Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Papal dispensations for marriages of Guillaume de Dampierre and Hugh de Châtillon in 1228
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Jun 6, 2012, 3:01:41 PM6/6/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
It is commonly assumed that couples who needed dispensations prior to
marriage duly obtained them to avoid having trouble with
ecclesiastical authorities. While I believe most couples honored
church regulations prohibiting marriages between parties who were too
closely related, my impression is that occasionally couples could and
did defy authorities without obtaining the required dispensations.
One such example is King William the Conqueror and his wife, Maud of
Flanders, who married even though their marriage was forbidden by
church authorities. They obtained a dispensation for their marriage
only years after the fact. Another such example is the marriage of
King John and his first wife, Isabel of Gloucester, both of whom
descended from King Henry I of England.
Recently I encountered a papal record which addresses this very
issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
and Hugh de Châtillon, because "they were said to have taken wives in
the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as
was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
Nevers.
I checked the ancestries of the five parties named, that is,
Dampienne, Châtillon, Brittany, March, and Nevers, and their spouses.
In the first two cases, the men and their wives were definitely near
related to one another in blood. As for March, the problem with that
marriage was probably be due to the fact that Hugh de Lusignan, Count
of La Marche, had married his father's former fiancee, namely Isabel
of Angouleme, Queen of England.
For interest's sake, I've copied below the record in the Registers of
Pope Gregory IX. The Latin text is from the published registers. The
English translation has been kindly provided by Matt Tompkins.
Source: Auvray, Registres de Grégoire IX, volume 2 (1907): 144:
Date:1228
R. Sancti Angeli, apostolico legato, concedit ut cum Guillelmo de
Domna Petra et Hugone de Castellione, super eo quod uxoribus suis in
quarto gradu consanguinitatis et affinitatis attinere dicebantur,
subvenientibus illis, sicut credebatur, negotio Albigensi juxta
proprias facultates in competenti numero bellatorum, possit
dispensare; quod etiam cum aliis magnatibus, exceptis comitibus
Britanniae, Marchiae et Nivernensi, in simili casu ei concedit
faciendum. END OF QUOTE.
English translation:
To R. St Angeli, apostolic legate, he granted that he might grant
dispensations to William de Dampierre and Hugh de Châtillon, because
they were said to have taken wives in the fourth degree of
consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as was promised, in the
Albigensian business with sufficient numbers of soldiers according to
their strengths; he also granted that he might do the same for other
magnates, except the earls of Brittany, March and Nevers, in similar
cases.
Thanks go to Matt for providing the above translation.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
It is commonly assumed that couples who needed dispensations prior to
marriage duly obtained them to avoid having trouble with
ecclesiastical authorities. While I believe most couples honored
church regulations prohibiting marriages between parties who were too
closely related, my impression is that occasionally couples could and
did defy authorities without obtaining the required dispensations.
One such example is King William the Conqueror and his wife, Maud of
Flanders, who married even though their marriage was forbidden by
church authorities. They obtained a dispensation for their marriage
only years after the fact. Another such example is the marriage of
King John and his first wife, Isabel of Gloucester, both of whom
descended from King Henry I of England.
Recently I encountered a papal record which addresses this very
issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
and Hugh de Châtillon, because "they were said to have taken wives in
the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as
was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
Nevers.
I checked the ancestries of the five parties named, that is,
Dampienne, Châtillon, Brittany, March, and Nevers, and their spouses.
In the first two cases, the men and their wives were definitely near
related to one another in blood. As for March, the problem with that
marriage was probably be due to the fact that Hugh de Lusignan, Count
of La Marche, had married his father's former fiancee, namely Isabel
of Angouleme, Queen of England.
For interest's sake, I've copied below the record in the Registers of
Pope Gregory IX. The Latin text is from the published registers. The
English translation has been kindly provided by Matt Tompkins.
Source: Auvray, Registres de Grégoire IX, volume 2 (1907): 144:
Date:1228
R. Sancti Angeli, apostolico legato, concedit ut cum Guillelmo de
Domna Petra et Hugone de Castellione, super eo quod uxoribus suis in
quarto gradu consanguinitatis et affinitatis attinere dicebantur,
subvenientibus illis, sicut credebatur, negotio Albigensi juxta
proprias facultates in competenti numero bellatorum, possit
dispensare; quod etiam cum aliis magnatibus, exceptis comitibus
Britanniae, Marchiae et Nivernensi, in simili casu ei concedit
faciendum. END OF QUOTE.
English translation:
To R. St Angeli, apostolic legate, he granted that he might grant
dispensations to William de Dampierre and Hugh de Châtillon, because
they were said to have taken wives in the fourth degree of
consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as was promised, in the
Albigensian business with sufficient numbers of soldiers according to
their strengths; he also granted that he might do the same for other
magnates, except the earls of Brittany, March and Nevers, in similar
cases.
Thanks go to Matt for providing the above translation.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Sjostrom
Jun 6, 2012, 3:14:26 PM6/6/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
isn't the idiocy of Douglas Richardson going too far in matter of
'vernacular' English .....
This is the first time I have encountered an Earl of Nevers, for example.
Everything in this is probably explained by the persistence of Douggie to
uphold still in the present day that the British monarchs are the only
legitimate kings of France.
'vernacular' English .....
This is the first time I have encountered an Earl of Nevers, for example.
Everything in this is probably explained by the persistence of Douggie to
uphold still in the present day that the British monarchs are the only
legitimate kings of France.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 6, 2012, 4:26:25 PM6/6/12
to
sir. Mr. Tompkins is a valued and respected member of the newsgroup.
DR
Sjostrom
Jun 6, 2012, 4:40:08 PM6/6/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
We do not know whether that element of translation came from anyone else
than Douggie.
Anyway, it was Douggie who sent the piece which included the weird wording,
so he bears responsibility.
Well, Douggie's posting shows his continued idiocy.
than Douggie.
Anyway, it was Douggie who sent the piece which included the weird wording,
so he bears responsibility.
Well, Douggie's posting shows his continued idiocy.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 6, 2012, 5:04:48 PM6/6/12
to
On Jun 6, 2:40 pm, Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We do not know whether that element of translation came from anyone else
> than Douggie.
I carefully stated the translation came from Mr. Tompkins.
> We do not know whether that element of translation came from anyone else
> than Douggie.
You don't read, sir.
Shame on you.
DR
Matt Tompkins
Jun 6, 2012, 5:22:38 PM6/6/12
to
Matt Tompkins
Nathaniel Taylor
Jun 8, 2012, 7:35:01 AM6/8/12
to Douglas Richardson, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> It is commonly assumed that couples who needed dispensations prior to
> marriage duly obtained them to avoid having trouble with
> ecclesiastical authorities. While I believe most couples honored
> church regulations prohibiting marriages between parties who were too
> closely related, my impression is that occasionally couples could and
> did defy authorities without obtaining the required dispensations.
>
> Recently I encountered a papal record which addresses this very
> issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
> crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
> legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
> and Hugh de Chātillon, because "they were said to have taken wives in
> issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
> crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
> legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
> the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as
> was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
> same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
> Nevers.
Re: this assumption that most sought dispensation for consanguinity / affinity *before* marriage:
> was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
> same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
> Nevers.
I actually did some statistical work on this in a paper back in 2003 (published in 2005) -- for the sample I examined (the abstracted papal documents dealing with the British isles), I found that a consistent majority of dispensation documents in the period 1210 to 1340 indicated the dispensations were granted (and sought) after the parties were married, rather than before. Pre-nuptial dispensations began to rise in proportion (relative to post-facto dispensations) only after 1250. Judging from the trend, they likely become the majority situation shortly after 1350, but I didn't look further forward in time. On the other hand the Black Death may have affected the marriage market (and lay couples' compliance with canon law) in ways not predicted in the data I gathered.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
Jun 8, 2012, 7:40:30 AM6/8/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>> It is commonly assumed that couples who needed dispensations prior to
>> marriage duly obtained them to avoid having trouble with
>> ecclesiastical authorities. While I believe most couples honored
>> church regulations prohibiting marriages between parties who were too
>> closely related, my impression is that occasionally couples could and
>> did defy authorities without obtaining the required dispensations.
>>
>> marriage duly obtained them to avoid having trouble with
>> ecclesiastical authorities. While I believe most couples honored
>> church regulations prohibiting marriages between parties who were too
>> closely related, my impression is that occasionally couples could and
>> did defy authorities without obtaining the required dispensations.
>>
>> Recently I encountered a papal record which addresses this very
>> issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
>> crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
>> legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
>> and Hugh de Châtillon, because "they were said to have taken wives in
>> the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as
>> was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
>> same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
>> Nevers.
>
>> issue. In 1228, in an effort to obtain support for the Albigensian
>> crusade, the Pope issued a directive to R. St Angeli, apostolic
>> legate, ordering him to grant dispensations to Guillaume de Dampierre
>> and Hugh de Châtillon, because "they were said to have taken wives in
>> the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity, for their support, as
>> was promised." The Pope also granted that the legate might do the
>> same for other magnates, EXCEPT the earls of Brittany, March and
>> Nevers.
>
> Re: this assumption that most sought dispensation for consanguinity / affinity *before* marriage:
>
> I actually did some statistical work on this in a paper back in 2003 (published in 2005) -- for the sample I examined (the abstracted papal documents dealing with the British isles), I found that a consistent majority of dispensation documents in the period 1210 to 1340 indicated the dispensations were granted (and sought) after the parties were married, rather than before. Pre-nuptial dispensations began to rise in proportion (relative to post-facto dispensations) only after 1250. Judging from the trend, they likely become the majority situation shortly after 1350, but I didn't look further forward in time. On the other hand the Black Death may have affected the marriage market (and lay couples' compliance with canon law) in ways not predicted in the data I gathered.
I should underscore that this sample was documents dealing with Britain (in a paper dealing with British marriage litigation) -- there may be regional differences here if one were to query a sample of dispensations sent to other provinces in the same time period; I didn't pose that question.
>
> I actually did some statistical work on this in a paper back in 2003 (published in 2005) -- for the sample I examined (the abstracted papal documents dealing with the British isles), I found that a consistent majority of dispensation documents in the period 1210 to 1340 indicated the dispensations were granted (and sought) after the parties were married, rather than before. Pre-nuptial dispensations began to rise in proportion (relative to post-facto dispensations) only after 1250. Judging from the trend, they likely become the majority situation shortly after 1350, but I didn't look further forward in time. On the other hand the Black Death may have affected the marriage market (and lay couples' compliance with canon law) in ways not predicted in the data I gathered.
Nat Taylor
0 new messages