Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of his mother
Tony Hoskins
the current thinking regarding the mother of Charles Constantine, Count
of Vienne (d. 962) - ancestor countless times to many of us. As a
corollary: if his mother were in fact Anna of Byzantium, daughter of Leo
VI 'the Wise', Emperor of Byzantium (d.912), what is the view as to the
truly "ancient ancestry" charted out for Anna and her fahter Leo VI (via
Armenia, etc.) shown in Leo van de Pas's wonderful "Genealogics"? I
gather Settipani has expressed dubiety on this.
Thanks.
Tony
Anthony Hoskins
History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
History and Genealogy Library
Sonoma County Library
3rd and E Streets
Santa Rosa, California 95404
al...@mindspring.com
see Christian Settipani, "Nos ancetres de l'Antiquite", (1991).
Doug
Leo van de Pas
Answering a question by quoting only a book is not really fair. That book is
in French, and it may be doubted that many have access to it. I just wish
that if you regard quoting this book as a reply, you had mentioned the page
number, so we can see what to look for..
After this grizzle, I am glad you made me look as I think I may have
interpreted Settipani wrongly.
Page 9 has a family tree with notes in between the tree and I think I
overlooked two minute dots implying uncertainty.... I think combined with
the dates I may have it wrong.
Emperor Leo VI 866-912 had by his mistress Zoe Zautzina (maitresse 881,
official concubine 893, Empress 898-899) a daughter Anna born about 889. and
now the French comes in "epouse (900) un prince franc infortune et cousin de
Berta", this Anna died circa 903.
So far so good. Settipani places a short line underneath a person and then
joins that little vertical line with a horizontal line to another person to
indicate marriage. The little vertical line for Anna is just two dots. Anna
is linked to "Ludovicus III empereur 901-905, aveugle 905." He lived circa
880 to 5 June 928. The offspring of this couple is Carolus Constantinus,
comte de Vienne born 901/3.
If Anna is the mother of Carolus Constantinus the possibility is implied she
was about 12 (ca.889 to 901) or up to 14 years old when she gave birth, and
died aged about 14.
Anna married a French prince "infortune" (unfortunate, unlucky) who was a
cousin of Berta. Was Ludovicus III unfortunate when, according to Settipani,
a year later he becomes Emperor? However he was unfortunate because "aveugle
905" tells he became blind (or was he blinded?) Ludovicus III was son of
Irmingardis who was a first cousin of "Berta de Tuscia", who I have recorded
as Berta of Lorraine, daughter of Lothar II, king of Lorraine, and she
married (2) Adalbert Markgraf of Tuscany, Count of Canossa.
-----------Settipani seems to say likely but uncertain. Siegfried Rosch in
his "Caroli Magni Progenies" page 128 seems to be certain that those links
are correct.
Kaiser Ludwig III 'Bosonides' born about 880, died 928. He was crowned
Emperor but four years later Berengar of Friaul attacks him and blinds him.
When in 924 Berengar was murdered, Ludwig III 'the blind' was not considered
to become emperor again.
He married twice (1) ca.900 Anna born 886..888, died before 914, daughter of
the Byzantine Emperor Leo VI and his second wife Zoe, daughter of Stylianus
Zautzes. He married (2) before 18 January 914 Adelheid daughter of King
Rodolfe I of Upper-Burgundy.
By each wife he had a son. The son by Anna is Karl Konstantin born about
901.
Settipani gives Anna died about 903, Rosch 'before 914'
Settipani says possible, Rosch says yes. Where can we go from here?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
al...@mindspring.com
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 2:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne: identity of his mother
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:40 pm, "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote:
> >> This may have been covered before here, but I'd be most interested in
> >> the current thinking regarding the mother of Charles Constantine, Count
> >> of Vienne (d. 962) - ancestor countless times to many of us. As a
> >> corollary: if his mother were in fact Anna of Byzantium, daughter of Leo
> >> VI 'the Wise', Emperor of Byzantium (d.912), what is the view as to the
> >> truly "ancient ancestry" charted out for Anna and her fahter Leo VI (via
> >> Armenia, etc.) shown in Leo van de Pas's wonderful "Genealogics"? I
> >> gather Settipani has expressed dubiety on this.
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> Tony
>
> >> Anthony Hoskins
> >> History, Genealogy and Archives Librarian
> >> History and Genealogy Library
> >> Sonoma County Library
> >> 3rd and E Streets
> >> Santa Rosa, California 95404
>
> >> 707/545-0831, ext. 562
>
> > see Christian Settipani, "Nos ancetres de l'Antiquite", (1991).
>
> > Doug
>
> > -------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Ok
See Settipani, Onamastique et Parente dans l'Occident Medieval, pps
22-23, 48, 183.
also Stewart Baldwin, post to SGM dated 1 nov 1996.
I have not seen anything to indicate that Ludwig III and Anna of
Byzantium are not the most likely parents of Charles Constantine.
Doug
Don Stone
> This may have been covered before here, but I'd be most interested in
> the current thinking regarding the mother of Charles Constantine, Count
> of Vienne (d. 962) - ancestor countless times to many of us. As a
> corollary: if his mother were in fact Anna of Byzantium, daughter of Leo
> VI 'the Wise', Emperor of Byzantium (d.912), what is the view as to the
> truly "ancient ancestry" charted out for Anna and her fahter Leo VI (via
> Armenia, etc.) shown in Leo van de Pas's wonderful "Genealogics"? I
> gather Settipani has expressed dubiety on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tony
Tony,
You may be thinking of the fact that after the publication of _Nos
ancetres de l'Antiquite_ Settipani expressed doubts about the link with
native Egyptian pharaohs that he had suggested there, namely that
Atossa, wife of Darius I of Persia, was the daughter of Cyrus the Great
by Nitetis, daughter of Pharaoh Wahibre or Apries. It seems that Atossa
is more likely the daughter of Cyrus the Great by Cassandane, daughter
of Pharnaspes and Atossa. (Herodotus states that Atossa was a full
sister of her first husband Cambyses, who was a son of Cyrus and
Cassandane.)
-- Don Stone
Tony Hoskins
Interesting and much appreciated.
Additional weight it seems to me might attach to Charles Constantine,
Count of Vienne's maternal Byzantine ancestry simply by virtue of his
very name: Constantine - to my observation, a name in this period of
time and in this place never before evident.
As son of Anna of Byzantium, Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne's
uncle was the great Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII "Porfyrogenetos"
(reigned 912-959). And, the "Constantinian element" that appears in
Frankish nomenclature from that date was first observed in the Bosonids
and their descendants: Charles Constantine of Vienne's daughter
Constance of Vienne, Countess of Provence, and her granddaughter
Constance of Arles, Queen of France (d.1032).
Peter Stewart
<al...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1171113726.9...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
This is more useless than the first vague citation that Leo complained
about, and indeed misleading:
Pages 22-23 of the book in question are not even written by Settipani (one
of the co-editors) but by Donald Jackman, and contain to this purpose only a
loose assertion that "the later dukes of Lorraine descended from Sophie of
Bar's paternal aunt - a daughter of that Richilde, therefore, who descended
from the Folmars of Bliesgau and thus in all likelihood from Emperor Louis
the Blind and the Byzantine princess Anna".
Page 48 is just a table connected to the same paper byJackman illustrating
the purported "likely" descent, with a question mark as to the number of
generations involved.
Page 183 has two of three tables connected to a paper by Jean-Noel Mathieu,
the first showing Charles Constatin of Vienne as the son of Louis the Blind
by Anna, with no indication that this is merely speculation.
> also Stewart Baldwin, post to SGM dated 1 nov 1996.
>
> I have not seen anything to indicate that Ludwig III and Anna of
> Byzantium are not the most likely parents of Charles Constantine.
Then you have evidently not seen my post to SGM dated 19 Nov 2004 copied
below.
I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus", from
his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his father and his
own charters; he is called "Constantinus" in addition to this by Flodoard
copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on him in order
to emphasise a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most probably NOT have
been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern imperial grandfather was
named Leo, and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in most
minds locally), and secondly one would expect in such circumtances to find
that the man himself and his own father would have used the dynastic name
pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that this comes down to
us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers writing elsewhere.
The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an unknown
concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by which he could
be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells us), and perhaps
held possessions and influence in Vienne, explaining his comparative scrap
of rights from his paternal ancestry.
The name Constantia that appeared in the comital family of Provence is not
the direct feminine of Constnatinus - this would obviously be Constantina -
and was only used for females in descent from this later original, who is
sometimes held to be a daughter or sister of Charles Constantine: however,
the male name "Constant", or "Constantine" for that matter, does not occur
as might be expected if this had any kind of dynastic significance tracing
to Charles Constantine himself much less to his alleged Byzantine ancestry.
The name Constantine was used by Franks quite frequently from the late 7th
century onwards, and filtered up to the feudal aristocracy at least once
again, by the early 10th century, for a viscount of Aunay. It is false to
maintain that this was rare or held significance in relation to any
Byzantine figure apart from a reverence for Constantine the Great who has
nothing to do with this genealogy.
Peter Stewart
[In the thread "Boso de Périgord's wife"]
JBernigaud wrote:
> Thank you again for this very interesting explanation. In fact,I think I'm
> going to study the sources about Charles Constantin's family, in order to
> establish his different and most probable descendants. Do you know any
> source or work about that subject?
It should first be remembered that definite proof of his maternity is
lacking. His father was certainly Emperor Louis the Blind, but Charles
Constantin was not able to inherit Provence from him or rights to
imperial succession, and becomae only count (or prince) of Vienne. His
legitimacy is usually accepted, although this was specifically denied by
Richer.
For all we know his possession of Vienne may be an indicator of his
mother's local origin & family rights - the name Constancius was not
uncommon there in the 10th century, and Constantinus also occurs: the
latter may have been in his case just a less usual variant of the
former. It should be emphasised that among his alleged descendants
through Queen Constance the form is "Constancia", not "Constantina"; and
the name for some reason never crossed back over the gender divide, in
spite of her own son's choice of an exotic Greek name for his heir
Philippe when the purportedly ancestral Constantine might have served
his needs at least as well.
Ulysse Chevalier's edition of _Cartulaire de l'abbaye de
Saint-André-le-Bas...suivi d'un appendice de chartes inédites sur le
diocèse de Vienne (IXe-XIIe siècles)_ (Lyons, 1869) contains several
different men of this name, including a few contemporaries who could not
possibly have been descendants of the Macedonian dynasty. If he was not
the son of the Greek princess Anna, Charles Constantin's mother (and or
Queen Constance's paternal grandmother for that matter) might have been
related to one or more of them.
Charles Constantin himself was married to a woman named Teutberga, who
occurs with him and two sons in a charter of ca 960. These boys were his
only recorded offspring, named Richard and Hugobert. They both disappear
from the record within a decade or so, and we don't know that either of
them reached adulthood or left descendants.
Attempts have been made to connect the house of Savoy to Richard, but
this is merely wishful guesswork.
The popularity of the supposed Byzantine ancestry of Charles Constantin
through his mother derives mainly from an article about him by Charles
Previté-Orton in _English Historical Review_ 29 (1914), and more lately
from the theories of Christian Settipani which you have noted.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Tony Hoskins" <hos...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
news:mailman.3075.11711317...@rootsweb.com...
> Thanks Don, Leo, and Doug,
>
> Interesting and much appreciated.
>
> Additional weight it seems to me might attach to Charles Constantine,
> Count of Vienne's maternal Byzantine ancestry simply by virtue of his
> very name: Constantine - to my observation, a name in this period of
> time and in this place never before evident.
>
> As son of Anna of Byzantium, Charles Constantine, Count of Vienne's
> uncle was the great Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII "Porfyrogenetos"
> (reigned 912-959). And, the "Constantinian element" that appears in
> Frankish nomenclature from that date was first observed in the Bosonids
> and their descendants: Charles Constantine of Vienne's daughter
> Constance of Vienne, Countess of Provence, and her granddaughter
> Constance of Arles, Queen of France (d.1032).
This is circular reasoning - Countess Constance of Provence is only
conjectured to have been a daughter (or sister) of Charles Constantine
because her name is similar to his, but neither version of the name for
either gender was by any means unique to the Bosonids and their descendants.
Your observation on this point has overlooked a great many instances from
around the appropriate time and place. Try the cartularies of
Saint-André-le-Bas de Vienne, Cluny, Saint-Jean d'Angély (all available on
Gallica), or any of the other sources of examples listed by Marie-Thérèse
Morlet in _Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule..._
volume II.
Peter Stewart
Tony Hoskins
Thanks very much for this information. I am however rather baffled by a
few points and would appreciate your further comments.
"I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus",
from his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his father
and his own charters; he is called "Constantine" in addition to this by
Flodoard copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on
him in order to emphasize a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most
probably NOT have
been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern imperial grandfather
was named Leo"
But his would-be uncle, of substantial fame during CC's life, was
Constantine Porfyrogenetos.
"and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in most
minds locally)".
Were they actually "common enough" among the Franks at the time? And,
I'm not clear what is meant by "a different set of associations in most
minds locally." Do you mean that "Constantine" was a name of heightened
significance in Vienne, or other lands associated with him?
"and secondly one would expect in such circumstances"
To what circumstances do you refer?
"to find that the man himself and his own father would have used the
dynastic name pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that
this comes down to us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers
writing elsewhere.
Again, I regret I don't follow.
"The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an
unknown concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by
which he could be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells
us)
You suspect a concubine mother because of the apparent insignificance
of CC' land holdings, or is there other evidence of this?
"explaining his comparative scrap of rights from his paternal
ancestry."
Might there be other unexamined reasons for this?
I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
(something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?
Perhaps it would be useful for this discussion (it certainly would be
for me) to read and examine the precise and exact reference(s) to CC's
Byzantine connection.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
All best,
Tony Hoskins
I should have qualified that. You're right, it would be circular, but
only if she were not his daughter or sister. But, is she were [is it on
the whole more or less likely that she were or weren't?], I think the
logic "squares".
I think I must be missing something - and it must be the exact nature,
words, and derivation of whatever source(s) made the claim in the first
place. Peter's scepticism (which I respect) alerts me to the all
important need for me to see these.
Peter Stewart
> Hello Peter,
>
> Thanks very much for this information. I am however rather baffled by a
> few points and would appreciate your further comments.
>
> > "I should add to this that the man's proper name was simply "Carolus",
> > from his Western imperial ancestor, as shown by a diploma of his father
> > and his own charters; he is called "Constantine" in addition to this by
> > Flodoard copied later by Richer. If a second name had been conferred on
> > him in order to emphasize a Byzantine ancestry, first this would most
> > probably NOT have been "Constantinus" (since his purported Eastern
> > imperial grandfather was named Leo"
>
> But his would-be uncle, of substantial fame during CC's life, was
> Constantine Porfyrogenetos.
But Anna was the daughter of Leo VI, also famous, and Charles Constantin was
certainly born during his reign in Byzantium (Leo died in 912) since he was
already acting in his own right as count of Vienne in 927. How many examples
are there of a name introduced through a female connection that bypassed the
name of her famous, and reigning, imperial father in favour of a brother yet
to distinguish himself, when the alleged purpose was to underscore the
dynastic link?
> > "and anyway the names Constant and Constantine were common enough
> > amongst Franks to make for a quite different set of associations in most
> > minds locally)".
>
> Were they actually "common enough" among the Franks at the time? And,
> I'm not clear what is meant by "a different set of associations in most
> minds locally." Do you mean that "Constantine" was a name of heightened
> significance in Vienne, or other lands associated with him?
I pointed out that the name can be found in the most important cartulary
from Vienne, in generations before and after Charles Constantin, amongst
families who could not possibly be related to the Greek emperor. As to
whether this name was "common enough" locally to account for one more
occurrence, there is no recognised cut-off point but a single other instance
might be "enough", and there are several. The local associations in Vienne
would be with other men of property living in the vicinity rather than a
distant figure in the East.
> > "and secondly one would expect in such circumstances"
>
> To what circumstances do you refer?
The alleged connection to Byzantium purportedly indicated by the name
Constantine - if this were so, why would not Louis the Blind refer to his
son with the second name, and why would Charles himself drop this in his own
charters? What would be the circumstantial purpose of giving a name in order
to advertise a connection and then not using it?
> > "to find that the man himself and his own father would have used the
> > dynastic name pairing rather than ommitting the second element so that
> > this comes down to us only incidentally and from a couple of strangers
> > writing elsewhere.
>
> Again, I regret I don't follow.
I regret that I don't see how the point can be made any clearer. Flodoard
got the second name from hearsay, presumably, since it does not appear in
documents of Louis or Charles himself. Why would people speak of Charles
with a second name that was comparatively frequent at a lower social level
where he ruled in order to suggest an exotic link to an emperor of whom most
Franks had probably never heard?
> > "The stronger likelihood seems to me that Charles was the son of an
> > unknown concubine, whose family used the second name Constantine (by
> > which he could be identified as from a bastard lineage, as Richer tells
> > us)
>
> You suspect a concubine mother because of the apparent insignificance
> of CC' land holdings, or is there other evidence of this?
There is no evidence that his father Louis the Blind had any wife before
Adelais who first appears in January 915. Charles Constantine was certainly
born years before she occurs, and her only recorded son was named Rodulf.
> > "explaining his comparative scrap of rights from his paternal
> > ancestry."
>
> Might there be other unexamined reasons for this?
Yes, but the sources don't tell us, so that "unspeculated" would be more
precise than "unexamined".
> I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
> (something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
> two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?
No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third generation
("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali stemmate usque ad
triuatum sordebat"). This presumably meant on his mother's side, and efforts
have been made to suggest that this description is fulfilled by the
concubinage of Anna's mother Zoe Zaoutzaina before her marriage to Emperor
Leo VI, and further ancestry through that line. However, such a tainted
background would hardly be more remarkable to Richer than the imperial
grandeur of it if the connections he meant were Byzantine, and would
scarcely be remarkable at all in this context if the sullying illegitimacy
had been terminated anyway with the marriage of Charles Constantin's
parents.
> Perhaps it would be useful for this discussion (it certainly would be
> for me) to read and examine the precise and exact reference(s) to CC's
> Byzantine connection.
There aren't any in the sources, this is merely an older speculation that
was taken up by Christian Settipani.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Constantinus" not as a second name but as a byname to place him, indicating
that he was from Arles (occasionally, though rarely, referred to as
"Constantina urbs").
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42vzh.5820$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
al...@mindspring.com
I appreciate your skepticism. I do not see anything wrong in
suggesting material for people to read, nor do I find it misleading
when referring to material that includes many speculations. Medieval
genealogy is at best an exercise in "legal parentage" and has very
little to do with the biological parentage that most people seem to be
interested in. A number of recent studies have shown that matching
birth certificates and DNA finds only a 95% correspondence. I have no
reason to believe that the percentage would be better in medieval
times. Medieval genealogy in many cases is pure speculation based
upon onomastics or other circumstantial evidence.
In fact, I had not read your post but find it interesting.
I will have to temper my statement that Ludwig III and Anna of
Byzantium were the "most likely" parents of Charles/Carolus, to
include the statement that Richer and you have questioned his
maternity, and that there is no
"proof " of his maternity.
Doug
Peter Stewart
Settipani's own work, as your post implied, or in some way established the
likelihood that had been claimed for a speculation that he popularised.
There is of course no harm in bringing this conjecture to the newsgroup's
attention, or in deciding to credit it for that matter.
You are quite right about "legal parentage".
The study of medieval genealogy can result in three classes of data -
factual, erroneous or approximate. Someone the other day was talking about
"creativity" in this exercise: I suppose this was a loose way of saying
"intuition", since obviously the facts were created at the time of the
biological or legal/canonical events that are recorded, and are already
there to be discovered (even by several people independently), while only
the mistakes and guesses can be uniquely "created" by a modern researcher.
I think the idea that Charles "Constantine" was a son of Leo VI's daughter
Anna, who may or may not have been the wife of his father Louis the Blind,
is an unsubstantiated guess, most probably in error, from insufficient
evidence.
Peter Stewart
<al...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1171161103.9...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
> Dear Peter
>
> I appreciate your skepticism. I do not see anything wrong in
> suggesting material for people to read, nor do I find it misleading
> when referring to material that includes many speculations. Medieval
> genealogy is at best an exercise in "legal parentage" and has very
> little to do with the biological parentage that most people seem to be
> interested in. A number of recent studies have shown that matching
> birth certificates and DNA finds only a 95% correspondence. I have no
> reason to believe that the percentage would be better in medieval
> times. Medieval genealogy in many cases is pure speculation based
> upon onomastics or other circumstantial evidence.
I wonder.
For most landowning families until a little over a hundred years ago,
the daughters were well protected from marauding males. Further as we
well know and are grateful for, there were serious negotiations
conducted for the marriages of the eldest sons, if not also for younger
sons and daughters. By and large, second hand goods would not have been
considered fit for such negotiations.
I would therefore conclude that the incidence of illegitimacy among the
eldest children of landowning families is much lower than the above 5%
for the whole population. I would suggest that well below 1% is much
more likely.
Later children are not the same and quite likely small overall
proportion would be illegitimate.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:42vzh.5820$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> news:mailman.3108.11711561...@rootsweb.com...
<snip>
>> I'm most interested in your reference to Richer - does he establish
>> (something of which I am utterly unaware) that in that time and place
>> two given names was a signal of illegitimacy?
>
> No, Richer specifically says that Charles Constantin was from a royal line
> but that his ancestry was tainted with illegitimacy to the third
> generation ("Hic ex regio quidem genere natus erat sed concubinali
> stemmate usque ad triuatum sordebat").
My interpretation of "tritavum" as "the third generation" here could be
misleading.
In canon law this term technically indicated the sixth degree - "Sexto gradu
ueniunt supra tritauus tritauia" (the sixth degree in ascent,
great-great-great-great-grandfather and -mother).
However, I do not consider it plausible that Richer meant this in a
technical sense, or that rumour would have bothered with such a remote
illegitimacy for Charles Constantine that could be found in almost anyone's
pedigree. I think it more likely that Richer used "tritavus" vaguely, to
mean a more proximate ancestor that in memory and report would probably
extend no more distantly than to a great-grandparent, although the precision
to three generations is not literally justified.
Peter Stewart
al...@mindspring.com
> "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:42vzh.5820$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
> > "Tony Hoskins" <hosk...@sonoma.lib.ca.us> wrote in message
And IF Carolus' mother was Anna of Byzantium, then it could reference
her mother (Zoe Tzautzina) who was a concubine before marriage and/or
be a reference to Leo VI's mother Eudocia who was wife of Basil I and
mistress of Michael III as I recall. Lots of ifs. Certainly would
provide a "tainted" ancestry in some poeple's eyes.
Or as you say, Carolus' mother may have been a concubine which makes
the illegitamacy quite close.
Doug
Peter Stewart
<al...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1171234497.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
These are not minor IFs - there is no proof that Anna was actually married
to Louis in the first place, then there are chronological difficulties, then
there is the peculiarity that Richer does not mention such an imperial
ancestry in a context where it would have far more resonance than a distant
taint of illegitimacy - i.e. in narrating that Charles Constantine swore
loyalty to Louis IV. Plenty of Frankish feudatories in the 10th century had
concubines in their pedigrees, but not Byzantine emperors.
Peter Stewart
gerard.bieber
1.=Traité de Verdun 843 : le regnum carolingien est divisé en:
a)Francie occidentale (Charles le-Chauve +877)
b)Royaume carolingien de Germanie (Louis II le-Germanique)
c)royaume médian (ex-austrasie) à Lothaire I (°°Ermengarde(1))
2.=Le royaume médian (c), est divisé en 855 entre les fils de Lothaire I:
e) Italie à Louis, dit d'Italie (+875)°°Angilbertha (noblesse italienne)
f) Lorraine à Lothaire II (+869)
g) Vienne-Provence à Charles II (+863)
Tous morts sans descendants directs.
879=En Vienne-Provence, Boson usurpe le pouvoir. Son épouse est
Ermengarde(2)
fille de Louis d'Italie et d'Angilberthe (e).
Le couple a un fils: Louis (III) de Provence-Viennois (futur père de Charles
Constantin).
Entre temps, en 881,Charles le Gros (fils de Louis II en b) est devenu seul
carolingien à régner légitimement (Il tenait Charles-le-Simple, fils de
Charles le
chauve, en a, à l'écart).
En Provence-Viennois, Boson est éliminé, mais son épouse Ermengarde(2) est
régente au nom de leur fils Louis (III). Par accord en mai 887, Ermengarde
(2) obtient
quasiment l'adoption de son fils de P-V, par Charles-le Gros. Accord dirigé
contre
Rodolphe en Bourgogne-Transjurane, usurpateur welf.
Le règne de Charles le-Gros se termine par un fiasco.
L'empire des Carolingien éclate définitivement.
En Italie, Béranger de Frioul, dont la mère, Gisèle, était fille de Louis le
Pieux, se proclama roi de Lombardie (888), mais il fut renversé par Guy de
Spolète,
non carolingien, grâce aupape.Etienne V qui le fit même empereur.
894 alliance objective entre Arnuf (roi carolingien,bâtard de Germanie), et
Louis (III) de Provence contre Rodolphe de Bourgogne dont les intérêts
coïncidaient
avec celui des widonides d'Italie.
Béranger, revenu aux affaires en Lombardie était accusé d'avoir appelé les
Magyars. Les aristocrates italiens appelèrent Louis (III) de
Provence-Viennois
en 901. Il devint empereur carolingien,soutenu par le pape Léon V.
Mais en 905, il eut le yeux crevés par Béranger.C'était un infirme.
L'homme fort en Provence était alors HUGHES de PROVENCE.
Il était fils de Berthe, une fille bâtarde de Lothaire II
1°°Thibaut d'Arles dont Hughes.
2°°Adalbert le Riche.
Berthe était donc la tante de Louis (III).
Hughes était le cousin de Louis (III), et c'est lui qui en réalité dirigea
le royaume de Provence jusqu'à la mort de Louis (III/ +928). Charles
Constantin
avait une personnalité effacée comparé à Hughes de Provence.
Béranger réussissait en 915 à être sacré empereur.grâce à Jean X. Assassiné
en 924.
Rodolphe II de Bourgogne-Tranjurane qui cherchait la couronne d'Italie fut
évincé par Hughes de Provence (roi d'Italie 926-947)
928 Mort de Louis (III). Son fils Charles Constantin était incapable
d'empêcher les ravagesdes Sarazins. La noblesse du Royaume de
Vienne-Provence
appela Hughes de Provence pour organiser la défense du royaume.
Manipulateur, Hughes de Provence fut sans doute à l'origine de la rumeur qui
vers 930 donnait de l'emphase à ce que l'origine d'Anne, la mère de Charles
Constantin
fut entaché de bâtardise.
Hughes de Provence attendait alors le soutien de la flotte grecque contre
les
sarasins du Fraisinet.
Deux raisons dans une alliance objective entre Hughes de Provence et les
nouveaux maîtres deByzance pour discréditer le fils de Anna et Louis (III):
- d'abord un bénéfice direct pour Hughes qui pouvait revendiquer pour
lui-même le statut de roi en Provence-Viennois au lieu et place se son
cousin
(ceci, en plus de sa royauté en Italie).
- ensuite, c'était le prix à payer à la dynastie qui règnait alors à Byzance
qui ne voulait pas entendre parler d'une engence concurrente via Léo VI.
Ceci dit il existe une thèse selon laquelle Charles Constantin ne serait le
fils d'aucune des épouses officielles de Louis (III), mais celui d'une
concubinne: Walrade.
Conclusion: Probablement manipulation encore plus poussée de
Hughes de Provence. La vérité a été completement effacée.
Salutations.
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
<< These are not minor IFs - there is no proof that Anna was actually married
to Louis in the first place, then there are chronological difficulties, >>
Are you referring here by "Chronological difficulties" to the idea that Anna
would have been somewhere between 12 and 17 when she became a mother to
Charles ("Carolus") ?
I only have a note that she was born between 886 and 889, and that Charles
was born between 901 and 903. Do you have something which pins either of these
two people down more than that?
Thanks
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
gerard...@wanadoo.fr writes:
<< Manipulateur, Hughes de Provence fut sans doute à l'origine de la rumeur
qui vers 930 donnait de l'emphase à ce que l'origine d'Anne, la mère de Charles
Constantin fut entaché de bâtardise. Hughes de Provence attendait alors le
soutien de la flotte grecque contre les sarasins du Fraisinet. >>
Do we actually know that Charles' mother's name was Anne? Or is this
speculation based on trying to make his mother be the same person as Anne "of
Byzantium", illegitimate daughter of Leo VI "The Wise", Byzantine Emperor died 912
I think Peter has stated that we know Leo had a daughter Anne, and we also
know that Charles' father was Louis "The Blind", Holy Roman Emperor died 928.
But we don't know is that Anne and Louis knocked boots, or that even should
this have occurred, that the result was Charles.
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3231.11713162...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 2/12/07 3:06:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> gerard...@wanadoo.fr writes:
>
> << Manipulateur, Hughes de Provence fut sans doute à l'origine de la
> rumeur
> qui vers 930 donnait de l'emphase à ce que l'origine d'Anne, la mère de
> Charles
> Constantin fut entaché de bâtardise. Hughes de Provence attendait alors
> le
> soutien de la flotte grecque contre les sarasins du Fraisinet. >>
>
>
> Do we actually know that Charles' mother's name was Anne? Or is this
> speculation based on trying to make his mother be the same person as Anne
> "of
> Byzantium", illegitimate daughter of Leo VI "The Wise", Byzantine Emperor
> died 912
We have no source for the name of Charles Constantine's mother.
> I think Peter has stated that we know Leo had a daughter Anne, and we also
> know that Charles' father was Louis "The Blind", Holy Roman Emperor died
> 928.
> But we don't know is that Anne and Louis knocked boots, or that even
> should
> this have occurred, that the result was Charles.
There is no direct evidence that they were married at all - we have no
certainty that she married at all, just a letter from a Greek bishop
indicating that a marriage was either projected or perhaps took place
between Anna and an unnamed, unfortunate Frankish prince who was a cousin to
Berta of Tuscany. This may or may not have been Louis III.
If it was him, the marriage almost certainly did not take place, since apart
from the lack of any direct evidence whatsoever, Liutprand of Cremona makes
no mention of this - and it would have been of compelling interest to him:
he was an inveterate gossip, he had been an ambassador to Constantinople,
and devoted several chapters to the misadventures of Louis in Italy, with no
hint of a Greek imperial bride or of a son & heir who was grandson to Leo
VI.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.3230.11713158...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 2/11/07 5:55:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
>
> << These are not minor IFs - there is no proof that Anna was actually
> married
> to Louis in the first place, then there are chronological difficulties, >>
>
> Are you referring here by "Chronological difficulties" to the idea that
> Anna
> would have been somewhere between 12 and 17 when she became a mother to
> Charles ("Carolus") ?
Yes.
> I only have a note that she was born between 886 and 889, and that Charles
> was born between 901 and 903. Do you have something which pins either of
> these
> two people down more than that?
No - we have Richer's description of him as "grandevus" (very aged) in 951,
but this is of little value. He was count of Vienne before Christmas 927,
and making a request of his father by June 924 (regarding, amongst other
serfs, a woman named Constance - a name supoposedly so rare that its later
occurence has been taken to indicate his daughter). He was evidently born
before ca 910 but the precision of 901/03 is just a forced fix to allow for
Anna to be his mother and his father's wife.
Peter Stewart
Tony Hoskins
Peter, for a most informative and illuminating discussion.
Peter, you say, "(regarding, amongst other serfs, a woman named
Constance - a name supposedly so rare that its later occurrence has been
taken to indicate his daughter)."
Where in this discussion was this claim made? Even "before Richer", I
certainly would not have said something so categorical. I might have
said something along the line that "Constance" was at least suggestive,
but that anyone could make the statement that on the basis of the name
alone Constance was must CC's daughter would be risible. Again, I missed
where this amusing claim was made.
Again, many thanks for casting such useful light on this matter,
showing again the need to always question received genealogical
identifications.
Peter Stewart
> Thanks, Nat, for supplying the citation to Richer. And thanks so much,
> Peter, for a most informative and illuminating discussion.
>
> Peter, you say, "(regarding, amongst other serfs, a woman named
> Constance - a name supposedly so rare that its later occurrence has been
> taken to indicate his daughter)."
>
> Where in this discussion was this claim made? Even "before Richer", I
> certainly would not have said something so categorical. I might have
> said something along the line that "Constance" was at least suggestive,
> but that anyone could make the statement that on the basis of the name
> alone Constance was must CC's daughter would be risible. Again, I missed
> where this amusing claim was made.
>
> Again, many thanks for casting such useful light on this matter,
> showing again the need to always question received genealogical
> identifications.
I didn't say, or mean, that a specific statement about the rarity of
Constance was made in this thread - "supposedly" to me does not limit the
frame of reference so narrowly. Nor does "taken to indicate his daughter"
mean that a Constance "must" have been such.
The defensive tone of your post is unfortunate. Settipani claimed that
Chaume had deduced Constance of Provence to be "certainement" a daughter of
Charles Constantine, based on her name and some speculative relationships.
While rejecting the latter part of the argument, he supported the former.
This specious idea is now unfortunately very widespread, not just in SGM.
Peter Stewart
Tony Hoskins
constellation of genealogical errors is really important. Sometimes,
it's daunting to realize the number of medieval false connections there
out there being believed and so in need of correction. I'm much obliged
to you.
Peter Stewart
> Thanks again, Peter. Your information and insights on this small
> constellation of genealogical errors is really important. Sometimes,
> it's daunting to realize the number of medieval false connections there
> out there being believed and so in need of correction. I'm much obliged
> to you.
With regard to the name Constance, a further unwarranted speculation from
onomastics attempts to make Countess Constance of Dammartin into a daughter
of King Robert II and his wife Constance, but this too defies circumstantial
evidence. She most probably did not belong to the royal family.
Peter Stewart