Annulment and Divorce
Paul Davis
In a recent exchange I read:
[begin excerpt]
Douglas Richardson wrote --
>Sir Edmund de Arundel's history is a bit tangled, in that
>as a young adult, he was bastardized by his parents' divorce.
Wasn't it an annullment rather than a divorce? A small point,
perhaps, but I want my database to be correct.
Vickie Elam White
[end excerpt]
I very important point, actually. I've seen a lot of loose
use of the word "divorce" here at Gen-Med, and even in history
books and Encyclopedias [however spelled]. The genealogical
implications can be quite different. Knowing which the original
record said is essential to following implications correctly in
some cases.
If I'm not mistaken, not only does an annulment bastardize
any children, it also causes the people to have been considered
unmarried during the relevant period of time, and may also have
the effect of legitimizing children of a later marriage which
would otherwise be bigamous. Thus the statement seen here, that
Princess Joan's legitimization called her parents unmarried,
does not imply she was born before King John's first marriage,
since that marriage was annulled. (Nevertheless, for other
reasons, Joan probably was born before this marriage.)
As one moves into the time period of the Reformation one must
also note that different religious bodies may have viewed
different events differently. Thus Queen Elizabeth I was
legitimate by Protestant standards, but illegitimate by Catholic
standards. (I recently found, to my surprise, that the Puritans
recognized divorce.)
Please, if you have an original source, use the word it uses.
Thanks to all.
- PKD [Paul K. Davis - paulk...@earthlink.net]
Robert S Baxter
People,
[begin excerpt]
Douglas Richardson wrote --
Vickie Elam White
[end excerpt]
Thanks to all.
Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
in the eyes of the Church.
Bob
Todd A. Farmerie
> Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
> It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
> presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
> in the eyes of the Church.
Modern church law, or medieval? When the marriage of Alfonso IX
and Beerenguela was annulled, it took a papal dispensation (or
whatever) so as not to make their son Fernando illegitimate.
Likewise I can think of several cases where annulment induced
illegitimacy has been proposed to explain the non-succession of a
seemingly eldest child (for example, this has been proposed for
Geoffrey de Boulogne, son of Eustace II).
taf
ADRIANC...@cs.com
>
> In a message dated 2/3/02 2:28:08 PM, rsba...@bellsouth.net writes:
>
> << Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
> It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
> presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
> in the eyes of the Church. >>
>
> This is most interesting. Is this the present view of has it been that was
> for some time?
>
>
I don't understand, were not all annulments (up to the reformation) according
to Roman church, also as RC did not recognise divorce (as we know it), I
would have thought all divorces before the reformation were really annulments?
Adrian
D. Spencer Hines
Godefroid de Bouillon. Duc de Basse-Lorraine 1087-1100. Military
Leader of the first Crusade in 1096. Raymond of Toulouse was the lay
leader. 'Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre' [de facto King of Jerusalem]
'Advocatus Sancti Sepulchre' from July 1099. He accepted the crown when
Raymond declined but he refused the title of King. He was tall,
handsome and fair-haired and was later idolized as the "perfect
Christian knight, the peerless hero of the whole crusading epic." He is
a descendant of Charlemagne, a 7th great-grandson. Godefroi IV de
Boulogne.
27th Great-Grandfather Godfrey, perhaps ---- and perhaps not. See
AR7:158A:23.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3C5E38A2...@interfold.com...
| Robert S Baxter wrote:
|
| > Annulment,according to Roman church law, does not bastardize.
| > It says there was never a marriage but since marriage was
| > presumed when children were born, the children are legitimate
| > in the eyes of the Church.
|
| Modern church law, or medieval? When the marriage of Alfonso IX
| and Beerenguela [sic] was annulled, it took a papal dispensation (or
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Two things here: legitimacy is needed for succession which is a civil
matter. I know the church got involved in such cases but it was also
handled by passing laws.
Secondly I cannot see how a church can have a view on illegitimacy.
Theologically, all people are equal. All can go to heaven or hell; the
prelude to their birth is nothing to do with the culpability of the
infant that is born. Theologically people are either alive or dead,
good or evil, but not legitimate or illegitimate.
Pity I no longer have access to Summa Theologica!
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Roz Griston
heres an online copy of Summa Theologica.
http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0023.htm
i have an interest in this topic as henry de grey m. iseulde
bardolph/f.
henry is listed as dying at the earliest 1219 and sometimes aft. 1224.
however, iseulde remarries a fellow surnamed meudre (going from memory
here). in 1215/1216 from gooderstone, norfolk.
i'd be interested to know how and why isuelde was able to remarry when
henry was still living..and if i recall he was held hostage in hungary
or austria on his way to or home from a crusade.
also, it is also stated on some gedcoms that henry remarried, possibly
his aunt Hawise, sister of john de grey, aka king john's evil advisor.
henry's uncle was possibly john de grey archbishop of norwich, king
john's nominee to archbishop of canterbury.
perhaps there was a little ecclastical string pulling among the higher
ups. the greys certainly seem to have a few of their number in
positions of authority in the church.
what sections of Summa Theologica, should be researched for the answer
to this and other marriage related questions.
henry gets the lands of condor via iseulde's inheritance from her uncle
robert, how was he able to hold on to them? or were they just simply
passed on to the male issue of her body..legitimate or otherwise?
henry and iseulde are a very interesting couple to research..:-))
roz
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Ah yes, Godfrey of Boulogne:
No, Geoffrey de Boulogne, Domesday tennant. See The Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Dynastic History, 1099-1125, Alan V.
Murray, Prosopographica et Genealogica - OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE UNIT FOR PROSOPOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, vol. 4.
taf
Renia
Well, the Catholic Church does. I'm Catholic, and wanted my sons to go to
the Catholic school, because it was a good school. One of the Governors was
the Parish Priest, who came round to see hubby and I saying that the
children could only go to the school if hubby and I married in a Catholic
Church. Now, hubby had been married before, so we could only get married
civilly. The priest's advice, was to get that first marriage anulled (it
was a C of E marriage) and that we should then marry in a Catholic Church.
"How would you feel", he said to us, his halo shining brightly, "if all
your neighbours knew your children were illegitimate because you had not
married in the Catholic Church?" That did it for me. That was the last I
ever had to do with Catholicism. I know someone else who had a boyfriend
who had already had two Catholic marriages annulled. He wanted to marry
her, but only if she had her own Catholic marriage anulled, because he
wanted to marry again in the Catholic Church. The woman would not have
this, because it would bastardise her children and that she would not do.
Renia
D. Spencer Hines
You need to read the long note in AR7:158A:23 by David H. Kelley, which
I have previously cited.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3C5F340E...@interfold.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> No. You are confused.
No, I'm not.
> You need to read the long note in AR7:158A:23 by David H. Kelley, which
> I have previously cited.
As I said, see The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Dynastic
History, 1099-1125, Alan V. Murray, Prosopographica et
Genealogica - OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIT FOR
PROSOPOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, vol. 4. The issue is specifically and
definitively addressed.
taf
D. Spencer Hines
Read, Mark, Learn and Inwardly Digest.
Don't straddle and warble.
Deus Vult.
Also, finish the ruddy Teresa de Castilla _Ahnenreihe_ ---- if you can.
Above all, don't equivocate and dissemble.
John 5:14
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3C5F5310...@interfold.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> David H. Kelley says Godfrey = Geoffrey.
Yes, he did, and Round said they were not the same, but neither
represents the most recent work on the question.
. . . but what am I doing?
taf
D. Spencer Hines
maybe yes, maybe no.
H.W.C. Davis and Joseph Armitage Robinson held that J. H. Round was
wrong.
If you have a case that David H. Kelley is wrong, state it ----
otherwise pipe down.
| . . . but what am I doing?
|
| taf
Hilarious! I certainly don't know ---- do you?
Farblondjet.
Deus Vult.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3C5F5A95...@interfold.com...
D. Spencer Hines
The "most recent work" is by no means always the most "definitive" ----
maybe yes, maybe no.
H.W.C. Davis and Joseph Armitage Robinson held that J. H. Round was
wrong ---- Kelley agrees with them.
If you have a case that David H. Kelley, H.W.C. Davis, Joseph Armitage
Robinson and Felix Liebermann are all wrong, state it ---- otherwise
pipe down.
| . . . but what am I doing?
|
| taf
Hilarious! I certainly don't know ---- do you?
Methinks it is best described as _tafian thumbsucking_.
Farblondjet, Farchadat und Fartootst.
Don Stone
>
> As I said, see The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Dynastic
> History, 1099-1125, Alan V. Murray, Prosopographica et
> Genealogica - OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIT FOR
> PROSOPOGRAPHICAL RESEARCH, vol. 4. The issue is specifically and
> definitively addressed.
Here is a very brief summary I prepared a while ago:
For a brief argument that Godfrey was probably the half-brother of
Geoffrey, see Don Stone's 8 May 2000 posting on soc.genealogy.medieval with
the subject "The English Geoffrey of Boulogne is not Godfrey of Bouillon."
This posting contains comments by Prof. Allan V. Murray of the University
of Leeds. In his later detailed study of the Geoffrey/Godfrey issue
(Murray 2000, Appendix A, pp. 159-165), Prof. Murray reviews a wide range
of direct and circumstantial evidence and concludes that Geoffrey and
Godfrey are half-brothers, Geoffrey being the son of Eustace II of Boulogne
either by an extra-marital union or by a marriage (perhaps Eustace's known
marriage to Godgifu, sister of Edward the Confessor) which was dissolved on
grounds of consanguinity, causing Geoffrey to be regarded as illegitimate.
(Eustace is most likely the Count Eustace who in 1049 was excommunicated
for incest by Pope Leo IX, and he is probably descended from Godgifu's
ancestor Alfred the Great.)
-- Don Stone
D. Spencer Hines
O.K.
1. That's an intelligent summary, Don.
2. Now, is it implicit in this thesis that Godfrey of Bouillon was a
bachelor and did not marry Beatrix de Mandeville and have a son named
William? At least *some* of that seems to be the case, from what we
have infra.
3. Further, is it held that *Geoffrey of Boulogne* was the one who
married Beatrix de Mandeville instead of Godfrey? Again, that seems to
be the case from what Alan Murray says infra.
4. Or are all bets off on the line that allegedly runs through Sibyl de
Tingry to Guillaume I de Fiennes? Not clear at this juncture.
Deus Vult.
Here are Don Stone's two posts on this issue ---- so we all have the
relevant documents before us and are singing from the same sheet of
music. This way we can minimize half-arsed, anserine
misunderstandings ---- somewhat.
But, fools will always find a way.
"From: Don Stone (DonS...@plantagenet.com)
Subject: The English Geoffrey of Boulogne is not Godfrey of Boulogne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2000/05/08
I claimed a while ago that Geoffrey of Boulogne (mentioned in the
Domesday Book) was identical to Godfrey of Boulogne (Advocate of the
Holy Sepulcher), based on Weis, Sheppard, and Faris, _Ancestral Roots of
Certain American Colonists_, 7th edition, 1992, note by Prof. David
Kelley accompanying line 158A. I have since pursued the matter further
and have been persuaded that Geoffrey and Godfrey are not identical.
First, I emailed Dr. Katharine Keats-Rohan and asked her opinion of
Kelley's note (which I appended). She expressed considerable
skepticism, but referred me to Alan Murray, who is writing a book on
Godfrey and his brother Baldwin. I then sent a similar email to Prof.
Murray, who responded with a counter-note, which I reproduce below. He
introduced this by saying "I would stress that ideally, the identity of
Geoffrey, son of Eustace and related individuals needs to be discussed
in a more considered and detailed fashion than the quick reply I have
given you." *****
*****[Emphasis DSH ---- This is a pretty luke-warm endorsement by Alan
Murray of his own thesis.]
Remarks on Dr. David H. Kelley's note in line 158A of Ancestral Roots of
Certain American Colonists by Dr. Alan V. Murray, School of History,
University of Leeds:
1. I agree that modern usage is sometimes confusing, and that German in
particular is indiscriminate in its use of Gottfried. However,
irrespective of their etymology, I have no doubt that in the eleventh
century, the names Godfrey and Geoffrey were considered to be distinct.
This is obvious from Latin sources, where they are usually spelled
Godefridus/Gotefridus and Gaufridus/Galfridus respectively. Taking an
exemplary collection of documents from crusader Jerusalem, the charters
of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, I can find charters referring to
Godfrey of Bouillon, e.g. G. Bresc-Bautier, _Cartulaire du chapitre du
Saint-Sepulcre_ (1984), pp. 81-83, distinguishing between the ruler
(Godefridus), and another Godefridus and a Gaufridus, abbot of the
Temple, all in the same document. I think that the scribes who wrote
such documents would hardly have used distinct forms unless the names
were also distinct in the vernacular. The great crusader historian
William of Tyre also distinguishes the two names.
2. The identity of the Geoffrey who is mentioned as son of Count Eustace
in Domesday book is a separate issue, but he cannot be considered as the
same as the ruler of Jerusalem. I do not have DB to hand, but a charter
of Faramus of Boulogne makes reference to his grandfather, Gaufridus
filius Eustacii de Bolonia. It is perfectly feasible that this Geoffrey
was an illegitimate son of Eustace II of Boulogne, who is known to have
had other bastard sons. Eustace was one of the biggest landholders in
England and ruler of a continental county, and even a bastard son of his
may have been a catch for the Mandevilles, who were obscure before the
conquest (see Keats-Rohan in _Medieval Prosopography_ 14/1993).
3. By contrast, England would have been a strange place for G of B to
seek a wife, given that his political interests lay in Lotharingia, and
his inheritance and that of his elder brother Eustace III were kept
quite separate. If he WAS married with legitimate issue then it seems
inconceivable that she/they are not mentioned in the Lotharingian
sources or the narratives of the crusade. We know about his brother
Baldwin's wife although his life before the crusade is much less well
documented than Godfrey's. Most importantly, any children would have had
an enormous significance in the question of the succession to Jerusalem,
which was a live issue in 1100 (death of Godfrey), 1116-17 (illness of
Baldwin I and debate over succession), 1118 (death of Baldwin I and
dispute over succession) and briefly in 1125 (attempt to depose Baldwin
II), but they do not seem to have been an issue. See Hans Eberhard
Mayer, _Mélanges sur l'histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem_, Mémoires
de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, n.s. 5 (Paris, 1984)
and Murray, 'Baldwin II and his Nobles: Baronial Factionalism and
Dissent in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1118-1134', _Nottingham Medieval
Studies_ 38 (1994), 60-85.
-- Don Stone"
--------------------
And:
From: Don Stone (DonS...@plantagenet.com)
Subject: Re: The English Geoffrey of Boulogne is not Godfrey of Boulogne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2000/05/09
carol...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> For those of us who find your excellent dissertation hard to follow,
> please be clear. who is Geoffrey and who is Godfrey? Who is the
> legitimate son? Who is the King of Jerusalem?
Geoffrey is apparently an illegitimate son of Eustace, Count of
Boulogne; Geoffrey was a Domesday tenant in 1086 in Carshalton, Surrey,
and he married Beatrice de Mandeville.
Godfrey, a legitimate son of Eustace, was elected King of Jerusalem but
styled himself instead Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher.
-- Don Stone"
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C603B1...@verizon.net...
David Greene
was a "Natural son of Eustache count of Boulogne who [i.e., Goisfrid]
married Beatrice, daughter of Geoffrey de Mandeville before 1086"
(Domesday People 1:229). In addition to the Domesday Book itself, she
cites "Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum III, 1, Appendix, no. XXV." I do
not have easy access on the Regesta and cannot report on what it shows
on "Goisfrid."
Keats-Rohan gives the names as they appear in the Domesday Book, but
with some standardization.
DAVID GREENE
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:9lX78.86$dy4....@eagle.america.net...
> 1. That's an intelligent summary, Don.
>
> 2. Now, is it implicit in this thesis that Godfrey of Bouillon was a
> bachelor and did not marry Beatrix de Mandeville and have a son named
> William? At least *some* of that seems to be the case, from what we
> have infra.
>
> 3. Further, is it held that *Geoffrey of Boulogne* was the one who
> married Beatrix de Mandeville instead of Godfrey? Again, that seems to
> be the case from what Alan Murray says infra.
>
> 4. Or are all bets off on the line that allegedly runs through Sibyl de
> Tingry to Guillaume I de Fiennes? Not clear at this juncture.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Don Stone
>
> 2. Now, is it implicit in this thesis that Godfrey of Bouillon was a
> bachelor and did not marry Beatrix de Mandeville and have a son named
> William? At least *some* of that seems to be the case, from what we
> have infra.
Yes, Murray labels Godfrey as unmarried.
> 3. Further, is it held that *Geoffrey of Boulogne* was the one who
> married Beatrix de Mandeville instead of Godfrey? Again, that seems to
> be the case from what Alan Murray says infra.
Yes, Murray says that Geoffrey married Beatrice of Mandeville and that they
had a son William of Boulogne, documented in 1106. This agrees with what
David Greene posted from Katharine Keats-Rohan's compilation.
> 4. Or are all bets off on the line that allegedly runs through Sibyl de
> Tingry to Guillaume I de Fiennes? Not clear at this juncture.
So far as I know, this line is OK.
-- Don Stone
ADRIANC...@cs.com
Don Stone wrote,
> Here is a very brief summary I prepared a while ago:
>
> For a brief argument that Godfrey was probably the half-brother of
> Geoffrey, see Don Stone's 8 May 2000 posting on soc.genealogy.medieval with
> the subject "The English Geoffrey of Boulogne is not Godfrey of Bouillon."
> This posting contains comments by Prof. Allan V. Murray of the University
> of Leeds. In his later detailed study of the Geoffrey/Godfrey issue
> (Murray 2000, Appendix A, pp. 159-165), Prof. Murray reviews a wide range
> of direct and circumstantial evidence and concludes that Geoffrey and
> Godfrey are half-brothers, Geoffrey being the son of Eustace II of Boulogne
> either by an extra-marital union or by a marriage (perhaps Eustace's known
> marriage to Godgifu, sister of Edward the Confessor) which was dissolved on
> grounds of consanguinity, causing Geoffrey to be regarded as illegitimate.
> (Eustace is most likely the Count Eustace who in 1049 was excommunicated
> for incest by Pope Leo IX, and he is probably descended from Godgifu's
> ancestor Alfred the Great.)
>
> --
>
>
My notes show that Godrey's mother was Ida (-1113) of Bouillion. She would be
related to Pope Leo IX (1002-1054), but I'm not sure exactly how. I have her
father's brother as Frederick (-1058) who was elected Pope Stephen (my notes
say he was either IX or X). I think its the Catholic encyclopaedia which
states this Pope to be to be cousin to Bruno Pope Leo IX (1002-1054). I
wonder if this family connection oiled the wheels in obtaining the annulment
of Eustace marriage to Geoffrey's mother - just a thought.
Adrian
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Renia <ren...@DUMPbtinternet.com> wrote:
> Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
>
> > In message <3C5E38A2...@interfold.com>
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
<snip>
> >
> > Two things here: legitimacy is needed for succession which is a civil
> > matter. I know the church got involved in such cases but it was also
> > handled by passing laws.
> >
> > Secondly I cannot see how a church can have a view on illegitimacy.
> > Theologically, all people are equal. All can go to heaven or hell; the
> > prelude to their birth is nothing to do with the culpability of the
> > infant that is born. Theologically people are either alive or dead,
> > good or evil, but not legitimate or illegitimate.
>
> Well, the Catholic Church does. I'm Catholic, and wanted my sons to go to
> the Catholic school, because it was a good school. One of the Governors was
> the Parish Priest, who came round to see hubby and I saying that the
> children could only go to the school if hubby and I married in a Catholic
> Church. Now, hubby had been married before, so we could only get married
> civilly. The priest's advice, was to get that first marriage anulled (it
> was a C of E marriage) and that we should then marry in a Catholic Church.
> "How would you feel", he said to us, his halo shining brightly, "if all
> your neighbours knew your children were illegitimate because you had not
> married in the Catholic Church?"
Bad theology from the parson. He should be sacked. But then it is
comfortable for him to cast the first stone, makes him feel superior.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I
> wonder if this family connection oiled the wheels in obtaining the annulment
> of Eustace marriage to Geoffrey's mother - just a thought.
As I understand Murray, it was not a requested annulment, but
rather one initiated by the church. It should be said that this
was only one suggestion regarding Geoffrey. The relevant facts
are - that Eustace II was married to Godgifu; that Eustace II was
descended from Alfred the Great; that a cleric decried the
consanguinous marriage of a Eustace in the area; and that
Geoffrey appears to have been older than his half-brothers, but
was not the heir. It is one possibility suggested by Murray's
that all of these facts represent a single genealogical
phenomenon. However, it is possible that they are irrelevant to
each other - that Geoffrey was just illegitimate in the
old-fashioned way, that the Eustace who was irregularly married
was not Eustace II, that the relative-wife of Eustace II was not
Godgifu, but a second, otherwise unknown spouse, etc.
As to the onomastic argument, several points are brought out.
First, there was precedent for both names in the family. Godfrey
was named for his mother's kin, of which he was designated heir,
while Eustace I had a brother named Geoffrey (sometimes
inappropriately given as Godfrey). Murray also points out that,
far from being alternative representations of the same name, the
English Bologne is always called by one form, the Jerusalem man
the other, while in both cases, there are men in the same
documents with the alternative form (in other words, in the same
documents that call Godfrey Godfrey, there are men named
Geoffrey, and vice versa). The names were certainly distinct in
the eyes of the chroniclers recording them. Likewise the
time-lines of the two are incongruous. At a time when Godfrey
was involved in a high-intensity struggle to maintain his
Bouillon inheritance, Geoffrey was lolling around in England on
an estate that would not be worth the effort compared to what
Godfrey stood to lose by abandoning his continental holdings even
briefly. How many Counts who did not have a stable hold on their
own land would go to England to receive a minor property - in
fact, how many non-Norman Counts, period?
taf
Peter Stewart
news:1e84bd0...@southfrm.demon.co.uk...
> <snip>
>
> Pity I no longer have access to Summa Theologica!
There is a searchable text (in literal English translation) at
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/
Peter Stewart
D. Spencer Hines
Leo van de Pas may have some other information.
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Don Stone" <don....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C608649...@verizon.net...
D. Spencer Hines
Is she also saying that this "Goisfrid" is NOT the leader of the First
Crusade ---- but is this Geoffrey that Alan Murray and Don Stone are
talking about ---- a different illegitimate son of Eustace II, comte de
Boulogne?
"The TV business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic
hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs."
Hunter Thompson
"When it comes to arrogance, power, and lack of accountability,
journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers
look good."
Steven Brill
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Greene" <am...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:dc4941858efbad011fd...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Renia
Indeed. Last time I saw him, in 1997, he gave my father Extreme Unction. Somehow,
at that point, his halo was quite appropirate and moving.
Renia