Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Mother of Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk

18 views
Skip to first unread message

ski...@racsa.co.cr

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 4:28:55 PM3/16/07
to
Which of his father's wives was Hugh's mother?
Complete Peerage fails to clarify the question. First, it is said
that "Of the [two] sons, William was certainly born of the 1st
marriage, and Hugh presumably of the 2nd ..." (p. 578 note c). Then
on page 579 it says Hugh was "br. and h., presumably of the half
blood" of William, claiming in a note (j) that a charter quoted in
note (c) is "proof" of the relationship. But the charter is no such
proof: "I William Bigod, dapifer [i.e. steward] of the king of the
English, for the remediation of the souls of my father Roger Bigod and
my mother Adelidis and for my health and [that] of my brother Hugh and
of my sisters..." This invites the natural interpretation that Hugh
was William's full brother, not his half-brother.
Moreover, if Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Toni, he should have
inherited Belvoir from her; but instead, his (half-) sister Cecily
inherited it from her mother, eventually, after surviving her sister
Maud, she and Maud apparently coming into its possession by surviving
their other (full) brothers. (They did not survive Hugh. Cicely, the
ultimate heiress of Belvoir, died in 1136; Hugh in 1176/77.)
The authorities I've been able to find are unanimous in accepting
Adeliza de Toni as Hugh's mother, so what's wrong with the argument
I've set out above?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 7:34:58 PM3/16/07
to

Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
site:

http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html

Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          t...@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

wjhonson

unread,
Mar 16, 2007, 11:23:10 PM3/16/07
to
On Mar 16, 3:34 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
> Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
> site:
>
> http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html
>
> Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.
>
> --
> Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
> For a miscellany of bygones:http://powys.org/- Hide quoted text -

Thanks Tim that was a very helpful link in helping straighten out the
early chronology of the Tosny family of Belvoir.

Will Johnson


ski...@racsa.co.cr

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 9:11:03 AM3/18/07
to
Thanks,Tim, for the lead.
If I read Keats-Rohan's article correctly, her answer to my question
is simple:
Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Tosni because his father had only one
wife.
In all humility, however, I must say that although she was right about
the mother, it was for the wrong reason; that I cannot accept her
argument for the non-existence of an earlier marriage of Roger Bigod.
Her argument is in two parts: First a straw-man is set up by saying
the two wives were "of the same name" lending plausibility to her
dismissal as "inconclusive" of a clause in a charter of Roger's first-
born son William;
and second, an elaborate analysis of the chronology of Roger's
children founded on a charter of his, to which four of them attested,
mentioning "King Henry."
The first part of the argument is necessary to clear the way for the
second part, for if the clause in William's charter is not
inconclusive the matter is determined before the second part begins.
The first part fails because the two ladies did not have the same
name.
William's charter is read " "matris meae Adelidis." CP IX:577, note
q.
His father Roger is quoted mentioning his wife as "uxoris meae
Adeliciae." Id. at note r.
"Adelidis" is the genitive case of a feminine noun whose third-
declension nominitave case could be either "Adelide" or
"Adelidis." (Compare mare, maris; hostis, hostis.)
"Adeliciae" is the genitive (or, less likely in the context, dative)
case of a feminine noun in the first declension whose nominative is
"Adelicia."
"Adelide" and "Adelicia" are not the same name, any more than "Adele"
and "Alice" are the same.
William's charter cannot be dismissed as ambiguous on the subject of
his mother's name.
***
Keats-Rohan's second argument boils down to this: [Since Henry
acceeded to the throne in 1087 and Roger died in 1107, it is made]
"highly unlikely that Roger acquired a second wife and second family
before this death ...".
The children who attested the charter in question were William,
Humphrey, Gonnora and Matilda [Maud].
Roger had two other children: Hugh and Cicely.
All we can infer from the facts given (which do not include the date
of the charter) is that at some time during the Reign of Henry I and
while Roger was alive he had four children old enough to witness a
legal document, one of whom was William. Any number of those four
could have been born in the reign of the Conqueror. For all we know,
a first wife could have died as early as when she gave birth to
William, and Roger could have remarried soon after that.
In the twenty years of Henry's reign during which Roger was alive
there was plenty of time to acquire a second wife and raise three
children to an age sufficient for witnessing documents.
Keats-Rohan's "highly unlikely" is just a question-begging non-
sequitur.
***
The good news is that if the recital of attestors to the charter
mentioning Henry names them in order of seniority, its omission of
Hugh and Cicely raises a strong implication that Hugh was not born
before Humphrey, Gonnora or Maud, and that his mother was therefore
Adelicia not Adelide.
Strictly speaking, my original question was why didn't Hugh inherit
Belvoir. I think this is better answered in Prosopon #10, but I still
have a whole lot to learn about
the laws of succession in the early Norman times. If, for example,
Cicely's mother
could give Belvoir to her in defeasance of Hugh's claim, shouldn't
there be some indication of the king's assent?

Jwc...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 10:13:32 AM3/18/07
to GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com, Jwc1870@AOL..com
Dear Skip,
Keats-Rohan actually said that King Henry I of England
acceded the throne in 1087 ? He didn`t. William II Rufus was king from 1087-1100, in
the latter year King Henry I succeeded him.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 10:34:33 AM3/18/07
to
In message of 18 Mar, Jwc...@aol.com wrote:

> Keats-Rohan actually said that King Henry I of England
> acceded the throne in 1087 ? He didn`t. William II Rufus was king from 1087-1100, in
> the latter year King Henry I succeeded him.

This sounds a remarkably astonishing statement by Keats-Rohan. Can you
give the reference?

ski...@racsa.co.cr

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 11:06:49 AM3/18/07
to
You are right. Mea maxima culpa! Keats-Rohan did not say Henry I
acceded in 1087; I did, and I am wrong, having simply forgotten about
Rufus. My apologies to Keats-Rohan.
This narrows the possible dates of the charter mentioning Henry to the
period 1100 to 1107, which narrows the possible birthdates of Cecily
and Hugh if they were too young to attest the charter; and destroys
my point that Roger had plenty of time during the reign of Henry to
acquire a second marriage and second family.
But it still leaves open the possibility of Roger's starting his
second family in the reign of Rufus or even of William I.
What Keats-Rohan said is:
"Roger and his wife Adelisa gave charter for Rochester priory which
referred to their sons and daughters and was attested by their
children William, Humphrey, Gunnor and Matilda.[12] This charter
tellingly refers to King Henry, making it highly unlikely that Roger
acquired a second wife and second family before his death in 1107."
Which tells us only that at some time in 1100-1107 Roger's wife was
Adeliza (the putative only wife) and they had four children old enough
to witness the document.

Millerf...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 18, 2007, 1:58:59 PM3/18/07
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I must confess to ignorance about the possible distinctions between Adeliza,
Adelicia and Adelida. But I have noted the various names given as
alternative spellings in a number of 12th century and earlier documents relating to the
Louvain family.
Meanwhile, if I may gallop to the support of Dr Keats-Rohan, I find in her
work, as published on the prosopon website, no suggestion that Henry I
succeeded to the throne before 1100.
For the rest, as Wittgenstein said, "wovon mann nicht reden kann, davon
muss mann schweigen"
MM


Message has been deleted

ski...@racsa.co.cr

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 8:46:47 AM3/19/07
to
Thanks for the feedback.
Always ready to be educated, never accepting authority as such, I
would be very interested to see some documents in which both forms of
THIS/THESE name(s) were interchanged.


On Mar 18, 3:10 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> <Millerfairfi...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:mailman.311.11742407...@rootsweb.com...


>
> >I must confess to ignorance about the possible distinctions between
> >Adeliza,
> > Adelicia and Adelida. But I have noted the various names given as
> > alternative spellings in a number of 12th century and earlier documents
> > relating to the
> > Louvain family.
>

> You are quite right - these were forms of the same name, sometimes
> interchanged even in the same document, as of course Keats-Rohan knows very
> well.
>
> Peter Stewart


Peter Stewart

unread,
Mar 19, 2007, 7:54:55 PM3/19/07
to
On Mar 19, 11:46 pm, ski...@racsa.co.cr wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Always ready to be educated, never accepting authority as such, I
> would be very interested to see some documents in which both forms of
> THIS/THESE name(s) were interchanged.

There are charters where one version of the name is given in the text
and another in the subscription - I don't have an example at my
fingertips, or time to search just now, but will post again if I come
across any instances. The name also occurs in more outlandish forms,
such as "Alipdis".

You don't have to go far to find two forms, Adeliz and Adelicia,
demonstrably used for the same person in different documents, as in
the case that started this thread - another Tosny lady, the daughter
of Roger I and Godehildis, who married William fitz Osbern, earl of
Hereford, was named "Adeliz" in his charter of ca 1050 ("ego
Guillelmus filius Osberni...cum uxore mea Adeliz") and "Adelicia" in
the obituary of Lyre abbey that he founded ("obiit Alelicia uxor
Willelmi filii Osberni").

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

unread,
Mar 20, 2007, 12:07:11 AM3/20/07
to

The last quotation was from the chronicle of Lyre abbey, not the
obituary.

A few other examples of women of named A(de)lais/A(de)licia occurring
under various forms are:

The wife of Ademar III, count of Angoulême, who was a daughter of
Pierre I of Courtenay and Elizabeth - in her husband's charter of
1186/97 for Saint-Amand de Boix she appears as "Alaidis" (Ego Ademarus
comes Engolismensis et uxor mea, comitissa Alaidis de Courtenai
nomine), but in the obituary of the Hôtel-Dieu de Provins she occurs
first as Alesis in her own notice on 12 February (Ob. Dilectissima
nostra Alesis, comitissa Angolismensis, que multa bona nobis contulit)
and then as Aales is her husband's on 18 December (Haymardus, comes
Angolismensis, mariti quondam Aales, comitisse Angolismensis, que
nobis multa bona contulit).

The second wife of Count Otto William of Mâcon, of unknown family
origin - in her husband's charter for Cluny ca 1015 she occurs as
Adeleidis (Ego Otto comes et uxor mea Adeleidis), and in the obituary
of Saint-Pierre de Mâcon as Adalasia under 29 May (Adalasia comitissa
vocata, regali progenie orta, seculo decessit).

Peter Stewart

0 new messages