuguese secret agent working covertly in Spain and that he would not have been able to marry Filipa Moniz Perestrelo, a Portuguese noblewoman, if he were not of noble birth himself because King John II was required to authorize Filipa's marriage. (Prof. Joel Silva Ferreira Mata, A Comunidade Feminina da Ordem de Santiago: A comenda de Santos na Idade Média, Universidade Lusíada, Porto, 1992.) The book attempts to solve the mystery of Columbus identity by utilizing Hernando Colón's claim that they are descendants of a Roman General who was the ancestor of the Italian Colonna family. Evidence is presented showing that the Kings of Poland also descended from the same Roman general Colonna (Kęstutis Gudmantas, Lituanistika/Lithuanian studies Vėlyvųjų Lietuvos metraščių veikėjai ir jų prototipai: "romėnai". Senoji Lietuvos literatūra. ISSN 1822-3656. 2005,, 18. Istorijos rašymo horizontai. 9955775854) and claims similarities exist between Columbus' coat of arms and that of the Dukes of Lithuania.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.144.213 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Columbus did not write nor Speak Italian

King John II’s secret letter to Columbus addressed to “Xpoval Colon, Our Special Friend in Seville” dated 20, March 1488 is written in Portuguese, which shows that the king of Portugal knew that the discoverer read Portuguese.

However, Columbus never wrote in Italian nor in Genoese to anybody, not even to his own brothers who supposedly were also Genoese, the following comes from Consuelo Varela:

• In his Castilian is found clear Portuguese-izms: even a deter [instead of] ‘detener’ in the relating of the third voyage.
• In his classic study regarding the language of Colón, Menéndez Pidal has pointed out, with reason, that his Spanish letters have a clear Portuguese varnish (tone), especially perceptive in the grammar and the vowels.
• Most definitely the Admiral made more use of a Portuguese norm then Italian.
• In every way, we are always left with the feeling that Colón thought not in the Castilian como, but in the Portuguese.
• He uses the word tablachina, in neighboring Portugal they used that tavolachina. [Page Footnote: Diario da viagem de Vasco da Gama, p. 20: tauolachenhas . . . Manuscript of Valentim Fernandes, p. 114 “they make from it tauolachimas”].
• On December 4 appeared a perfect pozo [Pt. rest/landing]: “there is a large bay that would be a good landing from East-Northeast and Southeast and South-Southwest [winds].” The phrase makes no sense in Castilian, but it does in Portuguese.
• In the Diary of the Voyage of Vasco da Gama: “Ordered Pero d'Alanquer in the boat to do a sounding and see if he found bom poso [a good landing].”
• Turbonadas [squalls], from a nautical term that has taken a long time to acclimate in Castilian, and only begins to be used when the lexicon of the Portuguese pilots was applied to the Spanish ships. (FROM Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.)

To describe the Native American’s hair, Columbus said that they were corredios [straight];

• the Portuguese Rui de Pina, in his Crónica del rey D. Duarte [Chronicle of King D. Duarte], wrote that the king had hair that was corredio.
• Duarte Pacheco Pereira wrote “Negros de Etiopía superior tem os cabellos corredios” The Negroes of higher Ethiopia have hair that is straight.

Columbus’s corredios is clearly a Portuguese word. The list of Portuguese words utilized by Columbusis extensive. Columbus wrote Portuguese words whenever he lacked the Spanish. It is true that a few of these words have similar forms in other languages, but that does not deny that those few are, at the same, time pure Portuguese.
For instance, Columbus wrote Xio for Quios, which was also used in Catalan. However, the Portuguese Duarte Pacheco Pereira also wrote Xio for Quios in his Esmeraldo de Situs Orbis. There is no other language that fits Columbus's non-Spanish words better. What does this mean? It means Portuguese had to be Columbus's mother tongue. (FROM Manuel Rosa, Colón, La Historia Nunca Contada, Esquilo, Badajoz, 2009)

The lack of serious research by the Portuguese academics into this facet of Columbus's character left a gapping hole in the History of his language that was poorly filled in by others less qualified to interpret it.
To try and force the Genoese nationality and close this big language hole in that theory, they spent a Century trying to twist the truth by proposing falsely, up to today, that in Genoa there was no specific written language, thus, “Genoese Italian was not a written language in the 15th century.”
According to those writers, the Province of Genoa, one of the powerful forces of the Mediterranean, would have been the only European city of the Middle Ages that was so far behind that it didn’t have its own written language!
As this faulty explanation began to fray and crumble, the Genoese tried another angle. In 1973, Virgil Milani tried to prove that the mistakes in Admiral Columbus's Spanish were not Portuguese at all but were, in fact, words from the Genoese language. But reviewing Milani’s work, the critic Peter Boyd-Bowman, explained in Hispanic Review (Winter, 1976) that, although some of the words used by Columbus also had a Genoese from, they were at the same time pure Portuguese words'. Boyd-Bowman also stated that Milani had based his work on a dictionary that did not include documented words “in use.” Likewise, Prof. Ralph J. Penny, of the School of Modern Languages (Queen Mary, University of London) in his article The Language of Christopher Columbus, demonstrated that Virgil Milani had clearly diminished Colón’s Portuguese words to promote a Genoese language that was not so present' in Columbus's writings. Ralph J. Penny admits that in the end “it is easier to identify interference from Portuguese.” (FROM "The Language of Christopher Columbus" by R.J. Penny, included in "Christopher Columbus: Journal of the First Voyage, B. W. Ife, Aris & Phillips, December, 1990".
To further clarify that the Genoese had their own written language, as one would expect them to have here’s what Maurizio Tagliattini wrote, “Misinformed writers have suggested that the Admiral did not write in Italian since Italian could not be understood on paper. In point of historical fact, there were and still are available more letters written in vulgar Italian or Genoese than one would wish to read.” (FROM Maurizio Tagliattini, A critical study on the origin of Christopher Columbus: chapter 10 from The discovery of North America, Antillia Pub., 2008)
Menéndez Pidal, in his 1944 study of Colón’s language, demonstrated the same thing, essentially that the non-Spanish words in Admiral Colón’s writings are based on the Portuguese language. (FROM Ramón Menéndez Pidal, La Lengua de Cristóbal Colón, Espasa-Calpe, S.A., Madrid, 1958.)
If the Admiral made use of a Portuguese word instead of an Italian word when he didn’t know the corresponding Spanish word, then Colón must have known Portuguese better than Italian or Spanish and therefore Portuguese must have been his mother tongue and not Italian, Genoese, Catalan, French, etc.
Antonio Rumeu de Armas affirms that Portuguese was the first language that Cristóbal Colón “read and wrote” and that the Admiral’s written “mistakes are always done by introducing Portuguese forms and voices” into the Spanish.
(FROM Congreso de Historia del descubrimiento (1492-1556): actas, Tomo I, Real Academia de la Historia, Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorros, Madrid, 1992. pg. 88-89)

Can anyone accept that a man who arrives in a foreign country at age 25, as the official story claims, and who lives there only a short eight years (1476-1484) would have assimilated the host country’s Portuguese language so well that it would serve as the base for his writings for the next twenty two years of his life, while forgetting a Genoese mother tongue he would have used for the first 25 years of his life?

Columbus wrote to his brothers not in Italian but in a Portuguese distorted Spanish. And guess what language Columbus wrote to Italians in? It was not in an Italian or Genoese language but in the same Portuguese influenced Spanish as his other letters. How strange is it that three wool-weavers from Genoa would have gone to school not to study Italian, Genoese, or whatever language they used in Genoa at the time, but studied Portuguese based Spanish instead? (FROM Manuel Rosa, Colón, La Historia Nunca Contada, Esquilo, Badajoz, 2009)

The Admiral did not write in any Italian language because he had never learned one. The proof of this is a note that he left behind where he attempted to write a simple Italian phrase:

• Del ambra es çierto nascere in India soto tierra, he yo ne ho fato cavare in molti monti in la isola de Feyti vel de Ofir vel de Cipango, a la quale habio posto nome Spagnola, y ne o trovato pieça grande como el capo, ma no tota chiara, saluo de chiaro y parda, y otra negra.
  (Amber, it is true, grows in India in the thicket landscape, and I have had them dig in many mounds in the island of Haiti or Ophir or Japan to the which I had given the name Española and there found a piece large as a head, but not all clear, instead clear and greyish, and another dark.)
  

These are the non Italian words: es, çierto, tierra, yo, pieça, como, el, y, pardo, otra, negra.
(FROM Salvador de Madariaga, Vida del Muy Magnífico Señor Don Cristóbal Colón, Buenos Aires, 1958.)

From this note one can see that Columbus could not even write a word of such importance as “I” in Italian writing it instead as the Spanish "Yo". (FROM Manuel Rosa, Colón, La Historia Nunca Contada, Esquilo, Badajoz, 2009)
Consuelo Varela wrote, “in turn when he tries writing in Italian, he is unable to do so perpetrating gross errors, which reveals that this was not a language that he was used to writing.” (FROM Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.) Everyone agrees that the Admiral who married in Portugal and later sailed for Spain knew no Italian or Genoese. To bypass this huge obstacle in the wool-weaver theory, some invented that the wool-weaver never fully learned his Genoese language because they say, he spent a lot of time on foreign ports-of-call and thus spoke no known language, but instead spoke a kind of Pidgin Language of the Mediterranean. Yet if he started out as a wool-weaver who never went to school, the Admiral certainly wrote Castilian better than most schooled foreigners. How could he have learned it in only 8 years starting at age 25 and yet not learn Genoese from year 1 to year 25 of his life?

Although it is true that in Spain many declared that the Admiral was a Ginobes (Genoese) this does not mean that they meant the Admiral was born in Genoa. It was merely Spanish slang, just as today in the USA we call illegal immigrants “Mexicans” when in fact they most come from so many other South American countries very far from Mexico. The fact that “Genoese” was a Spanish slang word meaning foreigner, is clearly explained in the course of the Lawsuit Against the Crown that the Second Admiral, Diego Colón, instituted to enforce his father’s contract with Queen Isabel and King Fernando:

• To the foreigners in these kingdoms [of Spain we] are accustomed to calling them Genoese, even if they are from other Nations . . . we call foreigners Genoese . . . and this witness is sure that the said Admiral Don Cristóbal would be called a Genoese even if he was from another nation.(FROM Enrique de Gandía, Historia de Cristóbal Colón. Análisis crítico de las fuentes documentales y de los problemas Colombinos, Buenos Aires, 1942.)
• Another witness named Romano, while explaining why Admiral Colón was called Genoese, confirms this fact saying “el común hablar en España es dezir ginoveses a cualesquier extranjeros” (the common saying in Spain is to call Genoese to any foreigners). The fact is that all those who attributed a nationality to the Admiral did not know for certain where he was born.(FROM Enrique de Gandía, Historia de Cristóbal Colón. Análisis crítico de las fuentes documentales y de los problemas Colombinos, Buenos Aires, 1942.)
  

As it is clear Columbus did not even know how to write "I" in Italian, the most basic of all words and the most important word any person learns in their life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Write a book. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Columbus from Genoa was not the same guy as the discoverer

The Last Will and Testament of Christopher Columbus dated 1498, known as the Mayorazgo (Majorat), materialized in Spain decades after the discoverer died. The document was presented during the Columbus inheritance lawsuit by an Italian imposter named Balthazar Colombo who was not a family relation. The document includes the statement “being I born in Genoa,” which has been utilized as the crucial proof that the Discoverer of America was born in Genoa, Italy. However, neither the contents of the Mayorazgo nor the circumstances of its creation pass scientific scrutiny. It turns out to be a fraudulent document invented by Balthazar Colombo in his shameless effort to steal from the discoverer’s legitimate heirs the immense inheritance of the Dukedom of Veragua, Admiral of the Indies and Marquis of Jamaica. ( http://www.iustel.com/v2/revistas/detalle_revista.asp?numero=21&id=15 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to the article's author? Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a big house of cards is about to tumble !!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.59.41 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If Rosa proves the document is a forgery, how long will WP begin to change the Columbus articles to reflect the doubts regarding his place of birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266 (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Read more and more false it becomes. Manuel Rosa is appears to have right view the history of Columbus very shaky, why there is no more doubt of Genoese theory written in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.53.176.253 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Write a book. Get some reliable sources. Build a website. Stop trying to plug your own fringe theories into Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

At the most this should have a short paragraph. This clearly reliable source says "Within the Polish-American community, identified by its members as Polonia, there is the recurrent story of Jan z Kolno, a supposed early “pilot” on one or more pre-Columbian Danish expeditions to North America, but the evidence of this is scant and open to considerable interpretation. The recent assertions by Manuel Rosa in his Colon, la historia nunca contada, published in Spain, that Christopher Columbus was the son of the Polish king Wladyslaw III, promised a major revelation, but has yet to undergo the scrutiny of scholars. As yet, the first appearance of Poles in North America that is verified by accepted evidence was the arrival of three or four in Jamestown in 1608, only a year after the founding of the first successful..." We don't need a lot more than that. open ejournals aren't reliable sources normally, by the way. Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"A tiger does not change its stripes, nor a leopard its spots." This proverb is perfect for Colon-el-Nuevo [6] alias 152.16.51.158 alias 46.53.176.253 alias 2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266|2606:A000:1118:2105:494C:A066:E586:A266 --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A general comment on the Polish hypothesis - and by a Polish scholar who cites Rosa as one of the claimants for it, says "While the authors of the 1472 mystification remain unknown, the scene itself has become a source of subsequent rumors claiming that Henrique Alemão was really King Wladyslaw concealing himself on the Portuguese island. Beginning in all probability around the time of Henrique's death, such rumors were for the first time recorded in the early eighteenth century.53 Further popularized by Leopold Kielanowskin the twentieth century, they became the starting point for a bizarre hypothesis that Christopher Columbus was actually the son of King Wladyslaw III Jagiellon hiding on Madeira under the name of Henrique Alemão.54" "Deceptive Practices in Fifteenth Century Europe: The Case of Wladyslaw III Jagiellon (Varnensis)", Krystyna Lukasiewicz The Polish Review Vol. 57, No. 2 (2012), pp. 3-20. Doug Weller (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good job, Doug Weller. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncertain Sources

The reference inserted in the article is bogus. The the book, "Długosz, Jan. Annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. IM Publications, 1997." says no such thing about King Wladyslaw. Długosz's only reference to any homosexuality is in the year 1447 (3 years after Varna) and it is about King Casimir's court. Nothing to do with King Wladyslaw. If you insist on keeping this reference in the article please provide the exact page for the reference, otherwise one should remove this reference.Reynatour (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Rosa

I'm getting tempted to treat Rosa's contributions on this talk page -- and I'll happily assume all the contributions from Duke are Rosa's -- the same as I've treated Anthony Appleyard's at Talk:0.999.../Arguments since 2007: remove it without comment as soon as it appears... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I am doing for now on, especially since he saw fit to delete this comment as well as sticking in more. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Add the Galician origin please

There are many reason to add the Galician origin:

-In the XV century Galician and Portuguese are the same language born in the north west of the Peninsula four or five centuries earlier.

-The surname Colom can be traced back to Middle Ages in Pontevedra (Galicia)

-All the names used by Colon to rename the places he conquered are names from Ria de Pontevedra (Pontevedras firth).

-The main boat used by Colon (Santa Maria) was made in Pontevedra

Apart from that if you understand Spanish you can read a lot about this theory here (you can use google to): http://www.cristobalcolon.gal/

this is an extrac (google translated)

Having dropped Christopher Columbus in oblivion before his death and did not begin to study until the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was mainly foreign historians who recovered the character and gave it the importance that really had.

On the other hand, the litigation for succession in the mayorazgo (1578 - 1606) did nothing but bring more doubts to his life, motivated by a multitude of false and adulterated writings, contributed by the litigants with the sole intention of winning a lawsuit Certainly tasty. The best known of all (1498) is the one where the famous phrases of:

"Being born in Genoa ... I came out of it and I was born in it ...", also "... nor in another end of the world did not fail a man of my true lineage who had been called and called him and his predecessors of Columbus ... in such case There is the woman who has arrived in debt and legitimate blood. "

In the 1498 testament, there are many irregularities:

The signature that appears does not correspond with the spelling of the Admiral and make several errors by placing the points that Christopher Columbus placed on each side of the eses. It is given as I live the Infante D. Juan when he died on October 7, 1497. When this document was presented, 80 years have passed since the events. He was not elevated to public deed. Several litigants took Pauline orders, or letters of excommunication issued in court for the discovery of some things suspected of having been stolen or maliciously concealed. They took their name because they were instituted by Pope Paul III. Several crossed out lines with different dates appear. The Galician twists that Christopher Columbus used so much in his speech and writing, appear correctly in the one of 1506 and replaced in the one of 1498: aviamiento instead of aviamento, to indicate instead of to signify, to seal instead of cover, to understand and to understand instead Of intenda and intende, likewise instead of asymmetry, admiral instead of admiral, privilege instead of privillejo and privillejos, show instead of sample. The institution was not of its letter, the document was missing a leaf, the most important, and the court with signa that: "is not authentic or solemn" It appears signed by the Catholic Monarchs and their Secretary of State, Don Fernando Alvarez, who had died in 1501 and who had not signed for four years. The testament of 1506, granted in Valladolid, was the only one that was considered as indisputable to regulate the succession of the inheritance, titles and privileges, in it does not say that it was born in Genoa or anywhere, nor does it mention any town Of Italy or of the genovesate, neither distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate relatives and nor does it include the exclusion of any surname except the "de Colón".

Approaching the Fourth Centenary of the discovery of America, the Italian nationalists ( Mussolini) find in Christopher Columbus the propitious figure to extol with such a glorious personage to the Italian nation, but for this it would be necessary to create the personage, why? Christopher Columbus only knew what some chroniclers had said, that he was a Genoese, because they had heard it said so. The city of Genoa orders fourteen volumes between 1892 and 1896, in order to underpin the Genoese nationality of the admiral, it is when the "colombo" appears as a solution to so much mistrust, mediatically proved effective, however the personage who became known "Cristóforo Colombo ", Does not fit with that of the discoverer of the New World," Christopher Columbus " — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloJones (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add it, put it under "other hypothesis" and provide a source. Also make it clear that it's just a speculation. Barjimoa (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Assereto document

It is important to bear in mind that at the time when Assereto traced the document, it would have been impossible to make an acceptable facsimile. Nowadays, with modern chemical processes, a document can be "manufactured", made to look centuries old if need be, with such skill that it is hard to prove it is a fake. In 1960, this was still impossible.

I have no opinion as to the authenticity (or otherwise) of the document in question, but the above statement seems a rather strange and misleading generalisation. Basing the claim on "pp. 17-500" of a book is none too helpful, either. 82.132.220.113 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Agenda?

An observation: The article spends a lot of soace pushing the standard theory of his Genoese origins (approximately 75% of the main text) and then devotes only a tiny fraction talking about the other theories. Seems to me rather odd. As this article was created explicitly to discuss all of the varying theories, it seems strange to devote the majority of the article to the standard theory. Would seem the standard theory should be well covered in the Christopher Columbus article and this one should devote more space to the alternatives.

--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems in the language section

- there is a small handwritten Genoese gloss in a 1498 Italian (from Venice) edition of Pliny's Natural History that he read after his second voyage to America: this shows Columbus was able to write in Italian and understand it. No, being able to read "Italian" (at the time, Tuscan) in no way implies ability to write it. If the Genoese gloss is Columbus's, that shows that he was able to write Genoese, quite a different language then and now from Tuscan/Italian.

- Phillips and Phillips point out that 500 years ago, the Romance languages had not distanced themselves to the degree they have today. They may point that out, but they're historians, not philologist/linguists. In essence, it's not really true. With the partial exception for various reasons of the Strasbourg Oaths, the earliest extant attempts to write in Romance vernaculars show very clear regional differences that unmistakably enable establishment of their origins.96.42.57.164 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)