Roeulx - two places & two familes
Peter Stewart
There are two different places called Roeulx, one now in Belgium (Hainaut,
Soignies) held until the early 14th century by the family under question
recently, and one in modern France (Nord, Valenciennes). There appear to
have been two distinct families belonging to these places respectively, as
indicated by a charter of Balduin, count of Hainaut (later also count of
Flanders by right of his wife Margaret), dated at Valenciennes on 27 & 31
March and 1 April 1181. In the section dated 27 March occurs the following:
"Nomina hominum meorum et comitis Flandrie qui interfuerunt: Eustachius de
Rues, Almannus de Provi, Adam dapifer, Ansellus de Lambris, Hugo de Ruet,
Jacobus frater ejus...." (The names of my men and those of the count of
Flanders who were present: Eustache de Rues, Almain de Prouvy, Adam the
dapifer, Anseau de Lambres, Hugo de Ruet, his brother Jacques....)
The last two were probably from Roeulx in the modern arrondissement of
Valenciennes, and so at that time men of the count of Flanders - but with
Hainaut being joined to Flanders from 1191, their descendants or relatives a
century or so later might have been considered (for instance by Froissart)
to be men of Hainaut. I think the two different spellings, within a few
names in the list, as well as the separation of the two "Ruet" brothers from
the one "Rues" individual, and the absence from Eustache's lineage of the
name Jacques (if not also of Hugo, though I'm not sure of this in either
case), suggest that they were not connected.
Peter Stewart
wjhonson
> I don't know if this has been discussed here before:
>
> There are two different places called Roeulx, one now in Belgium (Hainaut,
> Soignies) held until the early 14th century by the family under question
> recently, and one in modern France (Nord, Valenciennes). There appear to
> have been two distinct families belonging to these places respectively, as
> indicated by a charter of Balduin, count of Hainaut (later also count of
> Flanders by right of his wife Margaret), dated at Valenciennes on 27 & 31
> March and 1 April 1181. In the section dated 27 March occurs the following:
>
> "Nomina hominum meorum et comitis Flandrie qui interfuerunt: Eustachius de
> Rues, Almannus de Provi, Adam dapifer, Ansellus de Lambris, Hugo de Ruet,
> Jacobus frater ejus...." (The names of my men and those of the count of
> Flanders who were present: Eustache de Rues, Almain de Prouvy, Adam the
> dapifer, Anseau de Lambres, Hugo de Ruet, his brother Jacques....)
>
----------------
Looking at this reminded me of that odd name "Huon" de Roet "living
and an adult in 1322".
My mind, playing tricks wants to create this equations
Paon = Pagon
Huon = Hugon
Is there a tradition of "dropping the g" or alternatively "adding a g"
that could explain this? Or I'm just deluding myself here?
Will Johnson
Peter Stewart
"wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c57e2cb6-9b85-4f51...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Partly - the name Huon was a form of Hugo, occurring sometimes
interchangably for the same men. I'm not sure of the stages of derivation,
my guess is that it came through contracting a diminutive, e.g. from Hugonet
that might appear as Hugolinus in a Latin text.
The forms "Pagon(et)", on the other hand, do not occur as far as I know and
would not be expected to develop from Paganus anyway.
However, there is a recorded form "Paginotus" that Marie Thérèse Morlet
noted in the 11th century and traced to Paganus. I suppose it is possible
that in the vernacular this might have contracted to "Pano", that
conceivably morphed into "Paon" by the 13th century, but I would not rely on
a series of twists & bounds like this.
Names can take some circuitous, or tortuous, routes from medieval practice,
through speech and ink - just as nicknames and pet forms do today. "Paon"
might even have developed as a peculiar form in a single family, perhaps
from a child's first attempt to say his own name "Payen". For all we know so
far it could be merely coincidental that a few occurences are found in
Italy - or possibly it might have come from there, for instance with
Lombards who settled in Hainaut as bankers to the nobility. If it does not
occur in Hainaut much before the time of Paon de Ruet (that is not yet
established), and then appears at least twice for near contemporaries, a
recent import is maybe the likeliest explanation.
Peter Stewart
katheryn...@gmail.com
Peter,
It this other Roeulx in what is/what was called the Ostrevant? If so,
I think I came across this earlier in an Deviller's index entry (I
think it was vol. 6 indexing the first 5 vols. of the Cartulaire... of
the counts of Hainault.). If I've got the vol. # correct, it was on
p. 971 and reads:
"Ruet in Ostrevant. Voyez Roeulx, commune du departement du Nord."
I know that, for a while, Flanders and Hainault were one and the same,
but I thought that they had split again and come under the influence
of the French in the early 14th century. A wikipedia entry states
that Flanders fell back in the French orbit in 1304 (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Flanders#Historical_Flanders:_County_of_Flanders). [I know -- it's a
wikipedia entry]. I had thought that Flanders stood with France and
Scotland against England and Hainault with respect to the importing of
wool for the wool trade.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Judy
http://katherineswynford.blogspot.com
http://www.katherineswynford.net
Peter Stewart
<katheryn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ceae17a1-1d28-433a...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 4:16 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
> > I don't know if this has been discussed here before:
> >
> > There are two different places called Roeulx, one now in Belgium
> (Hainaut, Soignies) held until the early 14th century by the family under
> question recently, and one in modern France (Nord, Valenciennes).
<snip>
> Peter,
>
> It this other Roeulx in what is/what was called the Ostrevant?
> If so, I think I came across this earlier in an Deviller's index entry
> (I think it was vol. 6 indexing the first 5 vols. of the Cartulaire... of
> the counts of Hainault.). If I've got the vol. # correct, it was on
> p. 971 and reads:
>
> "Ruet in Ostrevant. Voyez Roeulx, commune du departement du Nord."
Yes, Ostrevant was the region around Valenciennes, that at various times was
the capital of counts of Ostrevant.
> I know that, for a while, Flanders and Hainault were one and the same,
> but I thought that they had split again and come under the influence
> of the French in the early 14th century. A wikipedia entry states
> that Flanders fell back in the French orbit in 1304 (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders#Historical_Flanders:_County_of
>_Flanders). [I know -- it's a wikipedia entry]. I had thought that
>Flanders
> stood with France and Scotland against England and Hainault with
> respect to the importing of wool for the wool trade.
I don't know this history well, but Flanders and Hainaut remained under the
same rule from 1191 until the reign of Margaret II, known locally as "Zwarte
Griet" (Black Meg). She had sons by two husbands, and Hainaut went to
descendants of her first marriage (to Bouchard of Avesnes, formerly
archdeacon of Laon & later bailli of Hainaut) and Flanders to descendants of
her second (to Guillaume II, seigneur of Dampierre & constable of
Champagne).
I didn't mean that Flanders and Hainaut were still joined at the time of
Paon de Ruet, but only that at least some of the family named after Roeulx
in Ostrevant might have associated themselves permanently with Hainaut in
the interval. This lineage included men named Hugo/Huon, Jacques and Jean -
Kervyn de Lettenhove apparently thought that Paon de Ruet belonged to the
family. If so, there may have been some shift of allegiance for him to be
described by Froissart as a man from Hainaut. (This Roeulx in Ostrevant was
not a seigneurie like the other one in Hainaut belinging to the family of
Eustache.)
It's not clear to me whether Hugo and Jacques held possessions at Roeulx in
the late 12th century, or if the brothers were maybe household knights of
the count of Flanders (or Hainaut for all I know) at that time, who had
taken their surname just due to coming originally from there, i.e. uprooted
like Paon in Queen Philippa's service in England later.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:L6HEj.1002$n8....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip
> I don't know this history well, but Flanders and Hainaut remained under
> the same rule from 1191 until the reign of Margaret II, known locally as
> "Zwarte Griet" (Black Meg).
Well, this shows how little I know - Ostrevant, including Valenciennes and
Roeulx, passed from the control of Flanders to Hainaut after 1071, during
the family contretemps started by Robert Friso (brother of William the
Conqueror's wife Matilda) against his nephews.
I should have twigged to this, as Godefroy of Hainaut (elder brother of the
Count Balduin whose charter I quoted before) was given the title count of
Ostrevant. It came back under the suzerainty of France in the early 1290s,
but the counts of Hainaut & Holland had it again by the 14th century -
Philippa was married there (by proxy) to Edward III in 1327. So even if the
family of this lesser Roeulx, near Valenciennes, did hold lands there
throughout the period, and if Paon belonged to their line, he could have
been called a man of Hainaut with no stretch at all.
Peter Stewart
Roger LeBlanc
of Baldwin VI, succeeding to Flanders after his father's death (1067),
and acquiring Hainaut by his marriage to Richilde (circa 1052), who if
I'm not mistaken is believed to be the widow of the former count, and
not the biological heiress.
I was wondering what the current situation is regarding her ancestry. Is
she not thought to be a relative of the counts of Egisheim, -the family
of Pope Leo IX, whose pontificate bracketed the date of her marriage to
Baldwin VI?
Roger LeBlanc
Peter Stewart
"Roger LeBlanc" <lebl...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.876.12061195...@rootsweb.com...
I'm not aware of any new developments in this question - it was discussed,
with helpful contributions from Thierry Stasser, in January 2004, see
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-01/1073818080
and the thread around this.
Balduin VI held both Hainaut (from 1057, in right of his wife Richilde as
widow of the last count & mother of the putative heir who soon went into the
Church instead of succeeding) and Flanders (from his father's death in
1067). But this arrangement lasted only a few years - Balduin VI died in
1070, and was succeeded by his elder son Arnulf III, known as Infelix (the
Unfortunate), who was killed in battle seven months later. Then Arnulf's
younger brother Balduin became count of Hainaut while their uncle (Balduin
VI's brother) Robert Friso became count of Flanders.
Peter Stewart
JudyL...@gmail.com
> but the counts of Hainaut & Holland had it again by the 14th century -
> Philippa was married there (by proxy) to Edward III in 1327. So even if the
> family of this lesser Roeulx, near Valenciennes, did hold lands there
> throughout the period, and if Paon belonged to their line, he could have
> been called a man of Hainaut with no stretch at all.
>
> Peter Stewart
Thank you, Peter.
This is exactly the predicament I was examining, namely, how likely it
could be for a man of Flanders to be in the retinue of the daughter of
Hainault on her way to marry Flanders' and France's enemy, the king of
England.
And perhaps, too, the even less significant *other* Roeulx family is
fittingly fit for the father of Katherine Swynford. If you thought the
first Roeulx family to be not entirely noteworthy, this one looks to
be an order of magnitude or two even less noteworthy. Perhaps the
famines of the 13-teens impelled them to seek their fortunes
elsewhere?
I should perhaps be looking for cartularies of churches around
Valenciennes?
Thank you for this information,
Peter Stewart
<JudyL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08526d6e-8e92-491b...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> And perhaps, too, the even less significant *other* Roeulx family is
> fittingly fit for the father of Katherine Swynford. If you thought the
> first Roeulx family to be not entirely noteworthy, this one looks to
> be an order of magnitude or two even less noteworthy. Perhaps the
> famines of the 13-teens impelled them to seek their fortunes
> elsewhere?
It will probably be hard to turn up information on such an obscure family,
beyond the odd appearance of a name. However it does seem a more promising
line of enquiry than the grander Roeulx family.
Evidently Isabeau de Montreuil, as widow of Gilles dit Rigaud of Le Roeulx,
together with her sons Eustache VI and Fastré, conveyed the family's
allodial property attached to their castle of Morlanwelz to the count of
Hainaut in 1312, with Eustache VI receiving it back as a fief. This
certainly looks as if she was strapped at the time, before the last
generation even took control, as free allods were not turned into new feudal
obligations lightly (see Olivier Hubinont, L'ancien château féodal de
Morlanwelz, 843-1487, _Documents et rapports de la Société paléontologique
et archéologique de Charleroi_ 21 (1897) p. 238. It seems highly unlikely
that a widow with several sons would not name in such a transaction all of
them having any present or possible future claims, yet only two are
mentioned according to Hubinont.
Also, it appears that Lejeune may have been wrong about the line he traced
from Gilles dit Rigaud's purported brother Otton of Le Roeulx whom he
supposed had taken the name & arms of Trazegnies. This was a myth according
to Clément Monnier in _Histoire de l'abaye de Cambron_ (Mons, 1884) p. 498 -
he quoted (from a source in Latin titled 'Trazeniorum') a passage stating
that Eustache Canivet of Le Roeulx died unmarried in 1287, whereupon his
patenral inheritance passed to his father's brother Gilles dit Rigaud and
his maternal inheritance passed to his mother's brother Otton of Trazegnies.
If this is correct, there may not have been any surviving male collaterals
of the Le Roeulx family when the last Eustache died in 1336/37.
> I should perhaps be looking for cartularies of churches around
> Valenciennes?
This may also be hard to do - there isn't much published from establishments
at Valenciennes as far as I can tell. A useful starting point for
information would be 'Cartulaires et inventaires de chartes dans le Nord de
la France' by Bernard Delmaire in _Les cartulaires: Actes de la table ronde,
Paris, 5-7 décembre 1991_, edited by Olivier Guyotjeannin, Laurent Morelle &
Michel Parisse (Paris, 1993) pp. 301-323. Unfortunately I don't have access
to a copy of this. Also perhaps _Catalogue descriptif et raisonné des
manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Valenciennes_ by Jacques Mangeart (Paris,
1860), that may be available on Google Books.
Peter Stewart