Counts of Dammartin
Louis Epstein
from Manasses son of Hilduin by one,or two,couples named Hugh/Hugues
and Rohais(e).
Either Aelis was the daughter of a single Hugh by Rohais of Bulles,
or of Hugh II (by Rohaise of Astarac) with Hugh II being son of Hugh I
by Rohais Bulles...Manasses being father of the elder or the only
Hugh (and deceased either at the Battle of Bar in 1037,or in 1059).
Which version has better support?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
taf
> Differing sources on Royal ancestors have Aelis of Dammartin separated
> from Manasses son of Hilduin by one,or two,couples named Hugh/Hugues
> and Rohais(e).
>
> Either Aelis was the daughter of a single Hugh by Rohais of Bulles,
> or of Hugh II (by Rohaise of Astarac) with Hugh II being son of Hugh I
> by Rohais Bulles...Manasses being father of the elder or the only
> Hugh (and deceased either at the Battle of Bar in 1037,or in 1059).
>
> Which version has better support?
I don't know, but as I look back through the archives, I see that the
one-Hugh scenario involves Manasses dying in 1037, and his 'son' Hugh
living to 1100 - or 63 years after his father. This does, in fact,
suggest that the one Hugh was, in fact, two. As to the wives, I don't
recall whether Rohais is documented over this entire period, which
would be explained by two Hughs each marrying a Rohais, or
alternatively if someone separately assigned Rohais as the daughter-in-
law of Manasses, and separately as the wife of the Hugh who died 1100
(the same Rohais in the one-Hugh hypothesis but two people in the two-
Hugh version). To add to the Rohais redundancy, Mathieu, in his
account (one-Hugh) makes Rohais neither Bulles nor Astarac, but Clare.
taf
Louis Epstein
The two-Hugh line I have has the two dying in 1103 and 1107
(with Manasses dying in 1059) and the Rohaises living 1046-1114
(Bulles) and 1065-1129 (Astarac,daughter of Guillaume 1017-1072).
: taf
Peter Stewart
"taf" <t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:f14a06a2-e248-4d96...@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 27, 6:42 pm, Louis Epstein <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> > Differing sources on Royal ancestors have Aelis of Dammartin
> > separated from Manasses son of Hilduin by one, or two, couples
> > named Hugh/Hugues and Rohais(e).
> >
> > Either Aelis was the daughter of a single Hugh by Rohais of
> > Bulles, or of Hugh II (by Rohaise of Astarac) with Hugh II
> > being son of Hugh I by Rohais Bulles...Manasses being father of
> > the elder or the only Hugh (and deceased either at the Battle of
> > Bar in 1037, or in 1059).
> >
> > Which version has better support?
>
> I don't know, but as I look back through the archives, I see that the
> one-Hugh scenario involves Manasses dying in 1037, and his 'son'
> Hugh living to 1100 - or 63 years after his father. This does, in fact,
> suggest that the one Hugh was, in fact, two.
I'm not sure why, when we know that Manasses was killed in battle so that
actuarial probabilities in the course of nature don't apply here. The battle
at bar-le-Duc was on 15 November 1037 - the necrology of Saint-Vanne at
Verdun, where he was buried, records "XVII. kal. dec. Odo Manasses Euzuinus
Dudo comites ante Bar castrum prelio interempti", and Hugo of Flavigny wrote
"Veniamus igitur iam nunc ad illud lacrimabile bellum apud Bar castrum
habitum a. inc. Dom. 1037. in quo cecidit Odo filius Odonis filii Tetbaldi
Carnotensis ... Cecidit in bello illo et Manasses comes, et Evervinus et
Dido, et Virduni sepulti".
The eldest son of Manasses was Eudes, who suceeded him as count of Dammartin
and died ca 1060/61. It is little or no stretch to credit that his younger
brother Hugo would live until ca 1095/1100, particularly since the latter's
own son & successor died in 1105/06 and his namesake grandson ca 1111.
Aelis (or Adela) was recorded from 1081 to 1139, hardly improbable for
someone whose grandfather was killed in 1037.
> As to the wives, I don't recall whether Rohais is documented over
> this entire period, which would be explained by two Hughs each
> marrying a Rohais, or alternatively if someone separately assigned
> Rohais as the daughter-in-law of Manasses, and separately as the
> wife of the Hugh who died 1100 (the same Rohais in the one-Hugh
> hypothesis but two people in the two-Hugh version). To add to the
> Rohais redundancy, Mathieu, in his account (one-Hugh) makes
> Rohais neither Bulles nor Astarac, but Clare.
A marriage connection between Astarac (in Gascony) and Dammartin (in the
Ile-de-France) is highly implausible at this time & at this fairly modest
level of territorial power.
Peter Stewart
taf
> [cross-post removed]
>
> "taf" <t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
>
> > one-Hugh scenario involves Manasses dying in 1037, and his 'son'
> > Hugh living to 1100 - or 63 years after his father. This does, in fact,
> > suggest that the one Hugh was, in fact, two.
>
> I'm not sure why, when we know that Manasses was killed in battle so that
> actuarial probabilities in the course of nature don't apply here.
Perhaps I overstated it, but 63 years is better than your average
lifespan at the time, let alone time surviving father. Even if the
death of Manasses knocked 20 years off his 'normal' span, that would
still put his 'expected' death more than 40 years before Hugh's
death. I didn't have the data for the subsequent generations handy,
though, and those do make it look more like a single Hugh just had a
really good run.
> A marriage connection between Astarac (in Gascony) and Dammartin (in the
> Ile-de-France) is highly implausible at this time & at this fairly modest
> level of territorial power.
Yeah, that too.
taf
Peter Stewart
> On Oct 28, 12:00 am, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I didn't have the data for the subsequent generations handy,
> though, and those do make it look more like a single Hugh just
> had a really good run.
Well, he may have had a much younger wife to keep him going. I'm not
convinced that Rohais was a daughter of Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare, but
if she was then her husband was apparently older than her father. This would
have been unusual in a first marriage for both of them.
I suppose it's possible that Hugo of Dammartin had two wives in turn both
named Rohais. If his wife (or one of his wives) wasn't the heiress of
Bulles, we also have the puzzle of how else he came into possession of this.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
time he succeeded? Do we know how old Richard FitzGilbert, 1st Earl of Clare
was at any time in his career?
If we have years or even good guesses for these men, I don't have them.
Gilbert "Crespin" Count d'Eu who I show as the father of this Richard, was
murdered March 1040
Rohese the wife of Richard (as I show it) was apparently yet living in 1133
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.283.12882681...@rootsweb.com...
If you want to be exacting about chronology from others, perhaps you could
start by doing some research of your own for a change. In this case your
source is showing and it's certainly not a good one - for the umpteenth
time, Cawley's Medieval Lands CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
First, why is Count Gilbert called "Crespin"? This can only serve to confuse
him with his contemporary Gilbert Crespin, who was castellan of Tillières in
or before 1033.
Secondly, he was not murdered in March 1040. Orderic says that Count Gilbert
succeeded Alan of Brittany as guardian of the young Duke William, and Alan
was himself murdered on 1 October 1040. Gilbert was probably killed early in
the following April, since he occurs in a necrology immediately before
people who died on 5, 8 and 9 April respectively (not "among" deaths in
March as Cawley misstates, but after them).
Gilbert's sons were reportedly boys when their father died - Orderic (in a
reported speech of Gilbert's grandson) says that Richard and his brother
Baldwin, called "pueri", were taken to Flanders for safety by their tutors.
As for Hugues, he did not succeed his father as count of Dammartin in
November 1037 but rather his elder brother Eudes who died ca 1060/61. As far
as I know we don't have any evidence as to whether either of them was
underage when their father died in 1037. However, both of them were called
"count" in a charter dated 9 August that cannot have been later than 1059
since King Henri I, who died on 4 August 1060, was present ("Ego Odo, filius
comitis Manassæ, annuente fratre meo Hugone ... pro patre nostro Manasse et
pro nostra matre Constantia ... V idus augusti, in palatio Meleduni castri,
præsente domno nostro rege Hainrici, manibus propriis corroboravimus ... S.
Odonis comitis, qui hanc donationem fecit. S. Hugonis comitis, fratris
Odonis"). It's possible that Eudes was the count of this name who died as a
monk on a 26 February, that he was about to take the habit on 9 August by
1059 and was handing over Dammartin to Hugues at that time, but we can't be
certain.
Anyway, from what we do know of their careers it would seem that Huges of
Dammartin was an active on his own account by 1059 and Richard first Gilbert
(who was lord, but not "1st Earl" of Clare) by the mid-1060s.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iad71d$fn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Anyway, from what we do know of their careers it would seem that Huges of
> Dammartin was an active on his own account by 1059 and Richard first
> Gilbert (who was lord, but not "1st Earl" of Clare) by the mid-1060s.
What a peculiar typo, "first" for "fitz" - I must have been gathing some
strange wool.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Rohese the wife of Richard (as I show it) was apparently yet living in
> 1133
I overlooked this before - do you mean that she was apparently living in
1113, as stated in CP vol. 3 p. 242, or have you another source for her
twenty years later?
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
Will
In a message dated 10/28/2010 8:30:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.290.12883238...@rootsweb.com...
The source for 1113 is not exactly an ironclad original document, though
it's as good as many such "proofs" - it's a later cartulary record of her
donation to St Neot's priory in that year, with the consent of four of her
sons and her unnamed daughters.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
I should add that one of these daughters - Rohais, the wife of Eudo de
Ryes - appeared by name in the list of witnesses, following the sons of
Richard fitz Gilbert and Rohais, after her husband Eudo 'dapifer' and before
Odo de Dammartin.
The hypothesis of Jean-Noël Mathieu that this Rohais was married first to
Hugues de Dammartin relies in part on information given in a foundation
history of St John's, Colchester, written in or after 1533 in an imitation
of 12th-century script under the rubric 'Marianus Libro Tertio De Monasterio
Colecestrensi et eius fundatore' (British Library, MS Cotton. Nero D. viii,
345r-347r, printed in Monasticon vol. 3 pp. 607-609 and edited by Hugh
Dukinfield Astley in 'Medieval Colchester - Town, Castle and Abbey - from
MSS. in the British Museum', _Transactions of the Essex Archćological
Society_, new series 8 (1903) pp. 122-128).
According to this, the first three stones of the abbey were laid after
Easter 1097 by Eudo, his wife Rohais and her brother Gilbert (who is
inaccurately given the title 'comes'). Mathieu suggested that this meant
Rohais could first have been married to Hugues and then after his death,
before 1097, to Eudo; somewhat arbitrarily Mathieu dismissed as fictional
the further statement in the same dubious source that Rohais had been Eudo's
wife for 32 years when he died (in February 1120) and that she was not yet
of suitable age when they married ("Commorata est autem marito annis
triginta duobus, cui ante habiles annos nupta est").
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
After looking into this again I'm still not convinced that Hugo of
Dammartin's wife Rohais was the same person as Richard fitz Gilbert's
daughter married to Eudo de Ryes.
I had forgotten that Hugo died as a monk of Saint-Leu d'Esserent priory -
this is mentioned in his son's deathbed request to be buried there,
alongside him and a deceased brother ("Petrus de Domno Martino comes ...
pater suus Hugo comes, monachus noster ...[Petrus] postulavit ut juxta
patrem suum atque fratrem apud Sanctum Lupum de Escerente habere sepulturam
mereretur").
The editor of the cartulary proposed to amend "fratrem" to "matrem", but
there seems no reason for this and naturally Mathieu rejected it since he
had the mother, Rohais, marrying again after Hugo's death.
However, I think it would have been somewhat unusual for a man to take the
habit while his wife was living if she did not also take the veil at the
same time.
Can anyone recall an instance in the early 12th century where a man became a
monk towards the end of his life and then his widow later remarried?
Peter Stewart
Robert Forrest
>From Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants, p. 400--
de Clare, Rohais
Daughter of Richard de Clare and Rohais Giffard. Wife of Eudo Dapifer.
Founders of St John's, Colchester. She died on 7 Jan 1121 and was buried at
Le Bec in Normandy.
Dugdale, _Monasticon Anglicanum_, V, p. 269, no. III.
Robert Forrest
Peter Stewart
"Robert Forrest" <for...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.295.12883699...@rootsweb.com...
This citation is a curious lapse on the part of Keats-Rohan - first, the
source conflates Rohais de Clare with her mother Rohais Giffard, and
secondly it doesn't confirm the date of death and contradicts the place of
burial in question.
It is yet another late monastic history, in this case a 15th century
genealogy from Tintern abbey, saying that Rohais, one of the sisters of
Walter Giffard the second, was married to Richard fitz Gilbert and after his
death was remarried to Eudo 'dapifer' who built Colchester castle and St
John's abbey where he was buried with his wife in the reign of Henry I
("Rohesia una sororum Walteri...conjuncta in matrimonio Ricardo filio
comitis Gisleberti...Praedicta Rohesia supervixit et renupta Eudoni,
dapifero Regis Normanniae, qui construxit castrum Colecestriae, cum
coenobio, in honore sancti Johannis, ubi sepultus fuit, cum conjuge sua,
tempore Henrici primi").
This is the sort of trash that misled Dugdale on the Clare family.
The information in Domesday Descendants actually comes from the annals of St
John's, Colchester to the end of the 12th century, existing in a copy made
in or soon after 1320 - "Obiit Roasia Eudonis uxor dapiferi 7 Idus Januar.
que in monasterio (Beccensi) in Normannia sepelitur" - in this entry
"Beccensi" was written by a different, early 14th-century hand over an
erasure.
For what it's worth, the much later history of the foundation of Colchester
that I described before ("Marianus Libro Tertio De Monasterio Colecestrensi
et eius fundatore") explains that Rohais wished to be buried in England
beside her husband but her brothers, in the way of worldly and
penny-pinching men, had her taken for burial to Le Bec ("Voluit quidem suum
corpus in angliam deferri, et iuxta mariti corpus tumulari, fratres eius,
utpote homines seculo dediti, parcentes expensis, beccum eam deferri et
tumulari fecerunt").
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> The information in Domesday Descendants actually comes from the annals of
> St John's, Colchester to the end of the 12th century, existing in a copy
> made in or soon after 1320 - "Obiit Roasia Eudonis uxor dapiferi 7 Idus
> Januar. que in monasterio (Beccensi) in Normannia sepelitur" - in this
> entry "Beccensi" was written by a different, early 14th-century hand over
> an erasure.
I forgot to mention that this entry was under 1121, consistent with new
style. I've seen it adjusted to 1122 on the mistaken assumption that the
annalist or copyist was using Annunciation style. However, the corresponding
entry for her husband Eudo confirms that this is not the case: his death in
February was recorded under 1120 ("Obiit Eudo dapifer, fundator abbacie
Sancti Johannis Colecestrensis, mense Februario in Normannia"), and this was
certainly not in 1121 new style since Henry I's charter for Rohais as his
widow was witnessed by William the Aetheling who drowned in November 1120
("Sciatis me concessisse et reddidisse Rohaidi vxori Eudonis dapiferi mei
totam terram quam predictus Eudo dedit ei in dotem. et terram illam quam
postea dedit ei in incrementum ... Testibus Willelmo filio regis et Ricardo
episcopo Baiocensi").
Peter Stewart