Parentage of Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In the course of doing research for my upcoming third book, Royal
Ancestry, scheduled for publication later this year, I've come across
a strange error in various secondary sources, as well as online
databases including Charles Cawley and Leo van de Pas.

According to Cawley and van de Pas, Amaury I, seigneur of Craon,
Seneschal of Anjou (died 1226) married his great-niece, Jeanne des
Roches, daughter of Guillaume des Roches. Such a marriage, of course,
is impossible.

For the Charles Cawley database, see the following weblink:

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ANJOU,%20MAINE.htm#MauriceIICraondied1196B

For the Leo van de Pas database, see the following weblink:

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00124693&tree=LEO

A close examination of the pedigrees and chronology of the families
reveals the nature of the problem. Jeanne des Roches was as stated
the wife of Amaury I, seigneur of Craon. It is also known that her
mother, Marguerite de Sablé, was the daughter of Robert IV, seigneur
of Sablé, and his wife, Clémence de Mayenne. So far, so good.

Here is where the problem comes in. Cawley and van de Pas both
identify Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of Geoffrey II, seigneur
of Mayenne (died 1169), by his 2nd wife, Isabel of Meulen. If
correct, then Clémence de Mayenne would be the half-sister of Amaury
I, seigneur of Mayenne, who married her granddaughter. Again this is
impossible.

There is no question that Clémence, wife of Robert IV de Sablé, was a
Mayenne, as Cawley shows that in 1205 Clémence's daughter, Marguerite
de Sablé, confirmed earlier donations made to Fontaine-Daniel by
Marguerite's uncle [avunculi], Juhel de Mayenne.

So Marguerite de Sablé's mother, Clemence, was definitely the sister
of Juhel de Mayenne. But which Juhel de Mayenne?

The book, Historie des Seigneur de Meyenne (1850), pg. 21 identifies
that Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of Gaultier de Mayenne, died
about 1124, by his wife, Alix. Gaultier de Mayenne had a son, Juhel,
alright. See the following weblink for that identification:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0z0oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA21

However, the chronology does not permit Clémence de Mayenne to be
placed in that generation of the Mayenne family. Rather, it appears
Clémence was actually the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne (died
1169) (as stated by Cawley and van de Pas). But she must have been
the child of his 1st wife, Constance of Brittany, rather than his 2nd
wife, Isabel of Meulan.

By changing the mother of Clémence de Mayenne, she is no longer the
half-sister of Amaury I, seigneur of Craon. And thus the problem of
Amaury I de Craon marrying her grand-daughter is no longer exists.

Interestingly, this change in maternity gives the descendants of
Clémence de Mayenne a new descent from King William the Conqueror, and
thus it revises the ancestry of her numerous descendants.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Jeanne de Geneville (died 1356),
wife of Roger de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Earl of March, which Jeanne is a
lineal descendant of Clémence de Mayenne above.

Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey,
Charles Barnes, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah
Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George,
Giles & Robert Brent, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton,
Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, St. Leger Codd, James Cudworth, Francis
Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane & Katherine Deighton, Edward
Digges, Rowland Ellis, William Farrer, John Fenwick, John Fisher,
Henry Fleete, Edward Foliot, Muriel Gurdon, Elizabeth & John
Harleston, Warham Horsmanden, Anne Humphrey, Edmund, Edward, Matthew &
Richard Kempe, Mary Launce, Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas
Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe,
Percival Lowell, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes Mackworth, Anne, Elizabeth &
John Mansfield, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Joseph & Mary Need,
John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John
Oxenbridge, Herbert Pelham, Robert Peyton, Henry & William Randolph,
George Reade, William Rodney, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger,
Richard Saltonstall, William Skepper, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary
Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, Margaret
Touteville, John & Lawrence Washington, John West, Hawte Wyatt, Amy
Wyllys.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. Since Leo van de Pas cites Europaische Stammtafeln as his source
for Clemence de Mayenne, perhaps someone can check the relevant
Mayenne pedigree in ES to see if Mr. Schwennicke also errs in making
Clémence de Mayenne the daughter of Isabel of Meulan [2nd wife of
Geoffrey II de Mayenne]?

I note that Clémence de Mayenne is elsewhere identified as the
daughter of Isabel of Meulan in Power, Norman Frontier in the 12th &
Early 13th Cents. (2004): 508 (Mayenne ped.).

For Daniel Power, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vlts5rwsNosC&pg=PA508

[John]

On Feb 13, 11:24 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~

>
> P.S.  Since Leo van de Pas cites Europaische Stammtafeln as his source
> for Clemence de Mayenne, perhaps someone can check the relevant
> Mayenne pedigree in ES to see if Mr. Schwennicke also errs in making
> Clémence de Mayenne the daughter of Isabel of Meulan [2nd wife of
> Geoffrey II de Mayenne]?
>
> I note that Clémence de Mayenne is elsewhere identified as the
> daughter of Isabel of Meulan in Power, Norman Frontier in the 12th &
> Early 13th Cents. (2004): 508 (Mayenne ped.).
>
> For Daniel Power, see the following weblink:
>
>    http://books.google.com/books?id=Vlts5rwsNosC&pg=PA508

Schwennicke's ESNF in vol. 13 is specifically inconclusive with
respect to the maternity of ALL of the children of Geoffroi II de
Mayenne. He makes tentative assignments of their maternity, but his
notation makes it clear that these assignments are merely tentative
and probably should be further researched beyond his presentation
(which has other omissions indicating lack of information on the
family). Accordingly, it's perhaps a stretch to say that that "Mr.
Schwennicke [actually Rev. Schwennicke] errs" in his assignment of the
maternity of Clémence as well as her siblings. In fact, he has taken
a reasonably conservative approach.

DR would be well advised to check out Schwennicke's work for himself
at this location which is certainly convenient for him:
http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=290665

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

So far we've seen that Charles Cawley, Leo van de Pas, Europaische
Stammtafeln, and Daniel Power have all erroneously assigned Clémence
de Mayenne as the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne, by his 2nd wife,
Isabel of Meulan. Such a parentage is impossble, as Clémence de
Mayenne's granddaughter was the wife of Isabel of Meulan's younger
son, Amaury I de Craon. We also saw that Guyard de la Fosse, Histoire
des Seigneur de Meyenne (1850) put Clémence two generations back in
the Mayenne family tree. That is equally impossible.

It goes downhill from there. Andrew Lewis, Royal Succession in
Capetian France (1981): 102 states that that Clémence de Mayenne was
the aunt of Juhel de Mayenne. For Lewis, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ypc5T_m5AsKhiQKQ6MT9BQ&id=I6GIAAAAMAAJ&dq=Clemence+Mayenne+Sable&q=Clemence#search_anchor

We know from her daughter's charter cited by Cawley that Clémence was
actually Juhel de Mayenne's sister. So far every source I have
checked has the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne stated in error.
This is why you have to be cautious of all secondary sources,
especially Europaische Stammtafeln.

As I indicated in my first post, it appears that Clémence de Mayenne
was the daughter of Geoffrey II de Mayenne [died 1169], by his first
wife, Constance of Brittany. So far I'm unable to find an approximate
date in print for the marriage of Geoffrey and Constance. Geoffrey II
and his wife, Constance, appear to have had one son, Hamon, living in
1158, and two daughters, Maud (or Mathilde) (wife of wife of Andre de
Vitré and Thibault de Mathefelon) and Clémence (wife of Robert de
Sablé).

Constance of Brittany is mentioned in the literature as early as 1871
(and doubtless earlier). For example, Bibliothèque de l'École des
Chartes 32 (1871): 417 states the following:

"André de Vitré épousa en premières noces Mathilde, fille de Geoffroi
IV de Mayenne et de Constance de Bretagne, sa première femme, fille de
Conan-le-Gros, duc de Bretagne; il s'en sépara en 1189, pour cause de
parenté, sans en avoir eu d’enfants.” END OF QUOTE.

The marriage date of Geoffrey II de Mayenne and Constance of Brittany
must be close to 1140, as their son, Hamon, was already a knight in
1158, when he joined his father on crusade. Hamon apparently died
while on crusade. For further particulars of Geoffrey II de Mayenne's
time on crusade, see Pointeau, Les Croisés de Mayenne en 1158 in Revue
Historique et Archéologique du Maine, t. IV 1878. Pointeau's material
may also be viewed at the weblink below. If you read French, it's an
interesting article.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?seq=3&view=image&size=100&id=njp.32101073457069&q1=Geoffroi+Mayenne&page=root&orient=0

As indicated above, Constance of Brittany is stated to be a daughter
of Conan III, Duke of Brittany. Duke Conan's III' wife was Maud,
illegitimate daughter of King Henry I of England (died 1135). This is
how Constance of Brittany connects to the English royal family.

If you have a Mortimer line in England, you likely descend from
Clémence de Mayenne. If so, I'd enjoy hearing from you here on the
newsgroup. I hope that others can contribute additional material to
this ongoing thread. All I ask is that you cite your sources and
provide weblinks if you have them. Thanks!

[J Cook]

On Feb 13, 2:24 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~

> For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New
> World immigrants that descend from Jeanne de Geneville (died 1356),
> wife of Roger de Mortimer, Knt., 1st Earl of March, which Jeanne is a
> lineal descendant of Clémence de Mayenne above.
>
> Robert Abell, Elizabeth Alsop, William Asfordby, Barbara Aubrey,
> Charles Barnes, Anne Baynton, Dorothy Beresford, Richard & William
> Bernard, John Bevan, Essex Beville, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah
> Blakiston, Joseph Bolles, Thomas Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, George,
> Giles & Robert Brent, Stephen Bull, Charles Calvert, Edward Carleton,
> Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, St. Leger Codd, James Cudworth, Francis

And Thomas Bradbury through the Fulnetby link

Joe C

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Below is a transcript of the charter dated 1205 which Marguerite [des
Roches], lady of Sablé, states she has made a grant at the request of
her uncle [avunculi], Juhel de Mayenne. This is the charter cited by
Charles Cawley which proves that Marguerite's mother, Clémence de
Mayenne, was the sister of Juhel de Mayenne. The charter below is
given first in the original Latin, then followed by a modern French
translation.

Source: Grosse-Duperon & Gouvrion, Cartulaire de l'Abbaye cistercienne
de Fontaine-Daniel (1896): 36, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=47cDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA36

Confirmation par Marguerite de Sablé. 1205. Universis fidelibus
praesentes litteras inspecturis, Margarita, domina Sabolii, salutem.
Sciatis quòd ego, ad petitionem dilecti avunculi mei, domini Juhelli
de Meduanâ, concessi et praesenti cartâ confirmavi Deo et Beatæ Mariæ
et abbatiæ de Saleto omnia dona et omnes elemosinas quas ipse dominus
Juhellus dedit eidem abbatiæ, quam ipse fundavit, sicut in cartis ejus
continetur. Actum est hoc anno ab Incarnatione Domini 1205, mense
Aprilis.

A tous les fidèles qui prendront connasissance des présentes lettres,
Marguerite, dame de Sablé, salut. Sachez qu'à la demande de mon cher
oncle, monseigneur Juhel de Mayenne, j'ai, pour Dieu et la
bienheureuse Marie, agréé et la présente charte confirmé, en faveur de
l'abbaye Salair, toutes les donations et toutes les aumônes qui ont
été faites précédemment à cette abbaye par ledit seigneur Juhel, son
fondateur, tel que le tout est consigné dans les titres du monastere.
Ceci a été fait l'an 1205 de l'Incarnation du Seigneur, au mois
d'avril.

Happy Valentine's Day.

[Douglas Richardson]

The proposed Thomas Bradbury line through the Fulnetby family
certainly looks promising, but the specific links are not fully
proven. Do you have new evidence? I'm crossing my fingers that you
do.

[The Hoorn]

Douglas:

What will Royal Ancestry entail? And when will it be published?

Look forward to hearing from you.

[Peter Stewart]

On 15/02/2012 5:37 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Below is a transcript of the charter dated 1205 which Marguerite [des
> Roches], lady of Sablé, states she has made a grant at the request of
> her uncle [avunculi], Juhel de Mayenne. This is the charter cited by
> Charles Cawley which proves that Marguerite's mother, Clémence de
> Mayenne, was the sister of Juhel de Mayenne.

Why on earth would you rely on Cawley to find the most direct evidence
for this? How many times do you need to be warned that he gathers data
at haphazard?

In this case you have apparently overlooked the foundation charter of
Bois-Renou (later Notre-Dame du Parray-Neuf) in which her husband Robert
IV of Sablé stated that Clementia had been given Agon in the Cotentin by
her brother Juhel, lord of Mayenne who was living in 1189.

Ménage was misled by the poor copy he had available, so that his wrong
presumption could not be definitely disproved by a charter of Marguerite
naming her "avunculus" Juhel without further identifying him.

If you are working from primary sources you should be able to sort this
out for yourself.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is additional confirmation of the parentage of Clémence de
Mayenne found in Ménage, Histoire de Sablé 1 (1683): Preface, 8-9, and
169, which material may be consulted at the following weblinks cited
below:

Preface, pp. 8-9: http://books.google.com/books?id=p91E9EP4FHUC&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Robert de Sablé, troisième du nom, Seigneur de Sablé, de la Suse, &
de Briolé, fîs aisné de Robert de Sablé, segond du nom, & d’Hersande,
epousa Clémance de Maïenne, fille de Gautier de Maïenne & d’Alix de
Beaugency, fille de Raoul de Beaugency & de la segonde fille de
Herbert Eveillechien Conte du Maine. Clémance de Maïenne ut pout
frère Juhel de Maïenne, segond du nom, qui épousa Clémance de
Bellesme: dont it ut Geoffroi de Maïenne, quatrième du nom, qui se
croisa a Maienne en 1158. avec un grand nombre de Gentishommes des
provinces d’Anjou & du Maine. Le cérémonie de cette Croisade & la
liste de ces Gentishommes sone tres-curieuses ... Il ut de son mariage
avec Clémance de Maïenne Geoffroi de Cornillé, mort du vivant de son
père, sans alliance: Marguerite de Sablé, femme de Guillaume Des-
Roches, Séneschal héréditaire d’Anjou, de Touraine, & du Maine; le
Seigneur le plus puissant & le plus considérable de ces trois
provinces: & une autre fille, dont le nom de batesme est ignoré :
laquelle épousa Geoffroi Marceau : dont la famille est aussi ignorée.
Guillaume Des-Roches estoit fîs de Baudouin Des-Roches, fîs de
Herbert. Il fonda en 1209. avec Marguerite de Sablé, sa femme,
l’Abbayie de Perray-Neuf : & en 1219. celle de Bonlieu.” END OF
QUOTE.

pg. 169: http://books.google.com/books?id=E6NFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA169

"Le Titre que nous venons de produire, prouve, non seulement que
Robert de Sablé III. du nom avoit épousé Clémance, mais qu’Hersendis
estoit sa mère. Sa femme est aussi appelée Clémance, & sa femme
[recte mère] Hersendis, dans la Fondation qu’il fit en 1189. d’une
Abbayie de Religieux de Prémontré, au lieu appelé le Bois-Renou;
autrement, le Gaut; proche Sablé : duquel lieu cette Abbayie fut
ensuite transférée en 1209. au Perray-Neuf, par Guillaume des Roches,
son gendre : Quapropter universitati Fidelium, per præsens scriptum,
notum fiat : quod ROBERTUS DE SABOLIO, & HERSENT, mater ejus; &
CLEMENTIA, uxor ejus; & PETRUS DE BRION, fundaverunt Abbatium in
honore Beatæ Virginis Mariæ, pro animabus suis, & animabus
antecessorum suorum, in loco qui dicebatur Boscus Ranulfi ... Dans le
mesme Titre, il est dit que cette Clémance estoit sœur de Juhel de
Maïenne. Dedit etiam supradictus Robertus de Sabolio praedicta
Abbatiæ, pro anima Clementiæ, uxoris suæ, decem libras Andegavenses,
annuatim, in determinato redditu : in ville quæ dicitur Agon : quæ
sita est in Constantino, prope Constantias, quam dedit ei Juellus,
Dominus Meduanæ, vice maritagii Clementiæ, sororis suæ.” END OF
QUOTE.

As indicated above, Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which
Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called
sister [sororis] of Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus
Meduanæ"]. However, as with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage
of Clémence de Mayenne wrong. He places her two generations too early

in the Mayenne family tree.

I'm not at all sure how Ménage made this error. He includes a full
transcript of the 1189 charter on pages 356-357, and an account of the
Mayenne family starting on page 178, so it can't have been for lack of
knowledge. Simply put, Ménage assigns Clémence de Mayenne, living in
1189, as the daughter of Gautier de Mayenne, who he shows was living
in 1115. The aforesaid Gautier de Mayenne was actually her great-
grandfather!

[Peter Stewart]

On 16/02/2012 11:14 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is additional confirmation of the parentage of Clémence de
> Mayenne found in Ménage, Histoire de Sablé 1 (1683): Preface, 8-9, and
> 169, which material may be consulted at the following weblinks cited
> below:
>
> Preface, pp. 8-9: http://books.google.com/books?id=p91E9EP4FHUC&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> “Robert de Sablé, troisième du nom, Seigneur de Sablé, de la Suse,&

> de Briolé, fîs aisné de Robert de Sablé, segond du nom,& d’Hersande,
> epousa Clémance de Maïenne, fille de Gautier de Maïenne& d’Alix de
> Beaugency, fille de Raoul de Beaugency& de la segonde fille de

> Herbert Eveillechien Conte du Maine. Clémance de Maïenne ut pout
> frère Juhel de Maïenne, segond du nom, qui épousa Clémance de
> Bellesme: dont it ut Geoffroi de Maïenne, quatrième du nom, qui se
> croisa a Maienne en 1158. avec un grand nombre de Gentishommes des

> provinces d’Anjou& du Maine. Le cérémonie de cette Croisade& la

> liste de ces Gentishommes sone tres-curieuses ... Il ut de son mariage
> avec Clémance de Maïenne Geoffroi de Cornillé, mort du vivant de son
> père, sans alliance: Marguerite de Sablé, femme de Guillaume Des-

> Roches, Séneschal héréditaire d’Anjou, de Touraine,& du Maine; le
> Seigneur le plus puissant& le plus considérable de ces trois

> provinces:& une autre fille, dont le nom de batesme est ignoré :
> laquelle épousa Geoffroi Marceau : dont la famille est aussi ignorée.
> Guillaume Des-Roches estoit fîs de Baudouin Des-Roches, fîs de
> Herbert. Il fonda en 1209. avec Marguerite de Sablé, sa femme,
> l’Abbayie de Perray-Neuf :& en 1219. celle de Bonlieu.” END OF
> QUOTE.
>
> pg. 169: http://books.google.com/books?id=E6NFAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA169
>
> "Le Titre que nous venons de produire, prouve, non seulement que
> Robert de Sablé III. du nom avoit épousé Clémance, mais qu’Hersendis

> estoit sa mère. Sa femme est aussi appelée Clémance,& sa femme

> [recte mère] Hersendis, dans la Fondation qu’il fit en 1189. d’une
> Abbayie de Religieux de Prémontré, au lieu appelé le Bois-Renou;
> autrement, le Gaut; proche Sablé : duquel lieu cette Abbayie fut
> ensuite transférée en 1209. au Perray-Neuf, par Guillaume des Roches,
> son gendre : Quapropter universitati Fidelium, per præsens scriptum,

> notum fiat : quod ROBERTUS DE SABOLIO,& HERSENT, mater ejus;&

> CLEMENTIA, uxor ejus;& PETRUS DE BRION, fundaverunt Abbatium in

> honore Beatæ Virginis Mariæ, pro animabus suis,& animabus

> antecessorum suorum, in loco qui dicebatur Boscus Ranulfi ... Dans le
> mesme Titre, il est dit que cette Clémance estoit sœur de Juhel de
> Maïenne. Dedit etiam supradictus Robertus de Sabolio praedicta
> Abbatiæ, pro anima Clementiæ, uxoris suæ, decem libras Andegavenses,
> annuatim, in determinato redditu : in ville quæ dicitur Agon : quæ
> sita est in Constantino, prope Constantias, quam dedit ei Juellus,
> Dominus Meduanæ, vice maritagii Clementiæ, sororis suæ.” END OF
> QUOTE.
>
> As indicated above, Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which
> Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called
> sister [sororis] of Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus
> Meduanæ"]. However, as with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage
> of Clémence de Mayenne wrong. He places her two generations too early
> in the Mayenne family tree.
>
> I'm not at all sure how Ménage made this error. He includes a full
> transcript of the 1189 charter on pages 356-357, and an account of the
> Mayenne family starting on page 178, so it can't have been for lack of
> knowledge. Simply put, Ménage assigns Clémence de Mayenne, living in
> 1189, as the daughter of Gautier de Mayenne, who he shows was living
> in 1115. The aforesaid Gautier de Mayenne was actually her great-
> grandfather!

Ménage was misled after - unlike you, evidently - taking the trouble to
read the document.

He realised that Juhel of Mayenne's sister Clementia was NOT living in
1189, or at least not beyond 1 January. He knew that her part in the
foundation of Bois-Renou had taken place some time before the partly
retrospective charter of 4 October 1189, in which her husband also
provided for her anniversary to be kept there on the feat of the
Circumcision. This charter was subscribed by himself and his mother, and
by their co-founder Petrus de Briun, but not by Clementia who was
obviously deceased. And probably Ménage did not trust the date anyway,
since the charter of Guillaume des Roches dated 1209 transferring
Bois-Renou to Le Perray-Neuf, referred to above, was very clearly
inauthentic with copied preamble and anachronistic regnal details.

You can find better editions of the 1189 charter in *Inventaire-sommaire
des Archives départementales antérieures à 1790: Sarthe*, vol. 4 part 1
(Le Mans, 1883) pp. 1-2 and of the inauthentic 1209 charter in *Archives
du Cogner* vol. 1 (1903)p. 241 article 63 no. 5.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 16/02/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> her husband also provided for her anniversary to be kept there on
> the feat of the Circumcision.

Some mohelim might disagree, but in general it's not much of a feat to
circumcise a baby - I meant of course "feast of the Circumcision".

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

< As indicated above, Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which
< Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé, is specifically
called
< sister [sororis] of Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus
< Meduanæ"].  However, as with other authors, Ménage gets the
parentage
< of Clémence de Mayenne wrong.  He places her two generations too
early
< in the Mayenne family tree.

My statement above stands as written. Ménage's error was not due to a
faulty copy of the 1189 charter. He was just being a bit careless.

I appreciate Mr. Stewart posting a later transcript of the 1189
charter published in 1883. The weblink for that version is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1TkjAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA1

Yet another [partial] copy of the same may be found at the following
weblink:

http://www.geneanet.org/archives/ouvrages/index.php?action=showdoc&livre_id=17491&page=1&book_type=livre&rech=DOME&tk=39b5c85dba032105

[Peter Stewart]

On 17/02/2012 2:33 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> < As indicated above, Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which
> < Clémence de Mayenne, wife of Robert de Sablé, is specifically
> called
> < sister [sororis] of Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus
> < Meduanæ"]. However, as with other authors, Ménage gets the
> parentage
> < of Clémence de Mayenne wrong. He places her two generations too
> early
> < in the Mayenne family tree.
>
> My statement above stands as written. Ménage's error was not due to a
> faulty copy of the 1189 charter. He was just being a bit careless.

Self-serving nonsense again - Ménage was taking very great care to get
the history of the Sablé family right as he saw it, and the unreliable
documentation of Bois-Renou/Le Perray-Neuf available to him confused the
matter.

Having goofed by asserting that Clementia was living in 1189 it is
hardly for you to call someone else careless in the same context.

As I pointed out when you failed to notice, the charter dated 4 October
1189 is not an integral transaction founding the abbey at that time but
a record covering over an unknown period beforehand. The charter
suspiciously dated 4 October 1209, from the same establishment, is
clearly inauthentic and its impossible dating elements reasonably cast
doubt on the earlier notice (that in its surviving form may be a
conflation of two or more documents, like many another foundation
charters).

Ménage realised that Clementia's brother Juhel was the seigneur of
Mayenne at the time a part of the 1189 text was initially written, and
he wrongly supposed that this was before the death of Juhel I in 1161
rather than referring to Juhel II in or after 1169. He was not sure of
the chronology of Robert IV, whom he called Robert III - he did not
know, for instance, whether Robert had left for Palestine in 1189 or
1190, and thought he became master of the Temple in 1190 rather than
1191: these mistakes obviously caused uncertainty as to his whereabouts
in October 1189 that might have been resolved from studying the original
of the charter.

Ménage was an outstanding historian for his era, far too careful to be
fairly disparaged by someone who needs to be coached in the 21st century
into getting basic facts straight and appropriate modern references cited.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Once again ~

Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which Clémence de Mayenne, wife
of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called sister ["sororis"] of
Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus Meduanæ"]. However, as
with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne
wrong. He places her two generations too early in the Mayenne family
tree.

In my next post, I'll address the issue of Clémence's mother, which
highlights yet another chronology problem.
'

[Peter Stewart]

On 17/02/2012 1:00 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Once again ~
>
> Ménage cites a charter dated 1189 in which Clémence de Mayenne, wife
> of Robert de Sablé, is specifically called sister ["sororis"] of
> Juhel, seigneur of Mayenne ["Juellus, Dominus Meduanæ"]. However, as
> with other authors, Ménage gets the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne
> wrong. He places her two generations too early in the Mayenne family
> tree.
>
> In my next post, I'll address the issue of Clémence's mother, which
> highlights yet another chronology problem.
> '

If you are determined not to understand the complexity of some medieval
documents, and prefer to stick with information taken unexamined from
Googling, then the next edition of Plantagenet Ancestry will dispose of
whatever vestiges of reputation you imagine you have left.

In the charter dated 1189 Clementia was called sister of the Juhel of
Mayenne who was seigneur at the time of her marriage. Ménage was
mistaken - not careless - about this chronology, but you have yet to
show us your primary source proving that her marriage took place in or
after 1169 rather than in or before 1161 that is the critical point
behind the error.

Repeating a superficial certitude doesn't make for scholarship. Nor does
taking citations from Medieval Lands and presenting Cawley's
approximations as probative, and/or as arising from your own work - if
you risk that in print you will make an even more spectacular fool of
yourself than hitherto.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

The evidence regarding Ménage's careless error regarding Clémence de
Mayenne has been fully discussed. Now we need to move onto the next
set of issues.

[Peter Stewart]

In other words, you have been challenged to prove an assertion for which
you are relying on secondary sources - while advising the newsgroup
never to do so, unless of course it is the forthcoming edition of PA -
and you have not been able to Google up an answer so you want to drop
the subject.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

For those descending from the Mortimer family of England and Jacquette
de Luxembourg, I should direct your attention to an interesting
account of Robert de Sablé, the husband of Clémence de Mayenne, at the
following weblink:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_IV_de_Sabl%C3%A9

As with Ménage and everyone else, this weblink gets the parentage of
Clémence de Mayenne wrong. In this case, this account assigns
Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of her great-great-grandfather.
Wow!

Next, here is an online database which places Clémence de Mayenne is
yet another wrong generation on the Mayenne family. In this case,
Clémance is placed as a daughter of her grandparents. That's better
but it's still wrong.

http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=40762

Next, the following weblink displays the ancestry of Mahaut de
Mayenne, the actual sister of Clemence de Mayenne. It shows the
ancestry of Mahaut de Mayenne going back to King Henry I of England.
However, it errs in identifying Mahaut and Clémence's grandmother,
Constance of England, as a legitimate daughter of King Henry I. There
are doubtless other errors in this database. Reader beware.

http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=171132

As we can see, Ménage's grotesque error has caused a veritable
cavalcade of mistakes regarding the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne.
Every source I have checked so far has her parentage wrong. It all
started with Ménage.

[Peter Stewart]

This is another way of saying that you haven't had the nous to check any
of the more reliable secondary works that give the correct parentage for
Clementia.

You must have a lot of time to spare if you can waste it rummaging
around the internet for errors - I trust the new edition of PA is not
going to be delayed while you indulge yourself in this juvenile pursuit.

Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one has
ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin de
la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second series
35 (1919), p. 276.

Peter Stewart

[Jan]

Here is a book that may be useful for studying some of the people who
lived in the eleventh century and for evaluating some of the sources
and books about people of this era:
W. Scott Jessee, Robert the Burgundian and the Counts of Anjou, Ca.
1025-1098 (CUA Press, 2000)
It's available, at least in the U.S., in preview mode on Google:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9dKP7rbgwfQC
See the footnote on page 7 for a discussion of the article by Angot
that Peter cited. Angot's work is cited many times throughout the
work. The footnote on page 7 says "Alphonse Angot, Genealogies
feodales mayennaises de Xle au Xllle siecle (Laval: Librairie Goupil,
1942). The section on Robert and Sable was published earlier as
"Sable," Bulletin de la commission historique et archeologique de la
Mayenne, 2d series 35 (1919): 166-89. Although not often cited and
prone to error,Angot 's work is a treasure house of prosopographical
information on the nobility of Maine."
Angot's book is listed with no preview at
http://books.google.com/books?id=l6SgSgAACAAJ

[Derek Howard]

Indeed the 1919 article, along with many other works by the abbe Angot
is readily available for study on Gallica.

The page cited by Peter is at
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k441178s/f277

Derek Howard

[Dave Michaelson]

On 17/02/2012 3:54 PM, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> Dear Newsgroup ~

>

> For those descending from the Mortimer family of England and Jacquette

> de Luxembourg, I should direct your attention to an interesting

> account of Robert de Sablé, the husband of Clémence de Mayenne, at the

> following weblink:

>

> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_IV_de_Sablé

>

> As with Ménage and everyone else, this weblink gets the parentage of

> Clémence de Mayenne wrong. In this case, this account assigns

> Clémence de Mayenne as the daughter of her great-great-grandfather.

> Wow!

>

> Next, here is an online database which places Clémence de Mayenne is

> yet another wrong generation on the Mayenne family. In this case,

> Clémance is placed as a daughter of her grandparents. That's better

> but it's still wrong.

>

> http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=40762

>

> Next, the following weblink displays the ancestry of Mahaut de

> Mayenne, the actual sister of Clemence de Mayenne. It shows the

> ancestry of Mahaut de Mayenne going back to King Henry I of England.

> However, it errs in identifying Mahaut and Clémence's grandmother,

> Constance of England, as a legitimate daughter of King Henry I. There

> are doubtless other errors in this database. Reader beware.

>

> http://genealogiequebec.info/testphp/info.php?no=171132

>

> As we can see, Ménage's grotesque error has caused a veritable

> cavalcade of mistakes regarding the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne.

> Every source I have checked so far has her parentage wrong. It all

> started with Ménage.

This is another way of saying that you haven't had the nous to check any

of the more reliable secondary works that give the correct parentage for

Clementia.



You must have a lot of time to spare if you can waste it rummaging

around the internet for errors - I trust the new edition of PA is not

going to be delayed while you indulge yourself in this juvenile pursuit.



Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one has

ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin de

la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second series

35 (1919), p. 276.



Peter Stewart

Peter, and others (you know who you are),



I don't know why you insist on personally attacking someone who has
presented to the group for discussion, a reasonable discovery. If you have
PROOF to the contrary, or something to ADD to the discussion, then please do
so as we would all learn from what you have to say. Your slanderous remarks
are distractive and add nothing to your position. There are already too
many people on this newsgroup that feel (incorrectly) that their
contribution's are OBVIOUSLY above reproach. One does not have to become a
bully' to get their ideas across, as Mr. Richardson (and others) have shown
each and every time they present information to the group. I feel nothing
but embarrassment from you (and others) when you sling your UNNECESSARY and
INSULTING remarks around.



I don't know how the rest of you feel about these tirades made against
members of this newsgroup, but there are several of you that seem to think
that THEY alone have Carte Blanch to act in this manner whenever they feel
the urge to 'flex their supposed muscle'. To me, I find it childish and
distracting from very interesting discussions. The problem is that it keeps
other members, who may very well have something interesting to add, from
participating in discussions for fear of becoming a target of these
intellectual 'bullys'. I, for one, am weary of reading their bleatings and
leakage from their overinflated egos.



David Michaelson

[Colin B. Withers]

+1

Peter Stewart

Peter, and others (you know who you are),

I don't know why you insist on personally attacking someone who has
presented to the group for discussion, a reasonable discovery. If you have
PROOF to the contrary, or something to ADD to the discussion, then please do
so as we would all learn from what you have to say. Your slanderous remarks
are distractive and add nothing to your position. There are already too
many people on this newsgroup that feel (incorrectly) that their
contribution's are OBVIOUSLY above reproach. One does not have to become a
bully' to get their ideas across, as Mr. Richardson (and others) have shown
each and every time they present information to the group. I feel nothing
but embarrassment from you (and others) when you sling your UNNECESSARY and
INSULTING remarks around.

I don't know how the rest of you feel about these tirades made against
members of this newsgroup, but there are several of you that seem to think
that THEY alone have Carte Blanch to act in this manner whenever they feel
the urge to 'flex their supposed muscle'. To me, I find it childish and
distracting from very interesting discussions. The problem is that it keeps
other members, who may very well have something interesting to add, from
participating in discussions for fear of becoming a target of these
intellectual 'bullys'. I, for one, am weary of reading their bleatings and
leakage from their overinflated egos.

David Michaelson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 16, 10:22 pm, Peter Stewart <pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

< Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one
has
< ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin
de
< la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second
series
< 35 (1919), p. 276.
<
< Peter Stewart

Good genealogists and historians know that the facts always speak for
themselves. As such, I'm glad to see that Mr. Stewart has admitted
that I'm right. But he could have saved himself a lot of name
calling, lying, and rude behavior by simply reading the pieces of
evidence that I presented in a civil manner.

Alphonse Angot (whom I respect a great deal) does not fully identity
the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne. He only identifies her father.
Her mother's name is not given. This is specifically what he says:

"Robert IV de Sable épousa Clémence, fille de Geoffroi III de
Mayenne. Juhel II, son frère, lui donna pour dot la seigneurie
d'Angon dans la Cotentin, près de Coutances." END OF QUOTE.

Europaische Stammtafeln, Charles Cawley, Leo van de Pas, Daniel Power,
etc. all have the right father for Clémence de Mayenne, namely
Geoffroi III de Mayenne. I stated that in my first post. Where they
erred was identifying her as the daughter of his second wife, Isabel
de Meulan, which is impossible. Angot doesn't identify her mother at
all. So he gets a pass.

My thanks go to Derek Howard for providing the weblink for Angot's
comments. I always enjoy reading Angot. Thanks also for Jan's
helpful comments. Much appreciated.

[J Cook]

On Feb 17, 11:25 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>

Hold the phone. I agree with David 100%, but the fault does not lie
with just one person in this instance. There is the direct route
insulting someone, and then there is the indirect passive-aggressive
which is even more annoying and which you frequently take part.

Example #1:.

> Good genealogists and historians know that the facts always speak for
> themselves. As such, I'm glad to see that Mr. Stewart has admitted
> that I'm right. But he could have saved himself a lot of name
> calling, lying, and rude behavior by simply reading the pieces of

> evidence that I presented in a civil manner. -DR

You are calling him a liar. That's neither collegial or productive.
Aside from the fact that this entire paragraph is intentionally worded
to cause extreme annoyance to him, and for no other reason. If you
want to continue to stake claim to the higher ground, it is neccessary
to provide evidence that you even know where that is.

I don't understand the need to establish credit for discoveries by
smashing and impugning those who did amazing work in much more
difficult circumstances. As you like, i will show my sources:

Source:
> ...Ménage's grotesque error...

Grotesque? Really?

The part I really don't understand is that you seem to have no want or
need of Peter Stewart's opinions on these matters on which he is
obviously well experienced and familiar with a wide range of relevant
sources that you have never even heard of until he mentions them.

I appreciate your books and your scholarship as well; but I don't
understand why 50% of your posts have to have a back-handed insult in
them or make claims that are prima facie false. It does not help your
reputation, and therefore not your wallet when you are selling
books.
Joe C

[Jan]

The article by Angot starts on p. 166, a continuation starts on p.
266, and the conclusion starts on p. 369. There is a pedigree on p.
380 which states "Robert IV, époux de Clémence de Mayenne, 1160,
[dagger] 1195, grand maître du Temple."
Does that suggest that Angot concluded that Robert IV and Clémence
married by 1160?
Angot's extensive bibliography starts on p. 381.

The article by Angot is also available on Hathi Trust (perhaps to U.S.
IP addresses only):
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015068196461

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 17, 10:32 am, J Cook <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:

<There is the direct route insulting someone, and then there is the
indirect passive-aggressive
<which is even more annoying and which you frequently take part.

This thread isn't about me, Joe. It's about Clémence de Mayenne.
Please stick to the topic.

That's a cordial request.

[taf]

On Feb 17, 12:39 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:32 am, J Cook <joec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <There is the direct route insulting someone, and then there is the
> indirect passive-aggressive
> <which is even more annoying and which you frequently take part.
>
> This thread isn't about me, Joe.  It's about Clémence de Mayenne.
> Please stick to the topic.

This from the person who just in his previous post was crowing, "As

such, I'm glad to see that Mr. Stewart has admitted that I'm right."

I guess the thread is about you when you want to take credit for
something, but hypocritically not when you wish to distract from
criticism.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On 18/02/2012 3:25 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:22 pm, Peter Stewart<pss...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> < Surely not even you could be foolish enough to imagine that no-one
> has
> < ever gotten this right - try 'Sablé' by Alphonse Angot in *Bulletin
> de
> < la Commission historique et archéologique de la Mayenne*, second
> series
> < 35 (1919), p. 276.
> <
> < Peter Stewart
>
> Good genealogists and historians know that the facts always speak for
> themselves.

Right for once - so a good genealogist would concentrate on presenting
the facts, source/s and argumentation without needing to worry over
every obsolete and/or unevidenced error on the internet and in print.

> As such, I'm glad to see that Mr. Stewart has admitted
> that I'm right. But he could have saved himself a lot of name
> calling, lying, and rude behavior by simply reading the pieces of
> evidence that I presented in a civil manner.

Mr Stewart never contested the facts, which you felt a need to present
by disparaging excellent historians for their time who are now long
dead, such as Ménage, and others who are not genealogists in the first
place and whose works drew on theirs for a peripheral point, such as Lewis.

Calling someone foolish when they are loudly making a fool of themselves
to an audience who don't all know what lies behind the Wizard's screen
is hardly counter-productive - in this case it has prompted you to
provide better citations and possibly logical proof in the next edition
of PA, while alerting the newsgroup once again to the inadequacy of your
own unaided research and the double standards underlying your
conclusions. "Never rely on secondary sources" was your message, while
you were doing exactly that yourself.

And as for being rude, those who feel a need to post censure on this
should take the trouble to look over Richardson's countless
delinquencies and hypocrisies over many years before deciding to blame
his critics.

The tired refrain of "Dearie me, how can a newby dare to post in such a
vicious environment" is total BS. Richardson is not representative of
anyone else here and no poster without a history of offenses has ever
received similar contempt on Gen-Med/SGM.

>
> Alphonse Angot (whom I respect a great deal) does not fully identity
> the parentage of Clémence de Mayenne. He only identifies her father.
> Her mother's name is not given.

That was not the point of the discussion - you were ranting about every
source you had consulted putting Clementia into the wrong generation of
the family, and Angot (who might have been the first resort of a good
genealogist, not a sorry last when told) patently did not do this.

> This is specifically what he says:
>
> "Robert IV de Sable épousa Clémence, fille de Geoffroi III de
> Mayenne. Juhel II, son frère, lui donna pour dot la seigneurie
> d'Angon dans la Cotentin, près de Coutances." END OF QUOTE.

You might have noticed that Angot also made the same mistake as you in
presuming that Clementia was still alive in October 1189. But then you
might also have noticed that he died in 1917 whereas the article was
published in 1919, so perhaps he would have revised this and other
details. His posthumous work *Généalogies féodales mayennaises* is prone
to errors, as noted in Jan Wolfe's post - Ernest Laurain and others who
prepared it for print were not specialists in genealogy.

>
> Europaische Stammtafeln, Charles Cawley, Leo van de Pas, Daniel Power,
> etc. all have the right father for Clémence de Mayenne, namely
> Geoffroi III de Mayenne. I stated that in my first post. Where they
> erred was identifying her as the daughter of his second wife, Isabel
> de Meulan, which is impossible. Angot doesn't identify her mother at
> all. So he gets a pass.

And you still haven't posted a source or logical proof showing that
Clementia the mother of Robert IV's three children was a sister of Juhel
II rather than Juhel I, not have you filled in the correct chronological
details for Robert himself (missed by Angot) that indicate when he was
widowed... yet you presume to hand out marks and scorn to others.

>
> My thanks go to Derek Howard for providing the weblink for Angot's
> comments. I always enjoy reading Angot.

So why on earth didn't you do so under your own steam this time?

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Now that we know that Clémence de Mayenne can't have been the daughter
of Isabel de Meulan, it sets off some other problems in the
established and accepted lineage of her ancestry.

Various secondary sources state without citation that Clémence de
Mayenne's father, Geoffroi de Mayenne (living 1168), married (1st)
Constance of Brittany, daughter of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.
Usually no date for the marriage of Geoffroi and Constance is given.
Most sources assign Geoffroi and Constance only one daughter, Maud,
and very few include a son, Hamon. I found one modern historian that
included Hamon, but he called him Hamelin by mistake! The fact is
Geoffroi and Constance had three children, a son, Hamon, and two
daughters, Maud and Clémence.

The question is: When were Geoffroi and Constance married? Surely
they were married before 1140, as their son and heir apparent, Hamon,
was a knight in 1158, when he accompanied his father that year on
crusade to the Holy Land. I've already cited a source and weblink for
that information.

Argentré's Histoire de Bretagne (1668): 155 directly addresses the
issue of Geoffroi and Constance's marriage. See the following weblink
for that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ApelLzfcHY0C&pg=PA155

Argentré says they were married in or about 1135. He also says that
Constance was the younger daughter of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.

“Conan vescut depuis en paix, fors quelque different avec Robert Baron
de Vitré, qui interuint en l’an mille cent trente cinq, pour
l’injustice, que ce Baron faisoit à ses sujets, & la plainte, laquelle
venoit au Duc de l’oppression qu’il leur faisoit. Ce que refusant le
sieur de Vitré de reparer, le Duc Conan delibera de l’y contraindre
par armes : & de fait se mist aux champs, & entra en la ville de
Vitré, où il trouva Emme, femme de Robert, à laquelle il donna congé
de se retirer avec son fils. Ce Seigneur ainsi chatlé de sa terre,
fut contraint de se retirer au Baron de Fougeres, duquel il fut
recueilly quelque temps : mais Conan gagne le sieur de Fougeres luy
donnant la terre de Gahart, & quelque part des forests de Rennes : qui
fut cause, qu'il donna congé audit de Vitré, lequel se retira vers
Iuhael, sieur de Mayenne : ce que voyant Conan, donna sa fille
Constance, la plus jeune des siennes, en mariage à Geoffroy, fils
dudit Iuhael: & par mesme moyen, luy donna en dot la Baronnie de
Vitré, qui fut cause que ledit de Vitré fut constraint encore se
retirer de là, s’en allant à refuge devers le sieur de Laval, qui
estoit son cousin germain, car ils estoient naiz de deux soeurs :
duquel lieu il fist la guerre à ceux qui renoient la ville de Vitré, &
se retiroit en deux chasteaux, l’un appellé de Launay, & l’autre de la
Gravelle..” END OF QUOTE.

Obviously if Geoffroi and Constance had a son, Hamon, who was a knight
in 1158, they must have started having children no later than say
1140. So the presumption is made that Geoffroi and Constance were
both of marriageable age in 1135, which for this class of family would
be ages 12 to 15 at marriage. This should mean that Geoffroi and
Constance were born say 1120-1123, give or take.

To help verify that Clémence de Mayenne was the child of Geoffroi de
Mayenne and his 1st wife, Constance of Brittany, I've checked the
chronology of Clémence's descendants and compared it against the
chronology of her younger half-brother, Juhel de Mayenne (son of
Isabel de Meulan). Under normal circumstances, if Clémence was born
to an earlier marriage of her father, the chronology of her
descendants should run earlier than that of the descendants of
Clémence's half-brother, Juhel de Mayenne. To check the chronology, I
used Charles Cawley's Medlands database. While not perfect, Cawley
gives enough information to get a fairly good fix on approximate dates
for the various Mayenne family descendants. As expected, the
chronology of the later descendants of Clémence definitely runs ahead
of the descendants of Juhel de Mayenne. No surprise there.

So far I have yet to find a contemporary record which states exactly
when Geoffroi and Constance were married. I assume, however, that
Argentré based his statement on an earlier Breton chronicle.

Presuming that Geoffroi de Mayenne was born c. 1120-1123, that leads
to various chronological problems with his family. All sources seem
to be unanimous that Geoffroi de Mayenne's parents were Juhel de
Mayenne and his wife, Clémence of Ponthieu. And all sources seem to
be unanimous that Clémence of Ponthieu's parents were Guillaume, Count
of Ponthieu (died 1171), and his known wife, Ela of Burgundy.

But Count Guillaume and his wife, Ela, are thought to have married
shortly after 1112. If so, it would impossible for their daughter,
Clémence, to give birth to her son, Geoffroi de Mayenne, born c.
1120-1123.

The date of the marriage of Count Guillaume and his wife, Ela of
Burgundy, is discussed by Kathleen Thompson in her well written
article, "William Talvas, Count of Ponthieu, & the Politics of the
Anglo-Norman Realm," published in Bates & Curry, England & Normandy in
the Middle Ages (1994): 171. This article may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_2ydotlxKeUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171

She says that Count Guillaume and Ela of Burgundy were married
"shortly after 1112." Thompson qualifies this statement by a footnote
which indicates that Ela of Burgundy's first [previous] marriage took
place in 1095 [see C. de Vic & D. Vaissete, Hist. générale de
Languedoc, ed. A. de Mege (Toulouse, 1840–46), iii. no. 268, pp. 602–
603]. She states that Dr. Keats-Rohan suggests that Orderic may have
confused Ela and her aunt of the same name, so that William did not in
fact marry [Bertrand] the count of Tripoli’s widow [see K. Keats-
Rohan, ‘The Prosopography of Post-Conquest England: Four Case
Studies,’ Medieval Prosopography 13 (1993): 41].

Below is a weblink to the cited marriage contract of Bertrand, Count
of Toulouse, and "Helene" of Burgundy dated 1095 published by Vic and
Vaissete:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-yFeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA602

If Ela of Burgundy was not the widow of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse
(died 21 April 1112) [he is the Count of Tripoli], then obviously her
marriage to Count Guillaume could have taken place well before c.1115,
and that would alleviate the impossible chronology that occurs
otherwise. Either that solution, or Ela of Burgundy is not the mother
of Clémence of Ponthieu.

I haven't seen Keats-Rohan's comments about Ela of Burgundy. However,
I suspect she didn't know about the tight chronology between the 2nd
marriage of Ela of Burgundy and the birth of her grandson, Geoffroi de
Mayenne. Assuming Argentré has correctly dated the marriage of
Geoffroi de Mayenne and Constance of Brittany as 1135, then something
has to give way in the Ponthieu chronology or pedigree.

For interest's sake, the following is a weblink to the Wikipedia
version of the biography of Ela of Burgundy's alleged first husband,
Bertrand, Count of Toulouse (died 1112):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand,_Count_of_Toulouse

If someone has access to the Keats-Rohan article, I'd appreciate very
much if they would post the salient points of her article here on the
newsgroup. I assume she had some good reason for doubting that Ela of
Burgundy was the widow of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse.

[Peter Stewart]

On 18/02/2012 11:57 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Now that we know that Clémence de Mayenne can't have been the daughter
> of Isabel de Meulan, it sets off some other problems in the
> established and accepted lineage of her ancestry.
>
> Various secondary sources state without citation that Clémence de
> Mayenne's father, Geoffroi de Mayenne (living 1168), married (1st)
> Constance of Brittany, daughter of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.
> Usually no date for the marriage of Geoffroi and Constance is given.
> Most sources assign Geoffroi and Constance only one daughter, Maud,
> and very few include a son, Hamon. I found one modern historian that
> included Hamon, but he called him Hamelin by mistake! The fact is
> Geoffroi and Constance had three children, a son, Hamon, and two
> daughters, Maud and Clémence.

Hamelin is not a mistake, it is a common form for men named Haimo
(Hamon), often found in their own charters. Your insistence on rigid
consistency in names has led you into so many problems in the past that
you might have profitably started to educate yourself in these matters
before setting to "work" on the umpteenth edition of PA.

>
> The question is: When were Geoffroi and Constance married? Surely
> they were married before 1140, as their son and heir apparent, Hamon,
> was a knight in 1158, when he accompanied his father that year on
> crusade to the Holy Land. I've already cited a source and weblink for
> that information.
>
> Argentré's Histoire de Bretagne (1668): 155 directly addresses the
> issue of Geoffroi and Constance's marriage. See the following weblink
> for that source:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ApelLzfcHY0C&pg=PA155
>
> Argentré says they were married in or about 1135. He also says that
> Constance was the younger daughter of Conan III, Duke of Brittany.
>
> “Conan vescut depuis en paix, fors quelque different avec Robert Baron
> de Vitré, qui interuint en l’an mille cent trente cinq, pour

> l’injustice, que ce Baron faisoit à ses sujets,& la plainte, laquelle

> venoit au Duc de l’oppression qu’il leur faisoit. Ce que refusant le
> sieur de Vitré de reparer, le Duc Conan delibera de l’y contraindre

> par armes :& de fait se mist aux champs,& entra en la ville de

> Vitré, où il trouva Emme, femme de Robert, à laquelle il donna congé
> de se retirer avec son fils. Ce Seigneur ainsi chatlé de sa terre,
> fut contraint de se retirer au Baron de Fougeres, duquel il fut
> recueilly quelque temps : mais Conan gagne le sieur de Fougeres luy

> donnant la terre de Gahart,& quelque part des forests de Rennes : qui

> fut cause, qu'il donna congé audit de Vitré, lequel se retira vers
> Iuhael, sieur de Mayenne : ce que voyant Conan, donna sa fille
> Constance, la plus jeune des siennes, en mariage à Geoffroy, fils
> dudit Iuhael:& par mesme moyen, luy donna en dot la Baronnie de
> Vitré, qui fut cause que ledit de Vitré fut constraint encore se
> retirer de là, s’en allant à refuge devers le sieur de Laval, qui
> estoit son cousin germain, car ils estoient naiz de deux soeurs :
> duquel lieu il fist la guerre à ceux qui renoient la ville de Vitré,&

> se retiroit en deux chasteaux, l’un appellé de Launay,& l’autre de la

> article, "William Talvas, Count of Ponthieu,& the Politics of the
> Anglo-Norman Realm," published in Bates& Curry, England& Normandy in

> the Middle Ages (1994): 171. This article may be viewed at the
> following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=_2ydotlxKeUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171
>
> She says that Count Guillaume and Ela of Burgundy were married
> "shortly after 1112." Thompson qualifies this statement by a footnote
> which indicates that Ela of Burgundy's first [previous] marriage took

> place in 1095 [see C. de Vic& D. Vaissete, Hist. générale de

> Languedoc, ed. A. de Mege (Toulouse, 1840–46), iii. no. 268, pp. 602–
> 603]. She states that Dr. Keats-Rohan suggests that Orderic may have
> confused Ela and her aunt of the same name, so that William did not in
> fact marry [Bertrand] the count of Tripoli’s widow [see K. Keats-
> Rohan, ‘The Prosopography of Post-Conquest England: Four Case
> Studies,’ Medieval Prosopography 13 (1993): 41].
>
> Below is a weblink to the cited marriage contract of Bertrand, Count
> of Toulouse, and "Helene" of Burgundy dated 1095 published by Vic and
> Vaissete:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=-yFeAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA602
>
> If Ela of Burgundy was not the widow of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse
> (died 21 April 1112) [he is the Count of Tripoli], then obviously her
> marriage to Count Guillaume could have taken place well before c.1115,
> and that would alleviate the impossible chronology that occurs
> otherwise. Either that solution, or Ela of Burgundy is not the mother
> of Clémence of Ponthieu.
>
> I haven't seen Keats-Rohan's comments about Ela of Burgundy. However,
> I suspect she didn't know about the tight chronology between the 2nd
> marriage of Ela of Burgundy and the birth of her grandson, Geoffroi de
> Mayenne.

Ho hum - you always "suspect"that you are the first to notice
difficulties: in this case the basis of Katherine Keats-Rohan's
rationale was that the marriage of William Talvas to the "alleged widow
of Bertrand count of Toulouse" (p. 41) "results in some chronological
improbabilities in that William and Ela had several children, of whom
two daughters were themselves mothers in 1128" (ibid note 125).

Since you can't expect to have this sorted out for you gratis by someone
you "civilly" brand a name-calling liar, or through any
secondary/tertiary report for that matter, it looks as if you have some
actual research of your own to do...

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

The article by R.E. Barton “Lordship in Maine: Transformation, Service
and Anger,” published in Harper-Bill, Anglo-Norman Studies XVII:
Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1994 (1995): 41–64 discusses the
chronological issue involving Juhel de Mayenne and Clémence of
Ponthieu. Barton indicates that Juhel and Clémence were evidently
married in or before 1120. This date would obviously permit the
marriage of their son and heir, Geoffroi of Mayenne, in 1135 to
Constance of Brittany, as stated by Argentré [see my previous post].

On page 58, footnote 84, Barton gives the following information. This
material also may be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FaI5tE6z07gC&pg=PA58

“Juhel [de Mayenne]’s father, Walter of Mayenne, was dead by c.1116;
Cartulaire de l’Abbayette, no. IX, shows his other son, Hamelin, in
possession of Mayenne in 1116. Hamelin, probably the older brother of
Juhel, attests several charters from c.1116–1118 as lord of Mayenne,
but disappears c.1118–1120. Juhel's first datable appearance as lord
of Mayenne comes in 1120 in the string of charters detailing the
founding of the priory of Marmoutier at Mayenne .... That the
charter ... should be dated 1120 is suggested by Bishop Hildebert's
charter confirming Juhel's foundation; the date of this confirmation
is given in the text as 1120 (see Cartulaire Manceau de Marmoutier ii,
20-21). But several impediments lie in such an early date. The first
is the presence of Clementia, Juhel’s wife. She was the daughter of
Guy, count of Ponthieu and the granddaughter of Robert of Bellême.
But if it is true that Guy, count of Ponthieu was not born before 1092
(K. Thompson, ‘Robert of Bellême Reconsidered,’ ANS xiii, 1991, 269
n. 19), then Clementia would have to be quite young in 1120.
Moreover, Clementia is not mentioned by name in Hildebert's
confirmation. We do know, however, that Clementia and Juhel were
married (with a child) by 1128 (Cartulaire de l'Abbayette, p. 23).”
END OF QUOTE.

I should note that Barton tackles the chronological issue involving
these families from a slightly different perspective, that is, the
date of the marriage of Juhel and Clémence, as opposed to the issue I
raised, which was the date of the marriage of their son and heir,
Geoffroi and his wife, Constance. But it leads back to the same
problem of the marriage date of Clémence's parents, Guillaume, Count
of Ponthieu, and Ela of Burgundy.

If Clémence of Ponthieu was Ela of Burgundy's daughter, then it
follows that Ela of Burgundy was not the widow of Bertrand, Count of
Toulouse (died 1112). If so, this would correct Thompson's statement
that Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, and Ela of Burgundy were married
"shortly after 1112."

[Peter Stewart]

It's not Kathleen Thompson who stands to be corrected on this but
Orderic Vitalis, who wrote that Eudes I of Burgundy's daughter Hela, as
widow of Bertrand of Toulouse (died 21 April 1112), married Guillaume
Talvas of Ponthieu and had a number of children to him - this is the
statement that Keats-Rohan thought probably confused a namesake with her
niece.

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

On Feb 17, 8:03 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

< If Clémence of Ponthieu was Ela of Burgundy's daughter, then it
< follows that Ela of Burgundy was not the widow of Bertrand, Count of
< Toulouse (died 1112). If so, this would correct Thompson's
statement
< that Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, and Ela of Burgundy were married
< "shortly after 1112."

As a followup to my last post, I might add that not only does Thompson
need to be corrected, but so may Complete Peerage. We'll discuss the
possible Complete Peerage correction further below.

According to what I can see by way of Google snippet view of Keats-
Rohan's article on the marriages of Ela of Burgundy, she states it is
"most likely" that Ela, wife of Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, is not
the same person as Ela, wife of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse. Keats-
Rohan appears to be basing her statements partly on the knowledge that
two of Ela's daughters were married and had a child in 1128.
Evidently Keats-Rohan was not aware that Ela's daughter, Clémence, was
married to Juhel de Mayenne in or before 1120 (as indicated by Barton)
or that Ela's grandson, Juhel de Mayenne, was married c.1135 (as
indicated by Argentré).

That Ela, wife of Count Guillaume, and Ela, wife of Count Bertrand,
were almost certainly different ladies is indicated by the large
number of children that Ela of Burgundy bore to Guillaume, Count of
Ponthieu. Besides being the mother of his sons, Guy and Jean, and his
daughter, Ela, she also had an additional six children that died in
infancy, two Roberts, two Williams, and two Enguerrands. Add to this
the other likely daughter, Clémence, you have a total of nine
children. In addition, there was a tenth child, Mabel, who Count
William refers to as "his" daughter, suggesting she was not the
daughter of Ela.

The source for the children that died in infancy is a charter
published by J.H. Round in Calendar of Documents Preserved in France 1
(1899): 346, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4KMUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA346

A copy of Round's transcript of the charter is given below:

Abbey of St. Sauveur-le-Vicomte for the Benedictine Monks, in the
Diocese of Coutances.
Date: 1127. Source: Cartulary, fo. 121, Trans. Vol. III. fo. 121.

Charter of William count of Ponthieu (Pontivorum) giving land at St.
Germain of Montaigu (Mons acutis), and the tithe there, of his fee, to
the abbot and monks of St. Sauveur for the souls of his predecessors,
earl Roger and Mabel his wife count Guy and Adda his wife, his father
Robert de Belesmo and his mother Agnes, and for his own soul and that
of Ela his wife, and of their sons - two of them called Robert and two
William and two Enguerrand, and of Mabel his daughter - for the
remission of their sins, and that their lord Jesus Christ might pardon
them their offences and lead them into the way of salvation (ad
salutaria). Hiis vero audientibus et pro Deo testificantibus: Rogero
sacerdote; Hugone vicecomite cum Rotberto fratre, et Willelmo Tan'
dapifero existente, et Eudone de Bruix, et Andrea fratre comitis, et
Rotberto de Rye, et Hilario, et Rotberto, et multis aliis. END OF
QUOTE.

That Ela was the mother of Count Guillaume's sons, Guy and Jean, is
indicated by an ancient pedigree published by Dugdale, Monasticon
Anglicanum 3 (1821): 522, which may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/Volume3/Dugdale-Monasticon%28Vol.%203%20Part%2037%20Shrewsbury%29.pdf

“… Qui Robertus ex filia Guidonis comitis Ponthivii genuit Guillelmum
Talavatium, qui Willielmus ex Hela uxore sua genuit Guidonem comitem
Pontivii, et Johannem.” END OF QUOTE.

Ela is elsewhere specifically named as the mother of Count Guillaume's
son and heir, Count Guy, in a charter issued by Guy himself dated c.
1144 [see Prarond, Cartulaire du comté de Ponthieu (1897): 9-10]. In
this charter, Guy refers to his parents as "patris mei Willermi et
domine Ele matris mee," The charter of Count Guy may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wy9MAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA9

If Ela of Burgundy really married for the first time in 1095 to
Bertrand, Count of Toulouse, as alleged, then she would likely be a
minimum of 29 years old in 1112 at the death of her first husband and
not likely to remarry "shortly after 1112" (Thompson's statement) and
give birth to a mimimum of eight children (this total excludes
Clémence and Mabel). There is also another alleged child, Philippe,
who allegedly died in infancy and was buried in the choir of the
church of the Abbey of Saint-Martin de Sées.

While it is possible that Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, might have had
an earlier marriage before his known marriage to Ela of Burgundy, that
seems doubtful given that all eight of his legitimate sons were by
Ela. If it is true that Guillaume was not born before 1092 (as per
Thompson), then we can guesstimate that he and Ela were married c.
1105. This would permit them to have a daughter, Clémence, married in
1120.

As for the correction to Complete Peerage, I note that C.P. 12 Part 1
(1953): 497 (sub Surrey) states that Ela (or Ala), wife of William de
Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey, was the daughter of "William Talvas,
Count of Ponthieu" ... by "Ela, widow of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse,
and daughter of Eudes Borel, Duke of Burgundy."

If Keats-Rohan is correct, then Ela, wife of Guillaume, Count of
Ponthieu (here called William Talvas) would not previously have been
the wife of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse.

Even so, Complete Peerage, 12(1) (1953): 497, footnote h indicates
that Ela, wife of Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, is called the widow of
the Duke of Burgundy (not daughter) by Robert de Torigni. The
specific language used by Torigni may be found in Guizot, Histoire des
Ducs de Normandie par Guillaume de Jumiège (1826): 299, which may be
viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UAgeqQ5wNZwC&pg=PA299

"Guillaume Talvas ... Ce dernier eut deux fils et deux filles de son
épouse Alix, qui avait eté mariée auparavant au duc de Bourgogne. Son
fils aîné, Gui ... L'une de ses filles fut mariée a Joel, fils de
Gauthier de Mayenne, qui eut de ce mariage plusieurs fils. L'autre
filla épousa Guillaume de Warenne, comte de Surrey." END OF QUOTE.

Torigni's comments about Ela's earlier marriage aside, I note that he
assigns both Clémence, wife of Juhel de Mayenne, and Ela, wife of
William de Warenne, as daughters of Ela of Burgundy. So we at least
have one source that identifies Ela of Burgundy as the mother of
Clémence and Ela.

Giving the matter consideration, it seems that an alternative solution
may apply in this situation. If Ela of Burgundy really married
Bertrand, Count of Toulouse, in 1095, she would seemingly have to have
married Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu c.1105 for her to be the same
person as claimed by Orderic. Is is possible that Ela and Bertrand
were divorced? If so, that would harmonize the evidence. Torigni
does not state that Ela was a widow when Count Guillaume married her.
He only says she was "married before."

[Peter Stewart]

You are going in circles - the more energy you expend on this via Google
the more actual research work remains to be done...

On 19/02/2012 4:50 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:03 pm, Douglas Richardson<royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> < If Clémence of Ponthieu was Ela of Burgundy's daughter, then it
> < follows that Ela of Burgundy was not the widow of Bertrand, Count of
> < Toulouse (died 1112). If so, this would correct Thompson's
> statement
> < that Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, and Ela of Burgundy were married
> < "shortly after 1112."
>
> As a followup to my last post, I might add that not only does Thompson
> need to be corrected, but so may Complete Peerage. We'll discuss the
> possible Complete Peerage correction further below.
>
> According to what I can see by way of Google snippet view of Keats-
> Rohan's article on the marriages of Ela of Burgundy, she states it is
> "most likely" that Ela, wife of Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu, is not
> the same person as Ela, wife of Bertrand, Count of Toulouse. Keats-
> Rohan appears to be basing her statements partly on the knowledge that
> two of Ela's daughters were married and had a child in 1128.

Knowledge of which two daughters?

> Evidently Keats-Rohan was not aware that Ela's daughter, Clémence, was
> married to Juhel de Mayenne in or before 1120 (as indicated by Barton)
> or that Ela's grandson, Juhel de Mayenne, was married c.1135 (as
> indicated by Argentré).

"As indicated by Barton" is not quite accurate - Barton stated that
Juhel of Mayenne occurred with an unnamed wife in a confirmation dated
1120, and that he and Clementia had a son by 1128 (actually in May of
that year); he then pointed out a problem IF the date is correct and the
wife in 1120 was Clementia, IF accepting Thompson's suggestion that Guy
of Ponthieu was not yet born in the early 1090s. However, we know that
the marriage of Guy's parents was arranged by William the Conqueror who
died in September 1087 - the last part of the case, from Thompson, is
flimsy at best.

As for "indicated by Argentré" have you bothered to check any further
before deciding that Thompson and maybe CP "need"to be corrected on this
basis? Do you have any clue what that basis actually is? Do you even
know, for instance, that Argentré first published the work in 1582 (he
died in 1590), and whether or not he used sources that have since been
lost or if he can be considered reliable on chronology in other matters?

>
> That Ela, wife of Count Guillaume, and Ela, wife of Count Bertrand,
> were almost certainly different ladies is indicated by the large
> number of children that Ela of Burgundy bore to Guillaume, Count of
> Ponthieu. Besides being the mother of his sons, Guy and Jean, and his
> daughter, Ela, she also had an additional six children that died in
> infancy, two Roberts, two Williams, and two Enguerrands. Add to this
> the other likely daughter, Clémence, you have a total of nine
> children. In addition, there was a tenth child, Mabel, who Count
> William refers to as "his" daughter, suggesting she was not the
> daughter of Ela.

Most references to the children of noblemen at this time make no mention
of who was the mother, even if she occurs in the same document. And
there are plenty of cases throughout history where a woman was highly
fertile in a second marriage but not in a first. There are good logical
grounds to support the suggestion of Keats-Rohan, but so far you haved
touched on these.

You have been advised before to refer to the much better edition by
Clovis Brunel, *Recueil des actes des comtes de Ponthieu (1026-1279*
(Paris, 1930).

>
> If Ela of Burgundy really married for the first time in 1095 to
> Bertrand, Count of Toulouse, as alleged, then she would likely be a
> minimum of 29 years old in 1112 at the death of her first husband and
> not likely to remarry "shortly after 1112" (Thompson's statement) and
> give birth to a mimimum of eight children (this total excludes
> Clémence and Mabel).

Women can have twins...

Robert of Torigni was clearly mistaken - the only duke of Burgundy to
marry a woman named Ela was Robert I, and that lady died as a nun in the
1050s - she was the source of this unusual name in the family descended
from her.

>
> Torigni's comments about Ela's earlier marriage aside, I note that he
> assigns both Clémence, wife of Juhel de Mayenne, and Ela, wife of
> William de Warenne, as daughters of Ela of Burgundy. So we at least
> have one source that identifies Ela of Burgundy as the mother of
> Clémence and Ela.
>
> Giving the matter consideration, it seems that an alternative solution
> may apply in this situation. If Ela of Burgundy really married
> Bertrand, Count of Toulouse, in 1095, she would seemingly have to have
> married Guillaume, Count of Ponthieu c.1105 for her to be the same
> person as claimed by Orderic. Is is possible that Ela and Bertrand
> were divorced? If so, that would harmonize the evidence. Torigni
> does not state that Ela was a widow when Count Guillaume married her.
> He only says she was "married before."

This is a another dead end. Ela, or Electa, the wife of Bertrand of
Toulouse, was probably dead before he left for Tripoli. He was himself
called illegitimate by Guibert and other chroniclers, due to the
irregularity of his parents' marriage, and we would certainly expect to
hear about it if he had repudiated the mother of his own son and heir.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 19/02/2012 11:51 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> Most references to the children of noblemen at this time make no mention
> of who was the mother, even if she occurs in the same document. And
> there are plenty of cases throughout history where a woman was highly
> fertile in a second marriage but not in a first. There are good logical

> grounds to support the suggestion of Keats-Rohan, but so far you haved
> touched on these.

I meant to write "but so far you haven't touched on these" - I might
have added, despite having posted a link to one of the firmer
indications on the point at issue.

Peter Stewart

[Michael O'Hearn]

Thanks Douglas. I added this new information to my tree, which goes back
to Walter de Mayenne and Adelina de Presles.

--
Michael O'Hearn

[dia...@mpsvt.org]

Thanks again for the great research on Clemence de Mayenne! A real privilege to have access to documented research. I have been doing a little secondary research on Clemence's husband Robert IV de Sable (11th Templar Grand Master). If Robert IV's great grandfather is Robert II de Sable (possible son of Robert "The Burgundian" of Nevers?), then Robert II de Sable's was possibly the brother of Renaud I de Craon (d. 1101) who appears to be the father of Robert de Craon (d. 1147) who was 2nd Grand Master of Knights Templar. This would make Robert II de Sable the uncle of Robert de Craon. This stuff has intrigued be lately since finding out about Jean de Dreux who's effigy is at St-Yved de Braine. He was also a Templar. Is there documentation of this link between Robert IV de Sable and Robert de Craon? Thank you.

[Peter Stewart via]

On 22/01/2015 10:18 PM, dianat via wrote:
> I have been doing a little secondary research on Clemence's husband Robert IV de Sable (11th Templar Grand Master). If Robert IV's great grandfather is Robert II de Sable (possible son of Robert "The Burgundian" of Nevers?), then Robert II de Sable's was possibly the brother of Renaud I de Craon (d. 1101) who appears to be the father of Robert de Craon (d. 1147) who was 2nd Grand Master of Knights Templar. This would make Robert II de Sable the uncle of Robert de Craon. This stuff has intrigued be lately since finding out about Jean de Dreux who's effigy is at St-Yved de Braine. He was also a Templar. Is there documentation of this link between Robert IV de Sable and Robert de Craon? Thank you.
>

The supposed connection of the Robert Burgundio who was 2nd master of
the Templars with the family of the famous Robert the Burgundian of
Nevers, seigneur of Craon & Sablé, is very probably false - although the
latter’s eldest son Renaud of Craon evidently did have a younger
(apparently third) son named Robert, nothing more is known about him,
and even this is known only from a note written by Jacques Sirmond in
the 17th century. Giving Robert of Craon the byname “Burgundian” like
his grandfather and uncle (Robert Vestrul or Burgundio of Sablé) is
unwarranted from any medieval source, but unfortunately this assumption
has burrowed into the woodwork of history and genealogy over centuries.

He has been confused with a documented Robert Burgundio, who was a
younger son of Aimery II of Rancon and his wife Burgundia (no doubt the
source of their son’s byname), and much more probably the 2nd^master of
the Templars. William of Tyre described this person as coming from
Aquitaine, which could not apply to Robert of Craon, and the
12th^-century history of the counts and bishops of Angoulême explicitly
states that Aimery of Rancon’s son Robert Burgundio became a Templar
after he was baulked of the chance to marry the heiress of Jourdain
Eschivat, seigneur of Chabanais and Confolent.

Another confusion of the 2nd master of the Templars is with Burgundio
the brother-in-law of St Anselm, but happily this is not as widespread.
It is based on nothing more than the similarity of name to byname and
the fact that St Anselm wrote a letter to Burgundio responding to his
wish to go on crusade to Jerusalem.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart via]

On 25/01/2015 9:49 PM, Peter Stewart via wrote:
> On 22/01/2015 10:18 PM, dianat via wrote:

>> I have been doing a little secondary research on Clemence's husband Robert IV de Sable (11th Templar Grand Master). If Robert IV's great grandfather is Robert II de Sable (possible son of Robert "The Burgundian" of Nevers?), then Robert II de Sable's was possibly the brother of Renaud I de Craon (d. 1101) who appears to be the father of Robert de Craon (d. 1147) who was 2nd Grand Master of Knights Templar. This would make Robert II de Sable the uncle of Robert de Craon. This stuff has intrigued be lately since finding out about Jean de Dreux who's effigy is at St-Yved de Braine. He was also a Templar. Is there documentation of this link between Robert IV de Sable and Robert de Craon? Thank you.
>>

> The supposed connection of the Robert Burgundio who was 2nd master of
> the Templars with the family of the famous Robert the Burgundian of
> Nevers, seigneur of Craon & Sablé, is very probably false - although the
> latter’s eldest son Renaud of Craon evidently did have a younger
> (apparently third) son named Robert, nothing more is known about him,
> and even this is known only from a note written by Jacques Sirmond in
> the 17th century.

Apologies, the second part of this is wrong: the names of Renaud of
Craon's three sons are known from a note by Jacques Sirmond apparently
from a confirmation dated 1134 of a 1093/96 charter, both now lost
("Rainaldus Burgundus. Mauricius, Hainricus, et Robertus filii eius,
t[empo]re Goffridi abbatis"). This corrects a cartulary notice where the
second son Henry is misnamed Aimery ("Tempore Goffridi abbatis ...
praesentibus Rainnaldo [sic] Burgundio, Mauritio, Aymerico [sic] et
Roberto filiis eius"). The third son Robert occurs in a charter of the
count of Anjou dated 1105, so we know also that he was living at that time.

Peter Stewart

[dia...@mpsvt.org]

Thank you very much Peter!