Adelaide, second wife of Louis the Stammerer [long]

[Peter Stewart]

This will be the first of a few posts about the work of Karl Ferdinand Werner regarding Adelaide.

Werner was one of the most celebrated German historians of the last century, and his high reputation has caused many of his colleagues to accept his lightest utterances without much examination.

Later I will post about the speculative family background linking Adelaide to her recorded great-grandfather Bego, count of Paris, that has been received as fact over the past 50 years based on nothing more than an implausible conjecture by Werner [1].

This post focuses on the purported date of Adelaide's death, that has been misstated as 18 November through extraordinary - and apparently not fully ethical - blunders by Werner over a source he failed to assess competently. This error, possibly brought about to some extent by a publication deadline over which he had no control, led to his inexcusably suppressing evidence in the text of his source while wrongly claiming it as his own discovery.

He wrote: 'Adelheid ... starb an einem 18. November. Auch dieses bisher unbekannte Datum fand ich in einer Hs. der Vaticana, ein Nekrolog-Fragment Reg. lat. 863, fol. 32, dort zu XI 18 "Adelaidis regina". Es ist sehr wohl möglich, daß schon der 18. November 901 der Todestag ist, denn die vorher recht häufigen Intervenienzen brechen plötzlich ab'. [2] ('Adelaide ... died on 18 November. I found this previously unknown date in a Vatican manuscript, a necrology fragment, Reg. lat. 863, fol. 32, at 18 November "Adelaidis regina". It is very likely that 18 November 901 was the day of her death, because her previously quite frequent interventions break off suddenly.')

However, the date was not 'previously unknown' and it had nothing to do with Louis the Stammerer's wife: the entry came from the obituary of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés abbey, and it relates to Adelaide of Maurienne (died 18 November 1154), the wife of Louis VI.

Werner failed to discover that the record dated from the late-12th century and had been published several times before, see
https://archive.org/stream/mmoiresdelasoci01fragoog#page/n225/mode/2up [3], p. 212 and
https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/352/mode/2up [4], p. 353:
'XIIII kal. [decembris] ... Adelaidis regina, nostre societatis'.

Such an oversight is strange given the prominence of the second publication above, that was extensively used by Werner elsewhere. It is somewhat harder to excuse his omitting the last two words, 'nostre societatis' ('of our association'). This anachronistic statement presumably puzzled him, and he must have been aware that it would alert scholars at once to question his attribution of the record to a queen who had died in the 10th century. The spiritual association was certainly not from the earlier Adelaide's connection through her great-grandfather Bego to Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, which he had restored [5] (though Werner did not trace the provenance to this abbey anyway). The same phrase was added to the records of 19 others in the November-December fragment he cited, who were clearly not all related to each other or to Bego.

As noted by Prou [3] pp. 209-210, the obituary was written in a 12th century hand; Molinier [4] p. 352 placed it after 1171, before 1199. The notice in question accords with entries in other obituaries from the same region for Louis VI's wife Adelaide, cf. Saint-Denis: 'XIIII kal. [decembris] ... Adelaidis regina' https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/330/mode/2up [6], p. 331; Saint-Martin-des-Champs, 'XIIII kal. [decembris] ... Et deposicio domne Adaleidis regine' https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/468/mode/2up [7], p. 469; Sainte-Geneviève de Paris, 'XIIII kal. [decembris] Anniv. Adelaidis regine' https://archive.org/stream/recueildeshistor01acaduoft#page/514/mode/2up [8], p. 515.

The wrong date for the death of Louis the Stammerer's wife Adelaide has been repeated since 1967 in many standard reference works, for example Settipani p. 316 [9], Hlawitschka vol. 2 pp. 237-238 [10] and Hartmann p. 136 [11].

Incidentally, the fragment from Saint-Maur-des-Fossés has been wrongly attributed by some historians to a necrology from Reims, for instance by Hlawitschka, loc. cit. This mistake was not made by Werner, but may have come about from confusing his misinformation regarding Adelaide with his citation of an obituary from Notre-Dame de Reims, also in the Vatican library, for the death date of Louis the Stammerer's first wife Ansgarde: 'Das bisher unbekannte Todesdatum der Ansgard überliefert ein zwischen 1400 und 1414 geschriebenes Necrologium aus ND de Reims, Vat. Ottob. lat. 2960, dort fol. 129 zu IV. Non. Nov. = XI 2: 'Ansgardis regina' [12].

However, this too was not 'previously unknown' as claimed by Werner - the necrology of Reims cathedral, including this entry for Ansgarde, had been published in 1844 by Pierre Varin, see https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fH4KAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v [13], p. 97.

I will post further about Werner's proposed ancestry of Adelaide, that unfortunately has intruded a line of ring-ins amongst the descendants of Charlemagne.

Peter Stewart

[1] Exkurs II: Königin Adelheid, pp. 429-441, 'Die Nachkommen Karls des Großen bis um das Jahr 1000 (1.-8. Generation)', *Karl der Große: Lebenswerk und Nachleben*, vol. 4, *Das Nachleben*, edited by Wolfgang Braunfels & Percy Ernst Schramm (Düsseldorf, 1967) 403-484 & table [hereafter: Nachkommen]

[2] Nachkommen p. 453

[3] 'Fragments d'un obituaire de Saint-Maur-des-Fossés', edited by Maurice Prou, *Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Île-de-France* 14 (1887) 209-238

[4] 'Abbaye de Saint-Maur-les-Fossés', *Obituaires de la province de Sens*, vol. 1, part 1, *Diocèses de Sens et de Paris*, edited by Auguste Molinier, Recueil des historiens de la France, Obituaires I (Paris, 1902) 352-354

[5] Chartes originaux, http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte2004/, no. 2004, charter of Louis I for Saint-Maur-des-Fossés abbey dated 20 June 816: 'Bego, fidelis noster, retulit serenitati nostrae qualiter quoddam coenobiolum in pago Parisiaco, in loco qui dicitur Fossatus ... constructum, situm super fluvium Maternam, ubi olim monachi sub sancta regula deguerunt, paene destructum inveniens, ob aemolumentum animae suae eundem locum adsumpto labore restaurare et ad pristinum statum revocare curavit.'

[6] 'Obituaire du XIIIe siècle, l'abbaye de Saint-Denis', ibid. 306-334

[7] 'Obituaire, prieuré de Saint-Martin-des-Champs', ibid. 419-475

[8] 'Obituaire, église collégiale de Sainte-Geneviève de Paris', ibid. 487-518

[9] Christian Settipani, with Patrick van Kerrebrouck, *La préhistoire des Capétiens 481-987*, part 1, Nouvelle histoire généalogique de l'auguste maison de France I (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1993)

[10] Eduard Hlawitschka, *Die Ahnen der hochmittelalterlichen deutschen Könige, Kaiser und ihre Gemahlinnen: ein kommentiertes Tafelwerk*, 2 vols in 3, MGH Hilfsmittel 25-26 (Hanover, 2006-2009)

[11] Martina Hartmann *Die Königin im frühen Mittelalter* (Stuttgart, 2009)

[12] Nachkommen p. 453

[13] 'Necrologium ecclesie Remensis', edited by Pierre Varin, *Archives législatives de la ville de Reims*, 4 vols, Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France 26 (Paris, 1840-1852) vol. 2 pp. 62-105

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:35:22 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> [4] 'Abbaye de Saint-Maur-les-Fossés', *Obituaires de la province de
> Sens*, vol. 1, part 1, *Diocèses de Sens et de Paris*, edited by
> Auguste Molinier, Recueil des historiens de la France, Obituaires I
> (Paris, 1902) 352-354
>
> [5] Chartes originaux, http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte2004/,
> no. 2004, charter of Louis I for Saint-Maur-des-Fossés abbey dated 20
> June 816: 'Bego, fidelis noster, retulit serenitati nostrae qualiter
> quoddam coenobiolum in pago Parisiaco, in loco qui dicitur Fossatus
> ... constructum, situm super fluvium Maternam, ubi olim monachi sub
> sancta regula deguerunt, paene destructum inveniens, ob aemolumentum
> animae suae eundem locum adsumpto labore restaurare et ad pristinum
> statum revocare curavit.'
>
> [6] 'Obituaire du XIIIe siècle, l'abbaye de Saint-Denis', ibid. 306-334
>
> [7] 'Obituaire, prieuré de Saint-Martin-des-Champs', ibid. 419-475
>
> [8] 'Obituaire, église collégiale de Sainte-Geneviève de Paris', ibid.
> 487-518

Apologies, I added in footnote [5] without clarifying "ibid." in the following citations - [6], [7] and [8] are all in *Obituaires de la province de Sens*, vol. 1, part 1, *Diocèses de Sens et de Paris*, edited by Auguste Molinier, Recueil des historiens de la France, Obituaires I (Paris, 1902)

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:35:22 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> This will be the first of a few posts about the work of Karl
> Ferdinand Werner regarding Adelaide.

This is the second post on the subject (apologies for the length - if anyone is reading this), with more to come:

According to a charter of her son Charles the Simple, dated 22 April 921, Adelaide was a great-granddaughter of Bego who restored Saint-Maur-des-Fossés abbey in the reign of Louis I [1].

Bego, count of Paris, was a friend of Louis I whose illegitimate daughter Alpais was his much younger (most probably second) wife. We know of this connection from several sources, including annals compiled at Lorsch in the 8th-9th centuries [2], the biography of St Rigobert written late in the 9th century [3] and Flodoard, drawing from this, writing in the mid-10th century [4].

Some historians have considered that Alpais was an illegitimate daughter of Charlemagne rather than of Louis, but their arguments for contradicting the explicit sources are somewhat feeble. Calmette asserted that the elder son of Bego and Alpais succeeded as count of Paris on the death of his father in 816, which would be impossible for a grandson of Louis who at the time was aged only 45 [5]. In fact Louis was only 38 years old in October 816, and there is no proof that Bego's sons by Alpais were more than children when he died at that time. According to Levillain [6] the elder son was at most ten years old and Alpais acted as his regent in Paris with the assistance of a viscount - however, this is only an assumption since we have no contemporary source to clarify the exercise of comital authority from October 816 until early in 838, when Gerard of Vienne (probably a second cousin of Bego's sons) was called count of Paris by Nithard [7].

The second main argument advanced for Charlemagne as father of Alpais [8] is even weaker: the variant titles 'rex' (king) and 'imperator' (emperor) used in annals from Lorsch abbey [2] have been interpreted as necessarily applying to two different men. This second argument is verging on fatuous, and it implicitly counters the first anyway since Ermold - the source for supposing that Bego's elder son succeeded him in 816 - also uses two different titles for Louis, 'rex' (king) and 'Caesar' (emperor), in a single passage [9], where there can be no possibility that he is referring to anyone else much less to Charlemagne. This is not a uniquely poetic usage - an emperor was first a king, and remained so: in 816 Louis had been an emperor for just 3 years whereas he had been a king for 35. Insisting on one title or the other is rather like saying that Queen Victoria must have been different from the person who was called empress of India.

Werner was not fooled by this particular specious argument, though he was ready enough to invent a few whoppers of his own.

He explained the methodology of his search for the ancestry linking Adelaide to Bego as based on looking for a congruence of onomastics in the few facts known about their relatives, then checking the hypothesis for any contradictions [10].

Starting with her own generation, Werner accepted without question that Adelaide was the sister of Louis the Stammerer's chancellor Vulfhard, abbot of Flavigny. The basis for this is very shaky indeed, and Werner's failure to evaluate the information is strange - it comes to us from three works written ca 1100 by another abbot of Flavigny, Hugo, who was patently confused over the details [11]. Hugo called Louis 'emperor', though he was only ever king, and contradicted himself by stating that Pope John VIII consecrated the abbey church of Flavigny both in 880 (wrongly said to be in the second year of Carloman's reign) and in 878 (correct for the year of the papal visit to France, but wrongly said to be in the year Louis died and was succeeded by his son Carloman).

Even allowing that Hugo had taken his information from an earlier writer who knew more than he did, it is not clear that he repeated it accurately. Nor is it definite that by calling Vulfhard 'sororius' to Louis he meant they were brothers-in-law - 'sororius' is a nominalised adjective, meaning literally 'pertaining to a sister'. I don't know of any use of this term in the 10th century meaning 'brother-in-law'. In the 1150s it was used by Rahewin for 'nephew' (a sister's son) in describing the relationship of Otto, bishop of Freising, to his maternal uncle Heinrich V [12].

Certainly 'sororius' came to have the primary meaning of sister's husband (the obverse of the relationship as understood by Werner from Hugo's statement, i.e. Louis would have been sororius to Vulfhard as brother of Adelaide, but not the other way round). The earliest examples of this meaning cited in Du Cange are from the 13th century [13] (the first example is erroneously dated to 1080, but this is in a charter of Jean de Lisanet, bishop-elect of Dol, written ca 1203).

Gradually the meaning extended to include a wife's brother, as Werner (in common with many others) took Hugo to mean. Du Cange [loc. cit.] cited examples of this meaning in a charter of Edward I dated 1295 and in a deposition made at Albi on 20 January 1300 (new style).

Vulfhard, abbot of Flavigny, was chancellor to Louis, and later he also performed this role for Carloman - it seems unlikely, to say the least, that a brother of Adelaide would be favoured in this way by a son of her husband's repudiated first wife, Ansgard. However, Werner was untroubled by this [14]. Considering that Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, felt a need to justify himself to Carloman and his brother when they became kings for not forcing their father to take Ansgard back after her repudiation or prohibiting the marriage to Adelaide [15], it is hard to credit that Carloman would have retained the latter's brother in a position of the highest trust.

Before he became chancellor Vulfhard was a secretary in the royal chancery under his predecessor Gauzlin. Twelve extant charters dated from 9 December 877 to 10 September 878 carry the endorsement of 'Vulfardus notarius' [16]. It does not seem very plausible to me that the king's brother-in-law would go on serving in this subordinate position when Gauzlin could easily have been moved aside for him. This was the period during which Pope John VIII visited Flavigny, in May 878 [17], that was evidently recounted in the source used by Hugo when he confused the date. In view of this, the possibility ought to be considered that Hugo simply misread 'notarius' as 'sororius' in a document that was maybe more than 200 years old and not perfectly legible in his time.

By the way, there is no evidence at all that Adelaide was related to Rumald, abbot of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, as stated on her Henry Project page, http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/adela005.htm. The edition quoted there [18] gives a mangled version of Charles the Simple's charter dated 22 April 921 [1]. A facsimile of the original can be seen at http://www.mgh.de/bibliothek/virtueller-lesesaal/ddkar/06/?p=XXIII, clearly showing that the scribe placed a medial stop after Rumald's name before starting another clause with 'consanguinei' - this refers to the kinsmen of Charles who restored the abbey, not to Rumald who happened to be the abbot at the time or to his co-intervenors Abbo and Hagano. The mistake, that also misled Philippe Lauer [19], was pointed out by Werner [20], who nonetheless hopefully suggested that Abbo, bishop of Soissons, is not therefore precluded from having been related to Adelaide.

I will post further about Werner's speculative reconstruction of the generations linking Adelaide and her purported brother Vulfard to Bego.

Peter Stewart

[1] *Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France*, edited by Philippe Lauer, 2 vols (Paris, 1940-1949) vol. i p. 260 no. 108: 'Unde nostris obtulerunt obtutibus auctoritatem domni et proavi nostri Loduvuici augusti, qua continebatur qualiter ipsum monasterium Bego, genitricis nostrae proavus, penitus destructum restaurasset', see http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte2050/.

[2] Annales Laurissenses minores, edited by Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH Script, I (Hanover, 1826), p. 122: 'Picco, primus de amicis regis, qui et filiam imperatoris duxit uxorem, defunctus est', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000868.html?pageNo=122 - her name was added in a later source derived from this, Annales Hildesheimenses, edited by Georg Waitz, MGH Script. rer. Germ. VIII (Hanover, 1878), p. 16: 'Bicgo de amicis regis, qui et filiam imperatoris nomine Elpheid duxit uxorem, eo tempore defunctus est', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000761.html?pageNo=16.

[3] Vita Rigoberti episcopi Remensis, edited by Wilhelm Levison, MGH Script. rer. Merov. VII (Hanover & Leipzig, 1920), p. 68: 'Hludowicus imperator dedit monasterium sancti Petri filiae suae Alpaidi ... Huius mulieris vir nomine Bego', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000754.html?pageNo=68.

[4] Flodoard, *Historia Remensis ecclesiae*, edited by Martina Stratmann, MGH Script. XXXVI (Hanover, 1998), p. 160: 'Ludowicus imperator ... sancti Petri monasterium Alpaidi filie sue dedit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000606.html?pageNo=160; and p. 448: 'Quod monasterium [sancti Petri] Ludowicus Alpheidi, filie sue, uxori Begonis comitis, dono dedit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000606.html?pageNo=448.

[5] Joseph Calmette, 'Notes carolingiennes d'intérêt méridional, I. L'origine d'Alpaïde, comtesse de Toulouse', *Bulletin de la Société archéologique du Midi de la France*, deuxième série 46-47 (1917-1925), pp. 320-321: 'En effet, Alpaïde et Begon ont eu deux fils don't l'un, Lisiard, était déjà comte de Paris à la mort de son père, en 816. Vers cette date, Louis le Pieux n'avait guère plus de quarante-cinq ans il ne pouvait être le grand-père d'un comte de Paris. D'où cette conséquence qu'Alpaïde ne peut avoir été fille de Louis. Dès lors, il ne reste plus que l'autre alternative: Alpaïde fille de Charlemagne.'

[6] Léon Levillain, 'Les comtes de Paris à l'époque franque', *Le Moyen âge* 51 (1941), p. 189: 'Dans le partage des honneurs du comte Bégon entre ses fils, Leutard et Evrard, le comté de Paris fut attribué à l'aîné de ceux-ci qui avait une dizaine d'années au maximum. Le comte Leutard, jusqu'à sa majorité au moins, exerça ses fonctions sous la régence de sa mère ... avec le concours d'un vicomte.'

[7] Nithardi historiarum libri IIII, edited by Ernest Müller, MGH Script. rer. Germ. XLIV (Hanover & Leipzig, 1907), p. 9, relating the oath of loyalty taken to Louis I's son Charles the Bald early in 838: 'Gerardus comes Parisius civitatis ceterique omnes praedictos fines inhabitantes convenerunt fidemque sacramento Karolo firmaverunt', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000945.html?pageNo=9.

[8] Christian Settipani, with Patrick van Kerrebrouck, *La préhistoire des Capétiens 481-987*, part 1, Nouvelle histoire généalogique de l'auguste maison de France I (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 1993), p. 200 (placing the birth of Alpais 'c. 765-770', making her a daughter of Charlemagne and older than Louis) and p. 201 (stating arguments in favour of this): 'L'opposition qui existerait dans la phrase des annales entre le "roi" Louis Ier dont Beggo était l'ami, et l'"empereur" Charlemagne, dont il était le gendre'.

[9] Ermold le Noir, Carmina in honorem Hludowici, edited by Ernst Dümmler, MGH Poet. II (1884) p. 38: 'Bigo fidelis obit, narrantur funera regi, / Invitusque suum deserit heu dominum. / Divisitque dapes, nec non partitur honorem / In sobolem propriam Caesar amore patris', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000832.html?pageNo=38.

[10] Nachkommen, p. 439: 'Das methodische Vorgehen in dem Versuch, eine Brücke zwischen Bego und Adelheid herzustellen, kann nur darin bestehen, die Familie Begos und diejenige Adelheids auf die (wenigen) uns überlieferten Fakten genau zu befragen, wenn möglich die Leitnamen zu vergleichen und dann Umschau zu halten nach in Betracht kommenden Mittelgliedern. Glaubt man sie gefunden zu haben, so muß die Hypothese sorgfältig überprüft werden, der Rekonstruktionsvorgang so durchgespielt werden, daß Widersprüche zutage treten müßten, es sei denn, man habe die richtige Lösung gefunden.'

[11] Hugo of Flavigny, Necrologium Flaviniacense, edited by Georg Heinrich Perz, MGH Script. VIII (Hanover, 1848), p. 286: 'Wlfardus [sic] abbas Flaviniacensis, Ludovici imperatoris sororius', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000873.html?pageNo=286; idem, Chronicon, edited by Georg Heinrich Pertz, ibid., p. 355: 'Wilfridus [sic] Ludovici II. imperatoris sororius a. 880. ind. 13, anno Karlomanni principis secundo consecrationem ecclesiae Flaviniacensis a Iohanne papa et 18 episcopis facere optinuit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000873.html?pageNo=355; idem idem, Series abbatum Flaviniacensium, ibid., p. 502: 'Wolfardo [sic], Ludovici II. imperatoris sororio ... sedem [Sigardus] reliquit. Cuius ordinationis anno 3. consecratio Flaviniacensis ecclesiae acta est a Iohanne papa et 18 episcopis, anno 878. ind. 11. Quo etiam anno moritur Ludovicus imperator, et Karlomannus successit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000873.html?pageNo=502.

[12] *Ottonis et Rahewini gesta Friderici I imperatoris*, edited by Georg Waitz & Bernhard Simson, MGH Script rer Germ XLVI (Hanover & Leipzig, 1912), p. 249: 'imperatorum Heinrici quarti nepos, sororius quinti Heinrici', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000701.html?pageNo=249.

[13] Charles du Fresne du Cange & others, *Glossarium mediae ac infimae latinitatis*, third edition, 10 vols (Niort, 1883-1887) , p. 532, see http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/sororius.

[14] Karl Ferdinand Werner, 'Gauzlin von Saint-Denis und die westfränkische Reichsteilung von Amiens (März 880): ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte von Odos Königtum', *Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters* 35 (1979), p. 423: 'Dem widerspricht alles, was wir über den Hof Ludwigs II. und über die weitere Entwicklung wissen. Nicht einmal der Bruder der 2. Gemahlin, Adelheid, der Abt Wulfald von Flavigny, unter Karl dem Kahlen und mit Begünstigung Gauzlins, wie Bautier gezeigt hat, in die Kanzlei eingetreten und unter Ludwig dem Stammler Kanzler, dann Erzkanzler geworden, hat sich gescheut, unter den Söhnen aus erster Ehe dieses hohe Amt auszuüben -- nach der Reichsteilung von Amiens unter König Karlmann bis zum Tode', see http://www.digizeitschriften.de/de/dms/img/?PID=PPN345858735_0035|log32&physid=phys446#navi.

[15] Flodoard, *Historia Remensis ecclesiae* (see n 4), pp. 260-261: 'Ad filios quoque ipsius regis defuncti, Ludovicum et Karlomannum ... quare Ansgardim uxorem abiectam eum recipere non coegerit et Adelaidim ab eo retineri non prohibuerit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000606.html?pageNo=260.

[16] *Recueil des actes de Louis II le Bègue, Louis III et Carloman II, rois de France (877-884)*, edited by Félix Grat & others (Paris, 1978), nos. 4, 5, 7-9, 11-15, 17 & 18.

[17] Philipp Jaffé, *Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII*, second edition, revised by Samuel Löwenfeld & others, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1885-1888), vol. 1 p. 400 no. 3153.

[18] *Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France*, vol. 9 (Paris, 1874) p. 551 no. 84, see https://archive.org/stream/RecueilDesHistoriensDesGaulesEtDe9/Recueil_des_historiens_des_Gaules_et_de_9#page/n695/mode/2up.

[19] *Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France*, edited by Philippe Lauer, 2 vols (Paris, 1940-1949), vol. 1 p. 258.

[20] Nachkommen, p. 434 n. 19.

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:52:59 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Before he became chancellor Vulfhard was a secretary in the royal
> chancery under his predecessor Gauzlin. Twelve extant charters dated
> from 9 December 877 to 10 September 878 carry the endorsement of
> 'Vulfardus notarius' [16]. It does not seem very plausible to me that
> the king's brother-in-law would go on serving in this subordinate
> position when Gauzlin could easily have been moved aside for him.

This has been questioned by a correspondent off-list on the ground that Louis the Stammerer might not have had the gumption to challenge Gauzlin of Saint-Denis, whose family (Rorgonids of Maine) were in the forefront of support for Ansgard and opposition to Adelaide.

My point is that Werner omitted to explain a considered view of the circumstance that Vulfard worked in the royal chancery under Gauzlin, whose family he said had instigated the marriage to Ansgard that Louis disavowed for the sake of marrying Adelaide - i.e despite their factional rivalry these men are supposed to have co-operated at the centre of government for at least 10 months until Vulfard replaced Gauzlin as chancellor. The latter in Werner's hypothesis must have been at once too powerful to be shunted out of office after Louis married Adelaide, yet somehow not powerful enough to resist the appointment of her brother as head of his own secretariat and then as his successor. To me, this does not quite add up.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op vrijdag 20 november 2015 09:52:59 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:

> On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:35:22 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> This is the second post on the subject (apologies for the length - if anyone is
> reading this), with more to come:

Any post from you is not only worth to read but useful aswell.

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

Thanks Hans - I'm not sure how many of us there are left in the newsgroup who would not be put off by a subject line that is not about US "gateway" ancestors or English gentry from the 14th century onwards.

Very few threads now go beyond this range, or last long if they do. Partly I suppose that is a result of diminishing returns - late-medieval and early- modern subjects have the advantage that new sources can be brought to light, whereas the Carolingian era is comparatively unexciting.

But given how few sources there are to rely on, it's all the more invidious that shoddy use of these like Werner's regarding Adelaide and her family background should have held up as a kind of fool's-gold standard in the field for over 50 years.

Peter Stewart

[joe...@gmail.com]

I think you are wrong and that the majority of the readers are most interested in reading these types of posts. There is just a smaller subset who can intelligently comment on 9th century sources.

I keep checking for the next installment post!

[joe...@gmail.com]

In fact, the Henry Project pages have proven so popular that the hosting company has shut it down for exceeding quota!!

I hope it is back up soon.

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

Hello, everyone,
There are many people who are interested only in their own ancestors, but I
am one of those who enjoy reading about the process of constructing a
genealogical line regardless of its personal relevance to few or many. I
read all the posts and have learned much from them. Please keep posting.
Thanks,
Nancy

[Nancy Piccirilli via]

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

Not me, Peter! I'm following this with uttermost interest!

[Polly]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:04:58 PM UTC-6, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> In fact, the Henry Project pages have proven so popular that the hosting company has shut it down for exceeding quota!!
>
> I hope it is back up soon.

NOOOOO! The Henry Project CAN'T be gone. Can we do anything to help get it back, Mr. Stewart?

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Polly wrote:

>NOOOOO! The Henry Project CAN'T be gone.
>Can we do anything to help get it back, Mr. Stewart?

The Henry Project is not gone, but the policy of the site where it is hosted has a download limit of one gigabyte per month. If (and when) that limit is reached, the site goes offline until the end of the month, and then comes back at the beginning of the month. I do not remember this happening until the last year or so, when it started happening on a regular basis. At first, this was pretty low on my radar, because it was happening very late in the month, resulting in only a couple of days per month offline.

Now that it is happening more toward the middle of the month, something needs to be done. A long-term fix is likely to require a significant output of either time or money on my part, but the are a couple of short-term fixes that I have been thinking about that won't take too much of my time. As if I didn't already have enough projects to distract me, a couple of weeks ago I found a website that has images of some German records that I have wanted to see for a long time, giving me some major breakthroughs on the largely untraced ancestry of one of my grandparents, so my mind has been elsewhere lately. [The site is www.archion.de, well worth checking out for those with German ancestry.] I will try to get some sort of short-term fix up as soon as possible. In the meantime, if there are specific pages on the site which you access often, I would recommend saving them to disk when the website comes back up at the beginning of the month.

Stewart Baldwin

[taf]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:21:05 PM UTC-8, Stewart Baldwin via wrote:
> As if I didn't already have enough projects to distract me, a couple of
> weeks ago I found a website that has images of some German records that I
> have wanted to see for a long time, giving me some major breakthroughs on
> the largely untraced ancestry of one of my grandparents, so my mind has
> been elsewhere lately. [The site is www.archion.de, well worth checking
> out for those with German ancestry.]

OT: Drat! - none of the villages where my people lived seem to be available yet. There are similar collections of online registers for Haut and Bas Rhin (e.g. Alsace).

http://etat-civil.bas-rhin.fr/adeloch/index.php?refacces=
http://www.archives.haut-rhin.fr/Services_Actes_Civils.aspx

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 3:21:05 PM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin via wrote:
> Polly wrote:
>
> >NOOOOO! The Henry Project CAN'T be gone.
> >Can we do anything to help get it back, Mr. Stewart?
>
> The Henry Project is not gone, but the policy of the site where it is hosted has a download limit of one gigabyte per month.

First, I'm a bit surprised you are hitting this limit as all of the pages are practically plain html without graphics or scripting, aren't they? Don't know if mindspring gives you any insight like if there is a single picture that is 40% of your bandwidth, etc

Secondly, most site hosters these days have virtually unlimited bandwidth at a modest cost. In fact, to host (or mirror) your site (henryproject.org, etc) to my current web host would be at no cost to me; although I am not sure what interface you currently use to upload pages (web-based, ftp, etc).

--Joe Cook

[kerica]

On Saturday, 21 November 2015 11:18:46 UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:52:59 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

Thankyou Peter for this interesting post. I'm interested in what Werner says
about the origins of the counts of Angouleme. I've only read Werners theory 2nd
hand on this forum quoted from Charles the Bald [Nelson, p232-33], but as she
refs werner I assume what she says is much the same, that is, Adelaide was
daughter of Adelard a burgundian magnate [whatever that is] who Nelson says was
Count of the palace taken prisoner at Andernach 876. Adalard was brother to
Wulfgrim/Vulgrin who was appointed Count of Angouleme in around 868, ancestor
of that long dynasty. Does this bit hold up to scrutiny? Looking forward to the
next instalment!

I think the correspondent might be right on this: Gauzlin was a powerful man
with a lot of allies who could not simply be pushed aside. Louis was in a very weak position at the beginning of his reign and needed his support, plus as he was seriously ill for much of it, he relied on experienced men like Gauzlin to maintain what government there was. As his health was so dire, his short reign
was riven by disputes among the nobles and clergy; LS was expected to die soon,
and therefore be succeeded by Ansgardes sons. I would be interested to know
when Vulfard succeeded Gauzlin as chancellor. Is Vulfard chancellor under Louis
le Begue or just his sons? I was wondering if this change happened after
the synod of Troyes August? 878.

At Troyes Louis had tried to get the pope to issue a bull confirming his
succession, but the pope said he would only if Louis confirmed that the abbey
of St.Denis was given to the holy see as the Pope claimed his father ordered.
As St.Denis was held by Gauzlin, this was dropped, but it is clear from
Hincmars account in the Annals of St.Bertin, that this angered a lot of people.
About 6 months later LS finally goes into terminal decline and does what
everyones been expecting, dies. However Gauzlin isnt with the kings sons when
this happens, and instead heads a rival faction who invite the german king to
take over the realm. Its a good thing that the vikings were still in wessex.

This could be the reason why Vulfard stayed on as chancellor: Gauzlins actions
threatened them all, so they all supported Ansgardes sons because of the threat
of the German king who came as far as Verdun with his army, and had to be
bought off with western lotharingia. I remember reading possibly in a old post on this forum, that Queen Adelaide appears in some of the charters of Ansgardes sons, which if so, suggests that the two familes patched things up in the face of so many other dangers. But if Chancellor Vulfard wasnt related to Adelaide
as Peter is suggesting, perhaps he was related to an earlier Vulfad
Archbishop of Bourges who had been carlomans tutor and a palace functionary
under his father Charles the Bald in the 860s [Nelson p212]. This assumes
Carloman had fond memories of the latter: very speculative i know.

Sorry I havnt refd this like Peter, and apologies if its inaccurate.

Kerica

[Peter Stewart via]

On 26/11/2015 3:11 AM, kerica via wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 November 2015 11:18:46 UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:52:59 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Thankyou Peter for this interesting post. I'm interested in what Werner says
> about the origins of the counts of Angouleme. I've only read Werners theory 2nd
> hand on this forum quoted from Charles the Bald [Nelson, p232-33], but as she
> refs werner I assume what she says is much the same, that is, Adelaide was
> daughter of Adelard a burgundian magnate [whatever that is] who Nelson says was
> Count of the palace taken prisoner at Andernach 876. Adalard was brother to
> Wulfgrim/Vulgrin who was appointed Count of Angouleme in around 868, ancestor
> of that long dynasty. Does this bit hold up to scrutiny? Looking forward to the
> next instalment!

Werner's suggestion that Adelaide was a daughter of the count palatine
Adalard is in my view the most misleading aspect of his work - apart
from Charles the Bald himself, arguably it would be hard to find anyone
in the kingdom less likely to have been her father than Adalard. I will
explain this in another post when I have time.

>
>>> Before he became chancellor Vulfhard was a secretary in the royal
>>> chancery under his predecessor Gauzlin. Twelve extant charters dated
>>> from 9 December 877 to 10 September 878 carry the endorsement of
>>> 'Vulfardus notarius' [16]. It does not seem very plausible to me that
>>> the king's brother-in-law would go on serving in this subordinate
>>> position when Gauzlin could easily have been moved aside for him.
>> This has been questioned by a correspondent off-list on the ground that Louis the Stammerer might not have had the gumption to challenge Gauzlin of Saint-Denis, whose family (Rorgonids of Maine) were in the forefront of support for Ansgard and opposition to Adelaide.
>>
>> My point is that Werner omitted to explain a considered view of the circumstance that Vulfard worked in the royal chancery under Gauzlin, whose family he said had instigated the marriage to Ansgard that Louis disavowed for the sake of marrying Adelaide - i.e despite their factional rivalry these men are supposed to have co-operated at the centre of government for at least 10 months until Vulfard replaced Gauzlin as chancellor. The latter in Werner's hypothesis must have been at once too powerful to be shunted out of office after Louis married Adelaide, yet somehow not powerful enough to resist the appointment of her brother as head of his own secretariat and then as his successor. To me, this does not quite add up.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
> I think the correspondent might be right on this: Gauzlin was a powerful man
> with a lot of allies who could not simply be pushed aside. Louis was in a very weak position at the beginning of his reign and needed his support, plus as he was seriously ill for much of it, he relied on experienced men like Gauzlin to maintain what government there was. As his health was so dire, his short reign
> was riven by disputes among the nobles and clergy; LS was expected to die soon,
> and therefore be succeeded by Ansgardes sons. I would be interested to know
> when Vulfard succeeded Gauzlin as chancellor. Is Vulfard chancellor under Louis
> le Begue or just his sons? I was wondering if this change happened after
> the synod of Troyes August? 878.

Yes, as I posted before Vulfard was working in the chancery under
Gauzlin at least until 10 September 878, the last time he occurs as
'notarius ad vicem Gozleni' in an extant royal act.

As for dire health, Louis was capable around Christmas 878 of fathering
a child (Charles the Simple was born in mid-September 879).

My point is that Gauzlin, if he was too powerful to move from the
chancellorship, was hardly likely to accept the appointment of
Adelaide's brother as his own chief assistant. Even a weak Frankish king
had great scope for patronage and it is hard to believe that either
Gauzlin or Vulfard could not have been made happy outside the chancery,
or that Gauzlin was not prepared to leave the chancellorship to Vulfard
by December 877 (when the latter first appears as 'notarius') and yet
did so by March/April 879 (when Vulfard first occurs as chancellor).

Even if it is supposed that Gauzlin liked to keep his enemies closer
than his friends, this period of holding office in tandem with
Adelaide's brother is not plausible in one of the chief movers and
shakers of Ansgard's faction, as Werner portrayed him (though Gauzlin
and Adelaide intervened together in an act of Louis dated 2 April 878).
Nor is it plausible that Louis would imagine the stability of his realm
was improved by placing his chancery in the hands of men from factions
at loggerheads with each other, or that Vulfard himself could find
nothing better to do than serve in an assistant capacity under his
sister's opponent.

The indications we have are that Gauzlin and Vulfard worked together
amicably enough - the dates of their comings and goings in office do not
correspond to any political shifts recorded in narrative sources.
Vulfard evidently remained chancellor from March/April 879 until his
death on 6 September 881. No new chancellor had been appointed by 8
August 882, when Norbert was 'notarius post obitum magistri sui
Vulfardi'. By 11 August 883 Gauzlin had stepped back into the role. This
does not suggest to me that Gauzlin was an immovable object until early
in 879, then unaccountably became willing to hand over office to Vulfard
and later to resume after his alleged enemy had had time to change the
personnel.

>
> At Troyes Louis had tried to get the pope to issue a bull confirming his
> succession, but the pope said he would only if Louis confirmed that the abbey
> of St.Denis was given to the holy see as the Pope claimed his father ordered.
> As St.Denis was held by Gauzlin, this was dropped, but it is clear from
> Hincmars account in the Annals of St.Bertin, that this angered a lot of people.
> About 6 months later LS finally goes into terminal decline and does what
> everyones been expecting, dies. However Gauzlin isnt with the kings sons when
> this happens, and instead heads a rival faction who invite the german king to
> take over the realm. Its a good thing that the vikings were still in wessex.
>
> This could be the reason why Vulfard stayed on as chancellor: Gauzlins actions
> threatened them all, so they all supported Ansgardes sons because of the threat
> of the German king who came as far as Verdun with his army, and had to be
> bought off with western lotharingia. I remember reading possibly in a old post on this forum, that Queen Adelaide appears in some of the charters of Ansgardes sons, which if so, suggests that the two familes patched things up in the face of so many other dangers.

No, Adelaide is named in two charters of her husband but not in any acts
of her step-sons.

> But if Chancellor Vulfard wasnt related to Adelaide
> as Peter is suggesting, perhaps he was related to an earlier Vulfad
> Archbishop of Bourges who had been carlomans tutor and a palace functionary
> under his father Charles the Bald in the 860s [Nelson p212]. This assumes
> Carloman had fond memories of the latter: very speculative i know.
>

Whether or not these two Vulfards were related is unknown. Vulfard of
Bourges disputed ownership of the vast domain of Perrecy, claiming that
this belonged to his archdiocese and not to Count Eccard. Their dispute
was adjudicated by Adalard as missus in Autun - that is, according to
Werner, by Vulfard of Flavigny's (and Adelaide's) father. It is scarcely
believable that Eccard would have meekly accepted this conflict of
interest, if Werner was correct.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart via]

On 26/11/2015 6:57 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2015 3:11 AM, kerica via wrote:

>> On Saturday, 21 November 2015 11:18:46 UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:52:59 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> Thankyou Peter for this interesting post. I'm interested in what Werner says
>> about the origins of the counts of Angouleme. I've only read Werners theory 2nd
>> hand on this forum quoted from Charles the Bald [Nelson, p232-33], but as she
>> refs werner I assume what she says is much the same, that is, Adelaide was
>> daughter of Adelard a burgundian magnate [whatever that is] who Nelson says was
>> Count of the palace taken prisoner at Andernach 876. Adalard was brother to
>> Wulfgrim/Vulgrin who was appointed Count of Angouleme in around 868, ancestor
>> of that long dynasty. Does this bit hold up to scrutiny? Looking forward to the
>> next instalment!

I meant to respond to this but in the course of writing my last post it
was overlooked - Vulgrin who became count of Angouleme and Perigueux by
January 868 was not the same as his namesake who was a brother of the
Adalard whom Werner implausibly made the father of Queen Adelaide and
Vulfard of Flavigny.

Vulgrin of Angouleme was a brother of Hilduin, or Alduin, abbot of
Saint-Martin de Tours and Saint-Germain-des-Pres, who was arch-chaplain
to Charles the Bald. Hilduin's mother was named Beletrudis. The mother
of Vulgrin the brother of Adalard was named Susanna.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6:57:19 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart via wrote:

> Vulfard evidently remained chancellor from March/April 879 until his
> death on 6 September 881.

I should have pointed out that Werner unaccountably placed Vulfard's death on a 6 September between 880 and 894, probably closer to the latter year [Nachkommen p. 432: 'Wulfhard ... starb am 6. September eines Jahres, das zwischen 880 und 894 liegt, und zwar wahrscheinlich dem letzeren Datum näher']. In the table, generation VI no. 6, this range mysteriously contracted to '(880/93)'.

The date 6 September comes from Hugo of Flavigny's necrology [MGH Scriptores vol. 8 p. 286: '8. Idus Sept. Wlfardus [sic] abbas Flaviniacensis ... obiit'].

We know that Vulfard was living on 30 August 881 and that he must have died on 6 September in the same year from several charters of Carloman II that were overseen by Vulfard's chancery assistant Norbert: the first dated 30 August 881 ['Norbertus notarius ad vicem Vulfardi recognovit'], the second dated 14 June 882 ['Norbertus notharius post obitum magistri sui Vulfardi jussione regis'] and the same information repeated in a third, dated 8 August 882 ['Norbertus notarius post obitum magistri sui Vulfardi jussione regis Karlomanni'].

I don't know what can have misled Werner into supposing that Vulfard 'probably' lived until 893 or 894.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

In the first two posts of this thread Werner was shown to have misrepresented the text of a source that he wrongly passed off as his own discovery, and to have disregarded problems with the reliability of three others from which he cherry-picked a dubious word in order to maintain that Vulfard, abbot of Flavigny, was Adelaide's brother [1]. The failure to assess these sources critically and to quote or summarise them adequately would be a dismal lapse in scholarly competence for an undergraduate, much less for a famous academic who was soon to become director of the German Historical Institute in Paris.

The next step in Werner's search for Adelaide's family background - even more misleading to historians and genealogists who have generally taken it as fact since 1967 - was a matter of opinion, purporting to identify her father from analysing circumstances rather than from actually distorting the evidence to make his case.

In the capitulary of Quierzy dated 14 June 877 Charles the Bald set out arrangements for the government of his kingdom during his absence on a journey to Italy. His heir apparent, Louis the Stammerer (aged around 30 at the time) was plainly not trusted and was subjected to strict controls as to where he might go and what he might do - Adalard, count palatine, was to stay with him and hold the royal seal [2]. Werner took this appointment as the immediate supervisor of Louis, along with the latter's marriage to Adelaide at the command of Charles not long before, to indicate that Adalard was most probably her father.

In this I think he fell into an elementary mistake - his view was apparently formed on the unconscious assumption that Charles in 877 knew as much about his future as Werner did in 1967.

It would only make sense to bind Louis and his father-in-law together in vice-regal power if Charles somehow knew that Louis and Adelaide would not have a son born while he was away and then conspire with her father to promote their shared family interest against that of Charles and his young second wife Richilde, who might well give him another son to threaten the inheritance of theirs (Richilde had given birth to short-lived sons in 875 and a few months earlier in 877).

In other words, Charles must have been absolutely sure that Adalard would place loyalty to an aging sovereign and his wife ahead of the future prospects of a daughter and a potential grandson. Otherwise Charles would be courting exactly the disaster that had unfolded for his father, Louis I, after marrying a second wife and having a son - Charles himself - whose future prospects were resented by half-brothers. Unless Charles was either clairvoyant or insane, he would surely have avoided the risk of pairing Louis with Adalard if they were father- and son-in-law. The charge of minding the heir to the throne and keeping the royal seal during the absence of Charles and Richilde from the kingdom seems to me a pretty clear indication that Adalard's personal interests were guaranteed to remain separate from those of Louis and Adelaide, no matter what might happen in future.

It should be noted that Werner sensibly cleared some ground on the question of when Louis married Adelaide, disposing of an ill-founded conjecture by Carlrichard Brühl [3] who argued that this did not take place at the behest and in the lifetime of Charles the Bald as related by Regino [4]. Brühl later returned to the controversy, repeating his suggestion that Adelaide was pregnant for the first time when Louis died in April 879 and questioning the authority of Witger (who wrote in the mid-10th century) for the existence of Charles the Simple's necessarily elder full-sister Ermentrude because she is not mentioned in any of the king's charters [5]. Brühl might have tried to make a case that Ermentrude was actually a half-sister of Charles, a daughter of Louis by his first wife Ansgarde, but instead he lamely conceded the possibility Charles could have had a sister born in 878 [6] - however, Ermentrude's birth as late as this would make it extremely difficult chronologically to account for the relationship of Charles to her grandson Adalbero (a bishop by 929) that was mentioned in a royal charter, see the Henry Project page for Wigeric, http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/wiger000.htm. (By the way, the citation given is "Wampach (1935), 164-6 (#144); for the dates, Wampach states that another document dated 18 January 908 is earlier (details unclear), and the date of the document is bounded on the other side by Regnier's death in 915". The explanation for the dating is that a charter of Louis the Child dated 18 January 908, in which possessions of Saint-Lambert de Liège were confirmed, must have been earlier because it did not include the two abbeys granted in the charter of Charles: Wampach suggested that the latter was probably issued at the same time as another for Saint-Lambert dated 25 August 915 - Regnier was one of two interveners occurring in both documents, and this is the last time he is recorded.)

Another point worth noting about Werner's conjecture, not addressed by him, is that if Vulfard and Adelaide were children of Adalard they would very probably have had different mothers - Vulfard was presumably born by ca 840 since Eigil, abbot of Flavigny, appointed him dean of Corbigny before 22 March 864 [7]; this makes it unlikely that he would have been a full-sibling of Adelaide, who was presumably born ca 860 if she married in the mid-870s.

I will make at least one further post in this thread, about the highly implausible family connection that Werner proposed linking Adalard to Bego, count of Paris, and Louis I's daughter Alpais.

Peter Stewart

[1] Nachkommen, p. 432: 'Schaut man nach den Familienverhältnissen der Adelheid, so erfährt man konkret nur einen, für uns allerdings bedeutsamen Namen: Adelheids Bruder hieß Wulfhard und war Abt von Flavigny'. Werner was in good company accepting this without examination: he followed many earlier historians, including Jean Mabillon & others, *Annales ordinis sancti Benedicti*, 6 vols (Paris, 1703-1739), vol. 3, p. 221, 'Adeleidis soror Wlfardi Flaviniacensis abbatis'; Karl von Kalckstein in 'Exkurz II. Die Familie der Adelheid, zweiter Gemahlin Ludwig des Stammlers', *Geschichte des französischen Königthums unter den ersten Capetingern: Der Kampf der Robertiner und Karolinger* (Leipzig, 1877), p. 470, 'Adelais ... die Schwester des Abts Wulfard von Flavigny'; and Auguste Eckel in *Charles le Simple* (Paris, 1899), p. 1, 'Adélaïde, soeur de Wilfrid [sic], abbé de Flavigny'.

[2] *Capitularia regum Francorum*, edited by Alfred Boretius & Victor Krause, 2 vols, MGH Legum sectio II (Hanover, 1883-1897), vol. 2, p. 359 no. 281: 'Qualiter et quo ordine filius noster in hoc regno remaneat ... Adalardus comes palatii remaneat cum eo cum sigillo', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000821.html?pageNo=359.

[3] Carlrichard Brühl, 'Hinkmariana', *Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters* 20 (1964), pp. 63ff, see http://www.digizeitschriften.de/dms/img/?PID=GDZPPN000353493.

[4] Regino, *Chronicon*, edited by Friedrich Kurze, MGH Script. rer. Germ. 50 (Hanover, 1890), p. 114: 'Ludowicus rex, filius Caroli, qui Balbus appellabatur ... Habuit autem, cum adhuc iuvenilis aetatis flore polleret, quandam nobilem puellam nomine Ansgard sibi coniugii foedere copulatam ... Sed quia hanc sine genitoris conscientia et voluntatis consensu suis amplexibus sociaverat, ab ipso patre postmodum est ei interdicta et interposito iurisiurandi sacramento ab eius consortio in perpetuum separata. Tradita est autem eidem ab eodem patre Adalheidis in matrimonium, quam gravidam ex se reliquit idem rex, cum obiret', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000772.html?pageNo=114.

[5] Carlrichard Brühl, 'Karolingische Miszellen', *Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters* 44 (1988), pp. 358-359: 'Einen weiteren Einwand habe ich überflüssigerweise selbst heraufbeschworen, indem ich die Autorität der in die 50er Jahre des 10. Jahrhunderts anzusetzenden "Genealogia" des Witger anzuzweifeln gewagt hatte. Ich hatte nämlich geschrieben, daß "Adelheid im Augenblick von Ludwigs Tod am 10. April 879 [misprinted 897] vielleicht (Sperrung Brühl) zum ersten Mal schwanger war", obwohl Witger dem postum geborenen Karl d. E. noch eine Schwester Irmintrud zubilligt. Nun können zwar auch Hlawitschka und Werner außer dem Zeugnis Witgers keine weiteren Quellen für diese Irmintrud beibringen - Karl d. E. erwähnt diese Schwester in seinen doch recht zahlreich überlieferten Urkunden kein einziges Mal -, und es bleibt bei meiner schon 1964 getroffenen Feststellung: "Man weiß von dieser Irmintrud absolut nichts", doch das hindert weder Hlawitschka noch Werner, die Ezistenz dieser Irmintrud mit Bestimmtheit als historische Tatsache zu verbuchen', see http://www.digizeitschriften.de/de/dms/img/?PID=GDZPPN000359165; cf. Witger, Genealogia Arnulfi comitis, edited by Ludwig Bethmann, MGH Script. vol. 9 p. 303: 'Hlodovicus rex genuit ... Karolum quoque postumum et Irmintrudim ex Adelheidi regina', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000841.html?pageNo=303.

[6] Brühl, op. cit. p. 359: 'Das Ganze ist jedoch ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart, denn ich habe ja nie bezweifelt, daß Karl eine Schwester gehabt haben könnte, die dann eben 878 geboren wäre.'

[7] *The Cartulary of Flavigny, 717-1113*, edited by Constance Brittain Bouchard (Cambridge, Mass, 1991), pp. 125-126 no. 52: 'sacri coenobii Flauiniacensis Eygilus nomine peccator et indignus abbas ... secundum capacitatis nostre modulum uenturis, ut presenti ratum fore duximus seculis quoniam anno DCCCLXIIII quod uerbum caro factum est, dum apud Flauiniacum sequenti die post humationem sacri corporis Regine martiris, xi scilicet kalendas Aprilis ... locum adii Corbiniacum in quo fundato oratorio in honore apostolorum principis Petri xii ibidem in memoriam xii apostolorum in inicio ad manendum constituimus fratres quibus prefecimus decanum in sancta conuersatione moribusque probum nomine Vulfridum'.

[Peter Stewart]

I had intended to make only one further post in this thread, but since it would be very long this will be split into two.

The common aspect is that both posts relate to indulgence in wishful thinking on Werner's part - the first, however, was not just self-deceptive: he once again deliberately withheld information in the text of a source, without which readers could not reasonably assess his manipulative interpretation of it.

Werner sought to corroborate his identification of the count palatine Adalard as the father of Adelaide by presenting a scenario that placed him in Poitiers on 10 October 890 with the alleged purpose of escorting his daughter and grandson away from the comital court after the recent death of their supposed protector Ramnulf II [1].

The evidence that Adelaide and her son Charles stayed for a time as guests of Ramnulf is that the latter had the boy with him in Aquitaine after Christmas 888 when meeting and reaching an accommodation with King Eudes. In February of the same year Eudes had usurped the young Carolingian prince's right to the West Frankish throne, because the nobles thought he could more effectively defend the kingdom against the Normans [2].

There is no evidence that Adelaide was in Aquitaine too (apart from a presumption that the mother stayed with her child) or that she and Charles remained there afterwards. Werner traced purported relatives of Adalard in Aquitaine, relying on nothing firmer than name elements connected to his own speculation, in order to explain why they would turn to Ramnulf. However, he blandly overlooked that the latter was evidently a nephew of none other than Adelaide's supposed enemy Gauzlin of Saint-Denis [3].

Of course Werner is entitled to support his opinion, however implausible, but reprehensibly he did this by omitting to inform his readers that the name Adalard itself was not unique to the subscription he quoted in the document that was his only evidence for placing Adelaide's purported father in Poitiers [4]. This is a 'precarium' of Ramnulf's illegitimate son Ebles Manzer, renewing his father's earlier contract with Saint-Martin de Tours, where King Eudes' brother Robert was lay abbot, resulting from the accord reached by Ramnulf with Eudes after Christmas 888 [5].

Ramnulf had a close relative named Adalard, son of Edeno (or Ededo), mentioned in the charter as the person from whom rights to one of the properties involved (Layré in the pagus of Brioux in the vicaria of Savigné-sur-Charente) had been acquired, and who for all we know could have been the person subscribing as count Adalard ('S. Adalardi comitis').

No titles are used for anyone in Ebles' charter dated 10 October 890 except for two men in the list of 20 nobles subscribing after Ebles himself: Adalard as count and Gamalfred as viscount. Ebles' father Ramnulf and his uncle Gauzbert (both of them counts), and his uncle Ebles (an abbot) are mentioned without titles. Ebles also goes without a title (he was not yet count at the time). Given that Ramnulf's close relative named Adalard had transferred Layré to him, and the possession of this by Saint-Martin de Tours was confirmed by an heir who was not a legitimate son, it would be reasonable to suppose that the same Adalard's endorsement would be useful. We have no way of ascertaining whether or not Adalard son of Edeno (or Ededo) was a count in Aquitaine, but without Werner's flimsy conjecture as the starting point there is no reason to look for an alien figure, much less for a superannuated count palatine who must have been a man of 70+ by 890 when he is supposed to have travelled to Poitiers in order to perform escort duty for a daughter and grandson although they were clearly not in danger.

I will post again on Werner's wishful thinking, and his wilful use of coincidental names, regarding Adelaide's connection to Bego through Adalard's purported mother Susanna.

Peter Stewart

[1] Nachkommen pp. 434-435: 'Eine letzte Erwähnung des Grafen Adalhard, vom 10. Oktober 890, erlaubt es, den Ring unserer Beweisführung zu schließen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt erscheint, an erster Stelle der Zeugenliste, mit 'S. Adalardi comitis' ein Graf am Hof des Grafen von Poitiers, den wir sonst in diesem Raume nicht nachweisen können. Aussteller dieser Urkunde, für Saint-Martin-de-Tours ist Ebolus/Ebalus, Graf von Poitiers und Nachfolger des kurz zuvor verstorbenen Grafen Ramnulf II. Die Bedeutung der Anwesenheit Adalhards in Poitiers wird erst einsichtig, wenn wir uns erinnern, daß der kleine Karl III., der postum geborene Sohn der Adelheid von Ludwig dem Stammler, am Hofe Ramnulfs II. in Poitiers lebte, nachdem die westfränkischen Großen dieses Kind 888 übergangen und den Robertiner Odo, von dem sie sich wirkungsvolle Normannenabwehr versprachen, zum König erhoben hatten. Nach unserer Identifizierung ist Graf Adalhard ja der Großvater Karls III., des jungen Karolingers, bei dem seine Mutter Adelheid, die Tochter Adalhards, im Poitou geweilt haben muß.'

[2] Annals of Saint-Vaast, edited by Bernhard von Simson, *Annales Xantenses et Annales Vedastini*, MGH Script. rer. Germ. 12 (1909), p. 67 (ann. 889): 'Post nativitatem vero Domini cum paucis Francis Aquitaniam [Odo] perrexit, ut sibi eos sociaret. Quo audito Ramnulfus dux maximae partis Aquitaniae cum sibi faventibus venit ad eum, adducens secum Karolum puerum, filium Hludowici regis, et iuravit illi quae digna fuerunt, simul et de ipso puerulo, ne quid mali de eo suspicaretur. Aquitanios itaque rex ex parte receptos, festinavit propter Nortmannos redire in Franciam', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000764.html?pageNo=67.

[3] Ramnulf's brother Ebles, abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and Saint-Denis in 888, and later arch-chancellor to King Eudes, was described by Abbo of Saint-Germain as nephew of Gauzlin when the latter was bishop of Paris, 'De bello Parisiaco libri III', edited by Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH Script. rer. Germ. (1871), p. 8: 'Pontificisque nepos Ebolus, fortissimus abba', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000755.html?pageNo=8; and ibid. p. 14: 'Antistes Gozlinus erat primus super omnes | Huic erat Ebolusque nepos Mavortius abba', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000755.html?pageNo=14.

[4] See now *Recueil des actes d'Eudes, roi de France (888-898)*, edited by Robert-Henri Bautier (Paris, 1967), pp. 227-233, dating the charter 10 October 891 partly on the basis of the editor's mistake over the indiction - this edition was not available to Werner, who persuasively argued that 890 was the correct year, citing the copy made by Étienne Baluze from a lost cartulary (Pancarta nigra) of Saint-Martin de Tours, see *Extraits des archives de Saint-Martin de Tours*, Paris, BnF, collection de Baluze tome 76, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721780h, fols. 158r-161r (formerly 154-157): 'ego Ebolus iuvenili adhuc aetate florens ... pro remedio animae genitoris mei Ramnulfi, cujus mercede hujus rationis exordia obtinui, ac avunculorum meorum Gauzberti et Eboli ... offero omnipotenti Deo ac sancto Martino confessori suo ... alodum meum proprium, quem hereditate paternali hereditaui nuncupatem Aleriacum in pago Briosinse in vicaria Sauiniacense super fluuium Carantum cum Ecclesia in honore sancti Petri constructa ... de jure meo in jus & dominationem praedicti patris sancti Martini ac fratrum ejusdem congregationis perpetualiter habendum tradimus & donamus, veluti per instrumenta cartarum ab Adalardo filio Ededonis [sic] nostro propinquo illum obtinuit pater meus ... Ego Ebolus + hujus precariae donum a me factum propria manu subscripsi, & reliquos nobiles laicos subter signare rogaui. Signum Adraldi. S. Adalardi Comitis.'

[5] Nachkommen, p. 436: 'Daß die Robertiner ihren Preis für die Anerkennung Odos durch Ramnulf zahlen mußten, verrät eine für Ramnulf sehr vorteilhafte Prekarie, die er von Robert, dem Bruder Odos, und dessen Abtei Saint-Martin-de-Tours erhielt'; see the initial precarium of Ramnulf in Baluze tome 76, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10721780h, fol. 156r (formerly 153): 'Ego in Dei nomine Ramnulfus Comes ... pro remedio animae genitoris mei Ramnulfi ac genitricis meae [blank space] & meae ac fratrum meorum Gauzberti & Eboli, seu aliorum meorum parentum, offero omnipotenti Deo ac sancto Martino confessori suo ... proprium meum alodum nuncupatum Aleracum situmque in pago Briosinse in vicaria Sauiniacense super fluuium Carantum, cum Ecclesia quae fuit constructa in honore sancti Petri ... de jure meo in jus & dominationem sancti Martini ac fratrum ejusdem congregationis perpetualiter tradimus atque condonamus veluti per testamenta cartarum ab Adalardo filio Edenonis nostro propinquo ea obtinuimus'.

[Peter Stewart]

I have just been made aware of a page on the Medieval Lands website that purports to set out the "Descendants of Vulfard comte de Flavigny (later comtes d'Angoulême)", ignorantly combining Werner's implausible speculation about the family of Adelaide's putative father Adalard and her alleged brother Vulfard, abbot of Flavigny, with the quite separate family of Vulgrin, count of Angoulême, and his brother Hilduin.

Goodness knows where this appalling nonsense originated - not even devotees of the onomastics cult could make a case for it. Like everything else on Medieval Lands it is a hodge-podge of ill-understood facts overlaid with pretentious misinformation, and should be touched only at the length of a highly sceptical barge-pole, if at all.

Peter Stewart

[joe...@gmail.com]

> Goodness knows where this appalling nonsense originated - not even devotees of the onomastics cult could make a case for it. Like everything else on Medieval Lands it is a hodge-podge of ill-understood facts overlaid with pretentious misinformation, and should be touched only at the length of a highly sceptical barge-pole, if at all.

I'm sorry to see that your previously glowing recommendation of the site has tarnished of late due to this error. :)

--JC

[Peter Stewart]

This is worse than error, it is invention.

On second thoughts, I see that this particular appalling nonsense on Medieval Lands originated indirectly from Werner, adjusting his conjecture by a generation.

As mentioned in a previous post, Werner tried to support his identification of Adalard by placing him in Poitiers in October 890, and to back up his scenario leading to this he linked Adalard to purported relatives in the north-west and west of Aquitaine based on nothing more than names and name elements [1]. It slipped my mind, but in the course of this fishing expedition he ventured that Vulgrin of Angoulême and his brother Hilduin might have been uncles (not brothers) of Adalard.

Even Werner was not bold and silly enough to add individuals into the exiguous evidence he drew on to reconstruct the immediate family (that is, parents and siblings) of Adalard.

This kind of "name's-the-same" (or indeed "name-element's-the-same") approach is a facile vice of some historians and genealogists, that on the whole has probably caused more damage in this field of study than Medieval Lands will ever achieve.

By the way, Werner also thought he had established that Adda, the first wife of Ramnulf II of Poitou, was not the same person as Queen Adelaide because they had different death dates. Of course, as has been shown, Werner was only imagining that he knew the date of Adelaide's death, from confusing her with a later namesake.

Adda died on 1 July, recorded in the obituary of her brother-in-law's abbey of Saint-Germain des Prés [2]. The evidence (if any were needed) that she and Queen Adelaide were different women is implicit in the epitaph of Adda, confirming the date of her death, that was copied by Dom Fonteneau in the 18th century:

'Adda Deo dilecta choris permixta supernis ...
Ramnulfi conjunx sed Christi sponsa fidelis ...
Obiit in pace kalendas Julii feliciter' [3].

The contrast of Adda's having been the wife of Ramnulf but the bride of Christ would make little sense if she had also been the wife of another man, Louis the Stammerer.

Peter Stewart

[1] Nachkommen, p. 435: 'Wir können sie im Augenblick noch nicht ganz enträtseln, aber einige zusätzliche Beobachtungen lassen sich beisteuern. Zu den führenden Familien des nordwestlichen und westlichen Aquitanien gehört des Haus der Grafen von Angoulême und Périgord, das 866 durch die Einsetzung des Grafen Wulfgrim (Vulgrinus) ins Land kam ... Nicht nur kommt der Name Vulgrinus (Wulfgrim) in beiden Familien vor, auch das namensglied Hild- von Hilduin von Saint-Denis und Hilduin von Angoulême begegnet bei Hildburg, der Schwester des Wulfgrim, Wulfhard und des Adalhard. Auch der Name Ymo/Himmo dürfte auf einen solchen Hild-Stamm, der in Koseform verändert wird, zurückgehen. Der Generationsstellung zufolge könnten die Bruder Wulfgrim und Abt Hilduin Brüder des älteren Wulfhard, des Gatten der Susanne, sein. Adalhard, der Vater Adelheids, wäre dann der Neffe des Grafen Vulgrinus von Angoulême (bis 886) und der Vetter seines Nachfolgers Hilduin.'

[2] 'Obituaire du IXe siècle, l’abbaye de Saint-Germain des Prés',*Obituaires de la province de Sens: Diocèses de Sens et de Paris*, edited by Auguste Molinier (Paris, 1902), p. 265: 'kal. julii. Dep. ... domnę Addę, Ramnulfi comitissę', see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k59033/f380.image.

[3] Bélisaire Ledain, 'Musée de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest: catalogue de la galerie lapidaire', *Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires de l’Ouest*, deuxième série 6 (1883) p. 501 no. 482, see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2722580/f504.image.

[Peter Stewart]

On Saturday, December 5, 2015 at 8:36:56 AM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Adda, the first wife of Ramnulf II of Poitou

Apologies for this, I don't know what I was thinking (or maybe I wasn't). Ramnulf II had only one wife, Adda, who evidently outlived him and died as a nun - the mother of his son Ebles was a concubine, whose name is unknown.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 8:54:11 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 7:30:33 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart
> via wrote:
> > On 26/11/2015 6:57 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote:

<snip>

> > Vulgrin of Angouleme was a brother of Hilduin, or Alduin, abbot of
> > Saint-Martin de Tours and Saint-Germain-des-Pres, who was arch-chaplain
> > to Charles the Bald. Hilduin's mother was named Beletrudis. The mother
> > of Vulgrin the brother of Adalard was named Susanna.
>
> I have just been made aware of a page on the Medieval Lands website that
> purports to set out the "Descendants of Vulfard comte de Flavigny (later
> comtes d'Angoulême)", ignorantly combining Werner's implausible
> speculation about the family of Adelaide's putative father Adalard and
> her alleged brother Vulfard, abbot of Flavigny, with the quite separate
> family of Vulgrin, count of Angoulême, and his brother Hilduin.
>
> Goodness knows where this appalling nonsense originated - not even
> devotees of the onomastics cult could make a case for it.

But needless to say they have been busy trying, or rather twisting things to suit themselves.

René de Beaumont has put forward a weird variation, based on tidying up name elements in the family of the counts of Angoulême to fit his peculiar ideas [1].

The name Hilduin must have struck him as aberrant, no matter how well documented, so he has arbitrarily changed it into "Hildrin" - his rationale for this is that -grin means to bare the teeth or snarl, so that Vulgrin means a snarling wolf and Hildgrin means an army that similarly bares its teeth ['Vulgrin = le loup grondant. - Hildegrin (Hildrin) = l'armée qui montre les dents (comme le loup qui gronde)'].

Armed to his own teeth with this premise, he makes out that Adelaide's father Adalard (called count of Paris) was a brother of Hildeburge who perhaps married "Hildrin III comte d'Angoulême (ca 850-920)" - the actual personage was Hilduin (Alduin, Ilduin) I, who died on 27 March 916.

Consequently Beaumont is able to reinforce the known descendants of Hilduin I with a "Vulgrin III" (whose son Gerbaud was a monk at Fleury and father in turn of Maingaud, also a monk at Fleury - the habit was hereditary) and a "Hildrin IV".

This is utterly worthless, but no doubt it will start to appear on the internet before long.

Peter Stewart

[1] René de Beaumont, *Noblesse et chevalerie en Charolais et Mâconnais: enquête et filiations (IX-XIème siècle)*, 2 vols (Dijon, 2012), vol. 1 pp. 373-378

[Peter Stewart]

Werner thought he had focused his search for Adelaide's immediate relatives on two particular names, Adalard (supposed from highly implausible reasoning to be her father) and Vulfard (supposed from patently unreliable later sources to be her brother).

In the 9th century the names Adalard and Vulfard were far from rare: for instance, in the polyptych of Saint-Germain des Prés (compiled by 826) these names or their closest orthographic variants occur for a total of 40 individuals living on the abbey's estates at one time - Adalhardus 9, Adalhart, Adalardus 18, Adelardus 1; Vulfardus 5, Ulfardus 5 and Gulfardus 2 [1]. These men were mostly tenant farmers or servants, but the same names and variants occurred at all levels of society; they were not reserved exclusively for the higher aristocracy and namesakes are found among territorial magnates from different regions and lineages as well as among their neighbours, vassals, retainers and serfs.

This ought to have prompted Werner to be cautious if he came across what he hoped to find, an Adalard and a Vulfard who were closely related, and to test the context of any example carefully to make sure he was not blinded by his own conjectures. However, in the event he neglected to do this and instead barged his way to an unwarranted - indeed foolish - conclusion.

The example he found, in the cartulary of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire abbey, is the charter of a man named Vulfard, dated 2 November 889 at Perrecy in Burgundy [2]. Fearing his own death, and for the souls of his parents Vulfard and Susanna, his brothers Adalard, Vulgrin and Ymo, his sister Hildeburga and his nephew Vulgrin, this Vulfard donated possessions inherited from both his parents - an entire hamlet ('villare integrum') located in the pagus of Autun within the vicinity of Génelard in the villa called 'Cisa' ('in pago Augustidunense, in agro Goloniacense, in villa quæ vocatur Cisa'), and dwellings held by himself ('casas indomincatas') in 'Ardenna' and 'Brolio' - as well as the entire hamlet of Bierre that he had acquired from Vulfrad and his wife Benedicta ('villarem I qui vocatur Bieria quem acquisivi de Vulfrado et de uxore sua Benedictane') along with its surroundings ('quicquid ad ipsum villarem aspicere videtur'), also vineyards in 'Contriacus' in the pagus of Chalon-sur-Saône and others with an enclosed yard in the villa of Fleury in the pagus of Autun, his share of a flour mill on the Bourbince river, some serfs, 'Mardoerio' and all his inherited and acquired possessions in the villa called 'Cisa' except for his holding in Génelard, the homestead occupied by his namesake Vulfard, the field he had obtained from Girbert and what his mother had divided (presumably amongst him and his three brothers), and lastly a vineyard at 'Limania'.

I have detailed the extent of this donation because it does not in any way suggest that Vulfard was the great-grandson of Louis I and the brother of a count palatine who was appointed to vice-regal authority by their mother's uncle Charles the Bald, as represented by Werner. It is, however, perfectly consistent in scale with the donation of a small landholder for the abbey to which his childless overlord had recently given Perrecy, where this charter was transacted.

And that is who Vulfard almost certainly was - the absence of titles for his father Vulfard and brother Adalard, and the failure even to mention his alleged niece Queen Adelaide or so imposing a relative as her son Charles, sole heir to Carolingian dynastic rights in the kingdom, are no accidents.

Eccard, count of Autun, Mâcon and (probably) Chalon, had died in 876/83 leaving Perrecy to Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire: he named a Vulfard (who could have been either the father or the son) as one of his vassals in a charter for the abbey dated January 876 [3].

This Vulfard was very probably the same man who was listed eighth among other 'pagenses nobiliores' (the nobler residents in the area of Perrecy) testifying before count Adalard and his fellow missus in favour of Eccard and against Vulfad (or Vulfald), archbishop of Bourges, in the latter's suit over possession of Perrecy [4]. There is not the remotest hint that this witness Vulfard - who did not even take precedence over his country neighbours - was a relative of count Adalard or of the rulers whose charters were at issue.

For Werner, using the same cartulary for his trumped-up evidence, to pass silently over this particular coincidence of the names Adalard and Vulfard, and to ignore the apparent status of the Vulfard whose comparatively modest donation to Saint-Benoît was transacted at Perrecy in the villa that Eccard who was overlord of a Vulfard had given to the abbey a decade or so before, is flatly irresponsible scholarship.

Magnates of course can make small donations (though these usually don't come down to such petty holdings as Vulfard's in November 889), whereas small landholders cannot make large ones. But if there is nothing at all to imply relationship to some of the grandest personages in the kingdom, and while titles are not used to distinguish people with fairly common names, there is no valid reason to speculate that Vulfard the son of Vulfard and Susanna had any connection whatsoever to Queen Adelaide. Werner has effectively fabricated descendants of Charlemagne for his own purposes.

With apologies, I will have to make another post (or two) on the subject yet, as this one has turned out longer than expected.

Peter Stewart

[1] *Polyptique de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, rédigé au temps de l'abbé Irmion*, edited by Auguste Longnon, 2 vols in 1 (Paris, 1895, reprinted Geneva, 1978), vol 1 p. 277 (Adalard), see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7149j/f284, and p. 380 (Vulfard), see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k7149j/f387.

[2] *Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire*, edited by Maurice Prou, Alexandre Vidier & Henri Stein, 2 vols (Paris, 1900-1932), vol. 1 pp. 86-88 no. 31: 'ego Vulfardus pavens diem extremæ vocationis ... pro animæ meæ remedio atque in elemosina genitoris mei Vulfardi et genetrice mea Susannane necnon et germanorum fratrum meorum Adelardo, Vulgrino, Ymo et sorore mee Hildeburga vel nepote meo Vulgrino ... Actum Patriciaco villa publice. S. Vulfardo qui hanc dominationem [sic] fieri et firmare rogavit. S. Adelardi qui hanc donationem consensit ... Data in anno II regnante Odone rege id est in mense novembrio die II'. For the location of Perrecy, now called Perrecy-les-Forges in the department of Saône-et-Loire, see https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Perrecy-les-Forges,+France/@46.6111602,4.2120855,11.75z.

[3] ibid. vol. 1 pp. 75-76 no. 27: 'ego Eccardus, dono Dei comes, et conjunx mea Richeldis ... donamus pro animæ nostræ remedio ... donatumque esse in perpetuum volumus res nostras ad monasterium sanctæ Mariæ et sancti Petri atque sancti Benedicti Floriacensis loci ... quæ sitæ sunt in pago Augustidunense itemque in pago matisconense seu in Cabillonense, id est villa quæ dicitur Patriciacus ... tam ea quæ nos indominicata habemus quam etiam ea quæ vassalli nostri subter inserti de nostro alodo in beneficio habere videntur ... quicquid Godbertus de nostro in beneficio habet et Ragambaldus frater suus Rothardus quoque et Arnulphus et Vulfardus itemque Ragambaldus et Leotboldus et Gunfridus præter quod de Senenciaco habet.'

[4] ibid. vol. 1 pp. 57-58 no. 14, undated, written 866/75: 'Venerunt Leudo episcopus et Adelardus comes, missi dominici, in comitatu Augustidunense ... et fecerunt ibi venire ipsos pagenses nobiliores et cæteris quampluris de jam dicto comitatu per bannum domni Regis, et fecerunt requistum inter Vulfaldum episcopum et Heccardum comitem ... Tunc interrogatum per istos fuit Leutbaldo, Ildrico, Suavono, Girbaldo, Johanne, Ildeboldo, Eruilfo, Vulfardo, item Leutbaldo, Honesteo, vel per cæteros, per illum sacramentum, quid de veritatem exinde dixissent. Deinde isti unanimiter dixerunt: neque antecessores nostros audivimus dicere, neque nos ipsi nec audivimus, nec vidimus dicere veritatem quod ipsa villa aliter fuisset nisi ad fiscum domni Pipini et domno Karoli et domno Ludovici imperatoris, sine ullo censu, vel ullo vestidura, aut ulla causa dominii, usque domnus imperator per suum præceptum Heccardo dedit.'

[Peter Stewart]

Apologies, I forgot to give links to the documents quoted in the endnotes from the cartulary of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire:

[2] *Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire*, edited by Maurice Prou, Alexandre Vidier & Henri Stein, 2 vols (Paris, 1900-1932), vol. 1 pp. 86-88 no. 31: 'ego Vulfardus pavens diem extremæ vocationis ... pro animæ meæ remedio atque in elemosina genitoris mei Vulfardi et genetrice mea Susannane necnon et germanorum fratrum meorum Adelardo, Vulgrino, Ymo et sorore mee Hildeburga vel nepote meo Vulgrino ... Actum Patriciaco villa publice. S. Vulfardo qui hanc dominationem [sic] fieri et firmare rogavit. S. Adelardi qui hanc donationem consensit ... Data in anno II regnante Odone rege id est in mense novembrio die II', see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112307j/f194.

[3] ibid. vol. 1 pp. 75-76 no. 27: 'ego Eccardus, dono Dei comes, et conjunx mea Richeldis ... donamus pro animæ nostræ remedio ... donatumque esse in perpetuum volumus res nostras ad monasterium sanctæ Mariæ et sancti Petri atque sancti Benedicti Floriacensis loci ... quæ sitæ sunt in pago Augustidunense itemque in pago matisconense seu in Cabillonense, id est villa quæ dicitur Patriciacus ... tam ea quæ nos indominicata habemus quam etiam ea quæ vassalli nostri subter inserti de nostro alodo in beneficio habere videntur ... quicquid Godbertus de nostro in beneficio habet et Ragambaldus frater suus Rothardus quoque et Arnulphus et Vulfardus itemque Ragambaldus et Leotboldus et Gunfridus præter quod de Senenciaco habet', see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112307j/f183.

[4] ibid. vol. 1 pp. 57-58 no. 14, undated, written 866/75: 'Venerunt Leudo episcopus et Adelardus comes, missi dominici, in comitatu Augustidunense ... et fecerunt ibi venire ipsos pagenses nobiliores et cæteris quampluris de jam dicto comitatu per bannum domni Regis, et fecerunt requistum inter Vulfaldum episcopum et Heccardum comitem ... Tunc interrogatum per istos fuit Leutbaldo, Ildrico, Suavono, Girbaldo, Johanne, Ildeboldo, Eruilfo, Vulfardo, item Leutbaldo, Honesteo, vel per cæteros, per illum sacramentum, quid de veritatem exinde dixissent. Deinde isti unanimiter dixerunt: neque antecessores nostros audivimus dicere, neque nos ipsi nec audivimus, nec vidimus dicere veritatem quod ipsa villa aliter fuisset nisi ad fiscum domni Pipini et domno Karoli et domno Ludovici imperatoris, sine ullo censu, vel ullo vestidura, aut ulla causa dominii, usque domnus imperator per suum præceptum Heccardo dedit', see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112307j/f165.

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, December 4, 2015 at 8:54:11 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> I have just been made aware of a page on the Medieval Lands website
> that purports to set out the "Descendants of Vulfard comte de
> Flavigny (later comtes d'Angoulême)", ignorantly combining Werner's
> implausible speculation about the family of Adelaide's putative father
> Adalard and her alleged brother Vulfard, abbot of Flavigny, with the
> quite separate family of Vulgrin, count of Angoulême, and his brother
> Hilduin.
>
> Goodness knows where this appalling nonsense originated - not even
> devotees of the onomastics cult could make a case for it.

I have been asked off-list to clarify the "correct descent of the Comtes de Flavigny".

The answer is very simple - there was no descent, there were no counts.

Any work that uses the hereditary title "count of Flavigny" in the medieval era can be safely discarded for no other reason than this badge of ignorance (though there are bound to be other reasons too).

Vulfard was abbot of Flavigny by June 876, but at that time he was an absentee working as notary under the chancellor Gauzlin in the reign of Charles the Bald [1].

Charles gave charge of Flavigny to Adalgar, bishop of Autun, before 29 May 877, when this was confirmed by Pope John VIII [2].

After the death of Vulfard on 6 September 881, Adalgar did not appoint another abbot and his successors ruled Flavigny directly or through rectors until the mid-10th century [3].

Later there was a bitter contest over possession of Flavigny between Eudes II, duke of Burgundy, and his brother Henri, bishop of Autun. For the purposes of ecclesiastical administration Flavigny was an archdeaconry in the diocese of Autun; territorially it was in the 'pagus Alsensis', and the few men who ever held this alone with comital rank were called counts of Auxois [4].

The title "count of Flavigny" came to be used in the 19th century, but never in the 9th. There was no such personage as "Vulfard, count of Flavigny" - consequently not as father of the abbot of the same name, or of Adalard, nor as son-in-law of Bego, count of Paris.

Peter Stewart

[1] *Capitularia regum Francorum*, edited by Alfred Boretius & Victor Krause, 2 vols, MGH Legum sectio II (Hanover, 1883-1897), vol. 2 pp. 348-350 no. 279, assent by the synod of Ponthion dated 30 Jun 876: 'nos, qui de Francia, Burgundia, Aquitanis, Septimania, Neistria ac Provincia pridie Kalendas Iulii in loco, qui dicitur Pontigonis, anno XXXVII. in Francia ac imperii primo, iussu eiusdem domni et gloriosi [Karoli] augusti convenimus, pari consensu ac concordi devotione eligimus et confirmamus ... Vulfardus abba scripsit et subscripsit. Gauzlenus abba et archicancellarius', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000821.html?pageNo=348.

[2] *The Cartulary of Flavigny, 717-1113*, edited by Constance Brittain Bouchard, Medieval Academy Books 99 (Cambridge, Mass, 1991) p. 70-72 no. 23: 'Quia igitur constat clementissimum principem spiritualem uidelicet filium nostrum Karolum semper augustum, suggerente fratre et coepiscopo nostro Adalgario sancte Agustudunensis eclesie antistite, monasterium Sancti Petri quod apellatur Flauiniacum quodque antea iuris regii fuerat, eidem Augustudunensi eclesie per precepti paginam in ius et proprietatem perpetuam larga munificentia contulisse .., iiii kalendas Iunias per manum Anastasii bibliothecarii sancte sedis apostolice, imperante domno piissimo perpetuo augusto Karolo a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno ii et post consulatum eius anno secundo, indictione decima'.

[3] ibid. pp. 145-148, 'Appendix: The Abbots of Flavigny' (the abbey was founded in 717, not by Vulfard in the 870s as sometimes misstated).

[4] Eugène Jarry, *Provinces et pays de France: essai de géographie historique*, vol. 3 fasc. 2: *Monographies provinciales (Bourgogne)* (Paris, 1948), pp. 108 & 282.

[Alexander Agamov]

Peter,

your genealogy research are as interesting and useful as all of your notes to other reports, they have a high level of competence and depth examination of the facts. The questions of the "classical" medieval and Renaissance genealogy, unfortunately, are not the mainstream of this group, but I've been watching this kind of publications since 1995 and I really appreciate the opportunity to verify the information I have with this kind of investigations. Thank you


воскресенье, 22 ноября 2015 г., 4:11:02 UTC+3 пользователь Peter Stewart написал:

[Peter Stewart]

Werner’s research and conclusions attempting to link Adelaide to her great-grandfather Bego, count of Paris, crossed further from incompetence into self-deceit the closer he came to his target. The relationships proposed by Werner are neatly charted by Stewart Baldwin in the Henry Project page for Adalard, http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/adalh000.htm.

Bego and Louis I’s daughter Alpaidis had two sons, Leuthard and Eberhard [1]. When Bego died, in October 816, they were evidently his only sons but would have been too young to take on his role immediately - nonetheless, their grandfather Louis divided Bego’s honors between them [2]. Presumably this meant that the elder became count of Paris, at least in title, and the younger would have been his heir unless he had sons of his own. However, they were both apparently deceased without offspring - or possibly, though not probably, otherwise dispossessed - by early in 838, when Girard was count of Paris [3].

Werner was undaunted by the lack of solid evidence for what became of Bego’s sons in adulthood, if indeed they ever reached it: instead her zeroed in on a charter of Charles the Bald, dated 8 June 871, from which we learn that the property of a man named Eberhard in the county of Mâcon in the villa of Sennecey had been forfeited for disloyalty and later restored, then given without authorisation to his nephew Adalard and reconfiscated [4]. Werner suggested that this was Eberhard the son of Bego and Alpaidis, and that Adelaide’s putative father Adalard may have been his nephew [5]. The property at issue was misrepresented by Werner as the whole villa of Sennecey, but the royal charter refers explicitly to just a fraction of this: four houses or homesteads and a chapel with a fifth house adjacent to it, within the domain (‘res suae proprietatis sitas in comitatu Matisconensi, in villa quę vocatur Senisciacus, id est mansos IIII cum capella ad quam aspicit mansus quintus’).

Since Charles the Bald was uncle to a son of Bego and Alpaidis, acknowledgement of this relationship might be expected in recounting Eberhard’s broken allegiance and reconciliation, while the insignificant scale of the property at issue hardly suggests the healing of a rift between the king and his close relatives. By comparison to the meagre holding of this Eberhard in Sennecey, it is worth noting that the villa of Perrecy (given to Saint-Benoît abbey by Eccard, count of Autun) extended to approximately 700 square kms, or around 173,000 acres [6].

Beyond this outright misuse of evidence, similar to his unwarranted promotion of Adalard's brother Vulfard to the status of 'magnate' in Burgundy, Werner glossed over an aspect of his hypothesis that he should have tried to justify with care: he made Adalard’s purported mother Susanna a full-sister to Bego’s two recorded sons, and therefore a daughter of Alpaidis. This would involve very close consanguinity between Louis the Stammerer and Adelaide (2nd and 4th degrees, as first cousins twice removed in descent from Louis I).

Historians are still being misled by Werner’s reputation and his undue confidence on this point to take it seriously, whether or not they agree with him on the paternity of Alpaidis [7]. Susanna was ascribed to the family of Bego by default, as the only possible link from him to her son Adalard who was purportedly the father of Adelaide, but the latter’s grandparent who was a child of Bego is far more likely to have been born to an unknown earlier wife of his rather than to Alpaidis.

Werner noted the letter that Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, wrote in 879 to the sons of Louis the Stammerer by his first wife Ansgard, in response to the accusation made by Gauzlin of Saint-Denis, explaining why he had not forced their parents to stay together and instead allowed the king to remain in his marriage with Adelaide [8].

As it happens, we know exactly what Hincmar thought in 879 about consanguineous unions: he held that marriages within the 7th degree were invalid, and in a synodal letter dated 22 April 879 he excommunicated a couple for this offense [9].

Even allowing the widest conceivable scope for hypocrisy on Hincmar’s part, it is scarcely credible that he would have publicly contradicted his own recorded views by either omitting to mention even closer incest in a royal marriage than he roundly denounced in a more lowly couple around the same time.

In any event there is vanishingly little chance that he would have got away with such a flagrant double standard, setting a precedent against the direction the Church was moving in towards stricter regulation of consanguinity in marriage. A few years earlier Salomon, bishop of Constance, had taken a similar stand against a couple who were related in the 5th and 4th degrees [10].

Levillain suggested that Bego of Paris might have been the Bicco occurring in five charters of Lorsch abbey from 787 onwards [11]: in the fourth of these his wife is named as Hildibrun [12]. However, if these are all the same person he would seem not grand enough to be identified with the count and imperial in-law Bego, since he witnessed last and without any title in the reign of Louis I [13].

Levillain thought that this Bego was away from Lorsch between 791 and 814, when the count of Paris was clearly elsewhere; but he was mistaken in the number of times his name occurs in Lorsch charters, missing two other attestations within the supposed interval [14]. It may be that there were at least two different men of the same name, one of whom was married to Hildibrun in 791 and possibly later to Alpaidis.

Despite the doubt, Levillain’s identification of Bego (whose name was comparatively rare) is less implausible than Werner’s of Eberhard and Adalard (whose names were much more common).

The puzzle of how Louis the Stammerer’s second wife was connected to her great-grandfather Bego remains unsolved. It is a shame that hasty, ill-considered speculations have stood unchallenged for over 50 years, through virtual ‘proof by intimidation’ based on the unduly high regard of German and French historians for the authority of Werner.

Peter Stewart

[1] Flodoard, *Historia Remensis ecclesiae*, edited by Martina Stratmann, MGH Script. XXXVI (Hanover, 1998), p. 448: ‘Alterum denique puellare monasterium Remis habetur situm ad portam ... Quod monasterium Ludowicus Alpheidi, filie sue, uxori Begonis comitis, dono dedit ... Quod cenobium postea per precariam ipsius Alpheidis vel filiorum eius Letardi et Ebrardi ad partem et possessionem Remensis devenit ecclesie’, see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000606.html?pageNo=448.

[2] Ermold le Noir, Carmina in honorem Hludowici, edited by Ernst Dümmler, MGH Poet. II (1884) p. 38: ‘Bigo fidelis obit, narrantur funera regi, / Invitusque suum deserit heu dominum. / Divisitque dapes, nec non partitur honorem / In sobolem propriam Caesar amore patris’, see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000832.html?pageNo=38.

[3] Nithardi historiarum libri IIII, edited by Ernest Müller, MGH Script. rer. Germ. XLIV (Hanover & Leipzig, 1907), p. 9, relating the oath of loyalty taken to Louis I’s son Charles the Bald early in 838: ‘Gerardus comes Parisius civitatis ceterique omnes praedictos fines inhabitantes convenerunt fidemque sacramento Karolo firmaverunt’, see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000945.html?pageNo=9.

[4] *Recueil des actes de Charles II le Chauve, roi de France*, edited by Arthur Giry, Maurice Prou & Georges Tessier, 3 vols (Paris, 1943-1955), vol. 2 p. 273 no. 347: ‘Noverit ergo omnium ... quoniam Aledrannus, dilectissimus nobis ministerialis, ad nostram humiliter veniens magnitudinem intulit serenitati nostrae qualiter Hevrardus res suae proprietatis sitas in comitatu Matisconensi, in villa quę vocatur Senisciacus, id est mansos IIII cum capella ad quam aspicit mansus quintus, contra nos a nostra fidelitate deviando forfecerit et ob id ad fiscum nostrum ipse res devenerint, qualiter quoque nos easdem res jam dicto Hevrardo ob nostram mercedem reddiderimus et ipse eas nepoti suo nomine Adalardo deinde tradiderit. Intulit etiam qualiter ab eodem Adalardo Oddo comes easdem res ad nostrum fiscum receperit, quia Hevrardus, Adalardi avunculus, cui ipsas res reddidimus preceptum nostrae magnificentię non exinde obtinuerit’.

[5] Nachkommen pp. 432-433: ‘Alles spricht dafür, in diesem Grafen und missus Adelhard den Neffen und Erben des Grafen Eberhard zu sehen. Hadelt es sich doch auch im Falle des Eberhard/Evrardus um Besitz in Nordburgund, die große villa Sennecey, die Karl der Kahle, wie im Diplom vom 8. Juni 871 ausgeführt wird, konfiziert hatte, als Hevrardus von ihm abgefallen war (wohl 858, zu Ludwig dem Deutschen, zusammen mit der ganzen “Partei” Adalhards im Westreich), die dem Eberhard/Evrardus restituiert wurde, als die Abtrünnigen wieder in Gnaden aufgenommen werden mußten (wohl 861, vgl. entsprechend bei Robert dem Tapferen). Eberhard hat jedoch versäumt, vor seinem inzwischen eingetretenen Tode, sich diese Restitution durch königliches Präzept bestätigen zu lassen. Zwar vermachte er Sennecey seinem Neffen Adalhard, aber der königliche missus, Graf Odo, zog die Domäne wieder zum Fiskus ein. Auf Verwendung seines Nachfolgers, des Grafen Aledramnus, wird das Gut jetzt, 871, durch Karl dem Adalhard wiedergegeben nebst dem zugehörigen Diplom.’

[6] Janet Nelson, ‘Dispute settlement in Carolingian West Francia’, *The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe*, edited by Wendy Davies & Paul Fouracre (Cambridge & New York, 1986) p. 54 n 36.

[7] For instance, Karl Ubl, *Inzestverbot und Gesetzgebung: die Konstruktion eines Verbrechens (300-1100)*, Millennium-Studien 20 (Berlin & New York, 2008) p. 379 n. 426 considered that the genealogical question could not be determined and nor could there be certainty of compliance with prohibition of marriage due to consanguinity, ‘WERNER ... vermutet dagegen ein Verhältnis von 2/4 über Ludwig den Frommen; BRÜHL ... und SETTIPANI ... votieren für ein Verhältnis von 3/4 über Karl den Großen. Die Frage lässt sich nicht entscheiden, weil die Genealogien mit zu vielen Variabeln operieren, als dass man daraus eine eindeutige Folgerung für die Einhaltung des Inzestverbots ziehen könnte’.

[8] Flodoard, *Historia Remensis ecclesiae* (see note 1), pp. 260-261: ‘Ad filios quoque ipsius regis defuncti, Ludovicum et Karlomannum ... de obiectis sibi a Gosleno super Ludovici regis, patris eorum, assensu; quare Ansgardim uxorem abiectam eum recipere non coegerit et Adelaidim ab eo retineri non prohibuerit’, see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000606.html?pageNo=260.

[9] Hincmar, Epistolæ, *Patrologia latina* vol. 126 col. 255-256 no. 36, dated 22 April 879: ‘Notum sit omnibus sanctae Dei Ecclesiae rectoribus, ministris quoque ac filiis, ad quos haec poterunt pervenire, quia Fulcherus et Hardoisa, carne propinqui, contra legis praecepta et prophetica dicta, contraque evangelicam et apostolicam atque canonicam regulam, sed et contra leges humanas, non coniugio sed incestu, carnali commistione coniuncti sunt, sicut idoneis et veracibus testibus, computata utriusque cognatione comprobatum est. Et quia obedire divinis et humanis legibus noluerunt, ut se ab ipso incestu disiungerent secundum sacros canones, a sacra communione corporis et sanguinis Christi, et ab omni Christianorum societate abiecti sunt, usque dum, Domino respiciente, a laqueis diaboli, a quo capti tenentur, per poenitentiam separati, ab ipso incestu resipiscant … Progeniem vero suam divinae leges unumquemque Christianum usque ad septimam generationem, et quandiu se cognoscunt affinitate propinquos, observare decernunt, ut nemo ex propria consanguinitate coniugem habeat, vel quam ex propria consanguinitate aliquis coniugem habuit vel aliqua illicita pollutione maculavit, quia incestuosus est talis coitus et abominabilis Deo et cunctis hominibus. Et incestuosos a liminibus sanctae Ecclesiae praecipiunt separari, usquedum per satisfactionem precibus sacerdotum, eidem, ut praemisimus, sanctae Ecclesiae canonice reconcilientur … Data ex synodo in Rhemensi metropoli habita, decimo Kalendas Maias, indictione duodecima.’, see https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecurs81unkngoog#page/n132/mode/2up.

[10] *Das Formelbuch des Bischofs Salomo III von Konstanz aus dem neunten Jahrhundert*, edited by Ernst Dümmler (Leipzig, 1857), p. 39 no. 31: ‘Cum diocoesim meam circuirem, deueni ad locum, ubi memorati homines habitabant et ibi didici a maioribus natu uici illius, quia idem coniuges ita sibimet consanguinitate iuncti essent, ut de uno parente in quinta, de altero in quarta generatione mutuam ducerent propagationem. Quod inquisitione facta et fide cum iuramento data ita uerum esse didici, ut omnes a minimo usque ad maximum id ita se habere proclamarent. Quod si haec facultas improbis hominibus inhibita non fuerit, ut episcopi sui praeceptum contemnere non audeant, sicut minores mihi, ita maiores quique uobis facere incipient et periclitabitur apud domnum apostolicum nostrum ministerium,’ see https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_DmFDAAAAcAAJ#page/n75/mode/2up.

[11] Léon Levillain, ‘Les comtes de Paris à l’époque franque’, *Le Moyen âge* 51 (1941), p. 178.

[12] *Codex Laureshamensis*, edited by Karl Glöckner, 3 vols (Darmstadt, 1929-1936), vol 2 p. 183 no. 640, dated 13 June 791: ‘ego Bicco, et coniux mea Hiltdibrun’.

[13] ibid. p. 188 no. 654, subscriptions to charter dated 12 June 814: ‘S. Můtolfi, Ebervini, Bicconis’.

[14] ibid. p. 102 no. 413, subscriptions to charter dated 14 June 801: ‘S. Erkenberti, Eberuuini, Engelwani, Willonis, Bicconis, Leidradi, Heilradi, Wolfberti pbrorum’ - as the contraction of ‘presbytrorum’ indicates, some or all of these men were priests; and ibid. p. 103 no. 414, subscriptions to charter of Magwin dated 12 April 804: ‘S. Richberti, Engilberti, Leidradi, Bicconis …’.

[Peter Stewart]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:19:29 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> It is a shame that hasty, ill-considered speculations have stood
> unchallenged for over 50 years

I meant 'for nearly 50 years' - I'm no whizz at arithmetic, but on a good day with a tailwind I can calculate the interval from 1967 to the present.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:19:29 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Werner noted the letter that Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, wrote in 879
> to the sons of Louis the Stammerer by his first wife Ansgard, in
> response to the accusation made by Gauzlin of Saint-Denis, explaining
> why he had not forced their parents to stay together and instead
> allowed the king to remain in his marriage with Adelaide [8].
>
> As it happens, we know exactly what Hincmar thought in 879 about
> consanguineous unions: he held that marriages within the 7th degree
> were invalid, and in a synodal letter dated 22 April 879 he
> excommunicated a couple for this offense [9].
>
> Even allowing the widest conceivable scope for hypocrisy on Hincmar's
> part, it is scarcely credible that he would have publicly contradicted
> his own recorded views by either omitting to mention even closer
> incest in a royal marriage than he roundly denounced in a more lowly
> couple around the same time.

I should have been clearer on this point - the floating 'either' in the sentence should have been resolved:

It is scarcely credible that Hincmar would have publicly contradicted his own recorded views either by omitting to mention even closer incest in a royal marriage than he roundly denounced in a more lowly couple around the same time, or by trying to vindicate himself for having flouted the canonical position of the Church.

We don't have the text of Hincmar's letter to the sons of Louis and Ansgard, just the record of Flodoard that this was written.

The difficulty Hincmar addressed was presumably to make a case for accepting Ansgard's sons Louis and Carloman as legitimate along with Adelaide's son Charles.

Some late-medieval chroniclers assumed that the elder pair of sons were not considered legitimate by their contemporaries, and a few modern historians have accepted this as fact, for instance Sanford Zale in 'Bastards or kings or both? Louis III and Carloman in late-medieval French historiography', *Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies* 29 (1998) 95-112.

However, there appears to be no direct evidence for this view and the circumstances of their accession to the throne do not support it. The only indication I can find is in Witger's genealogy, referring to Ansgard as 'vocata regina' (called queen), see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000841.html?pageNo=303.

Equally there is no evidence that the legitimacy of Charles the Simple was rejected - despite opportunities begging for this excuse when he was denied the throne as a boy and again when he was deposed and imprisoned at the end of his life.

Hincmar may perhaps have built a case for allowing the first of two valid marriages to be ended, and Witger his reservation about the royal title, not only on political circumstances at the time of Ansgard's repudiation but also around a prior commitment on her part to become a nun if she was the girl allegedly taken by Louis from the convent of Chelles in order to marry her, reported as hearsay by Aimoin of Fleury (though implying it happened after Louis had succeeded his father), *Les miracles de Saint Benoît*, edited by Eugène de Certain (Paris, 1858), p. 93: 'Verum augusto Carolo rebus humanis exempto, filius ejus Ludovicus successit, qui Nihil fecisse prænomen sortitus est, sive quod, vix duobus annis regno potitus, nil strenue gessit, sive quod sanctimonialem quamdam, sicuti a majoribus accepimus, Calae monasterio puellarum abstractam, conjugio copulans suo', see https://archive.org/stream/lesmiraclesdesa00marigoog#page/n142/mode/2up.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Werner created a fictitious line from Adelaide to Charlemagne that has by now gotten into the woodwork of genealogy. The evidence shows that she was descended from Bego, but not from Louis I's daughter Alpaidis and not through the imaginary 'Susanna of Paris'.

Nonetheless it is worth adding a few notes about Alpaidis for the record.

The argument that she was actually a daughter of Charlemagne rather than of Louis does not hold water, as discussed earlier. The division of Bego's honors between her two sons in 816 does not necessarily mean that they were already old enough to perform comital duties - if they were, this kind of transfer from a deceased father to his sons would hardly be remarkable enough for Ermold to have considered it a measure of Louis' affection for his friend. Honors were not yet securely hereditary at the time, but most counts were succeeded by their sons and it would have been more remarkable if Louis had prevented this from happening instead of ensuring that it did - eventually if not immediately.

After Charlemagne's death Louis gave Alpaidis the nunnery of Saint-Pierre-le-Bas at Reims as lay abbess. He did not provide for any of Charlemagne's daughters in a similar way.

The author of Vita Rigoberti, probably a canon of Reims, writing in the late 880s or early 890s, probably drew on memories of people who had known Alpaidis for an anecdote about Bego, who was a tall man, hitting his head on the lintel over a doorway on entering the oratory at her abbey, and angrily ordering this to be demolished [1].

It is scarcely plausible that such a story would still be in circulation at Reims if the true paternity of Alpaidis had been forgotten locally, and then weirdly transferred from the greatly venerated Charlemagne to his comparatively unimpressive heir Louis.

René Louis thought that Vita Rigoberti may have been written by Flodoard in the 10th century [2], but this too does not hold water - Flodoard followed the mistake, that originated at the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 10th century, of ascribing the foundation of Saint-Pierre-le-Bas to the lifetime of St Rigobert, while the author of Vita Rigoberti did not [3].

Werner, as mentioned before, was not fooled by this kind of red herring about the father of Alpaidis. However, his unreliability came to the fore again when he mistakenly sought to correct René Louis on another point of interest, attempting to narrow down the timeframe for the death of Alpaidis - Werner thought he could add to the information provided by Erich Brandenburg, who had left this question open [4].

However, in doing so he fixed the death of Alpaidis on 23 July in 852 or later, whereas she was living on 1 October 852 when Hincmar ceremonially translated the relics of St Remi at Reims.

Alpaidis was asked by the archbishop to donate a red silk cushion for the saint's head to rest on in his new tomb [5]. Verses embroidered in gold thread on this relate that she did the work herself. The inscription frames two panels, with four lines in each. It is legible only in part today, but was printed in full by Mabillon (noting that her gift was still in place under the saint's head in 1646) [6].

Werner (as quoted in note 4 below) mistook the date of this ceremonial translation as 29 May, from the text appended to verses by Alduin, abbot of Hautvillers, printed in the same footnote [6], 'Anno a nativitate domini DCCCLII. IIII. Kal. Iunii regni vero Karoli XII. Ordinatione quoque episcopatus Hincmari XIII. [sic] Indictione XV'. A copyist's or printer's error here misstates the years of Hincmar's episcopacy on 29 May 852 (actually just into his 8th year, not his 13th). The text probably refers to the opening of the saint's original tomb; the corpse was then prepared for reburial in the church of Saint-Remi on 1 October, the 308th anniversary of the saint's death according to Hincmar's mistaken calculation but correctly seven years and five months after his own consecration on 3 May 845, as noted by the editor, Ludwig Traube, on the preceeding page where Werner evidently did not bother to look, 'Translatio Remigii ab Hincmaro Kal. Oct. 852 facta est' [7].

Alpaidis died after 852 on a 23 July as recorded in the obituary of Reims cathedral [8]. Werner quoted the corresponding entry from a late-14th century obituary (which he dated to the early-15th) held in the Vatican [9], which he misrepresented as his own discovery. He had overlooked the same entry (above) in the earliest extant obituary from the cathedral, which was begun in the 11th century, edited by Pierre Varin in 1844 from the copy held in the municipal library of Reims [10].

How long after 852 Alpaidis died is unknown, but it is possible that she lived long enough to be personally acquainted with the author of Vita Rigoberti. Unfortunately she does not have any recorded descendants apart from two sons, who as far as we know both died without issue.

Peter Stewart

[1] Vita Rigoberti episcopi Remensis, edited by Wilhelm Levison, MGH Script. rer. Merov. VII (Hanover & Leipzig, 1920), pp. 68-69: 'Hludowicus imperator dedit monasterium sancti Petri filiae suae Alpaidi ... Huius mulieris vir nomine Bego hoc oratorium dirui iussit, considerans, quod pre altitudine sui quasi quodam umbraculo obnubebat predictae ecclesiae fenestram, seu potius quia quadam die caput suum in superliminari eiusdem ostioli graviter eliserit, eo quod statura fuerit procerus et extento ambulaverit collo et ad haec introeundo, ut oportuerat, semet ipsum non humiliaverit', see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000754.html?pageNo=68.

[2] René Louis, *De l'histoire à la légende: Girart, comte de Vienne*, 3 vols (Auxerre, 1946-1947) vol. 1 p. 14 note 3.

[3] Michèle Gaillard, 'Les monastères féminins de Reims pendant le haut Moyen âge: histoire et historiographie', *Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire* 71 (1993), pp. 833-834, see http://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1993_num_71_4_3914.

[4] Nachkommen, p. 446: 'Das von B[randenburg]. offengelassene Todesdatum der Alpais laßt sich näher bestimmen, 852 V 29, bei der Translation der Reliquien des hl. Remigius durch Eb Hincmar von Reims, lebt Alpais noch in ihrer Abtei: Sie durfte für das Haupt des Remigius ein Kissen sticken, dessen Widmungsinschrift und durch Mabillon erhalten ist, ed. L. TRAUBE, MG Poet. lat. 3, 414 (in Anm.). TRAUBE bietet ein genaueres Datum als LOUIS 25f. (852 X 1). In dieser Inschrift, die, wie TRAUBE zeigt, nicht, wie manche geglaubt haben, von Hincmar stammt, schreibt die Ludwigs-Tochter sich "Alphedis". Den Todestag fand ich in einem zwischen 1400 und 1414 auf Grund älterer Vorlagen geschriebenen Nekrolog der Reimser Kirche, Vat. Ottob. lat. 2960, fol. 88 verso, wo zu den 10. Kal. des August der Eintrag steht: "... Alpheidis Deo sacrata". Sie ist also am 23. Juli, frühestens 852, gestorben.' The work by Erich Brandenburg that Werner was trying to augment is *Die Nachkommen Karls des Großen* (Leiden, 1935).

[5] Jean Taralon & others, *Les trésors des églises de France: Musée des arts décoratifs*, exhibition catalogue, second edition (Paris, 1965), pp. 78-79 no. 155; see also http://www.kornbluthphoto.com/Coussin.html.

[6] MGH Poet. III (1896), p. 414 footnote to no. 3 [II], see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000833.html?pageNo=414.

[7] ibid. p. 413 footnote to no. 3 [I], http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000833.html?pageNo=413.

[8] 'Necrologium ecclesie Remensis', edited by Pierre Varin, *Archives législatives de la ville de Reims*, 4 vols, Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France 26 (Paris, 1840-1852) vol. 2 pp. 86-87: 'X kal. [augusti] ... Alpheidis Deo sacrata'.

[9] Jean-Loup Lemaître, *Répertoire des documents nécrologiques français*, 2 parts (Paris, 1980), part 2 pp. 724-725 no. 1679.

[10] ibid. p. 723 no. 1674.

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Peter Stewart wrote:

>Werner created a fictitious line from Adelaide to Charlemagne
>that has by now gotten into the woodwork of genealogy. The
>evidence shows that she was descended from Bego, but not from
>Louis I's daughter Alpaidis and not through the imaginary
>'Susanna of Paris'.

Thank you for these excellent postings. I have one suggestion. Long multi-part postings such as this would be easier to follow if you included a part number in the subject line.

I'm afraid that I have to include myself among those who allowed Werner's reputation to cloud my thinking on this matter. I at least have the satisfaction that I did not swallow his scenario in its entirety, but the reservations that I expressed on the Henry Project pages were clearly far too weak. ("Although Werner's theory is probably the best that has been offered regarding the exact way that Adelaide descended from Begon, it still falls well short of proof.") Some revision on these pages is obviously necessary, as well as on other pages on which you have commented recently. The way that I used to upload pages to my website no longer works in Windows 10, so I have to find another way of uploading files before I can upload corrections.

Do you have any plans to submit this material for publication? It certainly merits publication, which would also give it more visibility (and make it easier to cite).

Stewart Baldwin

[joe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:39:19 AM UTC-5, Stewart Baldwin via wrote:

> Do you have any plans to submit this material for publication? It certainly merits publication, which would also give it more visibility (and make it easier to cite).
>
> Stewart Baldwin

You'd think "The Genealogist" would be interested in such an article... the critical analysis is definitely worthy of publication in very near the state you already have it.

[D. Spencer Hines]

'Susanna of Paris' should have been a dead giveaway.

DSH

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and
thine often infirmities."

Saint Paul 1 Timothy 5:23

"Stewart Baldwin via" wrote in message
news:mailman.89.145019755...@rootsweb.com...

[D. Spencer Hines]

'Susanna of Paris' should have been a dead giveaway to incipient fraud.

And no, it's not ready for publication in its present form.

DSH

"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and
thine often infirmities."

Saint Paul 1 Timothy 5:23

"Stewart Baldwin via" wrote in message
news:mailman.89.145019755...@rootsweb.com...

[Peter Stewart]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 3:39:19 AM UTC+11, Stewart Baldwin via wrote:

> I have one suggestion. Long multi-part postings such as this would be
> easier to follow if you included a part number in the subject line.

Yes, I should certainly have numbered them - at first I expected to make only two or three, covering the false death date ascribed to Adelaide, the bogus immediate family and the unacceptable link to Alpais. However, the scale of Werner's inadequacies grew like Topsy though "nobody never made me" (or him).

I suspect he was driven to some extent by the need to distinguish his work from Erich Brandenburg's on the same subject (I have commented before about a pattern of errors passing unexamined from Brandenburg to Werner to Settipani.)

Werner had made his name by revisionism about the late-Carolingian/early Capetian aristocracy that was partly based on his "name's-the-same" identifications, and perhaps he came to think he owned this field and could do whatever he liked in it. French and German historians have tended to stand back and watch admiringly.

> Do you have any plans to submit this material for publication? It
> certainly merits publication, which would also give it more visibility
> (and make it easier to cite).

No, I don't write for publication unless asked and no-one has asked me.

The beauty of the Gen-Med newsgroup for me is that I can post ad lib and if anyone is interested the material will be more accessible in the archive than in print. Academic citations these days more frequently have a weblink, and the Rootsweb archive can provide these to individual posts within a thread, and/or the date can differentiate them. Apologies if this is too untidy.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 4:37:55 AM UTC+11, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> 'Susanna of Paris' should have been a dead giveaway.

I must have missed the post/s from DSH pointing out this "dead giveway".

Werner did not explicitly give this description to the woman he misidentified as daughter of Bego and Alpaidis, but because of his work she appears that way in many databases and sometimes in print.

As it happens, the name Susanna could be regarded as a give-away by the theory of hereditary onomastics that Werner and so many others have failed to think through, as this name is practically unexampled in the Frankish aristocracy until it was adopted in the late-10th century by Rozala, as the regent of Flanders when she was the widow of Arnulf II and repudiated bride of King Robert II.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 5:19:29 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Werner glossed over an aspect of his hypothesis that he should have
> tried to justify with care: he made Adalard's purported mother Susanna
> a full-sister to Bego's two recorded sons, and therefore a daughter of
> Alpaidis. This would involve very close consanguinity between Louis
> the Stammerer and Adelaide (2nd and 4th degrees, as first cousins
> twice removed in descent from Louis I).
>
> Historians are still being misled by Werner's reputation and his undue
> confidence on this point to take it seriously, whether or not they
> agree with him on the paternity of Alpaidis [7]. Susanna was ascribed
> to the family of Bego by default, as the only possible link from him to
> her son Adalard who was purportedly the father of Adelaide, but the
> latter's grandparent who was a child of Bego is far more likely to have
> been born to an unknown earlier wife of his rather than to Alpaidis.

On this point I should have noted that Werner took as the clinching argument for descent from Alpaidis to Adelaide the fact that the latter's son Charles the Simple had an illegitimate daughter named Alpaidis [1].

This is turning the idée fixe of hereditary onomastics into mindless superstition: in addition to this daughter, Charles had illegitimate sons named Arnulf, Drogo and Rorgo whose names are not explicable in the same way.

Arnulf was the name of at least three other Carolingian males born to concubines - sons of Louis I and Lothar IV in West Francia, and of Carloman of Bavaria in East Francia (that is, emperor Arnulf).

Charlemagne had an illegitimate son named Drogo and Charles the Bald had a short-lived legitimate twin son of the same name.

Rorgo was the leading name of the family that Werner considered the major supporters of Ansgard against Adelaide, and this did not belong to an ancestor of the latter or of their husband Louis the Stammerer.

Alpaidis was the name given to Louis I's illegitimate daughter, and there is no compelling reason to suppose that his great-grandson Charles the Simple looked beyond this precedent when naming his own illegitimate daughter.

This name had belonged to a great-grandmother of Charlemagne, the mother of Charles Martel - consequently it was used in at least one other Frankish family, and not uniquely reserved for descendants of Louis I's daughter.

The proponents of onomastics as a secure indicator of ancestry fail to account for the inconvenience that names were transmitted from the mother's side as well as the father's - yet relationships proposed on this basis almost always focus solely on the agnatic line.

It is not highly likely that Charles the Simple's unknown concubine who was mother of his daughter Alpaidis conferred the name, since a king acknowledging his offspring would most probably not have deferred to anyone in this way.

For the same reason it is not likely that the mother of his son Rorgo was herself a Rorgonid. Going by Werner's theory (or, in this specific case, a suggestion he accepted from René Louis) it would have made for consistency if he had looked for the name Rorgo among the ancestors of Adelaide: by doing so he might have tried linking her more closely to Ramnulf of Poitou than he managed to do with the name element Vulf.

By the way, when Charlemagne's daughter Rotrude had a son born out of wedlock to Rorgo I the child was named Louis. This name was clearly taken from the mother's family, but since she was an imperial princess this is hardly a compliment that would be normally paid to an unmarried mother. However, Louis was also not a name that as far as we know Rotrude could trace in her ancestry - it was presumably taken from her brother, for whom the name had been borrowed from the Merovingians without a precedent in the Carolingian agnatic lineage.

Another daughter of Charlemagne, Berta (named after his own mother) had twin sons born out of wedlock who were given anagrammatic names, Nithard and Hartnid. Clearly if word games could be involved the business of conferring names was not a deadly serious business of honouring ancestors.

Peter Stewart

[1] Nachkommen, p. 419 'Da wir als Begos Gattin Alpais, die Tochter Ludwigs des Frommen, kennen, wäre Adelheid, Gattin eines Enkels eben jenes Kaisers, selbsr karolingischer Abkunft und auffallend nahe mit ihrem Gemahl verwandt. Brandenburg und anderer vor und nach ihm erwogen darum, den oder die Vorfahren, die als bisher unbekannte Zwischenglieder zwischen Graf Bego und Adelheid stehen, als Nachkommen Begos aus einer anderen Ehe als der mit Alpais zu betrachten. Gegen eine solche Vermutung hat jedoch René Louis mit vollem Recht den auffälligen Umstand angeführt, daß Adelheids Sohn, der der Herkunft seiner Mutter so pietätvoll gedenkt und überdies bis zu ihrem Tode, bald nach 900, erheblich unter ihrem Einfluß stand, wie die zahlreichen Interventionen Adelheids in seinen Diplomen verraten, eine Tochter Alpais genannt hat. Wir dürfen das als einen nur allzu deutlichen Hinweis darauf betrachten, daß Adelheid eben nicht nur von bego, sondern auch von der Kaisertochter Alpais abstammt - ganz abgesehen von dem Umstand, daß uns von einer anderen Ehe begos nichts bekannt ist.'

[kerica]

So to recap all these bits:

1. although Adelaide was descended from Bego, she wasn't related to either Adelard or Vulfard. If you are correct about Alpais descent, then Adelaide was
also descended from Charlemagne: surely the fact that her son Charles the
Simple called his daughter Alpais (II) backs up your argument. Alpais (I), if
she was still alive after 852, could have known Adelaide as a child.

2. the counts of Angouleme were also descended from an unrelated family;
was this Abbot Hilduin related to another Hilduin Abbot of St.Denis d.840?
Hilduin appears occasionally down the later generations of this family.

3. Vulgrin, Adelard sons of the interestingly named Susanna were another
unrelated family. But were they related to Vulfard of Flavigny the chancellor,
who was sororius of Louis le Begue?

kerica

[taf]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 9:18:43 AM UTC-8, kerica wrote:

> 1. although Adelaide was descended from Bego, she wasn't related to either
> Adelard or Vulfard. If you are correct about Alpais descent, then Adelaide
> was also descended from Charlemagne: surely the fact that her son Charles
> the Simple called his daughter Alpais (II) backs up your argument. Alpais
> (I), if she was still alive after 852, could have known Adelaide as a child.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Peter argued against this connection - that while Adelaide descended from Bego, it need not have been by his Carolingian wife, and that the appearance of Alpais is not informative with regard to Adelaide's ancestry. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

taf

[Peter Stewart via]

You are not wrong - my view is that Adelaide could not have been
descended from Charlemagne at all, as this would have brought about
consanguinity between her and Louis the Stammerer that would have
fatally compromised the position that Hincmar (and therefore the
Frankish Church) took at that time and mightily developed from then on.

Also I think the name Alpais given to a daughter of Charles the Simple
has no value as evidence that he was (or for that matter was not)
descended from a woman of this name - nor do the names of his sons Drogo
and Rorgo indicate ancestors of those names.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart via]

I responded to this point in another posting - Charles the Simple's
daughter named Alpais (II) does not back up my argument, but equally her
name is not a valid argument for Werner's hypothesis. Alpais (I) was
still living after 852, as she died on a 23 July after that year.
Whether or not she could have known her husband Bego's
great-granddaughter Adelaide is impossible to say - Alpais lived at
Reims, as "Deo sacrata" (she was evidently a veiled widow as abbess of
Saint-Pierre-le-Bas), and in that capacity she probably would not have
left her abbey (in theory not at all, but in practice at least not often
in her old age). Adelaide, as a step-relative, is not very likely to
have been taken there to visit her in early childhood if their lives did
overlap, and in any case there is no certainty that they did.

>
> 2. the counts of Angouleme were also descended from an unrelated family;
> was this Abbot Hilduin related to another Hilduin Abbot of St.Denis d.840?
> Hilduin appears occasionally down the later generations of this family.

Hilduin the brother of Vulgrin I of Angouleme was abbot of Saint-Martin
de Tours from 842, abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Pres from 854 until 860,
and arch-chaplain to Charles II. He died on 19 November before 867.
Ademar of Chabannes called him abbot of Saint-Denis, but this was most
probably just an error, confusing him with his more famous namesake.
This elder Hilduin was abbot of Saint-Denis by 1 December 814 until 842,
abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Pres from 826, and arch-chaplain to Louis I.
He died on 22 November between 855 and 859. Whether or not these two
namesakes were related is unknown.

>
> 3. Vulgrin, Adelard sons of the interestingly named Susanna were another
> unrelated family. But were they related to Vulfard of Flavigny the chancellor,
> who was sororius of Louis le Begue?
>
>

There is no reason to suppose that Susanna's sons Vulfard and Adelard
were related to Vulfard of Flavigny. The name Vulfard was not uncommon.
Susanna's son Vulfard was evidently a small landholder at Perrecy.
Vulfard of Flavigny was an absentee abbot of an abbey approximately 135
kms from Perrecy, and he most probably came from a much grander family
than Susanna's sons. There would have been many families using the name
Vulfard at the time, and coincidence is probably all that connects these
two examples.

Also, the statement that Vulfard of Flavigny was "sororius" to Louis is
highly unreliable - we don't know what the 12th-century writer meant by
"sororius" and we don't know that by "emperor Louis" he meant Louis the
Stammerer who was never emperor. For that matter we can't be sure that
he didn't simply mistake the word "notarius" for "sororius" in a partly
illegible source from more than 200 years earlier, that perhaps also
misled him about the year of Pope John VIII's visit to Flavigny.

The basic message from my series of posts is that Werner repeatedly
misrepresented evidence he used to construct his hypothesis. We don't
know anything about the ancestry of Adelaide except that one of her
great-grandfathers was Bego, count of Paris, and that one of her
great-grandmothers was almost certainly not Louis I's daughter Alpais.

Peter Stewart

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Peter Stewart wrote:

>... We don't

>know anything about the ancestry of Adelaide except that one of her
>great-grandfathers was Bego, count of Paris, and that one of her
>great-grandmothers was almost certainly not Louis I's daughter Alpais.

This would be pretty obvious even without the evidence that we have. Unlike occasional incidents in ancient Egypt, it would be virtually unheard of for all four of a medieval European woman's great-grandmothers to be the same person.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :-)

Stewart Baldwin

[Peter Stewart via]

The cogs in my skull don't always (or, increasingly, don't often) mesh
together smoothly,

Anyway, Louis I's daughter Alpais was almost certainly not one of
Adelaide's great-grandmothers, and was quite certainly not three of them.

Peter Stewart

[Stewart Baldwin via]

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

>Peter Stewart wrote:
>
>>... We don't
>>know anything about the ancestry of Adelaide except that one of her
>>great-grandfathers was Bego, count of Paris, and that one of her
>>great-grandmothers was almost certainly not Louis I's daughter Alpais.
>
>This would be pretty obvious even without the evidence that we have. Unlike occasional incidents in ancient Egypt, it would be virtually unheard of for all four of a medieval European woman's great-grandmothers to be the same person.
>
>Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :-)
>

>Stewart Baldwin

Writing the above posting reminded me of something that I ran across in my recent research that doesn't cross the incest barrier in the genealogical sense, but is still unusual. I have done much research on the descendants of Richard Doggett of Groton, co. Suffolk, who was an ancestor of a number of immigrants to America, one of whom was Bartholomew Gosnold, a well known immigrant who is said to have discovered Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard, and who was one of the leaders of the Jamestown settlement in Virginia, dying there in 1607 during the first year. His wife and children returned to England after his death. Bartholomew Gosnold was a great-grandson of Anne Doggett, daughter of the above Richard Doggett. Anne Doggett was married three times, and the odd thing is that all three of her husbands were great-grandfathers of Bartholomew Gosnold (two of them through children by previous wives). It is not difficult to verify that Anne Doggett was never married to Bartholomew Gosnold's fourth great-grandfather Robert Vesey, so perhaps some other woman can be found who will break Anne's record. Here is a brief outline:


1. Anne Doggett (dau. of Richard) married first, ca. 1520, John Abell (d. 1524 or 1525), son of John and Joan Abell, and brother of Catherine of Aragon's chaplain Thomas Abell, who was executed for high treason by Henry VIII in 1540. Anne (Doggett) Abell married second, say 1525, as his third wife, Thomas Bacon of Hessett (bur. 8 June 1547), son of John Bacon of Hessett. Anne (Doggett) (Abell) Bacon married third, Robert Gosnold of Otley (d. 1572 or 1573).
2. Margaret Abell, only known child of John and Anne (Doggett) Abell, married her stepbrother George Bacon (a supporter of Queen Mary during the week that she was fighting for the throne against Lady Jane Grey), son of Thomas Bacon by his secpnd wife (a different Anne). (The identity of Margaret's father is a recent discovery. Many amateur genealogists incorrectly make George a son of Anne Doggett rather than a stepson and son-in-law.)
3. Dorothy Bacon, daughter of George and Margaret (Abell) Bacon, married her step-cousin Anthony Gosnold, son of Robert Gosnold Jr. by his wife, Mary, daughter of Robert Vesey. Robert Gosnold Jr. was a son of the above Robert Gosnold by his first wife Agnes Hill, and a stepson of Anne (Doggett) (Abell) (Bacon) Gosnold.
4. Bartholomew Gosnold (d. 1607), son of Anthony and Dorothy (Bacon) Gosnold.


Bartholomew Gosnold also has an indirect overlap with the current Richard III thread. Some time back, a body was discovered at the location of the Jamestown settlement that was believed to be his, and they wanted to confirm the identity via mitochondrial DNA. Unfortunately, no modern matrilineal relatives could be found, so they tried to remains of a sister and niece to use for comparison. The last I heard, they had gotten a negative result comparing with one body, which was not conclusive, because the identification of those remains was also uncertain. (Also, the genealogical evidence connecting the supposed niece, is only circumstantial.)


By the way, at least a couple of the individuals mentioned above were born before 1500, so this posting is on-topic, if only barely.


Stewart Baldwin

[Craig Kilby via]

Fascinating! I did not know that the English had discovered Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard before they settled in Jamestown in 1607. So-called Pilgrims—move over! (And Vikings and Romans and other European types also.)* And here all this time I though the first Doggett in Virginia was Rev Benjamin Doggett, a late bloomer of the 1700s in the Northern Neck.

Craig Kilby

* funny how nobody ever accuses Africans of travelling the ocean blue pre-1492.

[Peter Stewart]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:52:59 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Bego, count of Paris, was a friend of Louis I whose illegitimate daughter > Alpais was his much younger (most probably second) wife.

<snip>

> Some historians have considered that Alpais was an illegitimate daughter
> of Charlemagne rather than of Louis, but their arguments for
> contradicting the explicit sources are somewhat feeble.

<snip>

> The second main argument advanced for Charlemagne as father of Alpais
> ... is even weaker: the variant titles 'rex' (king) and 'imperator'
> (emperor) used in annals from Lorsch abbey ... have been interpreted as
> necessarily applying to two different men. This second argument is
> verging on fatuous, and it implicitly counters the first anyway since
> Ermold ... also uses two different titles for Louis, 'rex' (king) and
> 'Caesar' (emperor), in a single passage ... where there can be no
> possibility that he is referring to anyone else much less to
> Charlemagne. This is not a uniquely poetic usage - an emperor was
> first a king, and remained so: in 816 Louis had been an emperor for
> just 3 years whereas he had been a king for 35. Insisting on one title
> or the other is rather like saying that Queen Victoria must have been
> different from the person who was called empress of India.

In this context, it is worth noting a prose narrative written a few years after Bego's death (on 28 October 816) in which Louis was titled both emperor and king.

In relating the vision of a poor woman from Laon about the consequences of Bernard of Italy's blinding for Louis I in April 818, Bego was described as suffering hellish torment for his greed, lying on his back while two hideous spirits poured molten gold into his mouth and mocked him for not having been able to slake this thirst in life:

"Nam si Ludouuicus inquid [sic, recte inquit] imp[erato]r natus eius VII agapes p[ro] illo plenit[er] dispensat resolutus est. Picconem uero huius [Hlodouuici] regis qui quondam fuit amicus supinum iacere in tormentis teterosque [sic, recte tetrosque] spiritus duos aurum liquefacere et in os eius infundere dicentes: Hinc sitisti in saeculo nec saturari potuisti modo bibe ad saturitatem".

This was written at Reichenau ca 820/836. The earliest extant copy - Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Aug. perg. 111 fol 91v - can be seen at http://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/pageview/668353.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 12:15:24 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:

> In relating the vision of a poor woman from Laon about the consequences
> of Bernard of Italy's blinding for Louis I in April 818, Bego was
> described as suffering hellish torment for his greed, lying on his back
> while two hideous spirits poured molten gold into his mouth and mocked
> him for not having been able to slake this thirst in life:
>
> "Nam si Ludouuicus inquid [sic, recte inquit] imp[erato]r natus eius
> VII agapes p[ro] illo plenit[er] dispensat resolutus est. Picconem uero
> huius [Hlodouuici] regis qui quondam fuit amicus supinum iacere in
> tormentis teterosque [sic, recte tetrosque] spiritus duos aurum
> liquefacere et in os eius infundere dicentes: Hinc sitisti in saeculo
> nec saturari potuisti modo bibe ad saturitatem".

I neglected to explain the first sentence in the passage quoted - the woman from Laon was guided in her vision by Charlemagne wearing the habit of a monk. He is not named, only described as 'quidam homo in monachico habitu constitutus', but he identifies himself when she asks what must be done in order that the soul of Bernard (his grandson) can rest in eternity. The answer, quoted above, is that the emperor Louis, his son ('natus eius'), must perform seven acts of charity in Bernard's favour.

The identities in this passage were confused by Hubert Houben in his article 'Visio cuiusdam pauperculae mulieris': Überlieferung und Herkunft eines frühmittelalterlichen Visionstextes, *Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins* 124 (1976); he puzzled over what he thought was the description of Charlemange as 'princeps Italiae' (prince of Italy), but this actually refers to Bernard who was made king of Italy in 812/13.

The word 'natus' (begotten son) is preferred to 'filius' (son) for a specific reason, to highlight an aspect of the foster-relationship between Louis and Bernard that compounded the criminality of the uncle (Louis) in having his nephew (Bernard) blinded - Louis had informally adopted Bernard after the death of the latter's father Pippin, and used the term 'filius' instead of 'nepos' for him. This occurs in a charter of Louis for Monte Amita abbey, dated 17 November 816, of which the original still exists in Siena, "Hludouuicus diuina ordinante prouidentia imperator augustus ... Concessimus etiam eidem monasterio ... ut quandoquidem diuina uocatione supradictus abba uel successores eius de ac luce migrauerint, quamdiu ipsi monachi inter se tales inuenire potuerint ... per hanc nostram auctoritatem et consensum uel dilecti filii nostri Bernardi regis licentiam habeant elegendi abbates", see https://archive.org/stream/p1diplomiimperia00depu#page/4/mode/2up.

Bernard was also called 'son' of Louis by the monks of Fulda, where he was educated, in a letter to the emperor seeking clemency after his rebellion, "Bernhardus, filius Ludovici imperatoris, in Fuldensi coenobio in adolescentia sacras literas didicit usque ad iuvenilem aetatem, sed postea ad patrem in aulam remissus est, ut patet ex epistola Fuldensium ad imperatorem. Monachi Fuldenses in epistola sua ad Ludowicum imperatorem, qua pro Bernhardo filio eius intercedunt ... ut scilicet filium suum in gratiam recipiat", see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000539.html?pageNo=517.

Several pointless attempts have been made to account for the repeated use of 'filius' here -

1. as a simple error (Ernst Dümmler, 'Ueber eine verschollene fuldische Briefsammlung des neunten Jahrhundert', *Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte* 5 (1865) p. 391)

2. as borrowed from a reference to Louis' son Ludwig the German rather than to Bernard (Bartolomeo Malfatti, *Bernardo re d'Italia* (1876) pp. 89-90)

and recently

3. as indicating the hierarchical relationship between emperor and king rather than their genealogical relationship (Philippe Depreux, 'Das Königtum Bernhards von Italien und sein Verhältnis zum Kaisertum', *Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken* 72 (1992) p. 5 note 23).

However, the vocabulary for fosterage by a male 'parent' was very limited and not widely known anyway: formal adoption as had been the practice under Roman law did not exist in Frankish custom, but the family obligation of the closest agnate (as Louis was to Bernard from 810 onwards) had been grossly dishonoured in the view of the writer - this may have been Haito, abbot of Reichenau & bishop of Basel.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 3:29:12 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 12:15:24 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>

<snip>

> > "Nam si Ludouuicus inquid [sic, recte inquit] imp[erato]r natus eius
> > VII agapes p[ro] illo plenit[er] dispensat resolutus est.

<snip>

> I neglected to explain the first sentence in the passage quoted - the
> woman from Laon was guided in her vision by Charlemagne wearing the
> habit of a monk. He is not named, only described as 'quidam homo in
> monachico habitu constitutus', but he identifies himself when she asks
> what must be done in order that the soul of Bernard (his grandson) can
> rest in eternity. The answer, quoted above, is that the emperor Louis,
> his son ('natus eius'), must perform seven acts of charity in Bernard's
> favour.

My reading of "Nam si Ludouuicus inquit imperator natus eius" has been questioned off-list, with the suggestion that "imperator" is meant to identify the speaker as Charlemagne - i.e. in English with modern punctuation it should literally read "For if Louis, said the emperor, my begotten son ..." rather than "For if Louis the emperor, he said, my begotten son ...".

I don't think this alternative is tenable. The writer had referred to the poor woman's guide in the afterlife twice before this, withholding any implication that he was Charlemagne. He was introduced as "a certain man wearing the monastic habit" (quidam homo in monachico habitu constitutus), and then when she questioned him about how the prince of Italy's torment could be resolved he was referred to as "her same guide" (eundem ductorem illius). He answered "It is surely duty-bound. For if emperor Louis, my begotten son ..." (At ille: Utique debet. Nam si Ludouuicus inquit imperator natus eius ...). The force of "natus" instead of "filius" is much stronger if the reader is not aware before this word that the speaker is indeed Charlemagne himself. Calling him "the emperor" incidentally before he spoke would ruin the effect of having kept him unidentified to that point.

Like all else, it must be read in context - this is a literary tract against Louis for the crime of blinding and causing the death of his nephew Bernard. The presence of Charlemagne in the vision, requiring his son to make reparation, is meant to pack a punch.

> Bernard was also called 'son' of Louis by the monks of Fulda, where he
> was educated, in a letter to the emperor seeking clemency after his
> rebellion, "Bernhardus, filius Ludovici imperatoris, in Fuldensi
> coenobio in adolescentia sacras literas didicit usque ad iuvenilem
> aetatem, sed postea ad patrem in aulam remissus est, ut patet ex
> epistola Fuldensium ad imperatorem. Monachi Fuldenses in epistola sua
> ad Ludowicum imperatorem, qua pro Bernhardo filio eius intercedunt ...
> ut scilicet filium suum in gratiam recipiat", see
> http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000539.html?pageNo=517.

<snip>

> However, the vocabulary for fosterage by a male 'parent' was very
> limited and not widely known anyway: formal adoption as had been the
> practice under Roman law did not exist in Frankish custom, but the
> family obligation of the closest agnate (as Louis was to Bernard from
> 810 onwards) had been grossly dishonoured in the view of the writer

The same correspondent wondered about my describing Louis as Bernard's closest agnate from 810, as a paternal uncle, at a time when the boy's grandfather Charlemagne was still living.

When Bernard's father Pippin died in July 810, there were two full-blood paternal uncles living, Louis and his elder brother Charles (who died in December of the following year). At first they perhaps both shared the duties of guardianship, since it is recorded that in 811 Charles and Louis both gave consent to making Bernard king of Italy, "Domnus imperator consensu filiorum suorum Karoli et Lodowici Bernardum, filium Pippini, regem Italiae pro patre suo restituit", see http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000875.html?pageNo=231.

This did not happen until after the death of Charles, and it was Louis who then took on the role of foster-father - as noted in the summary of the letter from the monks of Fulda quoted above, Bernard was sent from the abbey to his (foster) father's court, "ad patrem in aulam remissus est". This must mean to the court of Louis in Aquitaine, not Charlemagne's in Aachen, since nowhere is the latter called "pater" rather than "avus" to Bernard.

Nowadays we may think of grandfathers as closer relatives than paternal uncles, but it was not so common in the Carolingian era for grandparents to live long enough to care for their grandchildren. Louis belonged to the same generation as Bernard's father and in a sense shared half of the boy's blood, whereas Charlemagne shared only a quarter. I suppose it might have seemed a good idea to the old emperor, after the death of Charles in 811, to have his remaining son and heir take on a paternal relationship to the young Bernard, whose kingship in future would depend squarely on Louis.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart via]

On 29/12/2015 11:25 AM, Peter Stewart via wrote:
> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 3:29:12 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 12:15:24 PM UTC+11, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> "Nam si Ludouuicus inquid [sic, recte inquit] imp[erato]r natus eius
>>> VII agapes p[ro] illo plenit[er] dispensat resolutus est.
> <snip>
>
>> I neglected to explain the first sentence in the passage quoted - the
>> woman from Laon was guided in her vision by Charlemagne wearing the
>> habit of a monk. He is not named, only described as 'quidam homo in
>> monachico habitu constitutus', but he identifies himself when she asks
>> what must be done in order that the soul of Bernard (his grandson) can
>> rest in eternity. The answer, quoted above, is that the emperor Louis,
>> his son ('natus eius'), must perform seven acts of charity in Bernard's
>> favour.
> My reading of "Nam si Ludouuicus inquit imperator natus eius" has been questioned off-list, with the suggestion that "imperator" is meant to identify the speaker as Charlemagne - i.e. in English with modern punctuation it should literally read "For if Louis, said the emperor, my begotten son ..." rather than "For if Louis the emperor, he said, my begotten son ...".
>
> I don't think this alternative is tenable. The writer had referred to the poor woman's guide in the afterlife twice before this, withholding any implication that he was Charlemagne. He was introduced as "a certain man wearing the monastic habit" (quidam homo in monachico habitu constitutus), and then when she questioned him about how the prince of Italy's torment could be resolved he was referred to as "her same guide" (eundem ductorem illius). He answered "It is surely duty-bound. For if emperor Louis, my begotten son ..." (At ille: Utique debet. Nam si Ludouuicus inquit imperator natus eius ...). The force of "natus" instead of "filius" is much stronger if the reader is not aware before this word that the speaker is indeed Charlemagne himself. Calling him "the emperor" incidentally before he spoke would ruin the effect of having kept him unidentified to that point.
>
> Like all else, it must be read in context - this is a literary tract against Louis for the crime of blinding and causing the death of his nephew Bernard. The presence of Charlemagne in the vision, requiring his son to make reparation, is meant to pack a punch.

I should have added that Louis is definitively called emperor later in
the same work, just after he is called king in the Bego passage, when
the tormented spirit of his first wife Ermengarde (who died in the same
year as Bernard) adds her plea for Louis to make amends, crying out "Go
and ask my lord the emperor ..." (Irmingartam namque reginam aeque in
tormentis ... Clamavit namque ad istam dicendo: Vade et roga dominum
meum imperatorem ...).

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

My reading of this passage has been challenged again off-list - the point at issue is not important to Adelais and her husband Bego, but it is interesting for what it reveals (or not) about how Charlemagne was regarded within a few years of his death.

The poor woman asked her guide in purgatory what had to be done so that the prince of Italy's soul could rest in eternity. The answer is that Louis must perform seven acts of charity.

Hubert Houben identified Charlemagne as the prince of Italy, so that the anonymous guide answered the woman's question reporting what the late emperor's spirit had said. Possibly Houben took this view from supposing that "At ille" was enough to identify the guide as the speaker, so that the following "inquit" referred to the prince of Italy - if so, this does not add up because the author subsequently used the same repetitive phrase for speech by the poor woman, "At illa ... inquit".

But the more serious problem with Houben's reading is that it implies the woman could see the prince of Italy's spirit but not hear it, as the guide had to relay its answer. This is a quite unnecessary complication to the narrative, since the woman later can hear the spirit of Louis' first wife Ermengarde crying out to her personally.

The idea that Charlemagne, introduced to the reader only as a nameless prince of Italy, would be released from purgatory by his heir performing seven acts of charity is nonsensical. Charlemagne was not universally venerated as a saint within a decade or so after his death, but an author depicting him in this way would be detracting greatly from the object of his polemic - the guilt attaching to Louis for the retribution visited on his former wife and his avaricious friend, and especially for the treatment of Bernard of Italy.

Any part in this by Bego is unknown. Presumably he was thought to be involved only in events leading towards the result, since he died 18 months before Bernard was blinded. Ermengarde died nearly 6 months afterwards, and rumour blamed her directly for what happened (according to Andrea of Bergamo she was said to have ordered the crime herself without her husband's knowledge).

Charlemagne on the other hand had nothing to do with this - he died more than 4 years before Bernard, having seen to it that his sons consented to the boy being made king of Italy.

If the deceased emperor was supposed to be in purgatory for other sins (that are neither stated nor implied in the tract) then it would be absurd in any context, much less in this very specific one, to suggest that these could be expiated through seven acts of charity performed by Louis unconnected to penance for the mutilation and death of Bernard.

Peter Stewart