Lord of Belleme
wjhonson
http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00177422&tree=LEO
we see the descent from Yves (Ivo) of Creil, 1st Lord of Belleme
But Stewart Baldwin makes the succession go like this
Yves, William, Robert, Yves II the UNCLE of Robert
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/yves0000.htm
Guillaume "Talvas" was living in 1056. It wouldn't appear that he
could be the son of Guillaume I here. Comments?
Will Johnson
John P. Ravilious
> On Leo's great website herehttp://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00177422&tree=LEO
=====================
Dear Will
This is a somewhat confusing family, but evidently William
'Talvas' was a younger son of William 'I' of Bellême. Elizabeth van
Houts suggested that following Robert's death at Ballon, Ivo (brother
of William I) acquired the lordship of Bellême itself, while William
'Talvas' held Alençon. Robert and William had a brother Ivo who was
bishop of Sees, and other siblings as well: 'Uncle Ivo' did not
supplant the senior line, which daughtered out with MAbel, daughter of
William 'Talvas' and wife of Roger de Montgomery.
See Elizabeth van Houts, ed., Gesta Normannorum Ducum, II:57 and
note (6):
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart
"wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6c5ac6bd-908b-4bbb...@x24g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
This reads like a telegram to someone who already knows what is on your
mind - if you want a comprehensive answer, it is worth taking a little more
trouble over the question.
Why ever does it "appear" that Guillaume "Talvas" living in 1056 could not
be the son of Gullaume I? Orderic definitely says that he was: "Willelmus
cognomento Talauacius Willelmi Belesmensis filius" and "Willelmus
Bellesmensis, Iuonis filius.quatuor filios Warinum et Fulconem, Rodbertum et
Willelmum, sui similes habebat". Succession at that time was not always as
orderly or as secure as it became later.
We know from an addendum to the foundation charter of Notre-Dame de Bellême,
written 1050/70, that Ivo II was uncle to Robert (and by extension to the
latter's younger brother Guillaume "Talvas"): "Post mortem autem Rotberti,
filii Willelmi, Ivo suus avunculus, succedens hereditati dedit, pro anima
sui nepotis Rotberti suum viridarium et vineas juxta burgum positas".
Peter Stewart
M Sjostrom
here, his son Guillaume
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177420&tree=LEO
here, his daughter Hildeburge
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00141484&tree=LEO
and here, he and his wife are put as parents of Godeheut who married
viscount of Le Mans
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00305148&tree=LEO
(although Stewart Baldwin and his sources refute that parentage for
Godeheut)
so, sooner or later, only one of the following would be left as Yves de
Creil, seigneur de Belleme
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00141485&tree=LEO
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00177422&tree=LEO
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00305146&tree=LEO
M Sjostrom
inheritance already after Yves I.
I do not know whether and when the Vikings in Normandy developed or adopted
primogeniture inheritance,
but I know that Scandinavians had a tradition of partible inheritance
between brothers.
Partible often worked for a while so that they kept it as joint property,
not actually dividing it to specific holdings. Then, somewhat later,
something triggered a division so the heirs get specific pieces.
I would reconstrue that Belleme was kept as joint holding between Guillaume
I and Yves II. Guillaume was leader in that, perhaps he was elder. Then,
Robert (son of Guillaume) is mentioned as of Belleme, presumably because of
holding the late Guillaume's share and right to Belleme.
But when Robert deceased and his brother Talvas was known as of Alencon (it
is quite possible that Talvas still inherited a share to Belleme), it was
their uncle Yves II whose seat Belleme was, as he held rights, say a half of
it. Perhaps they never were triggered to make a division, as the share and
rights of Yves II could have ultimately passed to whomever of the family was
holding some other share of Belleme.
As I gather, primogeniture in inheritance was a Gallic customary law. Rather
than germanic - germanic traditions indicate partible custom.
It is sure that in the times of Edward I, primogeniture was strengthened as
inheritance principle in England and among descendants of Normans. But were
they really using exclusive primogeniture already in times of Norman kings
of England? I gather that it was in more than one case seen that one son
received estates in Normandy, another received in England, and the father's
inheritance was thusly treated as partible.
Peter Stewart
seigneurial family were Frankish, not Norman, and twice the inheritance
moved back a generation instead of forwards or across.
Ivo II (who may have been an abbot) succeeded his nephew Robert instead of
the latter's brother Guillaume Talvas, and Ivo III (who was a bishop)
succeeded his nephew Arnulf instead of the latter's father who was still
living or his sister Mabilia.
In both cases the succession passed to the more conventional heirs (that is,
firstly to Guillaume Talvas and lastly to his daughter Mabilia) eventually.
But Guillaume Talvas had been dispossessed by his son Arnulf before his
brother Ivo III (the bishop) took over. It was not a case of partible but
rather of insecure inheritance.
Peter Stewart
"M Sjostrom" <mqs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.539.12778103...@rootsweb.com...
M Sjostrom
hypothesis,
and Peter Stewart has not presented any facts which refute it.
Peter Stewart claims to know that "Succession to the lordship of Belleme was
not as suggested..."
but really, Stewart cannot know it that definitely. He has such big and
categorical claims sometimes, and unwarrantedly at occasions.
The appearances of holders (or co-holders) of Belleme could well be outcomes
of partible inheritance.
I am not claiming that my hypothesis is correct: I am saying that it is
plausible, has much fit with extant testimony as far as heard, and is
somewhat consistent with cultural and ethnic context.
Frankish old tradition was also partible inheritance. So, if these were
Frankish, still the partible inheritance pattern fits to their context.
However, we do not know for sure that these Creil really were Frankish.
And, besides, whatever their ethnicity, these appear to be magnates in
Normandy, a land which had got pretty much from the Viking culture and
customs, and still had such among its traditions, legal and societal, in its
aristocratic circle. As scandinavians had the custom of partible
inheritance, the liege lords -dukes of Normandy- as well as their magnates,
would likely use and enforce some similar customs in their land, Normandy.
If no change had been done to the succession rules - but probably wasn't,
since several Normandy-originating magnates' inheritances were divided
*between* their sons even around 1100.
2010/6/29 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
Peter Stewart
be broken today.
On Jun 30, 5:14 am, M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> my suggestion about the explanatory power of partible inheritance is a
> hypothesis,
> and Peter Stewart has not presented any facts which refute it.
Um, the "hypothesis" of Sjostrom began with the following premise: "I
suspect the thing behind Yves II's 'succession' would have been
partible inheritance already after Yves I. I do not know whether and
when the Vikings in Normandy developed or adopted primogeniture
inheritance, but I know that Scandinavians had a tradition of partible
inheritance between brothers."
Peter Stewart then stated the fact that the lords of Bellême were
Franks and not "Vikings in Normandy" as Sjostrom had wrongly assumed.
Despite this he/she has the effrontery to say that I have not
presented any facts to refute his/her ill-informed posturing. Is this
a deliberate falsehood from Sjostrom, or yet another gross
illogicality? On past form probably both - and most likely he/she will
now go shamelessly quiet on this point or else accuse me once again of
barking insanity.
> Peter Stewart claims to know that "Succession to the lordship of Belleme was
> not as suggested..."
> but really, Stewart cannot know it that definitely. He has such big and
> categorical claims sometimes, and unwarrantedly at occasions.
The warrant on this occasion is that, unlike Sjostrom, Peter Stewart
actually does know something about the subject - the lordship of
Bellême has been thoroughly studied, most notably by Gérard Louise in
_La seigneurie de Bellême, Xe-XIIe siècles: dévolution des pouvoirs
territoriaux et construction d’une seigneurie de frontière aux confins
de la Normandie et du Maine à la charnière de l’an mil_, 2 vols, Le
Pays bas-normand 199 & 120 (Flers, 1992-1993). The diplomatic and
narrative records make it clear enough that there was one seigneur in
Bellême at a time, and that twice uncles succeeded to nephews rather
than expanded their influence from a pre-existing co-lordship that had
been previously partitioned among brothers, of whom there were more
than Sjostrom has taken into account, such as for example Warin who
was given the quite separate seigneurie of Domfront in the usual way
of "partible" provision for Frankish cadets.
> The appearances of holders (or co-holders) of Belleme could well be outcomes
> of partible inheritance.
But there were not simultaneous co-holders in the first place.
Sjostrom is trying to make it up as he/she goes along, yet again
blathering first and thinking - if at all - later.
> I am not claiming that my hypothesis is correct: I am saying that it is
> plausible, has much fit with extant testimony as far as heard, and is
> somewhat consistent with cultural and ethnic context.
"As far as heard" - in other words, Sjostrom expects to be educated on
this subject (in which he/she pretends to a head-knocking expertise
already), gratis and in public, by someone who will make a thorough
précis of the literature or write a treatise that he/she can then use
as a platform for further verbose and ignorant histrionics.
> Frankish old tradition was also partible inheritance. So, if these were
> Frankish, still the partible inheritance pattern fits to their context.
Rubbish - first it was Vikings who followed the custom of partible
inheritance, now it is Franks. Before it was "As I gather,
primogeniture in inheritance was a Gallic customary law. Rather than
germanic - germanic traditions indicate partible custom." So he/she is
now assuming that the lords of Bellême conformed to Germanic rather
than Gallic customs, while he/she proposes no similar instance in
their time and place to support this revised "hypotheis".
> However, we do not know for sure that these Creil really were Frankish.
> And, besides, whatever their ethnicity, these appear to be magnates in
> Normandy, a land which had got pretty much from the Viking culture and
> customs, and still had such among its traditions, legal and societal, in its
> aristocratic circle. As scandinavians had the custom of partible
> inheritance, the liege lords -dukes of Normandy- as well as their magnates,
> would likely use and enforce some similar customs in their land, Normandy.
> If no change had been done to the succession rules - but probably wasn't,
> since several Normandy-originating magnates' inheritances were divided
> *between* their sons even around 1100.
They were not lords "in Normandy" but on the border between Normandy
and Maine. They were Franks who married with other Frankish families -
the first to marry into a Norman family was Mabilia (to Roger II of
Montgomery) and she was last in the succession (not successive
partition) in question.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
> my suggestion about the explanatory power of partible inheritance is a
> hypothesis,
> and Peter Stewart has not presented any facts which refute it.
>
>
> Peter Stewart claims to know that "Succession to the lordship of Belleme
> was
> not as suggested..."
> but really, Stewart cannot know it that definitely. He has such big and
> categorical claims sometimes, and unwarrantedly at occasions.
> The appearances of holders (or co-holders) of Belleme could well be
> outcomes
> of partible inheritance.
> I am not claiming that my hypothesis is correct: I am saying that it is
> plausible, has much fit with extant testimony as far as heard, and is
> somewhat consistent with cultural and ethnic context.
>
> Frankish old tradition was also partible inheritance. So, if these were
> Frankish, still the partible inheritance pattern fits to their context.
> However, we do not know for sure that these Creil really were Frankish.
As I predicted, Sjostrom has gone shamelessly quiet on this critical point
of his/her "hypothesis" (for which read ignorant blather). No retraction
today, and no apology for flailing around with another of his/her
unwarranted personal attacks.
Plainly he/she accepts an agnatic connection between the familty of Bellême
and Creil, but just as clearly he/she does not know the first thing about
this.
The only source for identifying Ivo I of Bellême with "Yves de Creil" is
Orderic, who stated that he was the royal bowman ("balistarius regis",
presumably a personal bodyguard) to Louis IV, active during events of ca
944/45.
However, Ivo I died between 1005 and 1012, so that he must have been very
old if born ca 920/25.
Gérard Louise considered "Yves de Creil" to be a legendary personage, but
whatever the reality he was represented by Orderic as coming from Creil,
which is near Beauvais, and holding a position of trust close to the
Frankish king - i.e. obviously a Frank himself and not a Norman. Creil was
one of the places of safety under Frankish control where saintly relics were
taken to protect them from Viking despoilers.
Peter Stewart