Any Proven lines beyond Charlemagne

[Ronald Joseph McDuff Sr.]

Are there any lines that are provable that go beyond Charles Constantine
without a problem?

Mcduff436 @hotmail.com

[taf]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:16:04 AM UTC-8, Ronald Joseph McDuff Sr. wrote:
> Are there any lines that are provable that go beyond Charles Constantine
> without a problem?

Not sure if you are using beyond to represent back the pedigree or forward, but all of the lines claimed to descend from Charles Constantine are nothing but guesswork. The one most commonly seen makes Constance, wife of Boso of Provence a daughter, but this is based on nothing but her name being similar to his.

Likewise some have suggested that his son Hucbert is identical to Humbert, the founder of the house of Savoy, but it smacks of wishful thinking. I may be cynical in this way, but any time someone tries to make a royal family (in this case of Italy) the long-lost male-line descendants of the rulers a milennium before, a large grain of salt is in order.

taf

[Don Stone]

There is a possibility that Friburge (Fredeburga), wife of Guigues IV
d’Albon, Sire de Vion, is a granddaughter of Charles Constantine. I
have organized my comments as follows:
I. Some background.
II. Further information from various non-primary sources.
III. Some comments and questions.
IV. Bibliography.


I. Some background.

H. M. West Winter (1987) has a detailed discussion of Friburge
(Fredeburga), his person number IX.52, viewed as probably the daughter
of Richard of Vienne, son of Charles Constantine. Lines can be traced
from her to the present, e.g., through Eleanor of Provence, queen of
Henry III of England. Winter reports that de Manteyer (1925) made a
prima facie identification of Friburge, wife of Guigues IV d’Albon, Sire
de Vion, as daughter and heir of Richard of Vienne [on p. 65,
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k63227705/f103.image; see quote in
section II. below]. Bernard (1949, p. 125) reports Manteyer’s
identification of Friburge without analyzing it. According to Winter,
Bernard (1969, pp. 68-9) accepts this identification. Moriarty (1985, p.
258) gives Friburge as probably a daughter of Richard of Vienne,
referencing Manteyer. Here is Winter’s two-part summary of the most
salient facts supporting this identification:

1) Fribourge, widow of Guigues IV Sire de Vion, died at a great age soon
after 26 March 1027, having outlived her eldest son Humbert (Hucbert),
Bishop of Grenoble, and her second son, Guigues V, Sire de Vion (d. by
1009). In October 1027 her grandson and heir, Guigues VI, Sire de Vion,
went to Rome to press his right to ownership of properties which he
claimed through his grandmother, Friburge, and which were identical to
properties once owned by Richard of Vienne and which had been seized by
an ancestor of the Comte de Maurienne (Savoie). The Pope partitioned the
disputed properties and awarded one half to each claimant. But Guigues
VI continued the dispute until 1030, when it was settled by the marriage
(before 22 October) of his daughter Alix to Amadée, eldest son and heir
of the Comte de Maurienne. As part of the marriage settlement, it is
believed that Guigues VI relinquished his claim to the moitié of the
properties which the Pope had awarded to the Comte de Maurienne. Perhaps
as a condition of that settlement, the Pope created Guigues VI first
Comte du Viennois (by 1034).

2) The given names of two of her sons (Hucbert and [probably] Richard)
are germane to the family of Richard of Vienne: Richard being his own
name, as well as that of his maternal uncle, Richard Comte de Troyes;
whilst Hucbert (Humbert) is that of his brother Hucbert de Vienne, as
well as that of his great-grandfather, Hucbert Marquis de Transjurane.


II. Further information from various non-primary sources.

The French Wikipedia entry on the Family of Albon,
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Albon, says that there are two
theories about the parentage of Fredeburga: (1) daughter of Richard of
Vienne, as discussed above and recently supported by Mazard (2000), and
(2) daughter of Aimon, who was possessed of Dauphin and is a probable
nephew of Aimon, Bishop of Geneva. (Fredeburga is an ancestor of various
counts of Albon who held Dauphin.) This second theory is credited to
Jean-Pierre Poly.

More details on these two theories are given at
http://thierryhelene.bianco.free.fr/drupal/?q=node/124, a website of
Hélène and Thierry Bianco, two French academics.

Settipani and Van Kerrebrouck (1993, p. 381) give Charles Constantine
two sons and a possible daughter (Constantina/Constance). For both of
the sons, Richard (d. after Jan. 962) and Hugobert (d. after May 976),
they say "à la destinée inconnue," and (in note 129) they are skeptical
of various descents from Richard that have been proposed through these sons.

Europäische Stammtafeln [= ES] (Schwennicke, 1978), Band III, Teilband 4
(1989), gives the wife of Guigo/Guigues de Vion [Vienne] as Fredeburga,
sister of Geoffroi and sister-in-law of Théobald de Nyon.

In MedLands,
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDY%20Kingdom.htm#_Toc444499362,
Cawley cites a number of relevant charters. (Note that Cawley's Guigues
I is Winter's Guigues IV, and thus Cawley's Giugues III is Winter's
Guigues VI.) Cawley includes some proposed corrections to charter dates
and to the pedigree in ES.

Manteyer, cited above (1925, p. 65,
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k63227705/f103.image), says,
"L'acte du 7 septembre 996, de Guigues IV et de Frédéburge, portait les
souscriptions de leurs fils Umbert, Richard et Guigues : ce nom de
Richard est exceptionnel dans la Maison des sires de Vion. Il y
rappelle celui du comte de Viennois Richard, fils de Charles-Constantin
et péré du comte Rodolphe de 1009...." (Note: I have been told that
Richard of Vienne was not a count.)


III. Some comments and questions.

Hélène and Thierry Bianco say that the first theory mentioned above
(Manteyer's proposal that Fredeburga was the daughter of Richard of
Vienne) is chronologically possible but not very strongly supported. In
contrast, I suppose, to the onomastic argument that Fredeburga had a
probable son Richard, they point out that the name Fredeburga is not
otherwise found in the family of Charles Constantine.

The second theory about Fredeburga's parentage, due to J.-P. Poly, can
explain how Dauphin came to be held by the counts of Albon. But I
wonder whether there is also an argument related to property favoring
the first theory. Winter emphasizes that Guigues VI, Sire de Vion, went
to Rome to press his right to ownership of properties which were once
owned by Richard of Vienne, but he doesn't give the names of these
properties. Is this something worth pursuing? If we could list the
properties claimed by Guigues VI and show that they were indeed earlier
owned by Richard of Vienne, wouldn't this strengthen the case for the
first theory?

On the other hand, perhaps this is one of those situations where we
don't have enough information to make more definite statements.


IV. Bibliography.

"Famille d'Albon." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_d%27Albon.

Bernard, Félix. 1949. Les origines féodales en Savoie et en Dauphiné:
l’origine et les destinées des grandes familles féodales en Savoie et en
Dauphiné au Moyen-Age. Grenoble: Guirimand.

Bernard, Félix. 1969. Les origines féodales en Savoie-Dauphiné: la vie
et les rapports sociaux d’alors. Grenoble: Guirimand.

Bianco, Hélène and Thierry. "Les comtes d'Albon ont-ils des ancêtres?"
http://thierryhelene.bianco.free.fr/drupal/?q=node/124.

Bournazel, Éric and Jean-Pierre Poly, eds. 1998. Les féodalités.
Paris: Presses universitaires de France (Histoire générale des systèmes
politiques).

Cawley, Charles. MedLands.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BURGUNDY%20Kingdom.htm#_Toc444499362.

Manteyer, Georges de. 1925. “Les origines du Dauphiné de Viennois: la
première race des comtes d'Albon (843-1228).” Bulletin de la Société
d’études des Hautes-Alpes, 5th Series, pp. 50-119; notes on pp. 120-140.
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k63227705/f86.image.

Mazard, Chantal. "À l'origine d'une principauté médiévale : le Dauphiné,
Xe-XIe siècle. Le temps des châteaux et des seigneurs," in Dauphiné,
France: de la principauté indépendante à la province (XIIe-XVIIIe
siècle), textes réunis par Vital Chomel, Presses de l'université de
Grenoble (collection La pierre et l'écrit), Grenoble, 2000 (ISBN
978-2-706119194).

Moriarty, George Andrews. 1985. The Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward
III and Queen Philippa. Salt Lake City: Mormon Pioneer Genealogical
Society. (The original manuscript is in Boston at the New England
Historic Genealogical Society.)

Schwennicke, Detlev. 1978–. Europäische Stammtafeln. Band I–. Marburg:
J. A. Stargardt.

Settipani, Christian, and Patrick Van Kerrebrouck. 1993. La préhistoire
des Capétiens 481-987. Première partie: Mérovingiens, Carolingiens et
Robertiens. Villeneuve d’Ascq (France): P. Van Kerrebrouck.

Winter, H. M. West. 1987. The Descendants of Charlemagne (800 - 1400).
Part One. “Brandenburg Updated.” Charlemont, Massachusetts.

[Peter Stewart]

Both parts of Winter's summary are effectively creating 'alternative facts' based on next-to-nothing.

First, we don't have any evidence for what properties may or may not have been held at any time by Charles of Vienne's son Richard - we don't know if he even outlived his father, with whom he last occurs in January 962. We also don't know the circumstances of Guigues' sojourn in Rome in 1027 and there is no proof that the wife of Amadée of Maurienne, Alix (or Adela - she was actually called 'Adaelelgida' in the charter dated 22 October 1030), was a daughter of Guigues. This whole argument is a speculative house of cards.

Secondly, the given names of the proven sons of Guigues and Friburge were Humbert (bishop of Valence) and Guigues. Humbert is not the same name as Hucbert - these are based on the distinct initial elements Hun- and Hug- respectively. Anyone trying to make these into interchangeable forms of the same name should start by showing examples where the same individual was definitely called by both. Richard was arbitrarily added as a third son by Georges Manteyer, relying on a later cartulary version of a charter of Guigues and Friburge: this was subscribed by the couple (with the husband inconsistently named 'Wigo' and then 'Ugo' - "Ego, in Dei nomine, Wigo & uxor mea Fredeburga ... Sig. Ugoni, qui hanc donationem fieri & firmare rogavit. S. Fredeburgis uxoris ejus, que in omnibus consensit. S. Umberti episcopi. S. Richardi. S. Vagoni. S. Bosoni. S. Adraldi"). Bishop Humbert was their son. Manteyer assumed that 'Vago' was their son Guigues, without noting that the name Wago does occur and was distinct from Wigo (hypocorisms of names with the initial elements Wac- and Wig- respectively). When he first considered this list of subscribers, Manteyer thought that Humbert and all four of the men listed after him, or at least the next two, were probably sons of Guigues and Friburge. Later he assumed as certain that Richard was their son. There is no solid evidence to accept 'the onomastic argument that Fredeburga had a probable son Richard'.

Peter Stewart

[Don Stone]

On 2/4/2017 8:59 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 1:19:13 PM UTC+11, Don Stone wrote:
>> There is a possibility that Friburge (Fredeburga), wife of Guigues IV
>> d’Albon, Sire de Vion, is a granddaughter of Charles Constantine.

This is quite useful information. Thank you, Peter.

I guess the reason why H. M. West Winter didn't supply the names of the
properties owned by Richard of Vienne and later claimed by a supposed
descendant is that no names of any property owned by Richard are known.

As the hypothesis that Friburge was the daughter of Richard of Vienne,
son of Charles Constantine, looks less likely, I presume that the
competing hypothesis from J.-P. Poly looks more likely.

-- Don Stone

[Peter Stewart]

On 5/02/2017 5:09 PM, Don Stone wrote:
>
>
> As the hypothesis that Friburge was the daughter of Richard of Vienne,
> son of Charles Constantine, looks less likely, I presume that the
> competing hypothesis from J.-P. Poly looks more likely.
>

I fundamentally disagree with this - in my view, the inadequacy of one
hypothesis should have no implication whatsoever as to the probability
of another. Unless you can establish somehow that one of them MUST be
probable, then both of them can fail in that test.

But in any case, a test of probability (or likelihood) is not very
useful - there is no objective measure, and in proven genealogical fact
improbability (or unlikelihood) is far from unknown.

Peter Stewart

[Don Stone]

On 2/5/2017 3:15 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 5/02/2017 5:09 PM, Don Stone wrote:
>> As the hypothesis that Friburge was the daughter of Richard of
>> Vienne, son of Charles Constantine, looks less likely, I presume that
>> the competing hypothesis from J.-P. Poly looks more likely.
>
> I fundamentally disagree with this - in my view, the inadequacy of one
> hypothesis should have no implication whatsoever as to the probability
> of another. Unless you can establish somehow that one of them MUST be
> probable, then both of them can fail in that test.

Peter, I agree with your second sentence above; both hypotheses can fail
if there is a correct third proposal that no one has thought of (perhaps
no evidence relating to it has survived).

But I think your first sentence is stated too strongly. I would prefer
to say something like "Discovery of the inadequacy of one of two
competing hypotheses should generally not be considered a proof of the
other hypothesis." However, if researchers want to further investigate
an issue like the parentage of Friburge, I think they would be justified
in allocating more time and effort to analyzing the data relating to the
still adequate hypothesis than to the data about the inadequate one,
keeping in mind, of course, the possibility that neither is correct. In
fact, it's worth explicitly asking "How likely is it that one of the two
hypotheses is correct?" If some other explanation would not be very
surprising, perhaps the investigation is best put on the back burner.
Otherwise, the re-allocation of research effort toward the adequate
hypothesis would typically be based on the feeling that it was now more
promising, i.e., seemed more likely. This is a subjective and
non-numerical probability, but often we have to choose a course of
action based on incomplete information and intuition.

-- Don Stone

[mcdu...@gmail.com]

Is there any other line going back from European noblity that has good documention. One line that has the possibility of surviving questioning of its historical facts?

Thanks Ron

[mcdu...@gmail.com]

Mcdu...@gmail.com is my address

[Peter Stewart]

Both hypotheses can be inadequate without a third being proposed - and
anyway inadequacy is not necessarily failure.

Poly's hypothesis is just a possibility that he considered worth
flagging. I suppose it may be, for those who hanker to fill in blanks of
knowledge with circumstantial speculation. Winter's hypothesis (or
Manteyer's that he elaborated) is based on inadequate evidence, but
nonetheless it remains a possibility (though I would say a very remote
one, a hunch not worth flagging).

I don't think it is worthwhile for researchers to go looking for ways to
justify a particular line of speculation. New data is unlikely to
appear, and without it we don't have enough evidence to determine
Friburge's parentage. I find mere possibilities that are incapable of
proof rather tiresome, and especially so when they are connected to
Charles of Vienne - he was historically a nonentity, named only Charles
as charter evidence shows, without a dynastic link to any Constantine
and with no known or probable descendants.

Peter Stewart

[Don Stone]

Thanks for these additional comments, Peter.

Good point that inadequacy is not necessarily failure.

I agree that possibilities that are incapable of proof can be tiresome.
I now think that Friburge's parentage falls into the category of

"situations where we don't have enough information to make more definite

statements" that I mentioned in my first post in this thread.

-- Don Stone