Sources for Odo Count of Vermandois deposed 1085

[Will Johnson]

Today I happened upon this curious stub

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois

Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.

Any help?

[taf]

Have you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.

taf

[Will Johnson]

I did find one source mentioned by Cawley's Medlands

https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up

[Will Johnson]

De Genere Comitum Flandrisium Notae Parisiensis, in MGH, 1881 https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. Barones Viromandenses rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eius- dem regis; quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem fillam cuiusdam militis Viro[mandensis] predieto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius, qui fuit pater lohannıs de Sancto Simone, qui adhuc vivit. De predicto comite Hugone et predicta Adela uxore sua exivit comes Radulfus, Simon Noviomensis episcopus, dominus Henricus de Chaumont et quatuor filie; de quibus quidam marchıo Lumbardie unam habuit, secundam® dominus Baugenciaci, tertiam comes Mellenti"

Translation to English: Count Herbert He begat Odon and his sister Adela. Odo was foolish and indiscreet. The barons of Viromandense asked the king to give Adela to Hugh le Magne, the king's brother; which was done. But the aforesaid Hugh gave in marriage the daughter of a certain soldier of Mandensis, the estate of Odonius the Fatus. From Odon the Fatus and his wife came Odo Ferrarius, who was the father of Lohannis de Sancto Simon, who is still living. Of the aforesaid Count Hugh and the aforesaid Adela by his wife, there came Count Ralphus, Bishop Simon of Novio, Sir Henry de Chaumont, and four daughters; of which a certain Marquis of Lumbardie had one, the Lord Baugenciaci the second, and the third Count Mellenti

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Feb-23 5:13 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:02:24 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:52:12 AM UTC-8, taf wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:59:59 AM UTC-8, Will Johnson wrote:
>>>> Today I happened upon this curious stub
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_I,_Count_of_Vermandois
>>>>
>>>> Note that this article has *no* sources at all.
>>>> When I tried to do a cursory google books search I could find almost nothing about this person.
>>>>
>>>> Any help?
>>> Have you looked at the page history? It used to have sources, a 19th century French history of Vermandois, and Palgrave - not good modern sources, mind you, but they may serve as a starting point.
>>>
>>> taf
>> I did find one source mentioned by Cawley's Medlands
>>
>> https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up
>
>
> De Genere Comitum Flandrisium Notae Parisiensis, in MGH, 1881 https://archive.org/details/sim_monumenta-germaniae-historica_1881/page/256/mode/2up "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. Barones Viromandenses rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eius- dem regis; quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem fillam cuiusdam militis Viro[mandensis] predieto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius, qui fuit pater lohannıs de Sancto Simone, qui adhuc vivit. De predicto comite Hugone et predicta Adela uxore sua exivit comes Radulfus, Simon Noviomensis episcopus, dominus Henricus de Chaumont et quatuor filie; de quibus quidam marchıo Lumbardie unam habuit, secundam® dominus Baugenciaci, tertiam comes Mellenti"

Correctly this should read: "Comes Herbertus genuit Odonem et Adelam

sororem. Odo fuit fatuus et indiscretus. Barones Viromandenses

rogaverunt regem, ut Adelam daret Hugoni le Magne, fratri eiusdem regis;
quod factum est. Predictus vero Hugo dedit in uxorem filiam cuiusdam
militis Viro[mandensis] predicto Odoni Fatuo. De Odone Fatuo et eius
uxore exivit Odo Ferrarius, qui fuit pater Iohannıs de Sancto Simone,

qui adhuc vivit. De predicto comite Hugone et predicta Adela uxore sua
exivit comes Radulfus, Simon Noviomensis episcopus, dominus Henricus de
Chaumont et quatuor filie; de quibus quidam marchıo Lumbardie unam

habuit, secundam dominus Baugenciaci, tertiam comes Mellenti, quartam
comes Garentie."

>
> Translation to English: Count Herbert He begat Odon and his sister Adela. Odo was foolish and indiscreet. The barons of Viromandense asked the king to give Adela to Hugh le Magne, the king's brother; which was done. But the aforesaid Hugh gave in marriage the daughter of a certain soldier of Mandensis, the estate of Odonius the Fatus. From Odon the Fatus and his wife came Odo Ferrarius, who was the father of Lohannis de Sancto Simon, who is still living. Of the aforesaid Count Hugh and the aforesaid Adela by his wife, there came Count Ralphus, Bishop Simon of Novio, Sir Henry de Chaumont, and four daughters; of which a certain Marquis of Lumbardie had one, the Lord Baugenciaci the second, and the third Count Mellenti

Hell's bells, what a hatchet job - if using an online translator the
caution needs to be "garbage in, blather out". This is from the
genealogical dossier drawn up, perhaps from oral testimonies, during
King Philippe II's protracted attempt to divorce Ingeborg of Denmark.
The meaning is:

"Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus], who was father of John of
Saint-Simon living today. From the said Hugo and his wife the said Adela
came count Radulf, Simon bishop of Noyon, seigneur Henry of Chaumont and
four daughters; of whom one was wife of a certain marquis of Lombardy,
the second of the seigneur of Beaugency, the third of the count of
Meulan, the fourth of the earl of Warenne."

The last statement is wrong - the four daughters of Hugo and Adela were
Mathilde (married to a seigneur of Beaugency), Agnes (married to a
marquis of Vasto), Constance (married to a viscount of Meaux) and
Isabelle (married first to a count of Meulan and secondly to an earl of
Warenne).

The ducal Saint-Simon family pretended at Versailles to be agnatic
descendants of the Carolingians through John, but this was fiction.

Peter Stewart


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> The meaning is:
>
> "Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]

This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

The original entry in King Philippe Auguste's register C (compiled
1212/20) can be viewed here
http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/image/archim/JJ/PG/frchanjj_jj007_0001v.htm.

The later fair copy of this in register F is here
http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/Wave/image/archim/JJ/PG/frchanjj_jj023_0002v.htm.

[mike davis]

_indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
who you said made up a fictional descent?

I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?

I see that the wiki page is now updated, but shouldnt it have a link to this
thread and Peters remarks in particular, since its his translation?

Mike

[Will Johnson]

Yes in general Mike you are correct.
I'm just not certain of the propriety of linking to a message board, I think that's frowned upon

[Peter Stewart]

Whoever put this on Wikipedia should amend "Odo the Fool" to "Odo the
Insane", or else change the word "insane" to "fool/ish" elsewhere in the
passage.

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Feb-23 10:42 AM, mike davis wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:30:17 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> On 16-Feb-23 9:01 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> The meaning is:
>>>
>>> "Count Heribert fathered Odo and his sister Adela. Odo was insane and
>>> rash. The baronage of Vermandois requested of the king that Adela be
>>> given to Hugo Magnus, the king's brother [NB the words "fratri eiusdem
>>> regis" were inserted above the line, as the editor failed to note],
>>> which was done. The said Hugo gave the daughter of a knight of
>>> Vermandois to the said Odo the Fool. From Odo the Insane and his wife
>>> came Odo Ferrarius [correctly Frarinus]
>> This was careless of me: Odo the Fool and Odo the Insane are the same
>> person. His byname "fatuus" can mean foolish, simple or idiotic, but in
>> his case more probably meant insane. Medieval fools were not necessarily
>> disinherited, as he was, or we wouldn't be living in the world of today.
>> Peter Stewart
>>
>
> _indiscretus_ seems to mean just about everything from confused to
> promiscuous. I guess it depends on the context. But my own confusion is
> does this mean that the male line of Charlemagne continued to the 13th
> century if this John of St.Simon was alive under Philip Augustus or
> is this part of the fictional descent? Where did the title of St.Simon come
> from? Is it the same place south of St.Quentin which the later Dukes owned,
> who you said made up a fictional descent?

The surname of the ducal family was Rouvroy de Saint-Simon. You can read
about their genealogy here
https://archive.org/details/memoiresdesaints01sain/page/384/mode/2up - I
don't recall the details.

> I take it that Hugo Magnus also got Valois not just Vermandois?

His wife inherited Valois and Crépy on the death of her mother between
1077 (when she became countess on the resignation of her brother St
Simon in the first half of April) and 1079. She inherited Vermandois on
the death of her father, evidently ca 1080. Hugo called himself count at
the siege of Gerberoy at the end of December 1078 or in January 1079,
but it is not certain if this comital title pertained to Valois & Crépy
or to Vermandois, or all three.

[Will Johnson]

Done
I've now called him Foolish throughout, and added the gloss that fatuus can mean Stupid, Foolish, Insane

[Peter Stewart]

I'm afraid this Wikipedia page is getting worse, not better.

There is no warrant in medieval sources for asserting that "Odo I (Eudes
I), called “the Foolish” (fatuus), was Count of Vermandois and Valois
from 1080 to 1085". The likelihood is that he was never count of
Vermandois at all, and that he was probably disinherited by the time of
(or in the course of) the settlement made by his maternal uncle St Simon
of Crépy in the first half of April 1077. All we know about Odo in the
1080s is that he was living in 1085.

As noted upthread, Hugo Magnus was calling himself count at the siege of
Gerberoy in the last days of December 1078 or in January 1079 - this
indicates that Hugo's wife Adela, Odo's sister, had by then received at
least one of the countships that would otherwise have been Odo's
inheritance.

Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local
knight after he was granted the seigneury of Saint-Simon. This suggests
that Odo was not trustworthy as count but capable of managing (or being
supervised in) a small lordship and family life supported by it. I would
think this means that his untrustworthiness (whether from insanity or
retardation) was not due to a recent behavioural crisis but rather from
long-established instability that could be foreseeably constrained in
vassalage. He quite probably suffered from a type of what would now be
called schizophrenia.

In any event, the barons of St Simon's agglomeration of countships and
overlorships (including of Vermandois under its own counts) would have
had something to say about it if he intended to pass on his most
important territorial powers to a sister whose heir was considered
mentally unbalanced and/or intellectually unsuitable. The disinheritance
of Odo, if this had not already happened, very probably occurred in his
mother's lifetime - if not also in his father's.

Moreover, it is flat wrong to state that "The work Memoires de
Saint-Simon continues the family tree forward". The link I provided to
the first volume of Boislisle's monumental edition was to an appendix,
written by the editor and not part of the duke of Saint-Simon's
memoires. In this the Rouvroy family is said to be traceable to the
early 14th century, not to the Carolingians - I already pointed out that
this was not genealogical fact that could be meaningfully continued.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 17-Feb-23 8:29 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Also, Hugo as count of Vermandois arranged a marriage for Odo to a local
> knight

Before we start on a diversion about medieval same-sex marriage, I meant
to write "to the daughter of a local knight".

[Peter Stewart]

On 17-Feb-23 8:29 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

Here you can read an account of the purported Carolingian ancestry
written by a duke of Saint-Simon,
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=KSVIAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1 - and even this
credulous version says that Odo was disinherited ca 1077, not deposed as
count in 1085.

Peter Stewart

[mike davis]

Apologies if posting removes all formatting! well it usually does..

According to the book by Duke Louis [d 1755]

Odo of Vermandois m Avide of St.Simon
|
Odo II Farinus [what was he - a miller?]
|
John I of St.Simon [d fl 1195]
abandoned any claims to Vermandois
and Valois to Philip II who 1212/20
made an inquiry to prove he was
descended from Odo
|
John II fought at Bouvines 1214 m Marguerite de Beauvoir
|
Simon alive 1260 m Beatrix de Coudon
|
James I m Agnes d'Estouilly
|______________________________
James II Marguerite Beatrix m 1)1332 Raoul de Fremicourt
dsp 1333 m Mathieu de 2)William de Precy
Rouvroy

On another website it said that Mathieu le Borgne of Rouvroy [1305-84]
or a later descendant who fought at Agincourt was an ancestor of King
Charles III. Apparently theres no contemporary evidence for Mathieu
de Rovroy's marriage to Marguerite. However the earlier link you
posted to the Appendice of this book, adds another generation and
says there was a Mathieu de St.Simon in between the James's. It
also adds a few more wives, not always the same ones. Perhaps
this genealogy is still a work in progress.

Mike

[Will Johnson]

Those things to which you object above, were already present before this discussion started.
I merely did not delete them.

The name of the work is what it's called in the link itself.
See the link

https://archive.org/details/memoiresdesaints01sain/page/386/mode/2up

see what it calls itself

" Memoires de Saint-Simon
by
Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroy, duc de, 1675-1755; Boislisle, Arthur André Gabriel michel de, 1835-1908; Lecestre, Léon, 1861-; Boislisle, Jean Georges Léon Michel de, 1876- "

I did not invent that

[Will Johnson]

I should say that the claim that he was count of vermandois etc at any time, was already present in this article.

The claim that the source you cited was Memories de Saint Simon is archive.com's claim, not mine
I'm merely citing the bibliographic source that they scanned

I have now removed the claim however, that he was Count of Vermandois
Also the claim that he was specifically disinherited in 1085

[Peter Stewart]

On 17-Feb-23 10:58 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
> I should say that the claim that he was count of vermandois etc at any time, was already present in this article.
>
> The claim that the source you cited was Memories de Saint Simon is archive.com's claim, not mine
> I'm merely citing the bibliographic source that they scanned

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you really not understand that
the link was to an editorial appendix by Boislisle within his edition of
the memoires of Saint-Simon?

The citation as it stands implies that the link is to the memoires
proper, that were written by Saint-Simon, whereas of course the editor's
glosses and supplementary material are not published under a separate title.

That is taught in Reading 101, if any student who can actually read
doesn't know it already.

[Peter Stewart]

On 17-Feb-23 10:08 AM, mike davis wrote:

<snip>

> According to the book by Duke Louis [d 1755]
>
> Odo of Vermandois m Avide of St.Simon
> |
> Odo II Farinus [what was he - a miller?]

No, his byname was Frarinus (meaning poor or ill-favoured) in an
inventory written in 1136/46 - presumably this came from his father
having been disinherited.

> |
> John I of St.Simon [d fl 1195]
> abandoned any claims to Vermandois
> and Valois to Philip II who 1212/20
> made an inquiry to prove he was
> descended from Odo
> |
> John II fought at Bouvines 1214 m Marguerite de Beauvoir
> |
> Simon alive 1260 m Beatrix de Coudon
> |
> James I m Agnes d'Estouilly
> |______________________________
> James II Marguerite Beatrix m 1)1332 Raoul de Fremicourt
> dsp 1333 m Mathieu de 2)William de Precy
> Rouvroy
>
> On another website it said that Mathieu le Borgne of Rouvroy [1305-84]
> or a later descendant who fought at Agincourt was an ancestor of King
> Charles III. Apparently theres no contemporary evidence for Mathieu
> de Rovroy's marriage to Marguerite.

This marriage was apparently invented by Jean du Tillet in the 16th century.

> However the earlier link you
> posted to the Appendice of this book, adds another generation and
> says there was a Mathieu de St.Simon in between the James's. It
> also adds a few more wives, not always the same ones. Perhaps
> this genealogy is still a work in progress.

There were seigneurs of Rouvroy before Mathieu but no connected
genealogy has been made out for them.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

It is true that a message board is not normally an acceptable Wikipedia source, but there can be link to the discussion on the talk page, in order to register that there have been comments made in public about something in the article. (It might help future editors understand the context, and also understand what the article still needs.)

Of course concerning sourcing the article is currently relying on primary sources, which is fine on Wikitree, and for genealogists in general, but not fine on Wikipedia. Technically the present article could be proposed for deletion, because it is not clear if this is a notable subject that modern experts actually publish about. This is true for a lot of Wikipedia articles about medieval subjects unfortunately.

(Will knows, but for those who do not, Wikipedia specifically has a rule that it is NOT a genealogy website, and more generally it is not a place to post any type of original research. Wikipedia is for summarizing notable information which has been published by recognized experts. Wikitree on the other hand is a wiki where people cooperate to research genealogy.)

I wonder if there are any modern secondary sources on this topic. In general, if anyone has a handy modern source for a medieval subject you can also make a short note on the article talk page. This can help Wikipedia editors to make better medieval articles.

[Peter Stewart]

Arthur de Boislisle is a modern secondary source - that is why I tried
get his work on the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon ancestry adequately cited, which
has still not happened (for some reason, or more probably for none, it
is now a garbled reference to the whole edition of the memoires with
life dates added for several people including two who had nothing to do
with the appendix in question).

Boislisle has not been superseded on this subject, or for that matter on
the subjects of appendices about 'La maison de La Tour-d'Auvergne' and
'Le cardinal de Bouillon, Baluze et le procès des faussaires' both in
vol. 14 (1899).

I don't follow what Wikipedia can be aiming for in "summarizing notable
information which has been published by recognized experts" if such
studies by Boislisle may not qualify their subject matter. Just because
a question has not been rehashed in print without adding significant
value through the 20th & 21st centuries does not reflect on the
continuing importance of some 19th century work. Odo may not be an
outstanding figure for any reason other then the peculiar fact of his
having been disinherited, but if this is not a notable-enough episode in
medieval history for Wikipedia I don't know why. I suppose it could be
covered in a page for Hugo Magnus instead of one dedicated to Odo, but
unless Wikipedia is running short of bandwidth that would seem niggardly
to me.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Peter on Wikipedia what counts as a a recent enough expert varies between fields, as it should. Obviously in medieval matters it is common for experts to still cite people like Dugdale. Whoever the experts judge to be experts, the WP editors are supposed to follow.

Notability is another matter. In reality Wikipedia struggles to enforce the notability rule when it comes to medieval people, but as long as people have been published about then in principle they can be covered in WP.

The quality of articles would often be better if groups of related people were handled together. This is not because of bandwidth, but it becomes easier for editors to find and maintain groups of related articles.

[Will Johnson]

It's not true that primary sources are not fine on Wikipedia.
Secondary sources, which can put primary sources into context and add commentary, are preferred; however, it's not a requirement.

At any rate, this is not a primary source in the first place. Comments in an appendix by the editor of a primary source, are considered secondary sources.

Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Will yes you have a point. I'll explain because others might be interested. Primary sources can be used. In practice the community looks at how much interpretation is needed. The concern is that it can look like original research. The community doesn't all draw the line the same way but in high profile articles even things like census figures are sometimes challenged because they arguably need interpretation. So I think we both understand why I was suggesting that a medieval history article based on primary sources could be challenged (though it is unlikely in practice).

...Anyway, as you and Peter clarified, it is not the case here.

[Peter Stewart]

I have no intention of fiddle-faddling in Wikipedia - I have a life.

Generally it is a reasonable maxim that if a thing is worth doing in the
first place it is worth doing properly. Obviously, to anyone with
comprehension skills above primary grade, archive.org is citing the
first volume of a 45-volume set published 1879-1931. They are not going
to cite every section within each volume separately, or ascribe
different sections to actual authors, rather than cataloguing by the
overall title.

If you were trying to cite Geoffrey White's appendix on the illegitimate
offspring of Henry I, would it make sense to give a link to this in CP
vol. 11 describing it just vaguely as "Cokayne's Complete Peerage'?

As for sources and notability in Wikipedia, I see that a substantial
entry for the defunct pop duo Milli Vanilli has 60 references, the last
of which is to a Facebook page. Not exactly an expert in print. Does
anyone seriously believe that in around 950 years from now people will
still be publicly discussing anything notable about Milli Vanilli, as we
have been doing about Odo of Saint-Simon? This is emblematic of why I
think the Wikipedia enterprise of "democratising" knowledge by opening
input to everyone, subject to the occasional discretion of
self-appointed "experts", is ill-conceived.

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Feb-23 2:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:

<snip>

> Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
> You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix it. Go ahead. Instead of complaining.

This link to the Gallica scan at least provides more helpful
bibliographic details

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k52571/f474.item.

[Peter Stewart]

The name "Wikipedia" literally means "quick education" - it would make
more sense to me if it was called "Wikipinion", or better yet change
"wiki" to an Hawaiian word for "changing".

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Feb-23 9:05 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> The name "Wikipedia" literally means "quick education" - it would make
> more sense to me if it was called "Wikipinion", or better yet change
> "wiki" to an Hawaiian word for "changing".

I was informed off-list that a word for change in Hawaiian is "hoololi"
- if so, Wikipedia = Hoololipinion.

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Feb-23 8:54 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 18-Feb-23 2:55 AM, Will Johnson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Peter I am not *your* editor, so continuing to attack me, for a
>> citation posted by archive.org is not a useful position to take.
>> You or anyone else in the entire world, can edit the citation and fix
>> it.  Go ahead.  Instead of complaining.
>
> This link to the Gallica scan at least provides more helpful
> bibliographic details
>
> https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k52571/f474.item.

Here is a link to a 1993 article by François Formel in *Cahiers Saint
Simon* no. 21 (1993), with a table on p. 15 setting out fanciful
("chimérique") agnatic and cognatic lines of descent from the
Carolingians to the Rouvroy-Saint-Simon family:

https://www.persee.fr/doc/simon_0409-8846_1993_num_21_1_1189.