Oda de CONTEVILLE

[James LaLone]

Briefly, who is the father of Ode/Oda de CONTEVILLE, who married Waleran
III of MEULAN? Numerous sources list him as Jean ( a very few listed here)

http://www.mathematical.com/contevillejean969.html

http://fabpedigree.com/s072/f035002.htm (I know that this source is seldom
reliable)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herluin_de_Conteville (indicates Jean the
father is not correct)

Are Jean de BOURG, de TONEBURGH, and CONTEVILLE the same person and is he
really descended from the BLOIS family? Thanks.

Jim

[Peter Stewart]

This 10th-century Jean de Conteville is fictitious, as is the Blois line
to him in the first of your links.

Nothing is known of the family background of Waleran's first wife, Oda.
All we known of her for certain is that she was mother of five children
by 1024 and after her husband unsuccessfully tried to get their marriage
annulled she died as a nun at Notre-Dame de Coulombs by 1033.

You can safely disregard any internet genealogy that includes her as a
sister of Herluin of Conteville, or that traces the lineage of a Jean of
Conteville through imaginary Baldwins of Blois.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:18:35 PM UTC-8, James LaLone wrote:
> Briefly, who is the father of Ode/Oda de CONTEVILLE, who married Waleran
> III of MEULAN? Numerous sources list him as Jean ( a very few listed here)

> Are Jean de BOURG, de TONEBURGH, and CONTEVILLE the same person and is he
> really descended from the BLOIS family? Thanks.

Sorry, but you have stumbled into quicksand. This is the world of genealogical nonsense. That Jean/John is given so many different names is indicative of the degree to which the unscrupulous and overly-enthusiastic have combined different genealogical origin tales into a single spectacular fraud.

Waleran's wife was named Oda, but nothing more than her given name is known - the 'de Conteville' part is made up as is her parentage. Herluin de Conteville is of unknown parentage. Jean de Bourg is an invented ancestor of the Bourg/Burgh family, called de Conteville to link him into the Conqueror's family. For that matter, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in Western European nobility witht the name of John in the 10th century, the name not becoming common until later. He is given any of several different pedigrees all of them completely fictitious, as is he. The Blois family you mention is also made up.

taf

[James LaLone]

Thanks to all, I figured it was probably false since there were so many
variations but it always good to double check.

> -------------------------------
> 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, December 6, 2016 at 5:33:35 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

>That Jean/John is given so many different names is indicative of the degree
> to which the unscrupulous and overly-enthusiastic have combined different
> genealogical origin tales into a single spectacular fraud.

Normally I ignore this stuff, but I can't help myself. I just looked at this guy's entry on geni.com, and the list of his children is just astoundingly inane:

John de Comyn
Oda de Conteville, wife of Waleran de Meulan
Herluin de Conteville
Eustace de Burgh
Agnes Peverel
Sigfruid de Luxembourg
(and some others)

That's at least six entirely distinct families linked together.

As to the Blois ancestry, it appears to be a version of the line that O'Hart published in the 19th century for the Burghs (or the two share a common source):

Charlemagne

Charles the Young

Roland

Godfrey, King of Jerusalem

Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem

Baldwin II, Count of Flanders and King of Jerusalem

John de Bourg, baron of Toursbourg

Harlowen de Burgo, lord of Conteville

Robert de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall

William de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall

Adelelm and John de Burgh, ancestors of later de Burghs and Burkes.

[Note: do not copy this line into your databases, people - it's not true.]

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Though the name Jean was indeed rare (there was at least one documented occurrence in Maine ca 990), it does get a bit more common in Normandy from the early 11th century after William of Volpiano's nephew Jean became abbot of Fécamp in 1028 - for instance, Herluin de Conteville himself had a son named Jean, from his second marriage. The existence of the name in his family was probably what prompted some fantasist to attach it to his unknown father.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Though the name Jean was indeed rare (there was at least one documented
occurrence in Maine ca 990), it does get a bit more common in Normandy
from the early 11th century after William of Volpiano's nephew Jean

became abbot of F écamp in 1028 - for instance, Herluin de Conteville

[Roger LeBlanc]

Thanks for these informative posts.
My question- is it known that Adeline/Adelinde (wife of Roger de Beaumont
who died 1094) was a daughter of Oda?

<Message snipped>

This 10th-century Jean de Conteville is fictitious, as is the Blois line to
him in the first of your links.

Nothing is known of the family background of Waleran's first wife, Oda.
All we known of her for certain is that she was mother of five children by
1024 and after her husband unsuccessfully tried to get their marriage
annulled she died as a nun at Notre-Dame de Coulombs by 1033.

You can safely disregard any internet genealogy that includes her as a
sister of Herluin of Conteville, or that traces the lineage of a Jean of
Conteville through imaginary Baldwins of Blois.

Peter Stewart

-------------------------------
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

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4728/13539 - Release Date: 12/05/16

[Peter Stewart]

On 9/12/2016 5:36 AM, Roger LeBlanc wrote:
> Thanks for these informative posts.
> My question- is it known that Adeline/Adelinde (wife of Roger de Beaumont
> who died 1094) was a daughter of Oda?
>

This is not known as a certainty from direct evidence, but seems most
likely.

Oda had five children by the time her husband Waleran of Meulan tried to
have their marriage annulled, and she had died by the time he occurs
with a second wife in 1033.

Adela (or Adelina) was evidently the eldest daughter of Waleran, as her
son Robert (born ca 1046) inherited Meulan. She was described a sister
of Hugo, Waleran's heir, who was named as his son in the 1033 charter
before the second wife. As far as we know Waleran had only two sons by
his second wife.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I should have made clear that Hugo was definitely Oda's son - he named her as his mother in a charter for Notre-Dame de Coulombs dated 1066, see the copy made by André Duchesne here http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b107216626/f48.item.r=Baluze%2038

"Hugo Comes Mellenti pro salute animæ meæ ... seu pro anima genitoris mei Comitis GALERANI, & ODÆ genitricis meæ".

This charter was misdated 1069 in the edition by Joseph Depoin (*Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Martin de Pontoise*, p 346) following the marginal emendation in a different hand, presumably because Waleran was living until December of that year - but Hugo was already count of Meulan by 1056, in his father's lifetime, and Indiction V as given by the scribe started on 1 September 1066.

Peter Stewart

[Roger LeBlanc]

Thank you for the additional information Peter. I always value your expertise in seperating real historical reconstructions from the speculations and guesswork. That's why this newsgroup remains relevant.

Roger Le Blanc

-------------------------------
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
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4728/13560 - Release Date: 12/08/16

[Peter Stewart]

The charter dating in this case may seem quite irrelevant to the
subject, but it does provide an example of one common mistake that can
lead to erroneous reconstructions and chronological messes: some
historians assume that anyone named in a "pro anima" clause must have
been deceased at the time. This is demonstrably untrue, as shown by many
charters with formulations such as "pro anima meae et omnium parentum
meorum vivorum seu defunctorum" (for my own soul and for the souls of
all my kinsfolk living and dead).

Peter Stewart

On 10/12/2016 5:49 AM, Roger LeBlanc wrote:
> Thank you for the additional information Peter. I always value your expertise in seperating real historical reconstructions from the speculations and guesswork. That's why this newsgroup remains relevant.
>
> Roger Le Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GEN-MEDIEVAL [mailto:gen-medieval-bounces+leblancr=mymt...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Peter Stewart
> Sent: December-09-16 1:11 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Oda de CONTEVILLE
>