re: Henry of Poitou, Abbot of Peterborough 1127-
WJho...@aol.com
Charles Tuttle Pub, 1992. And in the Laud Chronicle for 1127 the writer has
some extremely nasty things to say about this Henry of Poitou, there called
"kinsman of the King" [Henry I, King of England 1100-35]
Can someone help me in tracing exactly how Henry of Poitou is related to King
Henry I ?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
There is an online version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the
following website:
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/1124-27.html
The online transcript indicates that Henry of Poitou was kinsman to
both King Henry I of England and to Guillaume, Count of Poitou:
Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli."
King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from the
Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of Poitou
shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify Henry of
Poitou's parentage?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
> the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
> Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
> Henry of Poitou's parentage?
>From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Châtellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor).
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
<< >From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
(paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
(aka Dangerosse, the wife of Aimery, viscount of Chātellerault and
maternal grandmother of Alienor). >>
How fascinating.
I had Dangereuse in my database twice, never realizing that the wife of
Aumary was the mistress of Guillaume.
Eleanor child of Dangereuse and Aumary, married William Duke of Aquitaine 1121
her mother's lover's son ....
Seems a bit on the unusual side.
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
Henry of Poitou
appears to have been a second cousin once removed to King Henry I of England due
to mutual descents from King Robert II of France, who was father of Adele, wife
of Count Baldwin V of Flanders and of Duke Robert I of Burgundy, grandfather
of Maud of Flanders, wife of King William I of England and of Hildegarde of
Burgundy, wife of Guilhem VIII and VI, Duke of Aquaitaine and Count of Poitou,
Great grandfather of King Henry I of England and of Guilhem IX and VII ,
Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitou and Great Great Grandfather of Henry of
Poitou, Abbot of Petersborough
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< Year: 1127
"He [Henry of Poitou] was in his clerical state Bishop of Soissons;
afterwards monk of Clugny; and then prior in the same monastery.
Afterwards he became prior of Sevigny; and then, because he was a
relation of the King of
England, and of the Earl of Poitou, the earl gave him the abbacy
of St. John's minster of Angeli." >>
Doug that's an exceeding tame version of what I just read in my edition ;)
The writer basically equates Henry of Poitou to Satan or being in league with
Satan although he does it in an oblique manner.
Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
Will Johnson
Nichol...@yahoo.com
WJho...@aol.com wrote:
> Tomorrow, if someone prompts me, I can type out the complete section on
> 1127-1130 which says very nasty things about Henry of Poitou.
>
> Will Johnson
Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I second the prompt.
DR
WJho...@aol.com
Nichol...@yahoo.com writes:
<< Well, here's your prompting. I'd be interested in seeing what the Laud
Chronicle has to say about Henry of Poitou. >>
First in 1123 there is an entry
"... At the same time came a certain legate from Rome, who was called Henry.
He was abbott of the abbey of St Jean d'Angely, and came about the payment of
Peter's pence. He told the king that it was unlawful that one of the secular
clergy should be set over monks; moreover they had already canonically chosen
an archbishop in their chapter; but the king would not revoke his decision
because of the love he bore the bishop of Salisbury. Soon thereafter the
archbishop went to Canterbury, and was there admitted, although it was against their
will...."
Then in 1127
"... In this same year he [King Henry] gave the abbacy of Peterborough to an
abbot named Henry of Poitou, who already held the abbacy of St Jean d'Angely.
The archbishop and all the bishops said this was uncanonical, and that he
could not have charge of two abbacies; but the same Henry gave the king to
understand that he had left his abbacy on account of the great strife in that
county, and that he had done so on the advice and with the permission of the pope of
Rome and that abbot of Cluny, and also because he was the legate sent from
Rome to collect Peter's pence. Et quia numquam quietus esse uoluit, adquisiuit
legacionem colligendorum denariorum Rome in Anglia, ut per hoc abbaciam
adquireret. This was true enough, but the reason was rather that he wished to have
charge of both abbacies --- which, in fact, he did succeed in doing as long as
it was God's will. As a secular clerk he had been bishop of Soissons;
afterwards he became a monk of Cluny, and later became prior in the same monastery,
and then prior of Savigny-le-Vieux. Thereafter, since he was a relation of the
King of England and of the count of Poitou, the count gave him the abbacy of
St Jean d'Angely. Afterwards by great intrigue he manaaged to get possession
of the archbishopric of Besancon, but only for three days, for it was only
fitting that he should forfeit what he had come by uncanonically. Thereupon he
got possession of the bishopric of Saintes, which was five miles from his
abbacy, and held it for almost a week, but the abbot of Cluny got him out, just as
he had done before from Besancon. Then it occurred to him that if he could
get firmly rooted in England, he could get all his own way, so be besought the
king, and said to him that he was a broken-down old man, who could not endure
the great injustices and disturbances which were prevalent in their land; and
begged to be given the abbacy of Peterborough through his agency and that of
all his friends whom he mentioned by name. And the king granted it to him
because he was his kinsman, and because he had been the chief witness to swear oath
and testify when the marriage of the son of the Duke of Normandy and the
daughter of the Count of Anjou was dissolved on the grounds of consanguinity.
Thus despicably was the abbacy bestowed between Christmas and Candlemas in
London; and so he accompanied the king to Winchester, and from there he came to
Peterborough, where he took up his abode just as drones do in a hive. Everything
bees gather, drones devour and carry off, and so too did he. Everything that
he could take, from within the monastery or outside it, from ecclesiatics and
laymen, he sent overseas. He did nothing for the monastery's welface and left
nothing of value untouched. Let no one be surprised at the truth of what we
are about to relate, for it was general knowledge throughout the whole country
that immediately after his arrival -- it was the Sunday [i.e. 6 February
1127, Lent began on 16 February] when they sing Exurge Quare o[bdormis], D[omine]
? -- many men both saw and heard a great number of huntsmen hunting. The
huntsmen were black, huge, and hideous, and rode on black horses and on black
he-goats, and their hounds were jet black, with eyes like saucers, and horrible.
This was seen in the very deer park of the town of Peterborough, and in all
the woods that stretch from that same town to Stamford, and in the night the
monks heard them sounding and winding their horns. Reliable witnesses who kept
watch in the night declared that there might well have been as many as twenty
or thirty of them winding their horns as near as they could tell. This was
seen and heard from the time of his arrival all through Lent and right up to
Easter. Such was his entrance: of his exit we cannot yet say. Let it be as God
ordains!"
And then in 1128 we have this:
"... In this same year the fore-mentioned abbot Henry went back to his own
monastery in Poitou, by premission of the king. He gave the king to understand
that he would entirely relinquish that monastery and leave that country to
dwell with him there in England in the monastery of Peterborough, but it was far
from being so. He acted thus because he wished, by means of his great
cunning, to stay there for perhaps twelve months of more, and then return. God
Almightly have pity on that unhappy foundation!
And then in 1130 we have this
"...This same year abbot Henry of Angely came to Peterborough after Easter,
and said he had entirely relinquished the monastery [of Angely]. After him,
with the king's permission, the abbot of Cluny, named Peter, came to this
country, and he was welcomed with great ceremony everywhere wherever he went. He
came to Peterborough, and there abbot Henry promised him that he would secure
the monastery of Peterborough for him, so that it would be subject to Cluny.
However there is a proverb which says 'Hedge abides that fields divides.' May
God Almightly frustrate evil counsels! Shortly afterwards the abbot of Cluny
went back to his own country.
...In this same year, before Easter, abbot Henry went oversea to Normandy
from Peterborough, and there spoke with the king. He told him that the abbot of
Cluny had ordered him to report and hand over the abbey of Angely; after he
had done that he said he would return to England if the king gave permission.
So he went to his own monastery [of Angely], and remained there right up to
midsummer day; but the day following St John's day [i.e. 25 June], the monks
chose and abbot from their own number, and brought him into church in solemn
procession; they sang the Te Deum, and rang the bells, and placed him in the
abbot's seat, and proferred him the unqualified obedience which monks owe to their
abbot; and the duke [of Aquitaine] and all the leading men and the monks drove
Henry, the other abbot, out of the monastery. The necessity to do this was
forced upon them, for in five and twenty years they had not enjoyed one single
happy day. Here all his boasted ingenuity failed him: now he had good cause to
creep into his capacious bag of tricks, and explore it in every corner, to
see if by chance there might be at least one shifty dodge left there by which he
could yet again deceive Christ and all Christian folk. Then he went into the
monastery at Cluny, where he was held so that he was unable to go either east
or west. The abbot of Cluny said that they had lost the monastery of St Jean
d'Angely through him, and because of his utter stupidity. Then he knew no
better way out of his predicament than to promise them, upon oaths sworn on holy
relics, that he would secure for them the monastery of Peterborough, if he
might reach England; and would install a prior from Cluny there, as well as a
sacristan, a treasurer, and a keeper of the wardrobe, to ensure that they got
complete control of both the internal and external affairs of the monastery.
Thus he went into France [Cluny being in Burgundy] and there above all the year.
May Christ provide for the wretched monks of Peterborough and for that
unhappy foundation ! Now they stand in need of the help of Christ and of all
Christian people."
Will Johnson
Todd A. Farmerie
> Richardson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>King Henry I and Count Guillaume of Poitou were both descended from
>>the Dukes of Normandy and from the French kings. I assume Henry of
>>Poitou shared both of these connections as well. Can anyone identify
>>Henry of Poitou's parentage?
>
>
>From memory, he was an illegitimate son of Duke William the Troubadour
> (paternal grandfather of Alienor of Aquitaine) by his mistress Mauberge
> maternal grandmother of Alienor).
I have a chart that shows him as legitimate son of William. I don't
trust this chart as far as I can throw it, but since Peter was going
from memory, can anyone confirm his account.
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
He's in ES, new series, II:76, as son of Guilhem IX and (non-wife)
Maubergeron / Dangereuse; there he's only called "Abbot of Cluny". It
would be nice to see a fuller list of his ecclesiastical offices with
dates.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
Leo van de Pas
A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or Dangerose
both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
Henri Abbot of Cluny
Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
Agnes Abbess of Saintes
Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family Poitiers-Valentinois
Tafel 76 gives as sources
Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven, Volume II Tafel 28 (corrected and added to
by Schwennicke) gives Guillaume VII-IX a wrong second wife, mother of all
his children
Guillaume VIII-X, Raimond, Agnes (Agnes/Mathilde by Schwennicke) and four
daughters.
What do you think is the situation? Do you think Henri is somehow a confused
addition to this family?
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Peter Stewart
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42f3...@news.ColoState.EDU...
It seems my memory can't be trusted any further than your chart - according
to Alfred Richard, the Henri (died January 1131) who as a prior of Cluny was
made abbot of Saint-Jean d'Angély was only a cousin of Duke William the
Troubadour, a nephew of his mother Audearde. I don't have time at present to
look into this but will try to check later. Audearde's father and mother
were from the royal family of France and the comital family of Anjou
respectively.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Todd,
>
> A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
>
> Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or
> Dangerose both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
> Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
> Henri Abbot of Cluny
> Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
> Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
> Agnes Abbess of Saintes
> Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family Poitiers-Valentinois
>
> Tafel 76 gives as sources
> Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
> Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
> Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
>
> Isenburg/Freytag von Loringhoven, Volume II Tafel 28 (corrected and
> added to by Schwennicke) gives Guillaume VII-IX a wrong second wife,
> mother of all his children
> Guillaume VIII-X, Raimond, Agnes (Agnes/Mathilde by Schwennicke) and
> four daughters.
>
> What do you think is the situation? Do you think Henri is somehow a
> confused addition to this family?
I don't know one way or the other, but we have had two conflicting
answers here - ES showing the relationship as related, but Richard
showing it otherwise.
As usual, in failing (yet) to definitively answer one question, we have
raised another. Every source I have seen to date (and obviously, I have
not seen ES) has shown Agnes, wife of Ramiro II of Aragon as daughter of
William by Philippa/Matilda of Toulouse.
taf
Peter Stewart
There's not much room to doubt that Agnes was the daughter of Philippa.
Szabolcs de Vajay placed the birth of Agnes in 1103, at a time when by all
evidence her father was living as the husband of Philippa, whom he deserted
for his mistress a decade or so later. Agnes was first married shortly
before 9 January 1117, that fits neatly enough with her birth in 1103 or a
few years earlier.
We are told by the chronicler of Saint-Maixent that William married Philippa
in 1094, and with the later report of the birth of his two sons (his
namesake & heir, and Raimond of Antioch) we are told that "he also had five
daughters by the aforesaid wife, one of whom [Agnes, as noted above] was
married to the viscount of Thouars" (ex supradicta conjuge habuit quoque
quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit vicecomiti Toarcensi).
In other words, all his known & legitimate children were by Philippa. Ruth
Harvey studied the evidence in a 1993 paper and concluded that William had
only one wife anyway, and that the report by Orderic of a repudiated
countess named "Hildegarde" was just a misnaming of Philippa. Orderic made
plenty of mistakes like this.
Agnes followed Philippa in taking the veil at Fontevrault, where both of
them died. It hardly seems likely that a widowed queen would have returned
to her homeland in order to join nuns who had previously received a rival of
her mother, if she had not been Philippa's daughter in the first place.
So far I have not been able to find evidence of any illegitimate children
attributed to William the Troubadour in an early source, although his
amorous habits are well documented. Richard says that Raoul de Faye was
actually the son of Mauberge by her husband, and so the brother-in-law of
William's son by that means rather than by marriage to his supposed
illegitimate sister. The Poitiers-Valentinois connection was purely
fictional - the mother of Guillaume de Valentinois was still living in 1180,
many decades after Mauberge had died.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
> news:dd14ti$f6o$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
>
>>Leo van de Pas wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Todd,
>>>
>>>A guideline, no cast-iron proof, is Schwennicke ES Volume II Tafel 76.
>>>
>>>Here is shown that Guillaume VII-IX le jeune had by Maubergon or
>>>Dangerose both wife of Amaury de Chatellerault the following children
>>>Raimond, Prince of Antiochia
>>>Henri Abbot of Cluny
>>>Agnes/Mathilde wife of (1) Aimery de Thouars (2) Ramiro II King of Aragon
>>>Adelaide wife of Raoul de Fays
>>>Agnes Abbess of Saintes
>>>Guillaume Count of Valentinois ancestor of the family
>>>Poitiers-Valentinois
>>>
>>>Tafel 76 gives as sources
>>>Erich Brandenburg Nachkommen Karl's des Grossen
>>>Siegfried Rosch Caroli Magni Progeni
>>>Jacques Saillot Le Sang de Charlemagne
[snip]
>>As usual, in failing (yet) to definitively answer one question, we have
>>raised another. Every source I have seen to date (and obviously, I have
>>not seen ES) has shown Agnes, wife of Ramiro II of Aragon as daughter of
>>William by Philippa/Matilda of Toulouse.
>
>
> There's not much room to doubt that Agnes was the daughter of Philippa.
> Szabolcs de Vajay placed the birth of Agnes in 1103, at a time when by all
> evidence her father was living as the husband of Philippa, whom he deserted
> for his mistress a decade or so later. Agnes was first married shortly
> before 9 January 1117, that fits neatly enough with her birth in 1103 or a
> few years earlier.
>
> We are told by the chronicler of Saint-Maixent that William married Philippa
> in 1094, and with the later report of the birth of his two sons (his
> namesake & heir, and Raimond of Antioch) we are told that "he also had five
> daughters by the aforesaid wife, one of whom [Agnes, as noted above] was
> married to the viscount of Thouars" (ex supradicta conjuge habuit quoque
> quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit vicecomiti Toarcensi).
That's helpful. I wish Vajay hadn't abstracted it (in his Ramiro &
Agnes article, note 93) as, ". . . habuit quoque quinque filias . . ." -
without the mention of the said marriage or the daughter married to
Thours (what was he thinking - the whole purpose of the footnote was to
document the parentage and chronology of Agnes, and he goes and leaves
out the meat).
> So far I have not been able to find evidence of any illegitimate children
> attributed to William the Troubadour in an early source, although his
> amorous habits are well documented. Richard says that Raoul de Faye was
> actually the son of Mauberge by her husband, and so the brother-in-law of
> William's son by that means rather than by marriage to his supposed
> illegitimate sister. The Poitiers-Valentinois connection was purely
> fictional - the mother of Guillaume de Valentinois was still living in 1180,
> many decades after Mauberge had died.
So much for ES. Is this Saillot's doing? Brandenburg is blameless - he
lists just three children of William, all by Philippa/Matilda: Wm, Ray,
and Aggie.
taf
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
>> We are told by the chronicler of Saint-Maixent that William married
>> Philippa in 1094, and with the later report of the birth of his two sons
>> (his namesake & heir, and Raimond of Antioch) we are told that "he also
>> had five daughters by the aforesaid wife, one of whom [Agnes, as noted
>> above] was married to the viscount of Thouars" (ex supradicta conjuge
>> habuit quoque quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit vicecomiti
>> Toarcensi).
>
> That's helpful. I wish Vajay hadn't abstracted it (in his Ramiro & Agnes
> article, note 93) as, ". . . habuit quoque quinque filias . . ." - without
> the mention of the said marriage or the daughter married to Thours (what
> was he thinking - the whole purpose of the footnote was to document the
> parentage and chronology of Agnes, and he goes and leaves out the meat).
Well, Vajay is not alone in that sort of cursory quoting practice, and at
least he gave some of the text - his generation came at the end of a time in
which all readers were imagined to be denizens of great European librairies,
with ready access to sources, and/or to be ready to take the author's word
for whatever was asserted about the contents.
>> So far I have not been able to find evidence of any illegitimate children
>> attributed to William the Troubadour in an early source, although his
>> amorous habits are well documented. Richard says that Raoul de Faye was
>> actually the son of Mauberge by her husband, and so the brother-in-law of
>> William's son by that means rather than by marriage to his supposed
>> illegitimate sister. The Poitiers-Valentinois connection was purely
>> fictional - the mother of Guillaume de Valentinois was still living in
>> 1180, many decades after Mauberge had died.
>
> So much for ES. Is this Saillot's doing? Brandenburg is blameless - he
> lists just three children of William, all by Philippa/Matilda: Wm, Ray,
> and Aggie.
I don't have ES neue Folge II to check for any further sources (I think Leo
probably has the only copy of this volume in Australia). Rösch surely did
not provide the information, as he didn't follow the Poitou line down to
William the Troubadour. Maybe it came from Saillot. However, Schwennicke and
his collaborators tend to be sloppy and credulous when it comes to French
lineages, sometimes even throwing together speculations that cancel each
other out, and the bibliographies can be next-to-useless indicators since
they sometimes ignore the better references in favour of worse, or prefer
their own ideas willy-nilly. Judging from the corrections to Band II that
were published in III, this was not his best effort.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Peter Stewart wrote:
<snip>
>> We are told by the chronicler of Saint-Maixent that William married
>> Philippa in 1094, and with the later report of the birth of his two sons
>> (his namesake & heir, and Raimond of Antioch) we are told that "he also
>> had five daughters by the aforesaid wife, one of whom [Agnes, as noted
>> above] was married to the viscount of Thouars" (ex supradicta conjuge
>> habuit quoque quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit vicecomiti
>> Toarcensi).
>
> That's helpful. I wish Vajay hadn't abstracted it (in his Ramiro & Agnes
> article, note 93) as, ". . . habuit quoque quinque filias . . ." - without
> the mention of the said marriage or the daughter married to Thours (what
> was he thinking - the whole purpose of the footnote was to document the
> parentage and chronology of Agnes, and he goes and leaves out the meat).
It occurred to me that Vajay in 1966 must have been using an older edition
of the Saint-Maixent chronicle than Jean Verdon's from 1979, and maybe that
had punctuated the passage differently, so that "ex supradicta conjuge"
referred back to the namesake son of Duke William rather than specifically
to his five daughters encompassing the sons as well.
However, the edition by Marchegay that he used is available on Gallica at
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-202275 and
this (p. 419) agrees with Verdon.
This chronicle (aka 'de Maillezais') is an important source for the comital
family of Poitou - it is printed by Marchegay on pp. 351-433 if anyone wants
to download it without the rest of the book, although there's a lot of other
valuable material in it (most, but not all, now available in more recent
editions).
Peter Stewart
Nichol...@yahoo.com
that William married Philippa
in 1094, and with the later report of the birth of his two sons (his
namesake & heir, and Raimond of Antioch) we are told that "he also had
five
daughters by the aforesaid wife, one of whom [Agnes, as noted above]
was
married to the viscount of Thouars" (ex supradicta conjuge habuit
quoque
quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit vicecomiti Toarcensi)."
Thank you for this information, Mr. Stewart. Is there any mention made
of the birthdate of the younger son, Raymond, later prince of Antioch?
It seems to me that he was probably born 1105 or thereabouts.
Peter Stewart
<Nichol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123368221.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yes, that would be a reasonable assumption, especially if Vajay was right
about Agnes being born in mid-1103, since we are told that Raimond was the
youngest of seven children from a marriage that had taken place in 1094. The
relevant passage (that can be found through the link I posted earlier, on p.
419) is under 1099 as follows:
"Willelmo comiti natus est filius, equivoce Guillelmus vocatus. Ex
supradicta conjuge habuit quoque quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit
vicecomiti Toarcensi. Novissime genuit apud Tholosam uterinum, videlicet
Raimundum, qui postea regnavit in Antiochia." (A son was born to Count
William, named William like himself. From the aforesaid wife he had also
five daughters, one of whom was married to the viscount of Thouars. Youngest
among the Tolosan brood he fathered was of course Raimond, who later ruled
in Antioch).
Philippa was daughter of the count of Toulouse - however, according to
Verdon's translation into French the last sentence means "Finally he had a
son born at Toulouse...". Given his name from the comital family of
Toulouse, it's perfectly plausible that Raimond was actually born there, but
the words can be taken either way. The elder son William was by-named "the
Tolosan".
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
According to Alfred Richard, the attribution of Henri de Poitou, a prior of
Cluny who became the wayward abbot of Saint-Jean d'Angély and Peterborough,
as a third son of William the Troubadour was an error of Jean Besly in
_Histoire des comtes de Poictou et ducs de Guyenne_ (Paris, 1647), p. 127.
Richard showed that this man must have been a good deal older than William's
children born after 1094, citing first a charter of Cluny dated 1100
witnessed by "domno Heynrico priore", and the list in _Gallia christiana_
showing only one prior at the abbey in the 12th century named Henry. Richard
suggested that the origin of Besly's mistake was a passage in William of
Tyre about a purported brother of Raimond of Antioch - in book 14, chapter
20: "Interseritur etiam pactis quod si domini Raimundi frater Henricus
nomine in partes descenderet Antiochenas, dominus patriarcha fideliter
elaboraret quomodo puelle matrem, domini Boamundi viduam, cum duabus urbibus
maritimis et earum finibus haberet uxorem" (It was also added to the
stipulations that if the lord Raimond's brother named Henry should come down
to Antioch, the lord patriarch would sincerely try to bring about that he
would have as wife the girl's mother, lord Bohemund's widow, along with two
port cities and their countryside). The widow in question was Raimond's
prospective mother-in-law Alix of Rethel, daughter of King Balduin II - the
supposed brother Henry is unidentified, but these events took place in the
mid-1130s and the partiarch was hardly referring to a discredited abbot in
France who had died some years before then (in January 1131).
Of William the Troubadour's four daughters apart from Agnes, nothing is
known for certain. However, Alienor of Aquitaine apparently referred to
another Agnes - known as "de Barbezieux", abbess of Notre-Dame at Saintes -
as her "aunt", and Richard thought this might have been one of them. He
doesn't give a reference, and without some firmer evidence it seems
implausible to me.
I can't find any evidence to link Henri "de Poitou" as a nephew of William
the Troubadour's mother Audiardis of Burgundy, as Richard claimed. The name
was certainly current in her family, but none of her half-siblings settled
in Poitou and if a nephew had followed her there he would more probably have
become known as "Henry the Burgundian" anyway.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
> Richard showed that this man must have been a good deal older than
> William's
> children born after 1094, citing first a charter of Cluny dated 1100
> witnessed by "domno Heynrico priore", and the list in _Gallia christiana_
> showing only one prior at the abbey in the 12th century named Henry.
Another piece of evidence is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle I laboriously typed
out which states in one section, when speaking of him, that the monks "have not
enjoyed one happy day in twenty five years" or something like that (from
memory). Implying that he was the head for twenty five years. And so had to
certainly be an adult or near-adult at the time Williams' children were being born.
Will Johnson
wils...@paradise.net
<farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
Husband: William IX, Duke of Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born: 22 Oct 1071 in
Died: 10 Feb 1127 in
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wife: Philippa, of Toulouse
Married: 1094 in
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born: abt 1073 in
Died: 28 Nov 1117 in
Father: William IV, Count of Toulouse
Mother: Emme, of Cornwall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F Child 1: Agnes, of Aquitaine
Born:
Died: 1136 in
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debrett's King & Queens of Europe
by David Williamson
Brendan Wilson
To Reply: remove [.] from around the dot. Stops Spam
Researching: Lowther, Westmoreland. Clifford, Cumberland /Yorkshire. Brennan, Kilhile, Ballyhack Wexford. Fitzgibbon, Kingsland French Park Rosscommon,Ireland. Prendergast & Donohue, Cappoquin Lismore, Waterford. Starr & Turner, Romford Essex,England.
Peters, Hamburg & Ballarat Victoria.Lund, Hamburg.Lowther & McCormack,Dublin.
Peter Stewart
<wils...@paradise.net[.]nz> wrote in message
news:reeef19frk6339i3n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:48:19 -0600, "Todd A. Farmerie"
> <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
>
> Husband: William IX, Duke of Aquitaine
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Born: 22 Oct 1071 in
> Died: 10 Feb 1127 in
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Wife: Philippa, of Toulouse
> Married: 1094 in
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Born: abt 1073 in
> Died: 28 Nov 1117 in
> Father: William IV, Count of Toulouse
> Mother: Emme, of Cornwall
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> F Child 1: Agnes, of Aquitaine
> Born:
> Died: 1136 in
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Debrett's King & Queens of Europe
> by David Williamson
I don't understand the point that is being made here, but Agnes is not known
to have been the eldest child of Duke William IX and she died well after
1136 - on 8 March, probably in 1159 (she was dead by 1160).
Peter Stewart
Nichol...@yahoo.com
Peter Stewart wrote:
> Yes, that would be a reasonable assumption, especially if Vajay was right
> about Agnes being born in mid-1103, since we are told that Raimond was the
> youngest of seven children from a marriage that had taken place in 1094. The
> relevant passage (that can be found through the link I posted earlier, on p.
> 419) is under 1099 as follows:
>
> "Willelmo comiti natus est filius, equivoce Guillelmus vocatus. Ex
> supradicta conjuge habuit quoque quinque filias, quarum unam desponsavit
> vicecomiti Toarcensi. Novissime genuit apud Tholosam uterinum, videlicet
> Raimundum, qui postea regnavit in Antiochia." (A son was born to Count
> William, named William like himself. From the aforesaid wife he had also
> five daughters, one of whom was married to the viscount of Thouars. Youngest
> among the Tolosan brood he fathered was of course Raimond, who later ruled
> in Antioch).
>
> Philippa was daughter of the count of Toulouse - however, according to
> Verdon's translation into French the last sentence means "Finally he had a
> son born at Toulouse...". Given his name from the comital family of
> Toulouse, it's perfectly plausible that Raimond was actually born there, but
> the words can be taken either way. The elder son William was by-named "the
> Tolosan".
>
> Peter Stewart
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I forgot to add in my earlier message that I
attempted to view the chronicle at Gallica, but for some unknown reason
was unable. I conferred with two acquaintances of mine, both of whom
are familiar with Latin, with regards to the text concerning Raymond.
According to them, "apud" usually means "at" or "near" when paired with
a place-name (as it is in "apud Tholosam"). They believe it refers to
him being born in Toulouse, or perhaps an alternate interpretation is
that he was born into the aristocratic house of Toulouse. They cited a
phrase from Cicero, "agri in Hispania apud Karthaginem Novam" (fields
in Spain near Cartagena) to illustrate this.
Peter Stewart
<Nichol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123532539.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Apud" can mean a number of things, "with", "by", "near", "among" or, as the
French would say, "chez".
In Jean Verdon's translation "apud Tholosam" indicates that Raimond of
Antioch himself was born "at Toulouse", but it could equally mean that he
was the last of the fruits of the union of his parents to be born there.
However, I can't see in the context that the chronicler was taking an
exceptional interest in the birthplace of Raimond and/or his siblings, and I
think the meaning of "apud" here is more "among" rather than "at" - i.e.
that Raimond was the latest among the uterine issue begotten from his
father's marriage to the Tolosan wife Philippa (born "chez Toulouse" if you
like, which should be "Tholosanam" for the individual perhaps), so
representing as much the family as the place that she came from, and not
where all her children or any of them were necessarily born.
That is why I left the ambiguity by turning "Tholosam" into an adjective and
"uterinum" into a neuter genitive plural, of the kind frequently used by
this writer. It's not elegant, but the chonicle of Saint-Maixent is far from
a literary marvel.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> That is why I left the ambiguity by turning "Tholosam" into an adjective
> and "uterinum" into a neuter genitive plural, of the kind frequently used
> by this writer.
To make this clearer, it should read: That is why I left the ambiguity
by turning "Tholosam" into an adjective in English and reading
"uterinum" as a neuter genitive plural, of the kind frequently used by
this writer, instead of a masculine accusative singular - as Verdon
quite properly took it to be by translating this straightforwardly as
"son", qualified by "that is, Raimond", born at Toulouse.
If Verdon is right and there was a point to be implied in passing about
Raimond's birthplace this would probably be connected with the efforts
of his father to acquire Toulouse for his family, as the inheritance of
Philippa. That would add to the probability of Raimond's birth having
taken place there in 1105, soon after the death of Philippa's uncle
(and usurper of her rights as viewed from Aquitaine) Raimond of
Saint-Gilles, in February 1105.
I recall a paper about Duke William's incursions into Toulouse, and I
will try to find this to check if he was there in 1105.
Peter Stewart