Tanner's reconstruction of Ponthieu and St Pol

[taf]

While looking for something else, I recently came across a 2004 book by Heather Tanner: Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England c. 879-1160 on Google Books. In addition to the Boulogne counts, it gives a good bit of information on affilliated families, such as the counts of Ponthieu and of St Pol, and has extensive genealogical tables. Of note, she makes Hugh I of St Pol the younger brother of Enguerrand and Guy of Ponthieu (whereas the older reconstruction had Hugh marrying a Ponthieu daughter).

Unfortunately, the Google preview is too disjointed and random for me to even figure out what is being proposed. Anyone else out there with better access who can summarize and critique her argument?

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Jan-23 11:52 AM, taf wrote:
> While looking for something else, I recently came across a 2004 book by Heather Tanner: Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England c. 879-1160 on Google Books. In addition to the Boulogne counts, it gives a good bit of information on affilliated families, such as the counts of Ponthieu and of St Pol, and has extensive genealogical tables. Of note, she makes Hugh I of St Pol the younger brother of Enguerrand and Guy of Ponthieu (whereas the older reconstruction had Hugh marrying a Ponthieu daughter).
>
> Unfortunately, the Google preview is too disjointed and random for me to even figure out what is being proposed. Anyone else out there with better access who can summarize and critique her argument?

I have a copy but haven't looked at it for years, and my memory hasn't
exactly improved in the meantime - on a quick glance I suppose the nub
of the case is on p. 107 note 153:

"Feuchere argues that Roger (d. 1067) was succeeded by his son Hugh I
(d. c. 1070), who in turn was succeeded by his son Guy I (c. 1070–post
1078) and his brother Hugh II (post 1078–c. 1118). There is no evidence
that Roger had a son Hugh; his known sons are Manasses and Robert. I
prefer Haigneré's interpretation that Guy and Hugh who are referred to
in Gregory's letter are Guy of Ponthieu and his brother Hugh. Haigneré's
interpretation is based on a 1091 charter of Abbot Jean of St Bertin;
the witnesses include 'Wido comes Pontivensis, frater ejus Hugo comes de
Sancto Paulo,' (Haigneré 1886): no. 87."

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[taf]

Thanks. The Haigneré theory is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=OyIKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR52
with the charter text here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=DqdhGgigKlgC&pg=PA34

If I am understaning this theory correctly, it is the man historically referred to as Hugh II, now renumbered Hugh I, who is the proposed Ponthieu scion, with Hugh I being a genealogical invention to bridge bridge from Roger to the two brothers (or perhaps splitting on Hugh into father and son). As with all such renumbering, that will result in no end of chaos.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Haigneré published the 1091 charter and his opinion about Hugo of
Saint-Pol as brother of Guido of Ponthieu in 1886, but he may have
revised this subsequently (he died in 1893, so maybe did not get a
chance to address this in print). In 1892 he published a charter for
Beaurain priory dated 1095 witnessed by Hugo with his son Enguerrand,
see here https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k32100611/f274.item. On
pp. 251-252 the charter is witnessed by Guido, count of Ponthieu, his
brother-in-law Hugo and the latter's son Enguerrand ("Guido, comes
Ponticensis ... Hugo, gener comitis ejusdem. Ingelrannus, filius ejus").

It seems to me far more plausible that a brother-in-law Hugo was called
"frater" in 1091 than that a brother would be called "gener" in 1095,
especially when the latter is further identifiable along with his son.

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Jan-23 1:18 PM, taf wrote:

Hugh I the father of counts Guy I and Hugh II of Saint-Pol is usually
identified with Hugh the Old whom Lambert of Ardres (writing at the end
of the 12th/beginning of the 13th century) called count of Saint-Pol.
According to this version, Hugh the Old was married to a lady named
Clemencia and died before his sons were old enough to rule so that his
widow was advised to marry Arnold of Ardres in order to provide a
capable count-regent until they came of age.

If true this took place between 1067 and 1075, when the brothers occur
together, and Hugh I was the first of two sons-in-law of Clemencia's
father who is assumed to be Roger, presumably lord of Saint-Pol.

Hugh II of Saint-Pol was either brother (if Lambert of Ardres was wrong
and the 1091 charter literally correct) or brother-in-law (if Lambert
may be right and the 1095 charter is correct) of Guy I of Ponthieu.

Too many Hughs, too little certainty.

[mike davis]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 1:16:57 AM UTC, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> On 18-Jan-23 11:52 AM, taf wrote:
> > While looking for something else, I recently came across a 2004 book by Heather Tanner: Families, Friends and Allies: Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and England c. 879-1160 on Google Books. In addition to the Boulogne counts, it gives a good bit of information on affilliated families, such as the counts of Ponthieu and of St Pol, and has extensive genealogical tables. Of note, she makes Hugh I of St Pol the younger brother of Enguerrand and Guy of Ponthieu (whereas the older reconstruction had Hugh marrying a Ponthieu daughter).
> >
> > Unfortunately, the Google preview is too disjointed and random for me to even figure out what is being proposed. Anyone else out there with better access who can summarize and critique her argument?
> I have a copy but haven't looked at it for years, and my memory hasn't

Does this elaborate on the descent of Eustace I [d1047] from Adalolf of Boulogne [d933]?

On wiki the descent of the counts of Boulogne is thus

Adalolf 918-33 m X
|
Arnulf II 964-72 [the interregnum is due to Arnulf of Flanders seizing Boulogne
for himself apparently after Adalolf was killed by a swineherd]
|
Arnulf III 972-90
|
Baldwin 990-c.1027 m Adelina of Holland
|
Eustace I m Matilda of Louvain

I'm particularly interested in what evidence there for the links between Adalolf and baldwin.
And who was Adelina of Holland? As the wiki page for Eustace I refs Tanners 1992 and 2004 works
on the subject I wonder if either of these have material evidence for this line and whether she
is the source for this descent, or has she just copied this from older works?

French wiki has Arnulf II rebelling against Arnulf the Old in 962 and become count on the latters
death, he has a brother Hugh of St pol who dies in the revolt, but here Arnulf II dies 971. His
son Arnulf III 971-90 succeeded him and he had another son Eustace who was buried with him
at St.Samer. But the sources for all this are

Andre Duchesne Histoire généalogique des maisons de Guines, d'Ardres, etc 1632,
Alain Lottin Histoire de Boulogne sur Mer, and
Andrew Bridgeford the secret history of the Bayeux tapistry p386.

I hope Tanners refs are better than these.

Arnulf III was the father of Baldwin but this man dies in 1033 killed by Enguerrand de Ponthieu
[dc1045] who then married baldwins widow! According to french wiki Enguerrand was still a
child in 1026 and was under the guardian of his uncle Enguerrand of St.Riquier, so I dont see
how he could have killed Baldwin in c1027. I wonder where this date comes from?

Elsewhere on the internet theres mention of Ernicule of Boulogne father of a Eustace,
another Arnulf and a Matilda who marries Ardolf of Guines from a source called Lambert of
Ardres who wrote 200 years later. Was this Ernicule perhaps the same as 1 of the Arnulfs?
But if Ernicule is part of this family and Ardolf of Guines was the son of Sigfrid Dacus of
Guines and Elftrude of Flanders surely this marriage was way too close [2nd cousins?] to
be allowed if Elftrude was the daughter of Arnulf the old?

I'm also intrigued as to where the name Eustace came from. Is it present in noble families
before 1000AD? It seems greek in origin. The only Eustaces I recall is the roman martyr and
the 1 in Narnia.

Mike

[Peter Stewart]

Perhaps it would be helpful to read Stewart Baldwin's remarks in this
thread from 2004:
https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/wqB-06EJASs.

Maybe this will at least reduce the scope of questions in your post today.

[mike davis]

thanks. i dunno why this thread didnt come up when i searched group discussions
about boulogne.

Mike

[taf]

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 3:41:50 PM UTC-8, mike davis wrote:

> thanks. i dunno why this thread didnt come up when i searched group discussions
> about boulogne.

Google search tools seem to be becoming progressively more flaky as they try to optimize them for showing you exactly what they think you should want, rather than what you actually want. There have been times when I have been looking at a post with specific words in it, searched for those precise words, and been told there are no matches. Similar occurrances in Google Books - they include a couple of surrounding sentences for each on the match page, and every once in a while I can directly copy and paste a short string from that returned result, search for it in quotes, and be told there is nothing with that string).

taf

[taf]

As long as we are talking about Ponthieu, Cawley in his discussion of Guy I, states the following:
"A charter dated 1100 included in the cartulary of Saint-Josse records a grant of fishing rights by 'Guido comes Monsteroli et Pontivensium' which names 'Hugo noster avus' and 'patre meo Ingerrano'", for which he gives as reference, "Chronique de l'abbaye de Saint-Riquier, 'Remarques', p. lxvii, which does not cite the reference of the cartulary of Saint-Josse."

This is odd, given that according to Orderic, Guy was fighting in 1054, when any son of Enguerrand must have still been in his nappies. So, forged charter that got the details wrong? misread? completely made up?

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Need it be said that Medieval Lands is not worth quoting? Cawley's
propensity to misrepresent what is actually in materials he reads (if
that is an accurate term for his directing of eyes over words) is
constantly baffling.

In this case, on p. lvii of the book in question it says: "Cette charte
se trouve dans le cartulaire de Saint-Josse" - presumably Cawley meant
to write that it does not cite a folio reference in the cartulary - as
if he would seek it out or know what he was looking at if he did.

For the record it is charter no. 4 in this mid-13th-century compilation
held in the archives of the Pas de Calais, on folio 2v (for anyone
interested, it is top left of vue 5 here:
https://archivesenligne.pasdecalais.fr/v2/ad62/visualiseur/registre.html?ir=11044&id=193841215).
It is a certainly forgery: a pseudo-original probably existed from which
the cartularist copied the crudely-written text, but if so it is no
longer extant.

Guy I of Ponthieu (died 1100) was actually a younger son of Hugo II
(died 1043/48), not his grandson; Enguerrand II (died 1053) was Hugo's
elder brother, not his father - so yet again the genealogy presented by
Cawley is as unhelpful as his research is incompetent.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

It should only be quoted for forensic purposes (as in, how the hell did he manage to murder this).

Thanks for the clarification. I have been dealing with someone elsewhere insisting that Guy was son of Enguerrand because . . . MedLands, and is not accepting 'it is absurd on its face given the documented timeline for Guy'.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, I didn't mean this as a dig at your post but just in frustration
that we are once again obliged to contemplate some smelly tripe from
MedLands. A self-repecting "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy" would
have taken this off their website long ago - but instead, as I
understand it, Cawley has now become the director. That is no way to
honour Charles Evans, in whose memory the enterprise was conceived.

> Thanks for the clarification. I have been dealing with someone elsewhere insisting that Guy was son of Enguerrand because . . . MedLands, and is not accepting 'it is absurd on its face given the documented timeline for Guy'.

The forged charter has the same witnesses and dating as an
unexceptionable one of Guido I which does not name his father or
grandfather, on folio 2r in the same cartulary, see no. 2 on vue 4 here
(a better URL than I gave before):
http://archivesenligne.pasdecalais.fr/v2/ark:/64297/7d93c23a980ef154a43ae6f4ff647c8e.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 23-Jan-23 10:00 AM, taf wrote:

Cawley is of course a serial killer of genealogical data - I just looked
at the Medieval Lands entry for Guy I of Ponthieu and found this deadly
blather:

"m firstly ADA, daughter of --- (-5 Mar before 1066) ... m secondly
ADILA [Ada], daughter of ---. ... Comte Guy & his [first] wife had one
child: 1. ANNE ... Comte Guy & his [second] wife had four children: 2.
ENGUERRAND ... 3. AGNES ... 4. IDA ... 5. MATHILDE"

There is no evidence for two wives of the same name - Guy's only
recorded wife Ada (aka Adila, Adda) was the mother of his three known
children. Agnes, the elder daughter and heiress through whom Ponthieu
passed to the Montgomery lineage, was also called Anna (just like King
Henri I's Kievan queen after whom she was probably named) so that
dividing her into two different women is a nonsense. There is no proof
that Ida belonged in this family, which is just speculation. Enguerrand
and Mathilde died unmarried.

Shortly before Guy died on 13 October 1100 he issued two charters for
Abbeville priory referring to the advice of his wife Ad(d)a ("Adde, mee
conjugis, fideliumque meorum persuasus consilio" and "Ade mee conjugis
fideliumque meorum persuasus ammonitione"). The first of these is dated
6 October 1100, the second in 1100 without a specific date. This has led
some careless scanners of Latin documents to suppose that the wife in
question must have been living at the time, and consequently that she
could not be identical with the mother of Agnes who was said in the
unexceptionable charter for Saint-Josse linked upthread to have died
before 1100.

However, reading through the Abbeville priory charters it is explicit
that Ad(d)a was dead and buried between the time she had given advice
for the construction of the priory and the date of issuing the charters
by Guy in 1100 ("a die obitus conjugis mee Adde" in the first and "in
die sepulture Ade, uxoris mee" in the second).

O what a tangled web is woven by over-extended charlatans.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The confident assertion that Guy I of Ponthieu had a first wife named
Ada or Adela who died (on 5 March) before 1066 was all over the internet
before it was polluted by Medieval Lands.

This error comes from Ernest Prarond in *Les Comtes de Ponthieu: Gui
Ier, 1053-1100* (1900), p. 35, where he thought that Guy had been a
widower in 1066 when he restored the estate of Robecourt, which had been
expropriated by countess Adela, to the church of Saint-Martin at
Picquigny for the remission of her sins.

Prarond was paraphrasing from a history of the counts of Ponthieu
written in the 17th century by Du Cange, where there is no statement
about whether Adela was living or dead at the time of Guy's 1066
charter. Du Cange had seen this in the Chambre des comptes in Paris, but
it has been lost since (no extant 11th century documents remain in the
archives from there).

Saint-Martin church had been the chapel of Picquigny castle until it was
established as a collegiate church in 1066. One of the properties
donated at this time was a quarter of Robecourt ("quartam partem villae
Roberti curtis"). Du Cange's account suggests that Guy gave back the
whole rather than a part of the estate. If Robecourt had been taken from
the chapel of Saint-Martin some time before Guy restored it to the new
collegiate church in 1066, and he had held it in the interval by right
of his wife, he would presumably have included himself in the expiation
along with her, assuming she was the culprit countess whose wrongdoing
was to be redressed. In any case, since Saint-Martin was endowed by its
founders with a quarter of Robecourt in 1066, the Adela in question may
have been his living wife who had objected to sharing her own part of
the estate with the canons and so briefly caused the donated quarter to
be withheld until Guy intervened to give it back, apparently along with
the remainder. If the other three quarters had been part of his wife's
dowry, this perhaps indicates that she belonged to the seigneurial
family of Picquigny. But that is just speculation.

According to the (also now lost) obituary of Saint-Pierre priory at
Abbeville, where Guy I who died on 13 October 1100 was buried, his wife
Adela died before him on a 5 March and was buried at Saint-Josse. There
is no implication in the independent reporting of this in the 17th
century by Du Cange and Jacques Sanson (Père Ignace-Joseph de
Jésus-Maria) that it refers to a namesake first wife who had died long
before rather than to Ada aka Adela, evidently his only wife, the mother
of his three recorded children, whom we know from Guy's charters was
dead by 1100.

Peter Stewart