Edward III --> Gateway Ancestors

[William T. Erbes]

Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III.
His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder.

Bill Erbes

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 4:49:36 PM UTC-7, William T. Erbes wrote:
> Regrettably, my gateway ancestor William Lawrence (bapt. 28 Jul 1622, St. Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, England; d. bef 25 Mar 1680, Flushing, Long Island, New York) does not have a line extending back to Edward III.
> His most recent royal ancestor appears to have been Edward the Elder.
>

OK, this does have me curious - how do you get to Edward the Elder without having any more recent royal connections? What line does that follow?

taf

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

The most recent royal ancestor for the Lawrence family of Hertfordshire is Louis IV of France 936-954.

[Steve Riggan]

Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here:

http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO

The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line.

Steve Riggan

Sent from my iPad

> -------------------------------
> 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

[taf]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:13:27 PM UTC-7, Steve Riggan wrote:
> Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here:
>
> http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO
>

> If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to

> Louis IV of France. . . . . I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree,

> but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line.

He was maternal grandfather of Louis IV.

taf

[Steve Riggan]

Correction, that was Lambert of Lens.

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Steve Riggan <sri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here:
>
> http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO
>

> The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line.
>
> Steve Riggan
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:05 PM, taf <taf.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Sep-17 10:19 AM, Steve Riggan wrote:
> Correction, that was Lambert of Lens.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Steve Riggan <sri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bill, your ancestor is in Genealogics here:
>>
>> http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00624570&tree=LEO
>>
>> The line does have some royal descents, one being through Judith of Lens, daughter of Adele of Normandy who was the sister of William the Conqueror. I believe Judith's paternity is in question due to her mother's two marriages and the uncertainty of which one produced Judith. If she is descended from Lambert of Louvain, the line on that side goes to Louis IV of France. Through Adele, the line goes back to Charlemagne in one or two lines, maybe more as I didn't look at all of them. I didn't see Edward the Elder on this pedigree, but maybe Leo didn't have that information when he posted the line.

Your first post was correct already, even if your thinking was otherwise
- Lambert of Lens was a grandson of Lambert of Louvain, so if Judith was
daughter of the former she was descended from the latter.

Peter Stewart

[Steve Riggan]

I didn't check all the lines so good to know.

Sent from my iPhone

[Paulo Canedo]

Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm.

[Peter Stewart]

On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm.

This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father -
it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors.

The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and
its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress.

Peter Stewart

[deca...@aol.com]

Below is a post by Douglas Richardson from 2009 that addresses the issue concerning the correct parentage of Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror. Hopefully it will help in this discussion. I personally believe that Richardson got this one correct.

{“Dear Newsgroup ~

I have this sinking feeling of déjà vu. The same objection that is
being raised regarding Edgar the Atheling having had a daughter,
Margaret (as per the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon) is the
VERY SAME objection raised sometime in the past regarding the
parentage of Countess Judith, the niece of William the Conqueror. In
Huntingdon chronicle, Judith is named as the daughter of Lambert of
Lens [see Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, 2 (1922): 28,
which specifically reads: "Ivetta, who was the daughter of Lambert,
the count of Lens."]. A snippet view of this text may be viewed at
the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=6X5nAAAAMAAJ&dq=Early+Sources+ofScottish+History&q=Lambert&pgis=1#search_anchor

Elsewhere, Countess Judith is likewise styled "Ivettam, filliam
comitis Lamberti de Lens, sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de
Albemarlia" in a 13th Century account of the life of her husband,
Earl Waltheof [see Vita et passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis
Huntendonie et Norhantonie, in Chron. Anglo-Normandes, vol. 2, pg.
112].

Regardless some genealogists scratched their heads and even a few
historians doubted that Judith was the daughter of Lambert of Lens.
Regardless, after verifying that Lambert of Lens existed and that the
chronology permitted him to be the father of Countess Judith, the
Huntingdon Chronicle is now accepted as accurate by all reliable
historians. In any case, it would be highly unlikely that the Canons
of Huntingdon would make up a phony story that Countess Judith was
Lambert's daughter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah"}

[Paulo Canedo]

There is a very good reason to explain Judith not being Lambert's heiress. When Lambert died Judith was a baby.

[Peter Stewart]

So babies forfeited hereditary rights? Judith may have been born
posthumously for all we know, but if she was Lambert's child she was the
only one. The assumption that her father's brother would have the
temerity to usurp the inheritance of a niece of William of Normandy is
just a speculative scenario, not a 'very good reason' to explain this.
Other heirs and heiresses who were displaced as children, and their own
subsequent offspring, did not always accept dispossession quietly: it is
far from highly credible to me that Judith and then her daughters (both
of them married to powerful men) would have done this without so much as
a peep over the countship of Lens.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Hardly, by a long stretch - the editor of the work that Richardson
linked to did not accept it for a start. Look at the index, p. 758, and
you will find 'Judith (or Ivetta), dau. Odo of Champagne and Adelaide,
sis. k. William I; w. Waltheof, s. Siward': no mention of Lambert.

Sources need to be evaluated. Scholars were never in doubt that Lambert
of Lens existed - Richardson's supposition that 'reliable historians'
needed to verify this in the context of Judith's paternity is misguided.

The first source naming Lambert as a husband of Judith's mother is Vita
Waldevi comitis (written after 1219), that added Lambert to information
taken from Orderic who did not name him, and this was the unreliable
basis for the Huntingdon chronicle (written after 1291). Many historians
do not pay close attention to this kind of incidental question, or to
the evaluation of sources peripheral to their main subject.

Peter Stewart

[William T. Erbes]

> On Sep 5, 2017, at 7:13 PM, gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com wrote:

Peter,

You are correct. I neglected to specify English/British royalty.

Bill

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-Sep-17 9:06 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> The first source naming Lambert as a husband of Judith's mother is
> Vita Waldevi comitis (written after 1219), that added Lambert to
> information taken from Orderic who did not name him, and this was the
> unreliable basis for the Huntingdon chronicle (written after 1291).
> Many historians do not pay close attention to this kind of incidental
> question, or to the evaluation of sources peripheral to their main
> subject.

These datings are inexact: I should have written 'Vita Waldevi comitis
(written in or after 1219) ... the Huntingdon chronicle (written in 1291)'.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 07-Sep-17 8:54 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> On 06-Sep-17 11:14 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> So babies forfeited hereditary rights? Judith may have been born
> posthumously for all we know, but if she was Lambert's child she was
> the only one. The assumption that her father's brother would have the
> temerity to usurp the inheritance of a niece of William of Normandy is
> just a speculative scenario, not a 'very good reason' to explain this.
> Other heirs and heiresses who were displaced as children, and their
> own subsequent offspring, did not always accept dispossession quietly:
> it is far from highly credible to me that Judith and then her
> daughters (both of them married to powerful men) would have done this
> without so much as a peep over the countship of Lens.

If Judith was Lambert's child she was almost certainly born
posthumously: her mother was first married to Enguerrand of Ponthieu,
who was killed on 25 October 1053 fighting against one brother-in-law
(William of Normandy) in support of another (William's namesake uncle,
count of Arques). Lambert was killed in late July or early August 1054,
just nine months or a very little more later. These datings are not in
any doubt at all, and the suggestion that Adeliza was divorced from
Enguerrand in order to have married Lambert before 1053 is a non-starter
- as Enguerrand of Ponthieu's widow she was countess of Aumale, that was
inherited by Enguerrand from his mother. This is set out in charters of
two of her children, in one of which she is described as having been
young when Enguerrand died;  she evidently did not remarry immediately,
since at that time she turned for protection of the collegiate church of
Saint-Martin d'Auchy that she had founded to the archbishop of Rouen
('Engerranno marito suo mortuo ... et cum esset adhuc in juvenili etate,
fecit eam dedicare dumnum Marilium Rotomagensem archiepiscopum qui etiam
excommunicavit omnes qui aliquid detraherent vel aliquod dampnum eidem
ecclesie inferrent', see http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte4551/.)
Maurilius did not become archbishop until 1055, so if Adeliza was
married to Lambert and widowed a second time before she had the church
dedicated and defended with his archiepiscopal fulminations it is
strange that this was not mentioned. In both of her children's charters
her daughter Judith is mentioned as a donor to Saint-Martin d'Auchy, but
there is no indication of who her father was.

In any case, Adeliza could not have had a child by Lambert before his
own death in the summer of 1054 unless she had married him within days
of her first husband's death in October 1053. This is extremely
unlikely, as then it would be not have been certain whose child it was.
And if Judith was not conceived until some months after Enguerrand's
death, then it could not have been known at the time of Lambert's death
whether his widow was carrying a boy or a girl. I think it highly
unlikely that Lambert's brother would have disinherited an unborn child
was would be the nephew or niece of William. It is possible that some
arrangement was made so that rights to Lens belonged to Eustace of
Boulogne rather than to his brother's widow and her unborn child, but
given the geographic position of Aumale in relation to Normandy it is
hard to see what interest William would have had in alienating control
from his close family.

Given these circumstances, I think it would need a better source than an
otherwise unreliable 13th century hagiography of Judith's husband to
conclude that she was definitely Lambert's daughter.

By the way, Heather Tanner has made a peculiar mistake in her *Families,
Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and
England, c. 879-1160* (2004) - she thinks there were two Lamberts of
Lens, father and son. According to her Eustace I's brother Lambert I
died in 1047 and the husband of Adeliza of Normandy was his son Lambert
II who died in 1054. This is ill-founded. Tanner relied on her
misinterpretation of a charter dated 13 November 1047 in which Lambert
is twice named as 'memoratus comes', which she took to mean he was
deceased at the time. However, she had not understood the context, as
'memoratus comes' here means only 'the said count': the first of these
mentions is when the residents of Harnes (near Lens) are to owe Lambert
and his successors 50 solidi at Easter in every third year ('Sed semper
post tercium annum homines de ipsa uilla Harnes tam ipsi quam posteri
eorum soluent quinquaginta solidos in pascha Domini memorato comiti
Lantberto et successoribus suis'); and the second is his own
subscription ('S. Lantberti comitis memorati'). Clearly he was not dead
at the time. (This charter was once thought a forgery, as a falsified
version had been printed from a copy in Ghent, until the original
charter was discovered in Paris and published for the first time in 1950.)

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> It is possible that some arrangement was made so that rights to Lens
> belonged to Eustace of Boulogne rather than to his brother's widow and
> her unborn child, but given the geographic position of Aumale in
> relation to Normandy it is hard to see what interest William would
> have had in alienating control from his close family.

Apologies, I meant to write: 'given the geographic position of Lens in
relation to Normandy ...'

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>

> By the way, Heather Tanner has made a peculiar mistake in her
> *Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern
> France and England, c. 879-1160* (2004) - she thinks there were two
> Lamberts of Lens, father and son. According to her Eustace I's brother
> Lambert I died in 1047

Apologies again, my brain has shut for the day - I should have written
'Eustace II's brother ...'

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Sep-17 5:48 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> On 07-Sep-17 8:54 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> On 06-Sep-17 11:14 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> William. It is possible that some arrangement was made so that rights

> to Lens belonged to Eustace of Boulogne rather than to his brother's
> widow and her unborn child, but given the geographic position of
> Aumale in relation to Normandy it is hard to see what interest William
> would have had in alienating control from his close family.
>

> Given these circumstances, I think it would need a better source than
> an otherwise unreliable 13th century hagiography of Judith's husband
> to conclude that she was definitely Lambert's daughter.

Kathleen Thompson has added a few red herrings to this in her article
'Being the ducal sister: the role of Adelaide of Aumale', *Normandy and
its Neighbours, 900-1250: Essays for David Bates* (2011), where she
wrote (p 69):

'The chronology seems scarcely credible: widowhood on 25 October 1053,
followed by a second marriage to a husband who died at the latest ten
months later and the birth of what can only have been a posthumous
daughter, Judith. Our evidence is a thirteenth-century life of Waltheof,
which tells us that Lambert of Lens was the father of Waltheof's wife,
and some modern commentators have found it hard to accept; Morton and
Munz [sic, recte Muntz] cannot countenance it. They firmly attribute
Adelaide's second daughter to Enguerrand of Ponthieu, despite the fact
that the child's name quite clearly links her to the Flandro-Boulonnais
dynasty to which Lambert belonged, while a charter by Adelaide's other
daughter, a younger Adelaide, specifically indicates that Judith was the
daughter of the younger Adelaide's mother, but not her father.'

The last two points are specious. First: the name Judith famously
belonged to a countess of Flanders in the 9th century, daughter of
Charles the Bald, but as far as we know it was not given to any female
in that family except for a daughter of Balduin IV by his second wife, a
Norman princess whose mother was named Judith. This name was not used in
the comital family of Boulogne either, unless earl Waltheof's wife
belonged to it as a daughter of Lambert of Lens. However, even so it
should be noted that Adeliza of Aumale had an aunt named Adeliza who (in
a charter of her husband) was also called Judith, a daughter of Balduin
IV's mother-in-law. Consequently there is no clear link from onomastics
to the 'Flandro-Boulonnais dynasty', but rather to the ducal family of
Normandy.

Secondly, the charter of Adeliza's namesake daughter does not
specifically indicate that she and Judith were only half-sisters. I gave
a link to this charter (above), where it can be seen that the younger
Adeliza is described both as 'Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engerranni
et supradicte Addelidis filia' and as 'cometissa Addelidis filia
supradicte cometisse', while Judith is described as 'Julita cometissa
domine supradicte filia'. If naming her only as her mother's daughter
specifically precludes her having been a full-sister, then the younger
Adeliza must have been conflicted about her own parentage in order to
describe herself in the same way. The corresponding charter of their
maternal half-brother Stephen
(http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte4557/) also describes Judith as
'Julita cometissa filia domine supradicte', but does not mention the
younger Adeliza at all. Presumably these charters were issued at the
request of the chapter of Saint-Martin d'Auchy in order to have a bet
each way with their foundation confirmed both by Enguerrand's daughter
Adeliza and by her half-brother Stephen who did not share her hereditary
claim. Judith was incidental to this as a middle child, whether her
father was Enguerrand or Lambert. It is notable that in the list of
donations to the church there is no mention of any by Lambert, who if he
had been Adeliza's second husband would have been count of Aumale by her
right: his resulting patronage of Saint-Martin d'Auchy, however brief,
would most likely have been signalled in this document.

Thompson went on to state that 'The whole problem begins to recede,
however, when we take into account the proceedings of the Council of
Reims in 1049'. This is very dubious in my view: Enguerrand of Ponthieu
and Eustace II of Boulogne were both excommunicated by Pope Leo IX for
consanguineous marriages ('Excommunicavit etiam comites Angilra[mm]i, et
Eustachium propter incestum'). At the same time William of Normandy was
forbidden to marry Matilda of Flanders. We know what came of that -
their marriage went ahead. We do not know if either Enguerrand or
Eustace repudiated their illicit unions, or for that matter whether
Adeliza of Normandy was already married to Enguerrand at the time in
order to be the irregular wife in question. Thompson reported (p 71)
that Eustace's fist wife, the English princess Goda, 'bore her new
husband no surviving male heir, and by the late 1040s she must have been
nearing forty years of age. It was now perhaps convenient to dissolve
the marriage. The existence of a common ancestor in King Alfred of
England allowed Eustace and Goda to part, and the researches of Dr
Christopher Lewis suggest that from 1051 Countess Goda lived in her
brother’s kingdom, probably at Lambeth, close to his chosen residence of
Westminster'. The reference given for this (ibid note 42) is not very
illuminating: 'C. P. Lewis, personal communication, based on Goda's
holdings in Domesday Book, in particular at Lambeth, DB, I, fol. 34.
Using material from Rochester Cathedral priory's fourteenth century
Registrum Temporalium, Dr Lewis has deduced that Goda's property at
Lambeth was subsequently given to Rochester. Rochester later asserted
that it had the treasures of the Countess Goda in its possession, and it
also had an interest in what it referred to as 'Countess Goda's former
soke' in London, probably a survival of the nineteen burgesses recorded
under Lambeth in Domesday.' It is not clear from this what basis Dr
Lewis has for identifying the Goda in Domesday book and the 'Countess
Goda' in the much later Rochester record with the countess of Boulogne.
If she was nearing 40 in the late 1040s she must have been nearing 80 at
the time of the Domesday survey, and you might expect that we would hear
something besides this about a daughter of Ætheldred II who lived for at
least 20 years under the reign of William the Conqueror.

By the way, Timothy Bolton in 'Was the family of Earl Siward and Earl
Waltheof a lost line of the ancestors of the Danish royal family?',
*Nottingham Medieval Studies* 51 (2007) thought that the extant text of
'Vita Waldevi comitis' naming Lambert as Judith's father is a
13th-century revision of a work perhaps written in the 12th century
(p.49): 'The vita is closely based, in part, on accounts written in the
1120s (those of Orderic Vitalis, William of Malmesbury and John of
Worcester), and so must post-date these accounts. An imprecise terminus
ad quem can only be established by the observation that in 1219 this
vita was old enough to warrant revisions in prose and verse by William
of Ramsey.' There is of course no way to know when the detail about
Lambert was included.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Sep-17 4:02 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> Thompson went on to state that 'The whole problem begins to recede,
> however, when we take into account the proceedings of the Council of
> Reims in 1049'. This is very dubious in my view: Enguerrand of
> Ponthieu and Eustace II of Boulogne were both excommunicated by Pope
> Leo IX for consanguineous marriages ('Excommunicavit etiam comites
> Angilra[mm]i, et Eustachium propter incestum').

Actually it's more dubious than I supposed - Enguerrand II of Ponthieu
who married Adeliza of Normandy was not yet a count by the time of the
council of Reims in October 1049 (his father did not die until November
1052), and so the man excommunicated by Leo IX for an illicit union was
presumably his grandfather Enguerrand I, whose second wife, Adeliva, was
the widow of Balduin of Boulogne - her parentage is unknown.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Sep-17 4:02 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

The 'Registrum temporalium' of Rochester cathedral priory was published
in 1769, and contains several records of countess Goda's property - this
was evidently Edward the Confessor's sister, wife successively of counts
Drogo of Amiens and Eustace II of Boulogne. Lambeth church was conceded
by William II (in one case identified by the editor as William I) as it
had been held by countess Goda ('sicut comitissa Goda prius habuit'),
and some of her possessions (gospel books, gold and silver items, etc)
were taken from Lambeth to Rochester by the keeper of the manor.

From these records it could be taken that Goda was living at Lambeth
into William II's reign, and she is mentioned in Domesday book as having
held it. However, we also know from a confirmation in 1101 by St Anselm,
archbishop of Canterbury, that William was actually restoring to
Rochester the property at Lambeth that Goda had herself previously given
('in Surreya Lamhetham cum ecclesia quod dedit Goda comitissa, et
Willelmus rex filius regis Willelmi ecclesie Roffe deinde restituit').
In light of this, there is no certainty as to when her donation was
made, and this may well have been before the Conquest rather than after
the Domesday survey.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The supposed confirmation by St Anselm turns out to be a 13th-century
concoction according to the editors of *English Episcopal Acta 28*
(2004), but the point remains that by its own account Rochester
cathedral priory had received Lambeth originally from Goda.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I may have misunderstood the interpretation placed by Christopher Lewis
on the evidence mentioned - because of Kathleen Thompson's phrase
"Goda's holdings in Domesday Book", I took it he was proposing that Goda
lived until 1086. However, the holdings ascribed to her in Domesday book
were not contemporary with the survey and recorded in the present tense,
but rather in the reign of her brother Edward the Confessor and recorded
in the perfect tense.

In Surrey she had formerly held the manor of Lambeth, which was held by
its church of St Mary in 1086 ('Sancta Maria manerium est quod Lanchei
uocatur. Goða cometissa tenuit soror R[egis]. E[dwardi].') St Mary’s at
Lambeth also held Aston Subedge in Gloucestershire, which Goda had held
in the reign of her brother Edward, ('Ecclesia Sancte Marie de Lanheie
tenet Estone. Goða comitissa tenuit T.R.E.'). Ralph of Fougères held
Headley in Surrey which Goda had held in her brother's reign ('Radvlfus
de Felgeres tenet Hallega. Goða comitissa tenuit de rege E.').

Clearly she was no longer living in 1086. Her former holdings were
discussed by John Blair in *Early Medieval Surrey: Landholding, Church
and Settlement before 1300* (Stroud, 1991), p. 102: 'According to
Domesday Book ... Lambeth manor had been in the hands of King Edward's
sister Godgifu before her death in 1056; in 1086 St Mary's church of
Lambeth held it from the crown except for one field, then in the hands
of Odo of Bayeux, which had belonged to the church in Godgifu's time.
Soon afterwards the church and the whole vill were apparently given by
William Rufus to Bishop Gundulf and his monks at Rochester. Perhaps the
best interpretation is that Godgifu had herself founded some kind of
collegiate minster, endowing it with the whole manor ... A note that
Rochester removed from Lambeth a gold and silver shrine, gospel-books,
rich crucifixes and other ornaments, all of which had belonged to
Godgifu, may mark the end of a private college or minster', and ibid 198
note 58 regarding the forged confirmation of St Anselm: 'Rochester's
later claim that Godgifu had given them the manor before the Conquest
... was presumably baseless'.

Goda's death in 1056 is not certain, but only deduced from the
remarriage of her second husband, Eustace of Boulogne, reportedly in
1057. If Dr Lewis thinks that she had parted from Eustace and lived in
England from 1051, this would require some firm evidence - apart from
the Domesday and Rochester records - that Kathleen Thompson did not
report. Otherwise, as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Goda
and Eustace separated after he was excommunicated in October 1049. For
all we know this may have been resolved, perhaps along with the problem
of William with his intended marriage to Matilda, or they may have gone
on defying the Church without a resolution. The same may have applied to
count Enguerrand I of Ponthieu ('Angilrai', i.e. Angilrannum) who was
also excommunicated in 1049.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

It couldn't have been Enguerrand I the one excommunicated in 1049 he had already died at the time the Chronique de Saint Riquier records his death in 1045 and his burial at Saint Riquer. About the title Enguerrand II could easily have been joint count with his father.

[Peter Stewart]

On 13-Sep-17 5:49 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> It couldn't have been Enguerrand I the one excommunicated in 1049 he had already died at the time the Chronique de Saint Riquier records his death in 1045 and his burial at Saint Riquer. About the title Enguerrand II could easily have been joint count with his father.

Once again you are repeating misinformation here without the courtesy of
indicating where you found it. Please stop wasting time and goodwill in
this way. If you don't know where to find or how to check a source, it
is surely better to ask for help here rather than take a chance on
whatever version of events you find online while covering your tracks.

The chronicle of Saint-Riquier does NOT record when Enguerrand I died or
where he was buried - it says that he died at an advanced age and was
succeeded by his son Hugo, and that Hugo was in turn succeeded by his
son Enguerrand, who first occurs as count in his charter for
Saint-Riquier on the day of his father's (i.e. Hugo's) burial there (20
November 1052). You can find this real information here (pp 230-231):

https://archive.org/stream/chroniquedelabb00harigoog#page/n312/mode/2up.

We do not know when Enguerrand I died, except that this was on a 20 or
21 September.

Peter Stewart

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 3:49:19 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> It couldn't have been Enguerrand I the one excommunicated in 1049 he had already died at the time the Chronique de Saint Riquier records his death in 1045 and his burial at Saint Riquer. About the title Enguerrand II could easily have been joint count with his father.

Paulo, we need to talk. I mean this with all the respect possible, and please read the following in the kindest tone possible. Since you have joined this group you have been very disruptive. Lots of misinformation sent, and lots of half-thought out questions posted. Take a breathe, and take the time to create a well formed well thought out post, with whatever sources are the basis of your question. You are wasting a lot of people's time right now and whether you know it or not, you are personally driving away some of the experts we have on the list because you are lowering the signal to noise ratio here greatly.

No need to respond, just consider.
Joe C
--member of list for 21 years.

[Peter Stewart]

On 13-Sep-17 9:55 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> We do not know when Enguerrand I died, except that this was on a 20 or
> 21 September.

We also do not know where he was buried, despite his having been
advocate of Saint-Riquier so that the abbey's chronicler Hariulf might
be expected to record the fact if it was there. This silence is not by
any means probative evidence, but if Enguerrand had died while
excommunicated he would not have been buried in the abbey.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 13-Sep-17 5:49 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> It couldn't have been Enguerrand I the one excommunicated in 1049 he had already died at the time the Chronique de Saint Riquier records his death in 1045 and his burial at Saint Riquer. About the title Enguerrand II could easily have been joint count with his father.

I suspect you found this particular misinformation in Medieval Lands, here:

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/nfraamp.htm#_ftnref472

It says: 'The Chronique de Saint Riquier records the death in 1045 of
"seigneur Angelran" and his burial at Saint-Riquier'.

You may have missed discussions of Medieval Lands here; suffice it to
say, the website is full of rubbish, largely because Charles Cawley is
incompetent. In this case he has used a translation of the chronicle
into French, and failed to notice that 'seigneur Angelran' is not
Enguerrand I but his namesake, the abbot of Saint-Riquier who died on 9
December 1045 and was buried in the abbey.

The relevant passage in the Latin chronicle is here (pp 215-216):
https://archive.org/stream/chroniquedelabb00harigoog#page/n297/mode/1up

and in the translation used by Cawley here (p 228):
https://archive.org/stream/chroniconcentul00harigoog#page/n317/mode/1up.

Note that the chapter begins 'Sepultum vero est sancti viri corpus' (in
the translation: 'Le corps du saint fut enterré') and goes on to mention
his successor as abbot, Gervin ('venerabilis ejus successor, abbas
Gervinus', or in French 'Le vénérable Gervin, qui lui succéda'). This
kind of plain statement is too hard for Medieval Lands to get right.
Please be aware that you can't rely on a single word you find there,
including 'a' and 'the'. You would be far better off deleting your link
to the website and forgetting it is there.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Peter, I thought Medieval Lands was correct so I thought I would only have to mention the primary sources now I realize I should have mentioned the website. About Medieval Lands I use it because it is one of the few internet genealogy websites with good citations to primary and secondary sources. About the discussions yes I had already seen them and I do know that a website of the dimension of Medieval Lands is too much work for an individual like Charles Cawley who is not an expert on the field.

[Peter Stewart]

On 13-Sep-17 7:05 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Dear Peter, I thought Medieval Lands was correct so I thought I would only have to mention the primary sources now I realize I should have mentioned the website. About Medieval Lands I use it because it is one of the few internet genealogy websites with good citations to primary and secondary sources. About the discussions yes I had already seen them and I do know that a website of the dimension of Medieval Lands is too much work for an individual like Charles Cawley who is not an expert on the field.

Ho hum. Medieval Lands most emphatically does NOT have "good citations
to primary and secondary sources". It has citations that are unexamined,
found by over-hasty and often ill-directed skimming, and very frequently
misapplied.

I'm afraid it is a kind of beginner's arrogance for you to say this,
since the statement proves that you cannot know enough to make the
assessment in the first place.

The website is riddled with nonsense. It is the work of an unprepared
ignoramus, devoid of skills and knowledge for this work, who fancies
himself as a scholar. It is an imposture on people who don't know enough
to see through it, just as it would be for someone like me to prance
about on the stage at Covent Garden pretending to be a dancer for
audiences who had never seen ballet done properly. Medieval genealogy is
not rocket science, but it takes more than the will to be admired in
order to do it usefully and present the results to the public.

Even a tiny fraction of the scope of Medieval Lands is beyond the
capacity of its compiler, because he simply does not have a clue how to
go about what he is doing. Someone who can't read Latin and French
cannot reasonably expect to make sense of lineages such as the counts of
Ponthieu, or ANY other family of the same era anywhere else.

Supposing that Medieval Lands can be safely relied on for any detail
that has not been specifically debunked is, frankly, beyond foolish.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Canedo]

Leaving aside Medieval Lands for a moment. I think we should ask why would british sources of the 14th century invent a marriage between Adelaide and a little known french count and make Judith daughter of that marriage.

[joe...@gmail.com]

Must we? There are a very long list of reasons why sources are in accurate in describing events far in the past.

Someone invented an image of pilgrim father's wearing buckles on their hats. Do we have to figure out why they invented this in order to discount it?

[Peter Stewart]

On 19-Sep-17 11:16 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Leaving aside Medieval Lands for a moment. I think we should ask why would british sources of the 14th century invent a marriage between Adelaide and a little known french count and make Judith daughter of that marriage.

13th century, and the purported marriage may have been an error taken
from an earlier source rather than a new invention - for all we know,
the monks at Crowland may have been misinformed, or for that matter
making an educated (or ill-educated) guess. As Joe has commented, there
is little value in speculating. Likelihood is not a reliable guide;
unlikelihood is generally more reliable, since it guides us to discard
conjecture rather than use it as a point of departure for further
hypothesising. The beginning of wisdom is to recognise the extent of the
unknown, and next after that is avoiding the temptation to fill in
blanks with suppositions.

Peter Stewart

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

I had another look at David L. Greene's original article in The Genealogist on the Lawrence family ancestry. I saw that while he had Lambert, Count Of Lens, as Adelaide's second husband, he did say that Judith was the daughter of Enguerrand II, Count Of Ponthieu, Adelaide's first husband.

[William T. Erbes]

On Sep 21, 2017, at 1:50 AM, gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com wrote:
> From: peter...@yahoo.ca <mailto:peter...@yahoo.ca>
>

> I had another look at David L. Greene's original article in The Genealogist on the Lawrence family ancestry. I saw that while he had Lambert, Count Of Lens, as Adelaide's second husband, he did say that Judith was the daughter of Enguerrand II, Count Of Ponthieu, Adelaide's first husband.

True, but Complete Peerage, Vol. I, p. 351, (d) has a mini-genealogy including "Adelaide, sister of William the Conqueror, she is styled Countess of Aumale”. Judith, who married Waltheof, Earl of Huntington is shown as the daughter of Lambert de Boulogne, Count of Lens, and Adelaide’s second husband. Adelaide’s three husbands are included in her entry on pp. 351-2.

Bill

[peter...@yahoo.ca]

Based on what Peter Stewart had to say I would agree that it is highly unlikely that Adelaide married Lambert, Count Of Lens.

[Paulo Canedo]

Em quinta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2017 21:32:37 UTC+1, peter...@yahoo.ca escreveu:
> Based on what Peter Stewart had to say I would agree that it is highly unlikely that Adelaide married Lambert, Count Of Lens.

I would not take Stewart's remarks that far as I already said there was no reason why the British monks would invent such marriage. Let's rememer Lambert was an obscure count. Also we have the bonus that Judith named a daughter Matilda. That was the name of Lambert's mother. Her being Enguerrand's daughter would not explain her name, a name not known previously in Normandy duchal family and therefore must come from her father's family.

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 4:48:22 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> I would not take Stewart's remarks that far as I already said there was no reason why the British monks would invent such marriage.

You stating that there is no reason for them to invent it holds no water at all as an argument unless you knew these monks personally. Links in genealogy have to be proven and non-contemporaneous evidence is *very poor* evidence. Trying to delve into the personal daily motivations of a monk who has been dead 700 years is a pretty bold position you are taking a very hard line on, despite not even being able to read the language this monk wrote in.

[Peter Stewart]

Some of your posts, like this one, give rise to the thought that you
must be joking.

First, we cannot know that "British" monks invented a marriage - they
may have been misinformed by French or Norman monks, or they may have
made an honest mistake, or they may have been correct. All we know is
that the marriage is extremely hard to reconcile with known facts
recorded in more reliable sources. Lambert was not an especially
"obscure" count, and the mystery surrounding him is largely the result
of this implausible marriage. In local records presumably available in
the 12th or early 13th century to monks in the region of Lens, who may
have been in contact with Crowland, he may have been highly important.

As for the "bonus" that Judith had a daughter named Matilda, and that
this name was "not known previously in Normandy" - surely you are
kidding. If Judith was Lambert's daughter she was almost certainly born
posthumously, years after William had married Matilda of Flanders, and
we cannot know whether she had any sentimental attachment to Lambert's
family anyway. Matilda was the queen of England at the time Judith was
married by her uncle William the Conqueror to Waltheof. It is probable
that Judith had been raised in the Norman ducal household, that had
become the English royal household before her marriage. Trying to pin
significance to the name Matilda in mid- to late-11th-century Normandy
or England as evidence for a questionable marriage in an earlier
generation is patently absurd.

Peter Stewart

[deca...@aol.com]

Amazing how this thread has digressed to a debate about the integrity of a monk who lived 700 years ago.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Yes, Thread Drift, Writ Large...

...Because of inattention to the precise text of a post to which one is
replying -- and Right Reason.

Linear-Thinking is considered passé by some.

DSH

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] _Summa Contra Gentiles_
[c. 1258-1264]

wrote in message
news:2b571b5b-80b5-4629...@googlegroups.com...

[Paulo Canedo]

When I said that it was not known previously known in Normandy I meant to say that it had not been given previously to daughters of the duchal house of Normandy.

[Peter Stewart]

On 22-Sep-17 7:18 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> When I said that it was not known previously known in Normandy I meant to say that it had not been given previously to daughters of the duchal house of Normandy.

Earl Waltheof's daughter was not a member of the Normal ducal house, she
was related to that family only on the distaff side at two removes.
Names were not conferred exclusively through lines of descent in the
ducal lineage anyway - as in other families, they named some children
after relatives by marriage, saints, godparents, etc, or even ad lib. We
don't know much about Waltheof's family, but since his parents were of
Danish and English extraction no doubt Matilda would have been a first
in it. He had good reason to compliment William, and a son might well
have been named after the king just as a daughter perhaps was after
Queen Matilda.

If you want to make a more purposeful argument that Lambert of Lens was
Judith's father, you might try looking for some evidence that she was
closely related to such highly notable individuals as her putative first
cousins Godfrey of Bouillon and Balduin I, king of Jerusalem, and uncles
Eustace II, count of Boulogne, and the French royal chancellor Geoffrey,
bishop of Paris.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 2:49:17 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 22-Sep-17 7:18 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> > When I said that it was not known previously known in Normandy I meant to say that it had not been given previously to daughters of the duchal house of Normandy.
>
> Earl Waltheof's daughter was not a member of the Normal ducal house, she
> was related to that family only on the distaff side at two removes.
> Names were not conferred exclusively through lines of descent in the
> ducal lineage anyway - as in other families, they named some children
> after relatives by marriage, saints, godparents, etc, or even ad lib. We
> don't know much about Waltheof's family, but since his parents were of
> Danish and English extraction no doubt Matilda would have been a first
> in it.

De Obsessione Dunelmi does give us the name of a few maternal kinswomen of Waltheof, and this reinforces Peter's conclusion that Matilda was certainly a novelty in the family, at least with respect to Waltheof's maternal lineage. His mother was Ælfflæd, whose four sisters were Ælfflæd, Ælfflæd (yes, there were three of them), Ealdgȳð and Æthelðrȳð. Of these, the last had a daughter Ecgfrȳð, who in turn had a daughter named Eda. THese sisters had two known aunts, both of the half blood, a paternal one named Ealdgȳð, and a maternal one named Sigrid (? Norse name, or perhaps a corrupted Sigfrȳð - her father was Kilvert, son of Ligulf). The paternal grandfather of the sisters had three wives, Ecgfrȳð (their grandmother), Sigun (Norse, daughter of Styr Ulfsson) and third, Ælfgifu, Æthelred II's daughter.

taf

[krot...@aol.com]

Did you have to turn off spell checker when typing all those names?

Ken in Va


-----Original Message-----
From: taf <taf.me...@gmail.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Sep 22, 2017 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: Edward III --> Gateway Ancestors

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 2:49:17 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:> On 22-Sep-17 7:18 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote:> > When I said that it was not known previously known in Normandy I meant to say that it had not been given previously to daughters of the duchal house of Normandy.> > Earl Waltheof's daughter was not a member of the Normal ducal house, she > was related to that family only on the distaff side at two removes. > Names were not conferred exclusively through lines of descent in the > ducal lineage anyway - as in other families, they named some children > after relatives by marriage, saints, godparents, etc, or even ad lib. We > don't know much about Waltheof's family, but since his parents were of > Danish and English extraction no doubt Matilda would have been a first > in it.De Obsessione Dunelmi does give us the name of a few maternal kinswomen of Waltheof, and this reinforces Peter's conclusion that Matilda was certainly a novelty in the family, at least with respect to Waltheof's maternal lineage. His mother was Ælfflæd, whose four sisters were Ælfflæd, Ælfflæd (yes, there were three of them), Ealdgȳð and Æthelðrȳð. Of these, the last had a daughter Ecgfrȳð, who in turn had a daughter named Eda. THese sisters had two known aunts, both of the half blood, a paternal one named Ealdgȳð, and a maternal one named Sigrid (? Norse name, or perhaps a corrupted Sigfrȳð - her father was Kilvert, son of Ligulf). The paternal grandfather of the sisters had three wives, Ecgfrȳð (their grandmother), Sigun (Norse, daughter of Styr Ulfsson) and third, Ælfgifu, Æthelred II's daughter.taf -------------------------------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

[Peter Stewart]

It is often repeated (including by Dauvit Broun in ODNB) that Waltheof's
father Siward was a cousin of Duncan I's wife. This comes only from
Fordun, who did not specify the alleged relationship ("Genuit autem
Duncanus ... ex consanguinia Sywardi comitis, duos filios"). Fordun did
not give her name, but elswhere she is called Suthen. Her connection to
Siward is questionable, unless she was a fairly distant cousin, since
her grandson David I married his granddaughter Matilda.

Walthof's other daughter was named Alice (variously Alicia, Aliz,
Adeliza), so he was apparently ready to cast aside the old Anglo-Saxon
namestock of his kinswomen in favour of the comparatively newfangled
Frankish names used by Normans.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:54:17 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> It is often repeated (including by Dauvit Broun in ODNB) that Waltheof's
> father Siward was a cousin of Duncan I's wife. This comes only from
> Fordun, who did not specify the alleged relationship ("Genuit autem
> Duncanus ... ex consanguinia Sywardi comitis, duos filios"). Fordun did
> not give her name, but elswhere she is called Suthen. Her connection to
> Siward is questionable, unless she was a fairly distant cousin, since
> her grandson David I married his granddaughter Matilda.

The other possible paternal female name in Siward's family derives from the name given his father, Bjorn Berasson. I have seen it suggested that this was a matronymic (like Estrithson) and that Bjorn's mother was named Bera. (The suggestion is that this matronymic gave rise to the tradition that Bjorn was fathered by a bear. It could just as well be the converse, that an existing tradition of Bjorn having an ursine papa led to this patronymic form being attached to him.)

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Dauvit Broune in ODNB agreed with you: "Siward's name (Sigvarthr)
suggests that he was of Danish stock, although the names of his parents
are unknown ... A legend preserved in the twelfth century noted that
Siward was descended from the union of a white bear and a noblewoman."
I'm not sure how to rate this as an example of social mobility - I
imagine that white bears, being rare beasts, could be rather picky about
the nobility of their rape victims, but their own rank is a bit more iffy.

Peter Stewart

[deca...@aol.com]

Now we have digressed even further to discussing how white bears select the rank of nobility of the women they choose to rape.

[Paulo Canedo]

Here is a post by Don Stone in 2012:
´I've done some investigation/classification of the bearers of the swan
badge itemized by Anthony Wagner in his "The Swan Badge and the Swan
Knight." I started by choosing three people in the fourth generation of
the Summary Pedigree (Plate XL). I then looked at those who later bore
swan badges from the point of view of which of these three people they
descended from. The three people are
(1) Eustace II, Count of Boulogne, d. 1080;
(2) his brother, Lambert, Count of Lens, d. 1054; and
(3) Henry II, Count of Louvain, d. 1029.

All the later people in the chart descend from one or more of the above
three. However, no person in the chart who bore a swan badge descended
from only one of these three, if we include the line (not in Wagner's
chart but sent to me by John R.) from (3) Henry II of Louvain via
Godfrey and then Adeliza down to Maud de Lusignan (or d'Eu) who married
Humphrey de Bohun.

If some bearer of a swan badge had been descended from only one of these
three, then we could say definitively that that one ancestor could
confer the ability to wear a swan badge. But since that's not the case,
saying which descent or descents enabled a particular swan badge is tricky.

For example, it's possible that only (1) and (2) above confer the
ability to wear a swan badge and (3) doesn't, and that all descendants
of (3) who bore a swan badge did so because of their descent from (1) or
(2).

Alternatively, it's possible that only (1) and (3) confer this ability
and (2) doesn't. There are later stories connecting the swan knight to
(1) and to a great-grandson of (3) who is not descended from (1) or (2),
assuming that Konrad von Wurzburg's "Godfrey, duke of Brabant" (Wagner,
p. 132) is Godfrey III, Duke of Lower Lorraine, who was also Landgrave
of Brabant.

Or maybe any of (1), (2) or (3) confer this ability.

Let's compare two bearers of a swan badge or crest, Robert de Tony (b.
1276) and Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester (at least 12 years younger
than Robert):

(A) Robert de Tony is descended from (2) Lambert, Count of Lens,
via Lambert's daughter Judith's daughter Alice, who married Ralph IV
de Tony. Roger, son of the latter couple and ancestor of Robert,
married Ida, a descendant of (3) Henry II, Count of Louvain.
Further, Robert's paternal grandmother (not in Wagner's chart) was
Alice de Bohun, who is also a descendant of both (2) and (3); Alice
descends from (2) Lambert, Count of Lens, via Lambert's daughter
Judith's daughter Maud, who married David I, King of Scotland and
became grandmother of Humphrey de Bohun, Constable of England, and
Alice descends from (3) Henry II, Count of Louvain, via Henry's son
Godfrey's daughter Adeliza, who (as widow of King Henry I of
England) married William d'Aubigny and became an ancestor of Maud de
Lusignan (or d'Eu) who married Humphrey de Bohun.

(B) Hugh de Audley's mother Iseult is presumed to be the source
of his swan knight lineage. If Iseult was the daughter of Humphrey
de Bohun (dvp 1265) and Eleanor de Braose, then she would have
through her father the same descents from (2) and (3) that her aunt
Alice de Bohun has; she would not have the double descents from (2)
and (3) that Robert de Tony has, but duplicate descents probably
make no difference as far as conferring eligibility to bear the swan
badge. If Iseult was one generation later in the Bohun family and
was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun and Maud de Fiennes, then she
would also have a descent from (1) via Maud. If Iseult was a
daughter of Roger de Tony and Alice de Bohun, in spite of the
consanguinity problem mentioned in John's original post, then she
would have the same double descents from (2) and (3) that Robert de
Tony has.

So, I think that in any case Hugh de Audley's swan badge tells us that
his mother Iseult was a Bohun or a Tony, and all of the alternatives
mentioned under (B) above give him as much hereditary right to the swan
badge as Robert de Tony had.

In addition, I think that the slight indirect evidence that John
presented in his original post is still somewhat supportive. The
Mortimer ancestry which has been assigned to Iseult provides a
relationship to Sir John de Willoughby via Sir William de Briwere of
Horsley as their common ancestor, whereas the Bohun ancestry provides a
relationship to Sir John via Geoffrey fitz Piers, Earl of Essex,
certainly a better-known individual. (Though Wikipedia says "Under King
John, William [William Brewer (justice)] was one of the most active
figures in government, next to Henry Marshal and Geoffrey fitz Peter in
terms of the number of royal charters he witnessed.[3].")

I'll have some further comments in the near future.`

I think this shows a clear relationship between Adelaide's descendants and Eustache's descendants.

[Peter Stewart]

The immediately obvious problem with this kind of analysis is the resort
to cherry-picking lines by the happenstance of what we know - for
starters, anyone descended from (3) Henry II of Louvain (who died in
1078 or 1079, not 1029) would also be descended from his wife Adela, and
we don't know her family origin. Then if "any of (1), (2) or (3) confer
this ability", why apparently on some by not all of all of their
descendants? Consequently we can make no thorough evaluation of the
possibility of any permutation, including that "only (1) and (3) confer
this ability and (2) doesn't", and the exercise is reduced to little
more than a way to pass the time.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 24-Sep-17 8:38 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> Then if "any of (1), (2) or (3) confer this ability", why apparently
> on some by not all of all of their descendants?

Apologies, I should have typed "some but not all of all of their
descendants?"

Peter Stewart

[Don Stone]

The swan badge material quoted by Paulo Canedo contains some of my early
thoughts on the swan badge issue.  (I now, for example, have doubts that
Iseult/Isolt de Audley was a Bohun or a Tony.)

Nevertheless, I still think that it is unsurprising that essentially all
the English bearers of the swan badge (and apparently many continental
bearers) are descended from at least one of the three close relatives of
Godfrey of Bouillon that I itemized.  (Godfrey was the first ruler of
the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, who soon after his death became
identified with the legend of the swan knight.)  Note that if Judith,
wife of Waltheof, is not a daughter of (2) Lambert, Count of Lens, then
Lambert can be removed from this list of three.

If a descent from one of these close relatives of Godfrey of Bouillon
confers swan badge eligibility, Peter asks why it apparently doesn't
confer this eligibility on all descendants.  I would say that it does
confer eligibility to all descendants, but not all descendants chose to
utilize this (or even knew about it). And some utilitized it by keeping
basically the arms they had been using but adding, e.g., a swan as part
of the crest; this is what Hugh de Audley, Earl of Gloucester, did.

Further, I don't think that any cherry-picking is going on.  The
ancestry of Adela, wife of Henry II of Louvain, may be unknown, but it
is irrelevant since it is her husband Henry who has the close connection
to Godfrey of Bouillon (providing eligibility to all of their
descendants independent of her ancestry).

However, I will grant that providing a list of two or three close
relatives of Godfrey who confer swan badge eligibility on their
descendants doesn't say much about how swan badge awareness was
disseminated or about the process by which those who were eligible
decided to utilize the swan motif.  For that purpose I have prepared the
webpage
http://donstonetech.com/IsoldeAudley/WagnersListOfSwanBadgeUsersApproxChronological.html,
listing 29 non-royal English bearers of the swan badge in roughly
chronological order.

The important ideas conveyed by this webpage are:
(1) The first two uses of the swan motif in England were by Robert de
Tony and Humphrey de Bohun in 1301, in an unusual situation (the barons'
letter to the pope), and
(2) Early adopters of the swan motif after 1301 were close relatives of
the two (listed immediately above) who adopted in 1301, and
(3) Later adopters in most cases were close relatives of earlier adopters.

It would not be surprising if some of the later adopters of the swan
motif didn't know exactly how they were related to Godfrey of Bouillon,
but perhaps had a tradition of being related to Godfrey and said to
themselves, "If cousin X can display the swan motif in his arms, then we
surely can do the same."

 -- Don Stone

On 9/23/2017 6:38 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 24-Sep-17 6:31 AM, Paulo Canedo wrote:

> The immediately obvious problem with this kind of analysis is the
> resort to cherry-picking lines by the happenstance of what we know -
> for starters, anyone descended from (3) Henry II of Louvain (who died
> in 1078 or 1079, not 1029) would also be descended from his wife

> Adela, and we don't know her family origin. Then if "any of (1), (2)
> or (3) confer this ability", why apparently on some but not all of

[Peter Stewart]

I don't think this case is so easily made - Henry II of Louvain was a
first cousin of Godfrey of Bouillon's mother Ida. Eustace II of Boulogne
was married to Ida, so that they shared their descendants, but Lambert
of Lens was only her brother-in-law. The Faversham abbey legend, which
presumably informed at least some of the English bearers of the badge,
is patently false since Ida was supposed to have been daughter of the
"Swan knight" by the widow of Godfrey of Lorraine - but Ida's father
Godfrey the Bearded was still living in 1069, well after she was already
mother to her three famous sons. Trying to make any kind of analysis of
genealogical entitlement based on a legend that itself was based on
genealogical nonsense is actually more like picking rotten cherries off
the ground.

> However, I will grant that providing a list of two or three close
> relatives of Godfrey who confer swan badge eligibility on their
> descendants doesn't say much about how swan badge awareness was
> disseminated or about the process by which those who were eligible
> decided to utilize the swan motif.  For that purpose I have prepared
> the webpage
> http://donstonetech.com/IsoldeAudley/WagnersListOfSwanBadgeUsersApproxChronological.html,
> listing 29 non-royal English bearers of the swan badge in roughly
> chronological order.
>
> The important ideas conveyed by this webpage are:
> (1) The first two uses of the swan motif in England were by Robert de
> Tony and Humphrey de Bohun in 1301, in an unusual situation (the
> barons' letter to the pope), and
> (2) Early adopters of the swan motif after 1301 were close relatives
> of the two (listed immediately above) who adopted in 1301, and
> (3) Later adopters in most cases were close relatives of earlier
> adopters.
>
> It would not be surprising if some of the later adopters of the swan
> motif didn't know exactly how they were related to Godfrey of
> Bouillon, but perhaps had a tradition of being related to Godfrey and
> said to themselves, "If cousin X can display the swan motif in his
> arms, then we surely can do the same."

I agree with this, though I'm not sure how much later these wannabe
adopters need to have been. The swan badge was a craze that could have
attracted people like any other status symbol, through wishful thinking
- if Henry II of Louvain as a first cousin of Ida could confer
membership of the charmed kinship, then why not his wife of unknown
family? Were his illegitimate descendants the Percy family included? And
why not descendants of any other cousin of Ida? What I mean by
cherry-picking is the untested assumption that the known has more
significance to the question than the unknown.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 3:01:41 PM UTC-7, Don Stone wrote:

> Note that if Judith,
> wife of Waltheof, is not a daughter of (2) Lambert, Count of Lens, then
> Lambert can be removed from this list of three.

It has been decades since I looked at the swan badge literature, so forgive what may be an obvious question.

I take your statement that if Judith was not daughter of Lambert, then Lambert is dropped from the list, that there is a descendant of Waltheof and Judith who used the swan badge. Am I then correct in concluding that if Judith was not daughter of Lambert that we would then have a descendant of Judith using the swan badge with no known right-by-descent? How many others are there?

taf

[Don Stone]

On 9/24/2017 6:29 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 25-Sep-17 8:01 AM, Don Stone wrote:

>> [snip]

>> Further, I don't think that any cherry-picking is going on.  The
>> ancestry of Adela, wife of Henry II of Louvain, may be unknown, but
>> it is irrelevant since it is her husband Henry who has the close
>> connection to Godfrey of Bouillon (providing eligibility to all of
>> their descendants independent of her ancestry).
>
> I don't think this case is so easily made - Henry II of Louvain was a
> first cousin of Godfrey of Bouillon's mother Ida. Eustace II of
> Boulogne was married to Ida, so that they shared their descendants,
> but Lambert of Lens was only her brother-in-law. The Faversham abbey
> legend, which presumably informed at least some of the English bearers
> of the badge, is patently false since Ida was supposed to have been
> daughter of the "Swan knight" by the widow of Godfrey of Lorraine -
> but Ida's father Godfrey the Bearded was still living in 1069, well
> after she was already mother to her three famous sons. Trying to make
> any kind of analysis of genealogical entitlement based on a legend
> that itself was based on genealogical nonsense is actually more like
> picking rotten cherries off the ground.

As I mention below, Henry II of Louvain was also a first cousin of
Godfrey's father, Eustace II of Boulogne.

As for the Faversham Abbey legend, I doubt that it informed any of the
later (post-1301) English bearers of the swan badge.  Based on the
picture from my roughly chronological list of swan badge users, I think
that the chain of events was that Robert de Tony and Humphrey de Bohun
in 1300-1301 had time to think about and research various armorial
options, had a motivation to make their arms as impressive as possible,
and had the option of joining a group purchase of engravings of new
seals.  We don't know whether they relied any on the Faversham Abbey
legend or what other information they had access to, but I think all the
adopters after these first two just relied on the work of these first two.
>
>> [snip]

>> It would not be surprising if some of the later adopters of the swan
>> motif didn't know exactly how they were related to Godfrey of
>> Bouillon, but perhaps had a tradition of being related to Godfrey and
>> said to themselves, "If cousin X can display the swan motif in his
>> arms, then we surely can do the same."
>
> I agree with this, though I'm not sure how much later these wannabe
> adopters need to have been. The swan badge was a craze that could have
> attracted people like any other status symbol, through wishful
> thinking - if Henry II of Louvain as a first cousin of Ida could
> confer membership of the charmed kinship, then why not his wife of
> unknown family? Were his illegitimate descendants the Percy family
> included? And why not descendants of any other cousin of Ida? What I
> mean by cherry-picking is the untested assumption that the known has
> more significance to the question than the unknown.

Yes, I understand that the swan badge, as a status symbol, could have
been adopted by some wishful thinkers who didn't have a close
relationship to Godfrey of Bouillon.  However, this doesn't appear to
have happened.  Anthony Wagner found almost all of the medieval swan
badge bearers that we now know of, and he found descents from close
relatives of Godfrey for essentially all of them.  (For one of the
Beauchamps and his descendants there is a possible but uncertain
connection.)  Of course it's conceivable that some of the swan badge
adopters were using wishful thinking and were not aware of the descent
that Wagner found for them.

What makes Henry II, Count of Louvain, worthy of special notice is the
fact that he was a double first-cousin-once-removed of Godfrey of
Bouillon (first cousin of both of Godfrey's parents, Eustace II and
Ida); other cousins of Ida may not have had that property.  As for the
Percy descendants of Henry II of Louvain, they were not closely related
to either of the two 1301 pope-letter adopters (Tony and Bohun).

As for the question, "if Henry II of Louvain as a first cousin of Ida

could confer membership of the charmed kinship, then why not his wife of

unknown family?", I guess you could say that it's possible that she
could confer membership in this "charmed circle," but it would be
redundant, since her descendants already had this membership via her
husband.

 -- Don Stone

[Don Stone]

Every descendant of Waltheof and Judith that used a swan badge was also
descended from (3) Henry II of Louvain.  (Actually, all the people in my
chronological list of 29 bearers are descendants of Henry II of
Louvain.)  Some of them also descended from (1) Eustace II of Boulogne.

So dropping (2) Lambert of Lens from the list of three has no impact on
the current known membership in the "charmed kinship."

 -- Don

[Peter Stewart]

The issue isn't whether or not they relied directly on the Faversham
legend, but whether or not they knew the actual genealogy any better
than the monks at Faversham.

Again an untested assumption from the known, or in this case from the
merely supposed: the point of my question is, Why not membership from
her instead of from him? Or, if you think that Henry's double
relationship to Godfrey of Bouillon's parents made some difference, then
why should an extra link through Adela be redundant?

Relatives of Godfrey were ten-a-penny outside England - for example, the
counts of Calw were descended from a first cousin, the counts of Namur
from a second cousin - so why didn't they crave some badge to display
their illustrious connection? If the fashion didn't spread that far,
then what real substance did it have in the first place? People have
always loved novelty, and jumped onto bandwagons.

Godfrey of Bouillon was a famous individual, but he did not carry
mystical significance or confer an aura of exclusive prestige across
centuries. He wasn't even the first choice of the crusaders to be their
sovereign after the capture of Jerusalem - Raimond of Saint-Gilles was,
but no-one made a fetish out of distant relationship to him.

Peter Stewart

[Don Stone]

On 9/24/2017 9:16 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 25-Sep-17 10:44 AM, Don Stone wrote:

>> [snip]

>> What makes Henry II, Count of Louvain, worthy of special notice is
>> the fact that he was a double first-cousin-once-removed of Godfrey of
>> Bouillon (first cousin of both of Godfrey's parents, Eustace II and
>> Ida); other cousins of Ida may not have had that property.  As for
>> the Percy descendants of Henry II of Louvain, they were not closely
>> related to either of the two 1301 pope-letter adopters (Tony and Bohun).
>>
>> As for the question, "if Henry II of Louvain as a first cousin of Ida
>> could confer membership of the charmed kinship, then why not his wife
>> of unknown family?", I guess you could say that it's possible that
>> she could confer membership in this "charmed circle," but it would be
>> redundant, since her descendants already had this membership via her
>> husband.
>
> Again an untested assumption from the known, or in this case from the
> merely supposed: the point of my question is, Why not membership from
> her instead of from him? Or, if you think that Henry's double
> relationship to Godfrey of Bouillon's parents made some difference,
> then why should an extra link through Adela be redundant?

OK, an extra link through Adela, wife of Henry II of Louvain, if we knew
of such a link, would give a stronger connection to Godfrey of
Bouillon.  But the connection is already pretty strong.

> Relatives of Godfrey were ten-a-penny outside England - for example,
> the counts of Calw were descended from a first cousin, the counts of
> Namur from a second cousin - so why didn't they crave some badge to
> display their illustrious connection? If the fashion didn't spread
> that far, then what real substance did it have in the first place?
> People have always loved novelty, and jumped onto bandwagons.

Wagner's big chart gives a number of European descendants who used the
swan motif, but of course there are many descendants on the continent
and in England who could have borne the swan badge but didn't.

> Godfrey of Bouillon was a famous individual, but he did not carry
> mystical significance or confer an aura of exclusive prestige across
> centuries. He wasn't even the first choice of the crusaders to be
> their sovereign after the capture of Jerusalem - Raimond of
> Saint-Gilles was, but no-one made a fetish out of distant relationship
> to him.

Godfrey of Bouillon was one of the Nine Worthies.

 -- Don

[Peter Stewart]

As far as I know, the "nine worthies" did not occur in literature until
after the swan badge had appeared. Before the 14th century Godfrey's
mother Ida was venerated as a saint, but he wasn't. The swan badge may
have been an effusion of chivalric romance, trying at the same time to
exalt a plausible figure from history and claim blood relationship to
him, but rigorous genealogy it was not. Interest in the swan badge as a
cultural phenomenon is fine, but making it into a yardstick for anyone's
ancestry is going too far.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op zaterdag 23 september 2017 01:54:17 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart:

I seem to have missed this interesting string of posts when on holiday.
Quite a lot is said, evaluated and judged so probably no new facts will come up.

But how about the angle of Judith's husband. What do we know about the life and times of Earl Waltheof? Does the chronology of the political situation provide a moment that a marriage with a niece of Duke William I became possible/probable? If Judith was born 1053/1055 she would have become a desirable marriage-partner around 1068/1070 reaching her fifteenth year. But then again if she was raised and kept at the court of her uncle she might have married later when her uncle saw fit. When do Judith's children and their marriage partners get mentioned?

Hans Vogels