Rethel link missing - Gateway ancestors
Leo van de Pas
This unnamed lady was made fascinating to me by Leslie Mahler as he said she was an ancestor of Bette Davis and John Kerry, but more importantly indicated that through a particular marriage "there should be a royal descent".
This marriage can be found in CP VIII page 505 and 506.
Robert de Marmion married Milicent "whose parentage is unknown" and Milicent is a most likely ancestor to lead to royalty, as
In ES Volume XIV page 467 we find that "whose parentage is unknown" must be replaced by "daughter of Hugh, Count of Rethel".
But now my problems start.
Thanks to John Ravilious and Rosie Bevan, I have Milicent as born "circa 1110" and this eliminates three of the four Hugh, Counts of Rethel in my database.
ES III/Volume 4 Tafels 625 and 626 cover the Counts of Rethel.
Hugues I, Count of Rethel, married Melisende de Monthlery and recorded are their children : Manasses, Gervais, Baudouin II, Mathilde, Hodierne, Beatrice and SS implies there were more sons---------------no Milicent/Melisende wife of Robert de Marmion. Is she left out by Schwennicke? Dates given for these brothers and sisters are vague enough to make it possible that Milicent could be one of them
BUT the son Gervais, Count of Rethel, died ca.1124, married Elisabeth de Namur and had one daughter, Elisabeth who married Robert de Marmion and he died about October 1181.
Sadly Robert de Marmion died about 1143/1144 he is married to our Milicent and it is their son, Robert, who married Elisabeth de Rethel and died about October 1181.
Was Robert Jr. married to his first cousin? Did Detlev Schwennicke omit Milicent?
There are many Gateway ancestors descending from them. To mention a few Hon. George Percy, Ferdinando Gorges, Catherine Marbury, Anne Marbury, Roger Ludlow, Sir Ralph Lane, Col. George Reade, Sir Henry Skipwith, Jane Lowe, Capt. Jeremy Clarke, Nathaniel Browne, Rev. John Davenport and others.
If we can link Milicent to Hugh I and Melisende de Monthlery, then several Emperors are amongst her ancestors, including Charlemagne.
Can anyone help?
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
taf
> In my system I had a man married to an unnamed lady. Leslie Mahler gave me her name and by mentioning her brother I had her parents as well.
> This unnamed lady was made fascinating to me by Leslie Mahler as he said she was an ancestor of Bette Davis and John Kerry, but more importantly indicated that through a particular marriage "there should be a royal descent".
>
> This marriage can be found in CP VIII page 505 and 506.
> Robert de Marmion married Milicent "whose parentage is unknown" and Milicent is a most likely ancestor to lead to royalty, as
>
> In ES Volume XIV page 467 we find that "whose parentage is unknown" must be replaced by "daughter of Hugh, Count of Rethel".
>
> But now my problems start.
>
> Thanks to John Ravilious and Rosie Bevan, I have Milicent as born "circa 1110" and this eliminates three of the four Hugh, Counts of Rethel in my database.
>
> ES III/Volume 4 Tafels 625 and 626 cover the Counts of Rethel.
>
> Hugues I, Count of Rethel, married Melisende de Monthlery and recorded are their children : Manasses, Gervais, Baudouin II, Mathilde, Hodierne, Beatrice and SS implies there were more sons---------------no Milicent/Melisende wife of Robert de Marmion. Is she left out by Schwennicke? Dates given for these brothers and sisters are vague enough to make it possible that Milicent could be one of them
>
> BUT the son Gervais, Count of Rethel, died ca.1124, married Elisabeth de Namur and had one daughter, Elisabeth who married Robert de Marmion and he died about October 1181.
>
> Sadly Robert de Marmion died about 1143/1144 he is married to our Milicent and it is their son, Robert, who married Elisabeth de Rethel and died about October 1181.
>
> Was Robert Jr. married to his first cousin? Did Detlev Schwennicke omit Milicent?
>
No. This is an old mistake, resolved about 60 years ago. The following
is from an archived post from Alan Wilson, 1999:
"Moriarty in TAG xx (Jan, 1944), 255-256, points out that Alberic,
Canon of Huyon-sur-Meuse states that Clarembald de Rosoy, who m.
Elizabeth de Namur after the death of Gervase in 1124, in order to
disinherit her, married the only daughter of Gervase out of the
country to a certain noble of Normandy named Robert Marmion. But
Alberic does not give the name of the daughter or specify which Robert
Marmion was her husband. The daughter of Count Gervase was married
about 1132/3, so chronologically it would more likely be to Robert I
than to Robert II. The mother of Count Gervase of Rethel was Milicent
of Montlhery. Thus Milicent, the wife of Robert I could have been
named for her paternal grandmother. Queen Adeliza of Louvain, wife of
Henry I, gave part of Stanton, Co. Oxon, to Milicent, wife of Robert
Marmion, "cognata mea." Stanton passed with Isabel, dau. of Milicent
and Richard de Camville to her husband, Robert de Harcourt as her
maritagium, and Stanton Harcourt has subsequently remained in that
family. Queen Adeliza was a second cousin of the daughter of Gervase,
both being descended from Albert III de Namur, d. 1102, & Ida of
Saxony.
Moriarty concludes, in view of these arguments, that it was Robert I
who married the daughter of the Count of Rethel, and that her name was
Milicent.
Thus Gervais had a daughter Milicent de Rethel who married first
Robert de Marmion and second Richard de Camville, by the first having
Robert de Marmion, who married Elizabeth, of unknown parentage.
taf
Leo van de Pas
Many thanks
Leo van de Pas
> -------------------------------
> 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
>
Alan Grey
> This means that both Schwennicke and CP XIV are wrong--------------
>
The CP Addendum makes the correction that the parentage of Elizabeth is
unknown, and states that Milicent was a Rethel (but identifies her as a
daughter of Hugh, not Gervase).
Alan R Grey
taf
> This means that both Schwennicke and CP XIV are wrong--------------
>
That it does. It is particularly unfortunate when a correction is,
itself, incorrect.
taf