Re: King's Kinsfolk: Henry II Holy Roman Emperor and his relatives
Nathaniel Taylor
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (died 1024) referred to various parties in
> his charters as his kinsfolk. Among these individuals are the
> following:
>
> (1) Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg (died 1040) ("... ut dilectissimus
> Babenbergensis aecclesiae nepos noster Eberhardus dictum ...")
> [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
> Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 244-245].
>
> (2) Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim ("... consanguineae nostrae domnae
> Sophiae Gantheresheimensis monasterii matris atque dominae ..."]
> [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
> Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 566-567].
>
> (3) Otto, Duke of Carinthia ("per petitionem dilecti nepotis nostri
> Ottonis ducis ...") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
> (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 1-2], ("...
> per dilecti consanguinei nostri Ottonis quoque ducis ...") [Reference:
> Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum
> Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 23-24].
>
> Although I haven't fully confirmed Bishop Eberhard's parentage (see,
> for example, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1150/fov.html),
> it appears that Emperor Henry II was closely related to all three
> individuals as follows:
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936)
> 2. Henry, Duke of Bavaria.
> 3. Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (died 1024)
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936)
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Liudolf, Duke of Swabia.
> 4. Richlind, m. Conrad, Duke of Swabia.
> 5. Ita, m. Rudolf II, Count in Altorf.
> 6. Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg.
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936).
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 4. Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim.
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936).
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Liutgard, married Conrad the Red, Duke of Lorraine.
> 4. Otto, Duke of Carinthia (died 1006).
>
> If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
> Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
> would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
> a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
> archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
> argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
> of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
Douglas, this is interesting, but your notice of Bishop Eberhard of
Bamberg's citation as kinsman to Henry II will not independently support
the Richlind-thesis until Eberhard's complete ancestry is known and any
other connection is ruled out. It's good that you're trolling the
imperial diplomata (whose excellent word-indexes make for convenient
ferreting out of terms of kinship). But--as in the case with
England--I would seek to build up a pretty comprehensive base of
examples and counterexamples before proposing rules of thumb governing
the use of such terms, that would allow you to make specific
genealogical deductions based on their presence.
As for scholarly debate on the Richlind thesis, I remain agnostic about
it and would not read Jackman's own characterization of the debate
(which is at the URL you cited above) in a vacuum without some
additional reading. For example, I reviewed Hlawitschka's last book
about the debate in TMR a couple of years ago, at:
and earlier I had reviewed one of Jackman's works in TAG (I think in
1999 or so). The case for Richlint is unproved.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Todd A. Farmerie
> If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
> Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
> would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
> a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
> archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
> argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
> of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
>
> One newsgroup poster, Richard Borthwick, indicates that Richlint has
> been claimed as a daughter of Emperor Otto I, rather than his
> grand-daughter as advanced by the historian, Donald Jackman. If so, it
> would remove a generation in Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II.
This perhaps gives a backwards impression of the debate. She has been
traditionally identified as daughter of Otto, and it is Jackman, and the
extra generation is very much a minority opinion.
While he is one of the most active researchers in the area, his
enthusiasm for completely tearing apart and rebuilding accepted
pedigrees based on his own unique theories of onomastics, title claim,
and the relative value of specific sources means that it his work is not
representative of the shared opinion of the majority, and hence one
should be very careful in using his work as the sole source for the
genealogical reconstruction of these families.
> On the surface, removing the extra generation makes sense to me, as the
> kinships that I've found in the records before 1250 seem to be more
> simple in nature than the more extended ones found in records in later
> periods.
Are you sure there is not a connection on the side of Henry II's mother?
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>> If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
>> Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
>> would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
>> a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
>> archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
>> argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
>> of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
>>
>> http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
>>
>> One newsgroup poster, Richard Borthwick, indicates that Richlint has
>> been claimed as a daughter of Emperor Otto I, rather than his
>> grand-daughter as advanced by the historian, Donald Jackman. If so, it
>> would remove a generation in Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II.
>
>
> This perhaps gives a backwards impression of the debate. She has been
> traditionally identified as daughter of Otto, and it is Jackman, and the
> extra generation is very much a minority opinion.
Oops - I somehow lost a line of text there - the the intent was that it
is Jackman who is suggesting a novel alternative and that his change,
the extra generation, has not found universal acceptance.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Although I haven't fully confirmed Bishop Eberhard's parentage (see,
>for example, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1150/fov.html),
[snip]
Before you try to use this relationship as a basis for further
conclusions (as attempted below), wouldn't it be a good idea to go to
someting more than an unsourced amateur website for the (uncertain)
parentage of Eberhard?
>If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
>Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
>would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
>a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
>archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
>argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
>of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
As already pointed, this "overview" is a biased outline given by one
of the main proponents of one side of the argument.
>One newsgroup poster, Richard Borthwick, indicates that Richlint has
>been claimed as a daughter of Emperor Otto I, rather than his
>grand-daughter as advanced by the historian, Donald Jackman. If so, it
>would remove a generation in Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II.
>On the surface, removing the extra generation makes sense to me, as the
>kinships that I've found in the records before 1250 seem to be more
>simple in nature than the more extended ones found in records in later
>periods. Be that as it may, a brief chart of the Saxon dynasty of the
>Holy Roman Empire may be found on the following weblink:
[snip]
In fact, the earliest sources for the parentage of "Richlint" (if that
was her name, and if she even existed at all) are the Welf genealogies
of the twelfth century (see, e.g., "Genealogia Welforum", MGH SS 13:
734; "Historia Welforum Weingartensis", MGH SS 21: 460), and they
refer to her (without a name in the earlier "Genealogia Welforum") as
a daughter of Otto the Great.
I do not recall any of the scholars in this dispute suggesting that we
should accept "Richlint" as a daughter of Otto the Great. To grossly
oversimplify a controversy which has generated entire books, the
dispute here is between those who reject the statement as late and
unreliable (e.g., Hlawitschka) and those who attempt to discern an
underlying truth to the statements by interpreting the word "filia" as
"granddaughter" in this particular case (e.g., Wolf, Jackman).
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
Another example of kinship noted in ancient charters is Gisela, Abbess
of Nivelles and Fosse, which individual was styled kinswoman by both
Zwentibold, King of Lorraine, died 900, and Lous das Kind, King of
Lorraine, died 911 [References: T. Schieffer, Die Urkunden der
Deutschen Karolinger (Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Diplomata Regum
Germaniae ex Stirpe Karolinorum 4) (1960): 37, 45-46 (styled
"kinswoman" [neptis nostre] by Zwentibold, King of Lorraine, in
897), 175, 181, 182, 184 (styled "kinswoman" [nostra consanguinea]
by Louis das Kind, King of Lorraine, in 908)].
As we can see below, Abbess Gisela was near related to both kings,
being their first cousin twice removed, or related in the 2nd and 4th
degrees of kinship. This near kinship is typical of relationships
noted by kings in this time period, such references being rather simple
and straightforward, and not nearly as remote as found in records after
1250. Also, I might note that Abbess Gisela is styled "neptis" by King
Zwentibold, but "consanguinea" by his brother, King Louis. The
interchangeable use of nepos/neptis and consanguineus/consanguinea is
also typical for records in the period prior to 1250.
1. Emperor Lothar I, died 855.
2. Emperor Ludwig II, died 875.
3. Karlmann, King of Bavaria & Italy.
4. Emperor Arnulf, died 899
5. Zwentibold, King of Lorraine, died 900.
1. Emperor Lothar I, died 855.
2. Emperor Ludwig II, died 875.
3. Karlmann, King of Bavaria & Italy.
4. Emperor Arnulf, died 899
5. Louis das Kind, King of Lorraine, died 911.
1. Emperor Lothar I, died 855.
2. Lothar II, King of Lorraine, died 869.
3. Gisela, Abbess of Nivelles and Fosse.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (died 1024) referred to various parties in
> his charters as his kinsfolk. Among these individuals are the
> following:
>
> (1) Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg (died 1040) ("... ut dilectissimus
> Babenbergensis aecclesiae nepos noster Eberhardus dictum ...")
> [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
> Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 244-245].
>
> (2) Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim ("... consanguineae nostrae domnae
> Sophiae Gantheresheimensis monasterii matris atque dominae ..."]
> [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
> Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 566-567].
>
> (3) Otto, Duke of Carinthia ("per petitionem dilecti nepotis nostri
> Ottonis ducis ...") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
> (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 1-2], ("...
> per dilecti consanguinei nostri Ottonis quoque ducis ...") [Reference:
> Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum
> Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 23-24].
>
> Although I haven't fully confirmed Bishop Eberhard's parentage (see,
> for example, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1150/fov.html),
> it appears that Emperor Henry II was closely related to all three
> individuals as follows:
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936)
> 2. Henry, Duke of Bavaria.
> 3. Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (died 1024)
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936)
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Liudolf, Duke of Swabia.
> 4. Richlind, m. Conrad, Duke of Swabia.
> 5. Ita, m. Rudolf II, Count in Altorf.
> 6. Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg.
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936).
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 4. Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim.
>
> 1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936).
> 2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
> 3. Liutgard, married Conrad the Red, Duke of Lorraine.
> 4. Otto, Duke of Carinthia (died 1006).
>
> If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
> Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
> would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
> a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
> archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
> argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
> of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
>
> One newsgroup poster, Richard Borthwick, indicates that Richlint has
> been claimed as a daughter of Emperor Otto I, rather than his
> grand-daughter as advanced by the historian, Donald Jackman. If so, it
> would remove a generation in Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II.
> On the surface, removing the extra generation makes sense to me, as the
> kinships that I've found in the records before 1250 seem to be more
> simple in nature than the more extended ones found in records in later
> periods. Be that as it may, a brief chart of the Saxon dynasty of the
> Holy Roman Empire may be found on the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521420180&id=tz12J0Eb9eUC&dq=Liudolf+Conrad&lpg=PA432&pg=PA432&sig=8etaOBhWvB2MRlSEND6theWGJrM
>
> Besides the above three relatives, I also note references in two
> charters dated 1016 issued by Emperor Henry II which mention a certain
> Count Wilhelm and his mother, Hemma, the emperor's kinswoman ("...
> Willihelmo comiti predium quoddam dedimus memores etiam domne Hemme
> suae matris, nostrae videlicet neptis ...") [Reference: Monumenta
> Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3)
> (1900-1903): 440-441], ("Willehelmo comiti nec non et domine Hemme
> matri sue, nepti autem nostrae, ...") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ
> Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903):
> 441-443].
>
> Count Wilhelm's mother, Hemma, appears to be the same woman as Hemma,
> Countess of Gurk (died c. 1045), wife of Wilhelm, Count of Friesach.
> The following three weblinks discuss this family:
>
> http://www.beepworld.de/members81/frauenbiografien2/hemmavongurk.htm
> http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/wilhelminer_juengere/wilhelm_3_graf_in_karantanien_1010.html
> http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/wilhelminer_juengere/wilhelm_4_graf_von_friesach_+_1036.html
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancesty.net
Douglas Richardson
I can now report that the weblink below identifies Eberhard, Bishop of
Bamberg (died 1040) as a child of Rudolf I, Count of Altdorf, and his
wife, Ita von Oehningen, in full agreement with my original post:
Although the history of Count Rudolf and his wife, Ita, is discussed at
some length on the above website, the records which substantiate the
list of their children are not detailed. The following sources (all in
German), however, are provided for the family of Count Rudolf I and his
wife, Ita:
Heine Alexander (Hg.): Geschichte der Welfen. Phaidon Verlag GmbH Essen
Seite 24,25,39 - Heinzelmann Josef: Spanheimer-Späne Schachwappen
und Konradinererbe - Hlawitschka Eduard: Untersuchungen zu den
Thronwechseln der ersten Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts und zur
Adelsgeschichte Süddeutschlands. Zugleich klärende Forschungen um
,,Kuno von Öhningen", Jan Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen 1987, Seite
48,58,67,99-102,104,111,123,151,155,158,167-169,171 - Schmid, Karl:
Probleme um den "Grafen Kuno von Öhningen" in Gebetsgedenken uns
adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Beiträge, Jan
Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen 1983 Seite 128,134,148,159,163, 167 -
Schneidmüller Bernd: Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung. W.
Kohlhammer GmbH Stuttgart Berlin Köln 2000 Seite 30,115,116,119,127 -
Wolf Armin: Wer war Kuno von Öhningen? Überlegungen zum Herzogtum
Konrads von Schwaben (+ 997) und zur Königswahl vom Jahre 1002. in
Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters Band 36, Seite 25-83
1980. END OF SOURCES.
Assuming Bishop Eberhard's parentage has been correctly identified,
then Bishop Eberhard would thus be a grandson of the fabled "Richlint,"
who is called a daughter of Emperor Otto I in the following two ancient
Welf pedigrees:
(1) Genealogia Welforum in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Scriptorum
13: 734 (available on the gallica website at the following weblink:
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-93441&M=pagination&Y=Image).
(2) Historia Welforum Weingartensis in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica,
Scriptorum 21: 460 (available on the gallica website at the following
weblink:
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-93450&M=pagination&Y=Image).
Thus, Bishop Eberhard's near kinship to Emperor Henry II would seem to
be readily explained. Occam's Razor prevails once again!
Douglas Richardson
As a further followup, I've found a history of Eberhard, Bishop of
Bamberg (died 1040) on the following weblink:
Interestingly, the above weblink discusses the fact that Bishop
Eberhard was near related to Emperor Henry II, and states that this
kinship is best explained through Bishop Eberhard's grandmother,
Richlint, being a daughter of Emperor Otto I, uncle of Emperor Henry
II. So there you have it.
Best always. Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I can now report that the weblink below identifies Eberhard, Bishop of
> Bamberg (died 1040) as a child of Rudolf I, Count of Altdorf, and his
> wife, Ita von Oehningen, in full agreement with my original post:
>
> http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/konradiner_schwaebische_linie/ita_von_oehningen_graefin_von_altdorf.html
What next? a web page that says William Longespee was son of Henry II,
just like you said he was?
> Although the history of Count Rudolf and his wife, Ita, is discussed at
> some length on the above website, the records which substantiate the
> list of their children are not detailed. The following sources (all in
> German), however, are provided for the family of Count Rudolf I and his
> wife, Ita:
>
> Heine Alexander (Hg.): Geschichte der Welfen. Phaidon Verlag GmbH Essen
> Seite 24,25,39 - Heinzelmann Josef: Spanheimer-Späne Schachwappen
> und Konradinererbe - Hlawitschka Eduard: Untersuchungen zu den
> Thronwechseln der ersten Hälfte des 11. Jahrhunderts und zur
> Adelsgeschichte Süddeutschlands. Zugleich klärende Forschungen um
> ,,Kuno von Öhningen", Jan Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen 1987, Seite
> 48,58,67,99-102,104,111,123,151,155,158,167-169,171 - Schmid, Karl:
> Probleme um den "Grafen Kuno von Öhningen" in Gebetsgedenken uns
> adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter. Ausgewählte Beiträge, Jan
> Thorbecke Verlag Sigmaringen 1983 Seite 128,134,148,159,163, 167 -
> Schneidmüller Bernd: Die Welfen. Herrschaft und Erinnerung. W.
> Kohlhammer GmbH Stuttgart Berlin Köln 2000 Seite 30,115,116,119,127 -
> Wolf Armin: Wer war Kuno von Öhningen? Überlegungen zum Herzogtum
> Konrads von Schwaben (+ 997) und zur Königswahl vom Jahre 1002. in
> Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters Band 36, Seite 25-83
> 1980. END OF SOURCES.
Impressive list, that, all them fancy furrin werds and all. And have
you looked at any of them?
> Assuming Bishop Eberhard's parentage has been correctly identified,
. . . and (to appropriately express the situation) that his
grandparentage has been.
> then Bishop Eberhard would thus be a grandson of the fabled "Richlint,"
A tautology, - you have already assumed this to be the case.
> who is called a daughter of Emperor Otto I in the following two ancient
> Welf pedigrees:
(one man's "ancient" is another man's "late")
>
> (1) Genealogia Welforum in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, Scriptorum
> 13: 734 (available on the gallica website at the following weblink:
> http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-93441&M=pagination&Y=Image).
>
> (2) Historia Welforum Weingartensis in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica,
> Scriptorum 21: 460 (available on the gallica website at the following
> weblink:
> http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-93450&M=pagination&Y=Image).
Ah, twigged to this have we? Are you yet aware of the significance of
referring to the father of Ida of Ohningen as Conrad of Swabia (as you
did in your original post) - exactly what genealogical claim this implies?
> Thus, Bishop Eberhard's near kinship to Emperor Henry II would seem to
> be readily explained. Occam's Razor prevails once again!
You do realize that Rudolf, Eberhard's father and Gisela, Henry's mother
were both Welfs? that Konrad of Swabia and Gisela both have (claimed)
Carolingian descents? (I could go on . . .) Occam's Razor indeed. (By
the way, you may want to give your pedigree of Emperor Henry II another
look - it is so hard to keep them Henry's straight, i'n't it.)
Look, to be blunt, you have a good bit of catching up to do before you
should feel the least bit comfortable quoting httpedigrees as proof of
kinship and vice versa for these German nobles. The field has been
blessed by having a cadre of competent scholars who have been arguing
for decades over the appropriate reconstructions of families of this
rank. Given this background, a single charter reference to an
unspecified relationship and a few URLs just don't cut it. You might as
well "discover" that William de Warenne is a kinsman of Henry I without
being aware of White, van Houts and Keats-Rohan's works on the subject,
and only becoming aware of the Torigny additions to the Gesta after
someone else points it out to you.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Emperor Henry II (died 995) referred to his chaplain, Aribo, afterwards
Archbishop of Mainz (died 1032), as his kinsman ("... consanguineus
noster atque capellanus nomine Aribo") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ
Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3)
(1900-1903):548-549; ("... per interventum Aribonis fidelis nostri
cappellani et consanguinei") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
(Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903):559-560]. In
the first document, Emperor Henry II also refers to Aribo's parents,
Aribo and Adala, and his sister, Abbess Cunigondis.
This is yet another example of a simple, straightforward kinship
between the two parties, they being 1st cousins twice removed, or
related in the 2nd and 4th degrees of kinship by virtue of common
descent from Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937:
1. Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937.
2. Judith of Bavaria, married Henry I, Duke of Bavaria.
3. Emperor Henry II, died 995.
1. Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937.
2. Eberhard, Duke of Bavaria.
3. Wigburg, married Hartwig I, Pfalzgraf in Bavaria.
4. Adela, living 1020, married (1st) Aribo, Count Palatine in
Laubenthal.
5. Aribo, Archbishop of Mainz, died 1032.
For a biography of Archbishop Aribo, see the following weblink, which
notes the Archbishop's kinship to Emperor Henry II:
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/a/aribo.html
Additional information of Archbishop Aribo's mother may also be found
on the following weblink:
For interest sake, the following is a list of the individuals who are
descended from Archbishop Aribo's half-brother, Engelbert IV von
Ebersberg, Graf im Inngau, im Nordthal & im Pusterthal, died c. 1041,
for whom see Wegener (1962) 97, and Schwennicke, Europaische
Stanmtafeln, 3 (1984): 28:
Blanche of Artois, Eleanor of Castile (wife of King Edward I of
England), Isabel of France (wife of King Edward II of England),
Margaret of France (wife of King Edward I of England), Philippe of
Hainault (wife of King Edward III of England), Jacquette de Luxembourg.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>
> Website: www.royalancesty.net
Todd A. Farmerie
> This is yet another example of a simple, straightforward kinship
Apparently not, as you don't have it right.
> between the two parties, they being 1st cousins twice removed, or
> related in the 2nd and 4th degrees of kinship by virtue of common
> descent from Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937:
>
> 1. Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937.
> 2. Judith of Bavaria, married Henry I, Duke of Bavaria.
> 3. Emperor Henry II, died 995.
No, try again.
taf
Leo van de Pas
Dear Todd,
Richardson was close----but not close enough. His number 3 above, who
regards him as an Emperor? He was Heinrich II Duke of Bavaria as his father
was, as mentioned by Richardson, Heinrich I Duke of Bavaria. As Richardson
has been in my killfile for a while now, I have not seen his original
message. What is the fact? Having died in 995 or being Emperor Heinrich II?
As far as I know the Emperor Heinrich II 'the Saint' lived from 973 to 1024.
Leo van de Pas
Cabberra, Australia
Todd A. Farmerie
> Dear Todd ~
>
> I just checked my source for Emperor Henry II's descent from Duke
> Arnulf. I gave the descent correctly as stated there. I also
> doublechecked this information with another source, and it gave the
> same descent.
You are obviously just now learning this German material, so I can
understand that you may be confused, but do take a closer look. Duke
Henry II of Bavaria (son of Henry I of Bavaria) and Emperor Henry II are
distinct individuals.
> If you differ from this descent, by all means, I recommend you post
> your version along with your sources. That's the right thing to do.
> If you're wrong, then it would be a good thing to know. Perhaps you're
> using unreliable sources.
Perhaps you are unreliably summarizing your sources - here is a hint: in
the most recent descent you show Emperor Henry dying in 995. Thus his
succession to Otto III in 1003 would appear to be especially noteworthy.
It is not like this is controversial - you are skrewing up the
well-known and well-documented (and universally agreed upon, except by
you) male-line descent of Emperor Henry II from his GREAT-grandfather
Henry I.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Emperor Henry II (died 1024) referred to his chaplain, Aribo,
afterwards
Archbishop of Mainz (died 1032), as his kinsman ("... consanguineus
noster atque capellanus nomine Aribo") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ
Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3)
(1900-1903):548-549; ("... per interventum Aribonis fidelis nostri
cappellani et consanguinei") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
(Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903):559-560]. In
the first document, Emperor Henry II also refers to Aribo's parents,
Aribo and Adala, and his sister, Abbess Cunigondis.
This is yet another example of a simple, straightforward kinship
between the two parties, they being 1st cousins twice removed, or
related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship by virtue of common
descent from Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937:
1. Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937.
2. Judith of Bavaria, married Henry I, Duke of Bavaria.
3. Henry, Duke of Bavaria, died 995.
4. Emperor Henry II, died 1024.
1. Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937.
2. Eberhard, Duke of Bavaria.
3. Wigburg, married Hartwig I, Pfalzgraf in Bavaria.
4. Adela, living 1020, married (1st) Aribo, Count Palatine in
Laubenthal.
5. Aribo, Archbishop of Mainz, died 1032.
For a biography of Archbishop Aribo, see the following weblink, which
notes the Archbishop's kinship to Emperor Henry II:
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/a/aribo.html
Additional information of Archbishop Aribo's mother may also be found
on the following weblink:
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/sighardinger/adele_pfalzgraefin_...
For interest sake, the following is a list of the individuals who are
descended from Archbishop Aribo's half-brother, Engelbert IV von
Ebersberg, Graf im Inngau, im Nordthal & im Pusterthal, died c. 1041,
for whom see Wegener (1962) 97, and Schwennicke, Europaische
Stanmtafeln, 3 (1984): 28:
Blanche of Artois, Eleanor of Castile (wife of King Edward I of
England), Isabel of France (wife of King Edward II of England),
Margaret of France (wife of King Edward I of England), Philippe of
Hainault (wife of King Edward III of England), and Jacquette de
Douglas Richardson
Douglas Richardson
Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor (died 1024) referred to various parties in
his charters as his kinsfolk. Among these individuals are the
following:
(1) Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg (died 1040) ("... ut dilectissimus
Babenbergensis aecclesiae nepos noster Eberhardus dictum ...")
[Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 244-245].
(2) Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim ("... consanguineae nostrae domnae
Sophiae Gantheresheimensis monasterii matris atque dominae ..."]
[Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 566-567].
(3) Otto, Duke of Carinthia ("per petitionem dilecti nepotis nostri
Ottonis ducis ...") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
(Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 1-2], ("...
per dilecti consanguinei nostri Ottonis quoque ducis ...") [Reference:
Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum
Germaniae 3) (1900-1903): 23-24].
Although I haven't fully confirmed Bishop Eberhard's parentage (see,
for example, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1150/fov.html),
it appears that Emperor Henry II was closely related to all three
individuals as follows:
1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor, died 936.
2. Henry I, Duke of Bavaria, died died 955.
3. Henry II, Duke of Bavaria, died 995.
3. Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor, died 1024.
1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936)
2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
3. Liudolf, Duke of Swabia.
4. Richlind, m. Conrad, Duke of Swabia.
5. Ita, m. Rudolf II, Count in Altorf.
6. Eberhard, Bishop of Bamberg.
1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor (died 936).
2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
3. Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor.
4. Sophia, Abbess of Gandersheim.
1. Henry I the Fowler, Holy Roman Emperor, died 936.
2. Otto I the Great, Holy Roman Emperor.
3. Liutgard, married Conrad the Red, Duke of Lorraine.
4. Otto, Duke of Carinthia, died 1006.
If Bishop Eberhard's grandmother was Richlint or Richlind, wife of
Conrad, Duke of Swabia, then Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II
would serve as additional evidence that his grandmother, Richlint, was
a member of the Emperor's immediate family. Reviewing newsgroup
archives, it appears that Richlint's identity and parentage have been
argued at some length by various scholars. An overview of the history
of this discussion can be found at the following weblink:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/c/dcj121/richlint.htm
One newsgroup poster, Richard Borthwick, indicates that Richlint has
been claimed as a daughter of Emperor Otto I, rather than his
grand-daughter as advanced by the historian, Donald Jackman. If so, it
would remove a generation in Eberhard's kinship to Emperor Henry II.
On the surface, removing the extra generation makes sense to me, as the
kinships that I've found in the records before 1250 seem to be more
simple in nature than the more extended ones found in records in later
periods. Be that as it may, a brief chart of the Saxon dynasty of the
Holy Roman Empire may be found on the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0521420180&id=tz12J0Eb...
Besides the above three relatives, I also note references in two
charters dated 1016 issued by Emperor Henry II which mention a certain
Count Wilhelm and his mother, Hemma, the emperor's kinswoman ("...
Willihelmo comiti predium quoddam dedimus memores etiam domne Hemme
suae matris, nostrae videlicet neptis ...") [Reference: Monumenta
Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3)
(1900-1903): 440-441], ("Willehelmo comiti nec non et domine Hemme
matri sue, nepti autem nostrae, ...") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ
Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 3) (1900-1903):
441-443].
Count Wilhelm's mother, Hemma, appears to be the same woman as Hemma,
Countess of Gurk (died c. 1045), wife of Wilhelm, Count of Friesach.
The following three weblinks discuss this family:
http://www.beepworld.de/members81/frauenbiografien2/hemmavongurk.htm
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/wilhelminer_juengere/wilhelm_3_g...
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/wilhelminer_juengere/wilhelm_4_g...
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancesty.net
Todd A. Farmerie
> This is yet another example of a simple, straightforward kinship
> between the two parties, they being 1st cousins twice removed, or
> related in the 3rd and 4th degrees of kinship by virtue of common
> descent from Arnulf, Duke of Bavaria, died 937:
Closer - but compare the second and third lines: they don't mesh. Man,
if simple and straightforward takes this many tries, I would hate to see
difficult and convoluted.
If you give this yet another try, or are planning on fixing and
reposting your first Henry II post (also missing a generation), perhaps
you could mark them as corrections so those using the RootsWeb archive
know you haven't just accidentally reposted the same thing. (Even if
you just want it right in the Google archive, it is still a good idea to
so mark your post. That way someone who saw the previous edition will
know that an alteration has been made.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Here are some additional kinships found in the imperial charters. In
these cases, I find Emperor Henry IV (died 1106) has referred to the
following individuals as his kinsfolk:
1. Countess Mathilde of Tuscany ("Mahtilda Italica nostra neptis")
[Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
Imperatorum Germaniae 6 Pt. 2) (1941-1978): 505], ("Mahtilda nostra
neptis") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et
Imperatorum Germaniae 6 Pt. 2) (1941-1978): 510-511],
2. Ekbert II of Braunschweig, Margrave of Meissen ("... Ekbertus ...
noster miles, marchio et consanguineus") [Reference: Monumenta
Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 6 Pt. 2)
(1941-1978): 531].
3. Ulrich of Kärnten, Patriarch of Aquileia ("pro petitione Odalrici
patriarche dilectissimi consanguinei nostri") [Reference: Monumenta
Germaniæ Historica (Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 6 Pt. 2)
(1941-1978): 576-577], ("Vdolrici patriarche fidelis nostri et
dilectissimi consanguinei") [Reference: Monumenta Germaniæ Historica
(Diplomatum Regum et Imperatorum Germaniae 6 Pt. 2) (1941-1978):
577-579].
As with the examples cited earlier this week, the kinships between the
emperor and his three above mentioned kinsfolk are very simple and
straightforward. In this case, all four individuals are descended from
Duke Hermann II of Swabia (died 1003) as shown below:
1. Herman II, Duke of Swabia, died 1003.
2. Gisela of Swabia, married (3rd) Emperor Konrad II.
3. Emperor Henry III, died 1056.
4. Emperor Henry IV, died 1106.
1. Herman II, Duke of Swabia, died 1003.
2. Mathilde of Swabia, married Frederick, Duke of Upper Lorraine (he
died 1026).
3. Beatrice of Lorraine, died 1076, married Bonifacio, Margrave of
Tuscany.
4. Matilda of Canossa, Countess of Tuscany, born 1046, died 1114.
1. Herman II, Duke of Swabia, died 1003.
2. Gisela of Swabia, m. (2nd) Bruno, Count of Braunschweig.
3. Liudolf of Braunschweig.
4. Ekbert I of Braunschweig.
5. Count Ekbert II of Braunschweig, Margrave of Meissen (died 1090).
1. Hermann II, Duke of Swabia, died 1003.
2. Beatrice of Swabia, married Adalbero (he died 1039).
3. Markward, died 1077.
4. Ulrich, Patriarch of Aquileia, died 1122.
Note: For an interesting discussion of the identity of Beatrice of
Swabia, wife of Adalbero, with alternative theories set forth, see the
following weblink:
http://www.mittelalter-genealogie.de/konradiner_schwaebische_linie/beatrix.html
As stated earlier in this thread, the kinships mentioned by kings in
this period are generally much more simple in nature than those found
in the period after 1250.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson
> Douglas Richardson wrote:
Duke Henry II of Bavaria (son of Henry I of Bavaria) and Emperor Henry
II are
> distinct individuals.
> taf
Dear Todd ~
I'm well aware that these two men are different individuals. The error
was mine. Too many Henry's in a row (four, no less) and too much work
late at night. Thanks for spotting the mistake. I've posted two
revised posts to correct the problem. Let me know if you find any
other minor mistakes. I appreciate a good fact checker.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
To the Newsgroup:
Is Richardson now pretending that he reads German? If so, we should
hope that it is as good as his "rusty" Greek.
CED
Stewart Baldwin
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>As a further followup, I've found a history of Eberhard, Bishop of
>Bamberg (died 1040) on the following weblink:
>
>http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/welfen/welfen_sueddeutsche_linie/eberhard_bischof_von_bamberg_1040/eberhard_1_bischof_von_bamberg_+_1040.html
>
>Interestingly, the above weblink discusses the fact that Bishop
>Eberhard was near related to Emperor Henry II, and states that this
>kinship is best explained through Bishop Eberhard's grandmother,
>Richlint, being a daughter of Emperor Otto I, uncle of Emperor Henry
>II. So there you have it.
Not quite. The Genealogie Mittelalter website is a useful tool, but it
mainly consists of quotes from the literature that can be used as a
guide for further research. In the case of Eberhard, there are quotes
from one source stating that he probably descended from the Flankish
family of the counts of Abenberg ("Wahrscheinlich entstammte er dem
fränkischen Geschlecht der Grafen von Abenberg ..."), and a quote from
another source give the chain of conjectures (more complicated than
what is stated above) that would lead to the CONJECTURAL conclusion
that Eberhard was a son of Rudolf and Ita of the Welf family.
The fact that two of the sources quoted by the website disagree about
Eberhard's parentage, with neither providing any direct evidence,
indicates that Eberhard's parentage is uncertain. The webpage which
you are citing simply does not say what you are claiming it does.
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
When I read the evidence for Bishop Eberhard's parentage on the
Genealogie Mittelalter website, I was a bit underwhelmed by the
evidence presented to place him as a child of Count Rudolf and his
wife, Ita. Bishop Eberhard was certainly a prominent man in his day.
I'm surprised there is not more known about his immediate family.
Whatever the case, Bishop Eberhard was certainly closely related to the
Emperor. As I've gone over the Emperor's extended kin, I note that
Emperor Henry II's paternal grandmother, Judith of Bavaria, had a
brother named Eberhard. Possibly exploring that avenue would bear
fruit.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
.
CED
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Stewart ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
To the Newsgroup:
For those of us who have been following Mittelalter for somtime,
caution has been the watchword. For others please check the following:
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/balduine_grafen_von_flandern/arnulf_2_graf_von_flandern_987/arnulf_2_graf_von_flandern_987.html
for the children of Arnulf II of Flanders.
CED