Vermandois/Anjou: the case of "Adelaide"
Cristopher Nash
I have to report another problem with Bachrach's
_Fulk_Nerra_..._the_Angevin_Count_ (1993):
Bachrach (pp 8-12, 23) builds a significant part of his representation of
Fulk Nerra's political 'background' unproblematically on the proposition
that his mother (as Geoffrey Grisegonelle's 1st wife) is "Adelaide of
Vermandois", daughter of "Count Herbert" - i.e. Herbert II - of Vermandois.
(I note that this Adelaide is commonly given as w. of Arnoul I, comte de
Flandres, though that of course doesn't exclude the possibility of another,
Anjou marriage.) Significantly, as we'll see, he gives as Geoffrey
Grisegonelle's 2d wife "Adele de Chalon".
On the other hand, most modern genealogies give as the Vermandois
descendant who is Geoffrey Grisegonelle's wife the niece of the Adelaide
above, viz. "Adela" da. of Robert, Count of Meaux & Troyes, son of Herbert
II de Vermandois. Cf. e.g. MCKITTERICK (1983), RICHE (1983) and WEIS
(1992).
It's true that as early as Dantine et al. (_L'Art_de_verifier...._
[II,1784, 833]), it's been argued that the 'Adelaide' who is mo. of
Foulques Nerra must be an earlier Adelaide, parents unknown, on
chronological grounds. (By this reckoning only 2 children, Maurice and
Gerberge, would be ch. of Adelaide 'de Vermandois' &/or 'de Chalon'.) In
fact, it's not obvious that this individual should be called "de
Vermandois" at all, if she is indeed da. not of Herbert II de Vermandois
but of comte de Meaux and "veuve de Lambert, Comte de Chalon-sur-Saone"
(L'Art...II, 833), though it's of course possible, particularly given the
well-known ancestral self-consciousness of the Anjou line. Nevertheless
even TURTON (6, 80) (based here on Latrie) gives her as "Adelaide de
Chalon" with the descent shown by MCKITTERICK, RICHE and WEIS and with
evidently more nous than Weis.
I know that many here will have counter- *pedigrees* for this line, and
probably most will show agreement with the 4 texts just mentioned. But it
would be reassuring to settle this with some good sources reflecting
explicit awareness - and disposal - of the Bachrach view. That done,
Bachrach can be given another grey star in this forum, for future alert.
If on the other hand he proves right, I'll be the first to shout.
(Bachrach cites only M. Bur and an article of his own "for the date
[of the Geoffrey/Adelaide marriage]". I want to say - and it's no
doubt not right to mention this only parenthetically - that I've
consulted neither of these yet and, since the matter of marriage dates
can be significant, it would be helpful to have word from anyone
who has
seen them. I cite their full biblio below.*)
I'm afraid it doesn't end here. WEIS (1992) says the mother of Robert,
Count of Troyes & Meaux (w. of Herbert II de Vermandois) is LIEGARDE "(or
HILDEBRANT)", da. of Robert I, K of France, whereas MCKITTERICK and RICHE
both say she is ADELA da. of Robert I, K of France. (Both these texts
appear to be drawing on if not copying same source.) I note that L'ART
(op. cit, 702) claims it erroneous to call Herbert II de Vermandois' wife
("Hildebrante") the da. of Robert K of Franks since the latter is Herbert's
"oncle maternel". Has anyone a set-up putting that ancient anxiety to
rest, and resolving this 3-way name-split?
I hope all will forgive my deliberately omitting from now on -- whenever I
can take the time to erase them -- diacritical marks; I'm fed up with their
obliterating for many people online what's still more important, the
characters to which they're attached.
Thanks for any help.
Cris
* B. S. Bachrach, "Geoffrey Greymantle, Count of the Angevins, 960-987: A
Study in French Politics", _Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History_ 17
(n.s. vol 7) (1985): 1-67
Michel Bur, _La Formation du comte de Champagne v. 950 - v. 1150_ Nancy, 1977
Cristopher Nash
A flag to my 1st message on this thread: I need to add for clarity that
Bachrach, in naming as Geoffrey Grisegonelle's "1st wife" Adele de Chalon,
gives as their only child "Maurice". I.e. one of the 2 children previously
argued on chronological grounds to be the only ones "Adelaide de
Vermandois" might have had. This doesn't clear up the problem of
conflicting genealogies, but it does suggest that he has some awareness of
it, which none of the more 'standard' texts I've mentioned -- offering the
genealogy conflicting with his -- show. (It's part of why - if we must use
secondary texts here - I feel it would be valuable to turn to ones that
have not merely recited one 'pedigree' or other but have argued the case.)
Apologies for this further bit of bloat.
Cris
Cristopher Nash
More bloat (I'm obviously fatigue-blotted): In my latest, brief postscript,
<"1st wife" Adele de Chalon>
should read "2d wife" Adele de Chalon.
Sorry!
Cris
Cristopher Nash
Before anyone plies us with ES on this question, I'll just add that that
compilation provides us with a classic e.g. of a problem like that
described by Todd A Farmerie under the <Re: Dammartin links to Clermonts &
Clares> header, where --
>Here you are faced with two alternative solutions to a genealogical
question. They are both by quality researchers....[Y]ou will just
have to evaluate them based on their individual merits...<
-- only this time the _same_ researchers themselves provide conflicting
'solutions' within the same chart. It makes this an especially charming
case, and one worth sharing with devotees of ES.
ES III (1st series), Tafel 49, has Geoffroy Grisegonelle, comte d'Anjou,
marry two wives on the same day (or at least within the same week). In a
convivial gesture (the compilers frequently show signs of liking a good
party) it keeps the marriages within the family. Viz.:
(1) Adelaide da. of Comte Giselbert of Burgundy, and
(2) Adele, the da. of the same Adelaide with her husband Robert, comte de Meaux
& Troyes.
The first marriage takes place '2 or 9 Mar 979'; the second happens '2 Mar
979'.
ES - undoubtedly to add a touch of symmetry - has both mother and daughter
also marry Lambert, comte de Chalon.
Sports fans will be pleased to observe that thus ES generously adds a
further Adelaide to the array of 'solutions' to the question, Who is
Geoffrey's significant other?: Adelaide da. of Comte Giselbert of
Burgundy. But -- obviously to make us feel more at home -- proposes
further, 1/2 dozen lines below, one of the two already familiar to us:
Adele, da. of Robert & Adelaide & wid. of Lambert I. (Presumably there's
no objection to both mother and daughter being Lambert's widows; shucks, in
for a penny in for a pound.)
ES cites (1) Brandenburg; (2) Siegried Rosch; (3) Vajay; (4)
'corrections and additions by' Prof. Dr. K F Werner to (5) Rene Louis in
Dict de Biog Francais.
So much for one hand declining to note what the other's doing. A timely -
and more vivacious than we'd had a right to expect - illustration of the
point ('here's one I made earlier') about compilations' weighing-in
alternatives. (I hope no one thinks I'm condemning ES. We can see the
kind of trouble ES's struggling to deal with, and this cobbling together of
conflicting 'solutions' is its standard procedure; it can't pretend to be
definitive; in using ES the trick's just in noticing that.)
Cris