Has Capetian Y-chromosome DNA been identified
Douglas Richardson
Mississippienne who occasionally posts here on soc.genealogy.medieval
posted the two messages below on 27 Oct. 2010 on another website.
Since I know this information is of interest to many newsgroup
members, I thought I'd share Mississippienne's messages here.
For those who wish to e-mail Mississippienne, they should be able to
obtain her contact information from the archives.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Post #1:
Has Capetian Y-chromosome DNA identified?
Okay, so tests have been run on samples of DNA taken from
handkerchiefs dipped in the blood of King Louis XVI of France (a
direct male-line descendant of Hugh Capet, among many other kings of
France) to determine his mtDNA (mother's mother's mother, etc. line)
and y-chromosome (father's father's father, etc. line) results. And
the results are in!
mtDNA: N1b, found primarily in Australian Aboriginees, South India,
and the Caucasus, which of the above places is the only one even
remotely likely to have produced Louis' matrilineal ancestors.
Y-chromosome: This is the real shocker. It's G2a. This is a quite rare
European y-chromosome, completely at odds for what you'd expect for a
y-chromosome of the Capetians who had ruled across Europe for a
thousand years, leaving untold younger sons and illegitimate sons
littered far and wide. G2a originated thousands of years ago in the
Indus Valley and is found at low levels in Anatolia, Greece, and
Italy. It's so rare, in fact, that a search for Louis XVI's matches
found the closest match in Marche, Italy.
This is really pretty baffling. I'm hoping they test some more male-
line Capetian descendants, because this G2a result is so rare that its
making me doubt that its really the 'original' Capetian y-chromosome,
so to speak (maybe Louis XIV's real father was Cardinal Mazarin after
all?).
On a related note, someone needs to get around to testing those
Beauforts and finding out what the Plantagenet y-chromosome is, or
hell, getting a sample from one of the interred kings. Richard I's
heart was preserved, wasn't it? Surely they could get DNA from that.
Post #2:
2010-10-27 06:36 pm UTC (link)
The current plan is to test Louis XVII's heart, but I'm not sure the
results will help -- are we even sure Louis XVI was the father of
Louis XVII? I thought Marie Antoinette's relationship with Fersen was
pretty intense by the time Louis XVII was conceived. There's some
descendants of Louis XVI's brothers and cousins running around still,
I'm pretty sure.
The Spanish Borbons won't be useful for testing thanks to the
adulterous ways of Queen Isabel II. Not that I'm complaining, mind
you, the Spanish Borbons had gotten so inbred by that point that it
was probably a mercy that Queen Isabel II was sleeping with everyone
*but* her husband-cousin, but still, they won't carry a Capetian y-
chromosome. The same problem could apply to some of the male-line
descendants of Carlos IV and Maria Luisa of Parma; several of Maria
Luisa's children were likely fathered by Manuel Godoy.
The Grand Ducal family of Luxembourg is an option, though, as they're
descended from Louis XIV via Felipe I of Spain, bypassing Isabel II.
taf
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Mississippienne who occasionally posts here on soc.genealogy.medieval
> posted the two messages below on 27 Oct. 2010 on another website.
> Since I know this information is of interest to many newsgroup
> members, I thought I'd share Mississippienne's messages here.
This was discussed here back in October when the result was announced
to the press (it is still not formally published).
> mtDNA: N1b, found primarily in Australian Aboriginees, South India,
> and the Caucasus, which of the above places is the only one even
> remotely likely to have produced Louis' matrilineal ancestors.
>
Before anyone goes nuts over the Australian Aboriginal ancestors of
the Capetians, recent admixture analysis shows that there is a minor
but pervasive genetic input in most Europeans of a genetic strain from
the Caucasus region. In fact, it perhaps represents that very Indo-
European stock that are thought to have brought the proto-language
shared by most Europeans. Therefor, such a Caucasian DNA strain would
not be so unusual as it might at first appear.
taf
Douglas Richardson
There is a brief discussion of the recent DNA test performed on the
alleged blood of King Louis XVI at the following weblink:
http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/PIIS1872497310001602/
I've copied the discussion below without the footnotes. To view the
entire discussion, you'll need to go to the weblink.
The English Courtenays are alleged to be of Capetian origin in an
ancient pedigree of the family found in Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum
1 (1825): 377–382. This alleged origin has never been proved or
disproved. If the origin is sound, then theoretically anyone
descended from the English Courtenays would have the Capetian Y-
chromosome.
Below is a weblink to the Y-chromosome test results for an American
Courtenay. The results of his test show he is a member of the R1b1b2
Haplogroup. The results can be viewed at the following weblink:
http://www.ysearch.org/lastname_view.asp?uid=&letter=&lastname=Courtenay&viewuid=E3HBX&p=0
If the above weblink doesn't work, one can go to www.ysearch.org and
search for the results for User ID: E3HBX.
The test results for the American Courtenay (R1b1b2) do not match the
test results allegedly of King Louis XVI (G2a). This may or may not
mean anything.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + + + +
Genetic analysis of the presumptive blood from Louis XVI, king of
France
Received 9 July 2010; received in revised form 14 August 2010;
accepted 15 September 2010. published online 12 October 2010.
Abstract
A text on a pyrographically decorated gourd dated to 1793 explains
that it contains a handkerchief dipped with the blood of Louis XVI,
king of France, after his execution. Biochemical analyses confirmed
that the material contained within the gourd was blood. The
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) hypervariable region 1 (HVR1) and 2 (HVR2),
the Y-chromosome STR profile, some autosomal STR markers and a SNP in
HERC2 gene associated to blue eyes, were retrieved, and some results
independently replicated in two different laboratories. The uncommon
mtDNA sequence retrieved can be attributed to a N1b haplotype, while
the novel Y-chromosome haplotype belongs to haplogroup G2a. The HERC2
gene showed that the subject analyzed was a heterozygote, which is
compatible with a blue-eyed person, as king Louis XVI was. To confirm
the identity of the subject, an analysis of the dried heart of his
son, Louis XVII, could be undertaken.
taf
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is a brief discussion of the recent DNA test performed on the
> alleged blood of King Louis XVI at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/PIIS1872497310001602/
>
> I've copied the discussion below without the footnotes. To view the
> entire discussion, you'll need to go to the weblink.
Umm, No. There is no 'discussion' on that page. This is the Abstract
(a one-paragraph summary accompanying a scholarly work) of the yet-to-
be-published article. The so-called 'footnotes' just contain the
institutional affiliations of the authors.
taf
Douglas Richardson
< Umm, No. There is no 'discussion' on that page. This is the
Abstract
<(a one-paragraph summary accompanying a scholarly work) of the yet-
to-
< be-published article.
< taf
I suggest we discuss the alleged Courtenay descent from the medieval
Capetian family and the implications for this supposed "scholarly"
article. If the DNA test results for the America Courtenay are
correct and if the Courtenay family has a male line descent from the
Capetian family, the implications for the article are obvious.
Peter Stewart
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1e69ec56-4af0-43e1...@o32g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> There is a brief discussion of the recent DNA test performed on
> the alleged blood of King Louis XVI at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/PIIS1872497310001602/
>
> I've copied the discussion below without the footnotes. To view
> the entire discussion, you'll need to go to the weblink.
>
> The English Courtenays are alleged to be of Capetian origin in an
> ancient pedigree of the family found in Dugdale, Monasticon
> Anglicanum 1 (1825): 377–382.
>
> This alleged origin has never been proved or disproved.
Not that stale old chestnut again... You have been told before that it is
nonsense, and anyway it's in Monasticon vol. 5, not 1.
The "alleged origin" in this document disproves itself - it says that Renaud
de Courtenay was the son of Florus, son of Louis le Gros ("Fuit autem iste
dictus Reginaldus de Courtney filius Flori, filii regis Franciae Lodovici,
cognomento Grossi"). However, the only son of King Louis VI named Florus was
King Louis VII, who was baptised Louis Florus. Louis VI also had a brother
Florus, but we know from better sources he left only a daughter, Isabelle,
who inherited the seigneury of Nangis from her mother.
In any case, the "ancient pedigree" copied from the register Forde abbey was
clearly written after (and probably well after) the death of Agnes St John,
widow of Hugh Courtenay, earl of Devon - she is said in it to have died on
Trinity Sunday and the feast of St Barnabas in 1340, and to have been buried
on Tuesday 28 May. However, the author didn't check his calendar: Trinity
Sunday in 1340 was not until 11 June, also St Barnabas' day, while 28 May
was not a Tuesday but a Sunday: this date fell on a Tuesday in 1342, two
days after Trinity Sunday but a fortnight before the feast of St Barnabas.
So this "ancient pedigree" isn't even good evidence for the last event
recorded in it, much less for a genealogy two centuries before that. The
document printed by Dugdale had been copied by Camden, and later borrowed
from the Cottonian library by Dodsworth who apparently did not return it so
that now it is held with his papers in the Bodleian library and is not part
of Cotton Julius B.10 in the British Library as indicated in Monasticon.
I posted at length about the connections of Renaud de Courtenay in January
2003,
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2003-01/1043727077.
Peter Stewart
taf
On Jan 31, 9:56 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 8:37 pm, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> < Umm, No. There is no 'discussion' on that page. This is the
> Abstract
> <(a one-paragraph summary accompanying a scholarly work) of the yet-
> to-
> < be-published article.
>
> I suggest we discuss the alleged Courtenay descent from the medieval
Thanks for the 'suggestion'.
> Capetian family and the implications for this supposed "scholarly"
> article.
You have _got_ to be kidding me. 'Supposed'? "Scholarly", in quotes?
Have you NO shame? Are you really that bereft of integrity that you
would question the quality of the scholarship underlying a paper that
has passed significant peer review by experts in the field, WITHOUT
EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Without even knowing that you were looking at its
abstract and not just some discussion of its findings? Is this the
level of scholarship you yourself bring to bear on such a question?
> If the DNA test results for the America Courtenay are
> correct and if the Courtenay family has a male line descent from the
> Capetian family, the implications for the article are obvious.
>
If . . . and if . . . and if . . .
If my aunt was my uncle, the implications of that too would be
obvious.
But she's not.
taf
Douglas Richardson
There isn't much known about Fleury of France, younger son of Philippe
I, King of France. He is called variously Fleury, Floire, Flore, and
Florus by French scholars. He was living in 1119, when he and his
full brother, Philippe, defended the castle of Évreux, for their
uncle, Amaury de Montfort, against King Henry I of England. It is
known he married and left descendants [see, for example, Patrologiae
Cursus Completus, Series Latina 216 (1891): 974]. As noted in an
earlier post, he is alleged by a Ford Abbey pedigree to have been the
father of Renaud (or Reginald) de Courtenay, founder of the baronial
Courtenay family in England.
I don't know of any evidence which precludes Fleury of France from
being the father of Renaud de Courtenay, who later occurs in England.
The only helpful clues we have at present as to Renaud de Courtenay's
parentage is we know that the descendants of Renaud de Courtenay in
England used a similar coat of arms as the descendants of Pierre of
France (nephew of Fleury of France), whose wife, Elizabeth, was
allegedly the daughter of an earlier Renaud de Courtenay (living
1149), seigneur of Courtenay and Montargis. Also we know that Robert
de Courtenay, grandson of Renaud de Courtenay in England, was styled
"kinsman" by King Henry III of England in 1217 [see Cal. Patent Rolls,
1216–1225 (1901): 53]. King Henry III was a grandson of Alix de
Courtenay, daughter of Pierre of France and his wife, Elizabeth de
Courtenay. So there was surely some interconnection between these
families.
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln 3 (1989):629 asserts that Renaud
de Courtenay (living 1149) of France was the father of Renaud de
Courtenay in England, but what evidence he bases this claim on I have
no idea. Perhaps it is nothing more than a wild guess.
The historian S.D. Church published the following comments regarding
the parentage of Pierre of France's wife, Elizabeth de Courtenay, in
his book, King John: New Interpretations (1999): 202:
“All the standard accounts here depend upon the so-called continuator
of Aimo of Fleury, a twelfth-century source, now BN ms. Latin 5925a
fo. 188r, partially printed by Bouquet, Recueil, xi, 276, and cf.
ibid., xii, 219, which states that Peter son of Louis VI was married
to Elizabeth the daughter of Renaud de Courtenay. Nowehere else have
I found any evidence for Renaud being married, let alone to him
fathering a daughter named Elizabeth. However, there is at least one
proof, previously overlooked, that Renaud de Courtenay had a sister
named Elizabeth: BN ms. Pièces Originales 891 (formerly ms. français
27375) no. 3, where William (Renaud's brother) and Elizabeth de
Courtenay his sister appear in a charter issued by Miles their father
and Elizabeth his wife to the monks of St-Pierre-de-Néronville near
Sens. It is worth noting that both Miles de Courtenay (d. after 1145)
and William his son (d. before 1152) were married to women named
Elizabeth alias Isabella: as above, and see A. Luchaire, Études sur
les Actes de Louis VII, Paris 1885, 183–4 no. 261.” END OF QUOTE.
I think a fair assessment of Mr. Church's comments is that he feels
the evidence is weak that Elizabeth, wife of Pierre of France, was the
daughter of the earlier Renaud de Courtenay (living 1149) of France.
Even so, I believe there is other evidence which supports this
marriage which eluded Mr. Church. See for example Recueil des
Historiens des Gaules et de la France 18 (1879): 760.
Mr. Church's research reveals that Renaud de Courtenay (living 1149)
had a sister named Elizabeth. If this Elizabeth married Fleury of
France, they could well be the parents of Renaud de Courtenay who
later surfaces in England. The use of the Courtenay surname by Renaud
de Courtenay in England could be explained if he adopted his mother's
surname as his own. This arrangement would also explain why Renaud de
Courtenay in England inherited none of the Courtenay family land
holdings in France, as his mother would have been the aunt of the
actual heiress of the family, the heiress being the younger Elizabeth
de Courtenay, who married c.1150 Pierre of France.
'
Insofar as Fleury of France being the father of Renaud de Courtenay in
England, I certainly have an open mind regarding that possibility.
What would prove or disprove the connection is DNA evidence. If the Y-
chromosome of men descended from the English Courtenays can be found
to match male descendants of the Capetian family, then I think a good
case could be made that the Ford Abbey pedigree was correct in
identifying Renaud de Courtenay in England as a son of Fleury of
France. To disregard the Ford Abbey pedigree outright would be an
error in my judgement. At the present date, there appears to be
insufficient DNA evidence at hand to settle the matter.
Douglas Richardson
> You have _got_ to be kidding me. 'Supposed'? "Scholarly", in quotes?
> Have you NO shame? Are you really that bereft of integrity that you
> would question the quality of the scholarship underlying a paper that
> has passed significant peer review by experts in the field, WITHOUT
> EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Without even knowing that you were looking at its
> abstract and not just some discussion of its findings? Is this the
> level of scholarship you yourself bring to bear on such a question?
> taf
Blah, blah, and more blah.
taf
> To disregard the Ford Abbey pedigree outright would be an
> error in my judgement.
And yet you feel free to pick and choose which parts of it to
disregard. The pedigree in question derived Courtenay from Louis VI,
and here you go spinning a scenario based on nothing more than that
Reynold de Courtenay has a sister named Elizabeth (the relevance of
which escapes me) that derives them from his brother. I guess there
are two errors in your judgement here: to disregard those parts you
wish to retail, and to retain those parts you wish to disregard (or do
I have that backwards).
taf
taf
> On Feb 1, 1:54 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > You have _got_ to be kidding me. 'Supposed'? "Scholarly", in quotes?
> > Have you NO shame? Are you really that bereft of integrity that you
> > would question the quality of the scholarship underlying a paper that
> > has passed significant peer review by experts in the field, WITHOUT
> > EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Without even knowing that you were looking at its
> > abstract and not just some discussion of its findings? Is this the
> > level of scholarship you yourself bring to bear on such a question?
>
Oh, that's the level of your scholarship.
taf
Tronscend
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> skrev i melding
news:462498b3-889f-4c6f...@a8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 1:54 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> You have _got_ to be kidding me. 'Supposed'? "Scholarly", in quotes?
> Have you NO shame? Are you really that bereft of integrity that you
> would question the quality of the scholarship underlying a paper that
> has passed significant peer review by experts in the field, WITHOUT
> EVEN LOOKING AT IT? Without even knowing that you were looking at its
> abstract and not just some discussion of its findings? Is this the
> level of scholarship you yourself bring to bear on such a question?
Definite Capetian streak there, already.
T
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> I think a fair assessment of Mr. Church's comments is that he feels
> the evidence is weak that Elizabeth, wife of Pierre of France, was
> the daughter of the earlier Renaud de Courtenay (living 1149) of
> France. Even so, I believe there is other evidence which supports
> this marriage which eluded Mr. Church. See for example Recueil
> des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 18 (1879): 760.
Is this supposed to be a joke? The "evidence" you think eluded Church is the
work of Alberic of Troisfontaines, written in the 1230s and frequently
unreliable for events closer to his own time. He was explicitly uncertain
about whether Pierre's wife, dame of Montargis, was sister or niece ("soror
vel neptis") to Guillaume, archbishop of Bourges, and he doesn't even
mention Renaud.
> Mr. Church's research reveals that Renaud de Courtenay (living
> 1149) had a sister named Elizabeth. If this Elizabeth married
> Fleury of France, they could well be the parents of Renaud de
> Courtenay who later surfaces in England. The use of the
> Courtenay surname by Renaud de Courtenay in England could
> be explained if he adopted his mother's surname as his own.
> This arrangement would also explain why Renaud de Courtenay
> in England inherited none of the Courtenay family land holdings
> in France, as his mother would have been the aunt of the actual
> heiress of the family, the heiress being the younger Elizabeth
> de Courtenay, who married c.1150 Pierre of France.
But as pointed out before the wife of Florus was an heiress in her own
right, of Nangis, and this was inherited by her daughter Isabelle so the
speculation that she had a landless son is pointless.
'
> Insofar as Fleury of France being the father of Renaud de Courtenay
> in England, I certainly have an open mind regarding that possibility.
You mind is clearly "open" to the elements on this question.
> What would prove or disprove the connection is DNA evidence.
> If the Y-chromosome of men descended from the English
> Courtenays can be found to match male descendants of the
> Capetian family, then I think a good case could be made that the
> Ford Abbey pedigree was correct in identifying Renaud de
> Courtenay in England as a son of Fleury of France. To disregard
> the Ford Abbey pedigree outright would be an error in my
> judgement. At the present date, there appears to be insufficient
> DNA evidence at hand to settle the matter.
And if they had the same Y-DNA as Jack Sprat then a case could be made that
they wouldn't eat fat. There's no more reason to look for scientific
evidence in support of this than for any of the numberless false claims
about founders' and patrons' kin in countless similar monastic screeds of
the 14th and 15th centuries.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> "Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > Insofar as Fleury of France being the father of Renaud de Courtenay
> > in England, I certainly have an open mind regarding that possibility.
>
> You mind is clearly "open" to the elements on this question.
> Peter Stewart
What I have proposed is a solution that satisfies all of the evidence
we have regarding Renaud (or Reginald) de Courtenay in England. It
explains his use of the Courtenay name, the use of the Courtenay arms
by his descendants, the kinship between his grandson and King Henry
III, and his failure to inherit any of the Courtenay lands in France.
It also agrees with the Ford Abbey pedigree. And the chronology is
fine.
So all six points are addressed.
Douglas Richardson
Drop the personal attacks and get back to the evidence please.
WJho...@aol.com
contemporary charter specifying that Milo had a son, evidently still young in
1120/39 named Rainald.
It seems obvious to me that this Rainald is the person. Not some son of
Fleury who didn't get any part of his mother's inheritence, which to me is a
red flag.
Douglas Richardson
For those who are following this thread with avid interest, some of
you fluent in French may wish to read an interesting article on the
"Continuation of Aimon" which manuscript was mentioned by the
historian, S.D. Church, as containing evidence for the parentage of
the younger Elizabeth de Courtenay, wife of Pierre of France. This
article is M. Simeon Luce “La Continuation of d'Aimoin et le Manuscrit
Latin 12711," which was published in Notices et Documents publiés pour
la Société de l’Histoire de France à l'Occasion de Cinquantième
Anniversaire de sa Fondation (1884): 57–70.
It can be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Zk8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA57
According to M. Luce, the continuation of Aimon contains the following
statement:
"Rainaudus genuit uxorem Petri fratris domini regis et uxorem Avalonis
de Selviaco." END OF QUOTE.
Translated this means that Renaud [de Courtenay] had two daughters,
one of whom was the wife of Pierre [of France] brother of the king,
and the other of whom was the wife of Avalon de Saillenay.
Also, for interest's sake, the following below is a list of the 17th
Century New World immigrants that descend from Renaud (or Reginald) de
Courtenay (died 1194), of England.
Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Anne Baynton, Marmaduke Beckwith,
Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas
Booth, Elizabeth Bosvile, Mary Bourchier, Edward Bromfield, Nathaniel
Burrough, Elizabeth, John, and Thomas Butler, Charles Calvert, Kenelm
Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Jeremy Clarke, William Clopton, Anne
Cordray, William Crymes, Francis Dade, Humphrey Davie, Frances, Jane &
Frances Deighton, Anne Derehaugh, William Farrer, John Fenwick, Henry
Fleete, William Goddard, Muriel Gurdon, Anne Humphrey, Corderoy,
Francis, Martha, & William Iremonger, Edmund Jennings, Edmund, Edward,
Matthew & Richard Kempe, Mary Launce, Percival Lowell, Gabriel, Roger
& Sarah Ludlow, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine
Marbury, John and Margaret Nelson, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge,
Richard Parker, Herbert Pelham, William & Elizabeth Pole, Henry &
William Randolph, Edward Raynsford, William Rodney, William Skepper,
Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey,
Margaret Touteville, Margaret Tyndall, Jemima Waldegrave, John West,
Hawte Wyatt, George Yate.
If you descend from the Courtenay family, I'd enjoy hearing from you
here on the newsgroup.
Douglas Richardson
You've confused two different Renaud de Courtenay's. One lived in
France, and was living in 1149. The other came to England and died
in 1194.
The parentage of the first Renaud de Courtenay is well documented.
It is the origins of the second Renaud de Courtenay that is under
discussion. Various theories have been advanced as to his origin and
parentage. I've proposed an old theory with a new twist.
Douglas Richardson
> And if they had the same Y-DNA as Jack Sprat then a case could be made that
> they wouldn't eat fat. There's no more reason to look for scientific
> evidence in support of this than for any of the numberless false claims
> about founders' and patrons' kin in countless similar monastic screeds of
> the 14th and 15th centuries.
>
> Peter Stewart
I don't think you understand DNA evidence at all. I suggest you read
up on the subject.
As for Jack Sprat, now that's another matter. His parentage has
always been a little murky.
WJho...@aol.com
Cawley cites something called the "Testa de Neville" that there were two
evidently two Renauds in a row here. The lands of one were confiscated in
France, he came to England and was granted land there. etc etc. And the other
is his son.
Douglas Richardson
I have a few more names to add to the list of the 17th Century New
World immigrants that descend from Renaud (or Reginald) de Courtenay
(died 1194), of England:
Dannett Abney, Elizabeth Alsop, Barbara Aubrey, Charles Barnes,
Richard & William Bernard, John Bevan, George, Giles & Robert Brent,
Thomas Bressey, Nathaniel Browne, Edward Carleton, St. Leger Codd,
James Cudworth, Edward Digges, Robert Drake, Thomas Dudley, Edward
Foliot, Elizabeth & John Harleston, Edmund Hawes, Warham Horsmanden,
Hannah, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Thomas Ligon, Nathaniel Littleton,
Thomas Lloyd, Henry, Jane & Nicholas Lowe, Thomas Lunsford, Agnes
Mackworth, Anne Mauleverer, Richard More, Philip & Thomas Nelson,
Robert Peyton, George Reade, Thomas Rudyard, Katherine Saint Leger,
Richard Saltonstall, Olive Welby, Amy Wyllys.
taf
>
> I don't think you understand DNA evidence at all. I suggest you read
> up on the subject.
Wouldn't hurt you either. You can start with the paper "Genetic
analysis of the presumptive blood from Louis XVI, king of France" by
Lalueza-Fox, et al., FSI Genetics, in press. Unfortunately, as the
journal in question takes 6 months to a year to publish papers after
they are accepted, you may have to subscribe to see the pre-
publication version, or wait a few more months before dismissing it
out of hand AFTER reading it.
taf
taf
> On Feb 1, 2:50 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > > Blah, blah, and more blah.
>
> > Oh, that's the level of your scholarship.
>
>
Now you want to focus on the evidence? Is that what you were doing
when you submitted a post entitled "Blah, blah, and more blah", in
which you make the insightful contribution to the evidentiary analysis
as follows: "Blah, blah, and more blah". Unfortunately you left out
the footnote, indicating the source from which you derived that
particular nugget of finely honed perspective. What, pray tell, might
that evidence have been?
This was in response to you dismissing as a "supposed 'scholarly'
article" a paper you HAVE NOT READ, simply because you don't like the
fact that it disagrees with a DNA test that is of relevance only
through an unsupported descent from a medieval family that itself left
a non-contemporary tradition of an impossible descent that you then
try to 'rescue' by ignoring all of the inconvenient parts and
inventing new entirely undocumented connections. Obviously then, in
light of this pristine historical record, all of the ACTUAL evidence
in that yet-to-be-published paper can be dismissed out of hand,
WITHOUT EVER SEEING IT (when you didn't even know enough to realize
you were looking at the abstract of the paper) with the words 'blah,
blah, blah'. That is the kind of focus on the evidence we are sadly
lacking in this group, is it?
Oh, wait. I keep forgetting. These hypocritical requests of yours only
apply to others, not yourself.
If you want to focus on evidence, go for it. Explain how the Forde
pedigree is to be believed as unimpeachable gospel when reporting that
Rainald was son of Floris, and yet completely out to sea when it
reports that Floris was son of Louis VI.
taf
Peter Stewart
Not that my point needed any further proof, but thank you for providing this
so that it can be cited and weblinked.
The pedigree printed in Monasticon asserts that Renaud was son of Florus son
of Louis le Gros. That would make him son of Louis VII Florus, the first
husband of Alienor of Aquitaine. I don't see where you have "addressed" this
point. Arbitrarily transferring the paternity to a namesake uncle of Louis
VII and brother of Louis le Gros neither addresses the point or agrees with
the source.
And - as pointed out twice so far - the inheritance of Nangis by Isabelle
from her mother, the wife of Louis VI's brother Florus. This seventh point
directly contradicts your arbitrary speculation, and you have not addressed
it.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
At present there is acceptable evidence that Fleury of France (living
1119) had a daughter, Elizabeth (or Isabel), who was wife of Guy de
Marolles and Anseau de Venisy. I know of no evidence to prove that
she was his only child, or that Elizabeth's mother was his only wife.
Elizabeth was the mother of Alix (or Adelais) (wife of André de
Brienne, seigneur of Rameru [killed 1191], and Gaucher de Joigny,
seigneur of Château-Renard). Alix (or Adelais), wife of André de
Brienne, in turn was the mother of Érard de Brienne, seigneur of
Rameru.
I've seen statements in print that Elizabeth (or Isabelle), daughter
of Fleury of France, also had a second daughter, Héloïse, who married
before 1173 Pierre Britaud, vicomte de Provins. This is discussed in
Châtelain, Châteaux Forts et Féodalité en Ile de France, du XIème au
XIIIème (1983): 383, which reads as follows:
“La Motte-Beauvoir ou Beauvais était detenu au XIe siècle par une
famille Courtry dont l’héritière avait épousé au debut du XIIe siècle
Fleury, le fils qu’avait eu le roi Philippe Ier de Betrade de
Montfort. Peut-être le roi avait-il mis son fils adultérin, dont il
pouvait être sûr, au cœur d’un point stratégique de son petit domaine
d’où il pouvait surveiller les mouvements du comte de Troyes et
Meaux. A la fin de ce XIIe siècle, la petite fille de Fleury épousa
Pierre Britaud, vicomte de Provins et conseiller du comte Henri Ier le
Libéral, issu d’une famille de la haute bourgeoisie provinoise.
Nangis allait-il basculer du côté champenois? Il semble qu'il n’en
fut rien quoiqu’on soit mal renseigné sur cette époque. Mais
asuurément les générations suivantes des Britaud montrerent toute
fidélité avec Capétiens. Henri Britaud, le fils de Pierre, est vassal
direct du roi Philippe Auguste pour le seigneurie de Nangis et compte
dix huit vassaux dépendants de lui dans les environs immédiats....”
END OF QUOTE.
An article in Annales de la Société Historique et Archéologique du
Gâtinais (which I have not seen) asserts that Alix and Héloïse, the
two daughters of Elizabeth (daughter of Fleury) were the issue of
Elizabeth's marriage to Guy de Marolles, not Anseau de Venisy. The
article also claims that Fleury of France had another daughter, who
married Milon de Melun, sieur de Courtry.
For evidence that Fleury of France, had two such daughters, I find
there is a charter dated 1193 issued jointly by Milon [II] de Courtry
[i.e., Milon de Melun] and Lady Héloïse [de Nangis] published in the
new book, Dufour, Le Chartrier de la Collégiale de Saint-Martin de
Champeaux (2009): 119, which is available at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=52-3Nmi2gmoC&pg=PA383&lpg=PA383
From the dates, I would guess that Milon [II[ de Courtry and Héloïse
[de Nangis] are grandchildren of Fleury of France. The charter names
three brothers of Milon, i.e., Guérin, Anseau, and Ferry, as well as
five children of Lady Héloïse.
The historian, S.D. Church, in his book, King John: New
Interpretations (1999): 202, states that in 1217, "when Robert de
Courtenay [of England] was asked to surrender Exeter to [Queen]
Isabella, he is described in King Henry III's letter as ‘our
kinsman.’ Perhaps because of his kinship to one of the leading
families of France, Robert de Courtenay of Okehampton appears to have
been singled out for particularly harsh treatment by Louis and the
French during the civil war of 1216–17, being deprived of his lands in
one of Louis’ few surviving English charters." END OF QUOTE.
I have come across the following record dated 1216 which concerns a
certain Robert de Courtenay:
Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes: Volumes 31-40 (1888): 176 (grant
dated Sept. 1216 by King Louis VIII to Gilon de Melun of the goods of
Robert de Courtenay and of the château of “Geudefort”, or, in default,
that of “Orfort.”).
There were two contemporary Robert de Courtenay's in 1216, one in
England and one in France. I believe the above record dated 1216
concerns Robert de Courtenay in England. If so, the grant of his goods
to Gilon de Melun might be another clue to his family's origins.
Does anyone know if Gilon de Melun named in this record is related to
Milon de Melun, sieur de Courtry, who allegedly married the second
daughter of Fleury of France? Also can anyone identity "Geudefort” or
“Orfort.”
Douglas Richardson
> And - as pointed out twice so far - the inheritance of Nangis by Isabelle
> from her mother, the wife of Louis VI's brother Florus. This seventh point
> directly contradicts your arbitrary speculation, and you have not addressed
> it.
>
> Peter Stewart
There is no evidence that Fleury of France had only one wife.
psssst
> On Feb 1, 2:35 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > And - as pointed out twice so far - the inheritance of Nangis by Isabelle
> > from her mother, the wife of Louis VI's brother Florus. This seventh point
> > directly contradicts your arbitrary speculation, and you have not addressed
> > it.
>
> > Peter Stewart
>
> There is no evidence that Fleury of France had only one wife.
And is there evidence that Henry VIII had only six wives?
So going by an arbitrarily transferred detail from a late monastic
account of proven inaccuracy regarding Florus - and on other matters
much closer to the time and interest of the author - you are ready to
invent a second wife on the basis that no source tells us he was
married only once.
This is playing nursery games, not scholarship. Your time would be
better spent investigating the descent of the English Courtenays from
Jack Sprat, on the grounds that one of them was not obese.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
< This is playing nursery games, not scholarship. Your time would be
< better spent investigating the descent of the English Courtenays
from
< Jack Sprat, on the grounds that one of them was not obese.
<
< Peter Stewart
You usually go off the range when you have no evidence. Please stick
to the evidence and cite your sources.
psssst
> On Feb 1, 3:41 pm, psssst <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> < This is playing nursery games, not scholarship. Your time would be
> < better spent investigating the descent of the English Courtenays
> from
> < Jack Sprat, on the grounds that one of them was not obese.
> <
> < Peter Stewart
>
> You usually go off the range when you have no evidence. Please stick
> to the evidence and cite your sources.
You're the one who proclaimed that there is no evidence to stick to in
the first place.
You can't even cite the appropriate "evidence", absurdly pretending
that Alberic of Troisfontaines supported a specific point that he
didn't even mention. Plainly you have padded out your posts trying to
look scholarly, without knowing what you are taliking about, doubtless
hoping to get away with this or else that others correcting your
nonsense would in the process do your research for you.
Apart from instantly forgetting your own post, you seem to think that
the lack of evidence gives you carte blanche to make things up in
order to bolster an extremely shonky case.
We know very little about Florus the son of Philippe I and Bertrada.
He evidently grew up in Anjou where he occurs (by name and as "frater
comitis") in charters of his elder half-brother Foulques V.
We know from a later dossier over the consanguinieous marriage of a
descendant that he was married to the heiress of Nangis, and that this
was inherited by their daughter Isabelle, dame of Venisy.
There is no evidence that Florus married twice. There is no evidence
that the English Courtenays were closely related to the Angevin kings
of Jerusalem, to the Latin emperors of Constantinople or to the
Montforts, all of which would result from their being descendants of
Florus.
The lordling Renaud de Courtenay in England would have been a first
cousin once removed to King Henry II by the same vapid speculation.
There is not the slightest evidence to support this.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Fleury of France (living 1119), son of King Philippe I of France, is
discussed by Daniel Jalmain in his book, Archéologie Aérienne en Île-
de-France: Beauce, Brie, Champagne (1970): 116. M. Jalmain states the
following:
“Le bourg de Nangis s'est développé au sud-ouest, protegé par unto
motte féodale, celle du Beauvoir qui fut aménagée en château après
qu'elle eut echu a Fleury, fils batard de Philipe Ier et de Bertrade
de Montfort. Fleury épousa une Courtry de la Maison de Melun qui
possédait la seigneurie de Nangis. L'ancien chastel perd alors de son
importance, d'autant plus que le mariage d'Héloïse de Nangis avec
Pierre Britaud, vicomte de Provins, puis après son veuvage, en
secondes noces avec Adam de Melun, montre que la paix est revenue
entre Brie Royale et Champagne.” END OF QUOTE.
The above may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jEcaFqIj6yEC&pg=PA116
As for Fleury of France's granddaughter, Héloïse, wife of Pierre
Britaud, there is a reference to a charter dated 1193 issued by
Héloïse and her son, Henri Britaud, Vicomte de Provins, in a snippet
view at the following weblink:
There is also a discussion of the Britaud family published in
Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes 4th Ser. Vol. 4 (1858): 174175.
This may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ew7OD5mcYcAC&pg=PA174
A description of the seal of Héloïse Britaud, lady of Nangis, can be
found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ue-gNB-n6jsC&pg=PA1
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> There is also a discussion of the Britaud family published in
> Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes 4th Ser. Vol. 4 (1858): 174175.
> This may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ew7OD5mcYcAC&pg=PA174
Goodness knows what relevance you imagine these scraps may have to the
question at hand, since you propose that Renaud de Courtenay was the son of
a different wife and not the heiress of Nangis anyway, but instead of
blundering around in Google if you want a study of this family you had
better look on Gallica for 'Une famille de seigneurs briards aux XIIe et
XIIIe siècles: les Britaud, seigneus de Nangis-en-Brie' by Maurice Lecomte
in *Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie, sciences, lettres et arts du
département de Seine-et-Marne* 12 (1907-1908).
Didn't your training in medieval history teach you even the basics of
researching the unknown?
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> At present there is acceptable evidence that Fleury of France (living
> 1119) had a daughter, Elizabeth (or Isabel), who was wife of Guy de
> Marolles and Anseau de Venisy.
What "evidence" have you accepted that she was married to Guy de Marolles?
Just a report that this occurs in some secondary works?
> I know of no evidence to prove that she was his only child, or
> that Elizabeth's mother was his only wife. Elizabeth was the mother
> of Alix (or Adelais) (wife of André de Brienne, seigneur of Rameru
> [killed 1191], and Gaucher de Joigny, seigneur of Château-Renard).
> Alix (or Adelais), wife of André de Brienne, in turn was the mother
> of Érard de Brienne, seigneur of Rameru.
André de Brienne was killed on 4 October 1189.
<snip - a welter of stuff not addressing the points at issue about Florus or
Renaud de Courtenay>
> The historian, S.D. Church, in his book, King John: New
> Interpretations (1999): 202, states that in 1217, "when Robert de
> Courtenay [of England] was asked to surrender Exeter to [Queen]
> Isabella, he is described in King Henry III's letter as ‘our
> kinsman.’ Perhaps because of his kinship to one of the leading
> families of France, Robert de Courtenay of Okehampton appears to
> have been singled out for particularly harsh treatment by Louis and
> the French during the civil war of 1216–17, being deprived of his
> lands in one of Louis’ few surviving English charters." END OF
> QUOTE.
And the circumstantial evidence is very strong that this relationship did
NOT come through the connection you are advocating - there are more than 40
charters of King Henry II, a first cousin once removed to Florus, in which
Renaud de Courtenay occurs as a witness (usually the lowest-ranking or
thereabouts) and he is never once called a cousin of the king or
distinguished in any way from the others. Plainly enough the relationship of
Robert de Courtenay to Henry III must be sought elsewhere.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
> Didn't your training in medieval history teach you even the basics of
> researching the unknown?
>
> Peter Stewart
You're being a silly goose again.
Stick to the evidence, cite your sources, and avoid the personal
attacks.
Peter Stewart
> On Feb 1, 5:58 pm, "Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > Didn't your training in medieval history teach you even the basics of
> > researching the unknown?
> >
> > Peter Stewart
>
> You're being a silly goose again.
>
> Stick to the evidence, cite your sources, and avoid the personal
> attacks.
It's not a "personal attack" but a remark on your abysmal lack of
professionalism - you can't twist trenchant but perfectly relevant criticism
of your postings into an ad hominem. Will Johnson tried this cop-out and it
didn't work for him. You, with a far longer and more egregious record of
farcical incompetence, have no hope whatsoever of convincing any intelligent
reader of this tosh.
Peter Stewart
taf
>
>
> There is no evidence that Fleury of France had only one wife.
>
But you certainly have no evidence that he had any other wife. You
can't just take everyone who cannot be proven to have married just
once and hang whatever pedigree you want on them by inventing another
spouse. (Well, you can, but then you produce the kind of genealogy
you would condemn if coming from anyone else.)
taf
taf
> On Feb 1, 3:41 pm, psssst <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> < This is playing nursery games, not scholarship. Your time would be
> < better spent investigating the descent of the English Courtenays
> from
> < Jack Sprat, on the grounds that one of them was not obese.
>
> You usually go off the range when you have no evidence. Please stick
> to the evidence and cite your sources.
You first, what is your evidence that Fleury married more than once?
I thought not.
taf
Peter Stewart
"taf" <t...@clearwire.net> wrote in message
news:d49d7243-0a9f-4ad8...@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
When did double standards ever give so much as a monent's pause to
Richardson?
He hasn't tried to explain why a son of Florus with no inheritance from his
mother would have adopted the surname Courtenay, or why his male-line
descendants would have abandoned the royal arms of France, or why Henry II
didn't acknowledge a cousin in his own entourage, or....any aspect of the
question at all apart from an irrational adherence to a late and very poor
example of monastic puffery.
Some people just can't bear to admit that they have gone wrong, hence a lot
of the strife and perhaps around 25%+ of the total words posted to this
newsgroup.
O what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ourselves.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson
Moreri, Le Grand Dictionnaire Historique 10 (1759): 32 indicates that
Fleury of France's granddaughter, Héloïse, widow of Pierre Britaud,
married (2nd) Adam de Melun (living 1189), chevalier, seigneur of
Villefermois, by whom she had a son named Gilles de Melun (living
1219), seigneur de Villefermois.
This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5495703n/f989.image.pagination.r=%22dame+de+Nangis%22.langEN
If so, it would appear that this was the Gilon de Melun who was
granted the goods of Robert de Courtenay presumably of England in
1216. Gilles de Melun would be a great-grandson of Fleury of France.
So we have another connection between the Courtenay family of England
and the family of Fleury of France. Interesting.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Peter Stewart
Richardson blindly cavorted off this range of his own making with several
irrelevant postings about descendants of the heiress of Nangis, who was not
the mother of Renaud de Courtenay even in his contorted scheme of things.
Peter Stewart
Kevin Bradford
Mr. Richardson's post here is a hoot.
It is illogical and disengenuous to state that no evidence exists for a particular person to have had only one wife. The burden of genealogical proof is upon those who postulate that subsequent marriages for a given individual were actually consumated.
Kevin Bradford
> 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
Peter Stewart
Richardson yet again displays his fantastic incompetence at research.
First, the citation above is amateurishly indirect at best: "Bibliothèque de
l'École des chartes: Volumes 31-40 (1888): 176" refers not to an issue of
the journal, but to the index for 10 volumes of it.
Secondly, in September 1216 the king of France was Philippe Auguste, not his
son Louis VIII.
If Richardson had the nous to look up the document of interest, in vol 38
(1877) on pages 375-376, he would find that this charter of Louis, as son of
the king, was written during his invasion of England: "castellum de
Geudefort" is Guilford castle and "castellum de Orfort" is Orford castle,
both held by Louis.
The grant of all Robert de Courtenay's possessions, "omnes terras Roberti de
Corteneiaco, qui contra nos est", was made to Gilon de Melun "dilecto et
fideli nostro", not as a connection of the particular enemy but simply
because he was a vassal present with Louis - there are other such grants of
lands in England at the time, with no suggestion that the recipient was
other than the next in line for booty.
Note that Louis did not refer to Robert as his own relative, which of course
a great-grandson of Florus would have been (3rd cousin), though when last
heard on the subject Richardson opined that kings and princes were in the
habit of acknowledging their kinsmen at this distance. In another charter
printed in the same article (both were used in oral exams for students at
the Ecole des chartes) Louis as king in 1226 refers to the other Robert de
Courtenay, seigneur of Champignelles, as "dilectus consanguineus et fidelis
noster Robertus de Cortenaio, Francie buticularius".
Peter Stewart
psssst
<snip>
> An article in Annales de la Société Historique et Archéologique du
> Gâtinais (which I have not seen) asserts that Alix and Héloïse, the
> two daughters of Elizabeth (daughter of Fleury) were the issue of
> Elizabeth's marriage to Guy de Marolles, not Anseau de Venisy. The
> article also claims that Fleury of France had another daughter, who
> married Milon de Melun, sieur de Courtry.
This blunder has been left hanging, since Richardson has not beeen
prepared or able to tell us the evidence he has accepted that
Elizabeth daughter of Fleury married Guy de Marolles.
The article he referred to above but did not bother looking up is
'Origines des seigneurs de Nemours' by Gustave Estournet. This does
not assert that Elizabeth's two daughters were both by Guy de Marolles
- the elder, Heloise, who inherited Nangis and married Pierre Britaud,
was stated to have been Guy's daughter while the younger, Adelaide,
who inherited Venisy and married André of Brienne, seigneur of
Ramerupt, was the daughter of Anseau de Venisy. (The dossier of
testimonies compiled for Innocent III in a consanguinity case that I
mentioned before makes the latter point crystal clear.)
Peter Stewart
psssst
In a second article, 'Origines des seigneurs de Nemours: note
rectificative', Estournet put forward some circumstantial evidence
that Fleury had no son: the seigneury of Nangis, held by right of his
only known wife, came to be divided between their daughters as co-
heiresses. The younger daughter, name unrecorded, received Châtel-lès-
Nangis amongst other possessions. In the following century the
seigneury of Vienne was separated from these, and it was held directly
from the king without any feudal obligation to the seigneurs of
Châtel. Estournet suggested this was most probably because it had been
an appanage of Fleury himself, i.e. it would have been the inheritance
of his son if he had one.
Peter Stewart