Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Parents of Frederick de Donjon, father of Helwise/Helvise, wife of Renaud 1 de Courtenay: ????
230 views
Skip to first unread message
david...@gmail.com
Aug 31, 2015, 5:36:59 PM8/31/15
to
Hello,
I have reached a rather frustrating impasse with this family.
Renaud 1 de Courtenay married Helwise/Helvise de Donjon, daughter of Frederick de Donjon. It seems that Helwise's mother is unknown. (I will add that the Renaud de Courtenay Wikipedia page is atrocious, which doesn't help)
Frederick de Donjon's ancestry seems unsettled. Many online trees simply say his father was Everard and leave it at that. Others reference the Corbeil family, which in turn is said to be from Frederick's father, mother, or both. And as with so much of medieval genealogy, everything is obscured by repetitive naming.
Is Frederick/Ferry really the son of Baudouin and Eustache? If so, were his parents related?
A few of the things I found:
1. Medieval Lands project: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#HelvisDonjonMRenaudCourtenay
2. Possibly the least helpful pedigree you'll ever see: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudoin_de_Corbeil&prev=search
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
David Ditch
I have reached a rather frustrating impasse with this family.
Renaud 1 de Courtenay married Helwise/Helvise de Donjon, daughter of Frederick de Donjon. It seems that Helwise's mother is unknown. (I will add that the Renaud de Courtenay Wikipedia page is atrocious, which doesn't help)
Frederick de Donjon's ancestry seems unsettled. Many online trees simply say his father was Everard and leave it at that. Others reference the Corbeil family, which in turn is said to be from Frederick's father, mother, or both. And as with so much of medieval genealogy, everything is obscured by repetitive naming.
Is Frederick/Ferry really the son of Baudouin and Eustache? If so, were his parents related?
A few of the things I found:
1. Medieval Lands project: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#HelvisDonjonMRenaudCourtenay
2. Possibly the least helpful pedigree you'll ever see: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudoin_de_Corbeil&prev=search
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
David Ditch
Peter Stewart via
Aug 31, 2015, 6:16:07 PM8/31/15
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
read this post from 2003?
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2003-01/1043727077
The Frederic of Donjon who married (as his second wife) the widow of
Renaud de Courtenay was seigneur of Yerres (died probably in 1180), son
of a namesake who was royal counsellor (died 1156).
Peter Stewart
david...@gmail.com
Aug 31, 2015, 7:00:09 PM8/31/15
to
The FMG website also discusses the same speculation.
Based on that and your 2003 post (which I had not seen before), it seems clear that this does NOT have a straightforward answer.
Peter Stewart
Sep 2, 2015, 11:06:47 PM9/2/15
to
The link between the Gen-Med mailing list and soc.genealogy.medieval appears to be broken again - my post below vanished into the breach.
I looked at the FMG website, and without surprise note that Medieval Lands has made a characteristic hash of this.
For starters, there is an old red herring lazily warmed over:
" Guillaume Archbishop of Bourges is often referred to in secondary sources as "Guillaume de Donjon", although this name is not used in his Vita, but he appears to have belonged to the Berruier family: La Saussaye, in his early 17th century work on the bishops of Orléans names "Geraldus Berruyerius, frater beati Gulielmi Bituricensis archiepiscopi" as the father of Philippe Berruier who was bishop of Orléans from 1221 to 1236, citing "Historia Ecclesiæ Bituricensis" (a work which has not been identified) ".
The work Charles Cawley failed to identify was not a medieval source but an account of the archbishops of Bourges written by a monk of Saint-Sulpice abbey ca 1540. This is also the source for naming St Guillaume's mother Maencia (that was apparently misread as Maeneia by the editors of Gallia Christiana).
In the biography of a later archbishop, Philippe Berruyer, whose mother's family is said to have come from Tours (her father becoming grand master of the Templars), it is asserted in passing that Philippe's father was a brother of St Guillaume. However, this was most likely a slip on the part of the anonymous author. He wasn't always careful, even by the standards of his time - for instance, he misnamed St Guillaume's maternal uncle Pierre (archdeacon of Soissons) as Guillaume, though his source actually said that Pierre had earned the byname "Eremita" from his ascetic way of life and St Guillaume emulated him so that he deserved to be called Guillelmus Eremita.
The editors of Acta Sanctorum added another red herring to the search for St Guillaume's ancestry by suggesting in a note that his uncle Pierre may have been surnamed Eremita, from belonging to a family allegedly desceded from the famous Peter the Hermit of the People's Crusade. This nonsense originated with the Jesuit historian Pierre d'Outreman in the 17th century.
Contemporaries stated that St Guillaume was born to a noble family at Arthel in the county of Nevers. The viscounts of Clamecy owned Arthel, and from the early 13th century onwards (if not before) they took this as a surname. Since his Donjon brothers were not from there, and nor was the agnatic lineage of his half-sister, it is usually assumed that this must refer to his mother's family.
Peter Stewart
For starters, there is an old red herring lazily warmed over:
" Guillaume Archbishop of Bourges is often referred to in secondary sources as "Guillaume de Donjon", although this name is not used in his Vita, but he appears to have belonged to the Berruier family: La Saussaye, in his early 17th century work on the bishops of Orléans names "Geraldus Berruyerius, frater beati Gulielmi Bituricensis archiepiscopi" as the father of Philippe Berruier who was bishop of Orléans from 1221 to 1236, citing "Historia Ecclesiæ Bituricensis" (a work which has not been identified) ".
The work Charles Cawley failed to identify was not a medieval source but an account of the archbishops of Bourges written by a monk of Saint-Sulpice abbey ca 1540. This is also the source for naming St Guillaume's mother Maencia (that was apparently misread as Maeneia by the editors of Gallia Christiana).
In the biography of a later archbishop, Philippe Berruyer, whose mother's family is said to have come from Tours (her father becoming grand master of the Templars), it is asserted in passing that Philippe's father was a brother of St Guillaume. However, this was most likely a slip on the part of the anonymous author. He wasn't always careful, even by the standards of his time - for instance, he misnamed St Guillaume's maternal uncle Pierre (archdeacon of Soissons) as Guillaume, though his source actually said that Pierre had earned the byname "Eremita" from his ascetic way of life and St Guillaume emulated him so that he deserved to be called Guillelmus Eremita.
The editors of Acta Sanctorum added another red herring to the search for St Guillaume's ancestry by suggesting in a note that his uncle Pierre may have been surnamed Eremita, from belonging to a family allegedly desceded from the famous Peter the Hermit of the People's Crusade. This nonsense originated with the Jesuit historian Pierre d'Outreman in the 17th century.
Contemporaries stated that St Guillaume was born to a noble family at Arthel in the county of Nevers. The viscounts of Clamecy owned Arthel, and from the early 13th century onwards (if not before) they took this as a surname. Since his Donjon brothers were not from there, and nor was the agnatic lineage of his half-sister, it is usually assumed that this must refer to his mother's family.
Peter Stewart
gen.me...@gmail.com
Sep 3, 2015, 2:35:00 AM9/3/15
to
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:06:47 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> The link between the Gen-Med mailing list and soc.genealogy.medieval appears to be broken again - my post below vanished into the breach.
>
Not broken. The original post was flagged for being of excessive length, and was waiting in the admin queue for me to act on it. I would have either informed you or let it through anyhow when I did my check of the flag posts, which I usually do once a day. It doesn't look like it was that long (perhaps there are some hidden formatting characters within it), but it did include a good bit of quotation of the previous thread that may be the problem.
> The link between the Gen-Med mailing list and soc.genealogy.medieval appears to be broken again - my post below vanished into the breach.
>
I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First, trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use softward that does this automatically, without you even knowing it, but we recently had a full Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote, the more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum. Second, please be a little patient. If a post has 'gone missing' it may be held up in the moderation queue. Drop me a note (or simply give it a day) before reposting or I may end up with multiple copies in the queue, and the way the software is set up, I cannot accept just one, but have to either approve all or reject all.
Every once in a while, one really will go missing, a recent example being a post that was not being allowed by GEN-MED because the family name, Penyston, was spelled with an 'i' rather than a 'y' and thus the string represented by the first five letters caused it to be automatically dumped without even going to the admin queue. (sigh)
taf (as GEN-MED admin)
Peter Stewart
Sep 3, 2015, 7:40:01 PM9/3/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:35:00 PM UTC+10, gen.me...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:06:47 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> > The link between the Gen-Med mailing list and soc.genealogy.medieval appears to be broken again - my post below vanished into the breach.
> >
>
> Not broken. The original post was flagged for being of excessive length, and was waiting in the admin queue for me to act on it. I would have either informed you or let it through anyhow when I did my check of the flag posts, which I usually do once a day. It doesn't look like it was that long (perhaps there are some hidden formatting characters within it), but it did include a good bit of quotation of the previous thread that may be the problem.
>
> I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First, trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use softward that does this automatically, without you even knowing it, but we recently had a full Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote, the more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum.
I take your point. However, in this case only three previous posts were quoted, all brief or fairly so, and these contained links that would make for convenience if the latest post should ever be fetched from the archive. I remember finding it a nuisance to open several messages in a thread in order to fill out the context and/or pursue references.
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:06:47 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> > The link between the Gen-Med mailing list and soc.genealogy.medieval appears to be broken again - my post below vanished into the breach.
> >
>
> Not broken. The original post was flagged for being of excessive length, and was waiting in the admin queue for me to act on it. I would have either informed you or let it through anyhow when I did my check of the flag posts, which I usually do once a day. It doesn't look like it was that long (perhaps there are some hidden formatting characters within it), but it did include a good bit of quotation of the previous thread that may be the problem.
>
> I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First, trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use softward that does this automatically, without you even knowing it, but we recently had a full Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote, the more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum.
Hidden formatting characters were probably the cause this time, as there was a quotation pasted from a website.
Now that I understand the list owner's part in the Gen-Med posting process (and thankyou for taking on such a chore) I will be more patient - or post, as this time, via sgm.
Peter Stewart
gen.me...@gmail.com
Sep 3, 2015, 8:32:18 PM9/3/15
to
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:40:01 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:35:00 PM UTC+10, gen.me...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First,
> > trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post
> > needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use softward that does
> > this automatically, without you even knowing it, but we recently had a
> > full Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote,
> > the more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum.
>
> I take your point. However, in this case only three previous posts were
> quoted, all brief or fairly so, and these contained links that would make
> for convenience if the latest post should ever be fetched from the archive.
> I remember finding it a nuisance to open several messages in a thread in
> order to fill out the context and/or pursue references.
>
> Hidden formatting characters were probably the cause this time, as there
> was a quotation pasted from a website.
I really don't know what the poison pill was this time. There seemed to be excessive material in the headers (not your fault of course), but still, from the visible text alone it should have been fine (I copied and pasted it into Word and did a character count, and it was way under). Something invisible there was taking up a lot of space. I didn't mean to imply that you specifically had quoted too much, it was just a general suggestion to all as there have been a number of posts flagged for length of late, and in most cases the problem lay in the quoted material (whether too much, or containing an invisible problem). As you suggest, s.g.m bypasses all but the block list, so that represents a workaround. (I don't know if it would have solved the Penyston problem.)
> On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 4:35:00 PM UTC+10, gen.me...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First,
> > trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post
> > needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use softward that does
> > this automatically, without you even knowing it, but we recently had a
> > full Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote,
> > the more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum.
>
> I take your point. However, in this case only three previous posts were
> quoted, all brief or fairly so, and these contained links that would make
> for convenience if the latest post should ever be fetched from the archive.
> I remember finding it a nuisance to open several messages in a thread in
> order to fill out the context and/or pursue references.
>
> Hidden formatting characters were probably the cause this time, as there
> was a quotation pasted from a website.
taf as GEN-MED admin
Peter Stewart via
Sep 3, 2015, 9:56:32 PM9/3/15
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 4/09/2015 10:32 AM, gen.medieval via wrote:
> As you suggest, s.g.m bypasses all but the block list, so that
> represents a workaround.
> (I don't know if it would have solved the Penyston problem.)
problem for rational discussion of medieval genealogy than any
anatomical term.
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Sep 3, 2015, 10:28:50 PM9/3/15
to
"I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First,
trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post
needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use software that does this
trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post
automatically, without your even knowing it, but we recently had a full
Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote, the
more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum."
Peter Stewart
more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum."
--------------------------------------------
That is an excellent point we all need to be aware of and I suspect many of
us are not. It's called EDITING -- and many folks here are too lazy to do
it.
I also prefer clear and distinct Subject Lines rather than trailing,
stream-of-consciousness bafflegab.
DSH
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Thomas George Barnett Cocks, KCB, OBE (1907-1989)
Peter Stewart via
Sep 3, 2015, 10:46:05 PM9/3/15
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 4/09/2015 12:26 PM, D. Spencer Hines via wrote:
> "I post this publicly to make two broader suggestions to the group. First,
> trim quoted material. There is rarely a situation where an entire post
> needs to be quoted (I realize that a lot of you use software that does this
> automatically, without your even knowing it, but we recently had a full
> Digest quoted just to make a one-line comment). The more you quote, the
> more you run the risk of exceeding the 35000 character maximum."
>
> Peter Stewart
> --------------------------------------------
>
> That is an excellent point we all need to be aware of and I suspect many of
> us are not. It's called EDITING -- and many folks here are too lazy to do
> it.
taf, not by
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Sep 4, 2015, 1:16:11 AM9/4/15
to
I just KNEW I'd bring this little rampant pogue, Peterkin, out of his cave
to stick out his tongue and wag his ears. <G>
Capital!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Thomas George Barnett Cocks, KCB, OBE (1907-1989)
"Peter Stewart via" wrote in message
news:mailman.7.14413347...@rootsweb.com...
to stick out his tongue and wag his ears. <G>
Capital!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Thomas George Barnett Cocks, KCB, OBE (1907-1989)
news:mailman.7.14413347...@rootsweb.com...
0 new messages