Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
142 views
Skip to first unread message
Douglas Richardson
Jun 24, 2012, 8:43:00 PM6/24/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 233-235 (sub Arundel) includes a biography
of William d'Aubigny, Chief Butler of England (died 1176), the second
husband of Queen Alice of Louvain (died 1151), widow of King Henry I
of England. Regarding this marriage, the following information is
provided:
"He married, in 1138 (the 3rd year of her widowhood), Adeliz, Queen
Dowager of England (widow of Henry I), 1st daughter of Godfrey à la
Barbe, Duke of Lothier (i.e., Lorraine Inférieure), Count of Brabant
and Louvain, by his 1st wife, Ide, daughter of Albert III, Count of
Namur. His wife, the Queen Dowager, retired in 1150 to a nunnery at
Afflighem, in South Brabant, where she died, and was buried 23 April
1151, aged about 48." END OF QUOTE.
There is no documentation provided by Complete Peerage for any of
these statements. Red flag.
Previous to the publication of this material, the inestimable
historian and genealogist, John Horace Round, published a biography of
Queen Alice in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1885):
137-138. He gives the following information regarding her second
marriage to William d'Aubeney and her death and burial in 1151:
Adeliza of Louvain: "The date of her marriage to William de Albini is
unknown; but as she left him seven children, it cannot have been long
after Henry's death. Her only recorded acts after 1139 are her
foundation of the small priories of Pyneham and of the Causeway (De
Calceto), and her benefactions to that of Boxgrove, all in Sussex,
with her gifts to Henry's abbey of Reading and to the cathedral church
of Chichester. To the latter she presented the prebend of West Dean
in the year 1150, after which date there are no further traces of
her. It is stated by Sandford that 'she was certainly buried at
Reading;' but she has since been proved to have left her husband and
retired to the abbey of Affligam near Alost, in Flanders, which had
been founded by her father and uncle, and to which her brother Henry
had withdrawn in 1149. Here she died on 23 March (the year not being
recorded), and was buried: 'Affligenam delata vivendi finem facit ix.
kal. Aprilis et sepulta est e regione horologii nostri' (Sanderus,
Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae). " END OF QUOTE.
The above material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433082197199;size=125;view=image;page=root;seq=147;num=137
Unlike Complete Peerage, Mr,. Round does not date the marriage of
Queen Alice and William d'Aubebeny, only to say it "cannot have been
long after [King] Henry's death" which took place in 1135.
That Queen Alice died 23 March as stated by Round is not documented by
him. Rather, there are two accounts of her death occuring on 25 March
in the following two sources:
Wailly et al., La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894):
pg. 471 (Ex Obituariis Lirensis Monasterii: “25 Mart. Obiit Adelicia
regina.”).
pg. 476 (Ex Necrologio Monasterii Crucis Sancti Leufredi: “25 Mart.
[Obiit] Adeliza, regina Anglorum.”).
Elsewhere the year of the queen's death, 1151, is confirmed by Luard,
Flores Historiarum 2 (1890): 68:
"Anno gratiæ MCLI. Obiit Adelicia regina, uxor regis Stephani." The
editor notes that the name "Stephani" is erased in Ch. and altered to
"Henrici I."
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5slCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69
The year of 1151 is also given as the year of her death in Margan
Annals:
“MCLI. Obiit Adelidis, regina secunda Henrici regis.” [Reference:
Luard Annales Monastici 1 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1864): 14].
The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IiilXTu_wrsC&pg=PA14
Both Complete Peerage and Round claim that Queen Alice died in 1151 at
Afflighem Abbey, where she was buried. The source for Round's
statement appears to be Sanderus, Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae.
Even so the competent modern historian Elizabeth van Houts in her
article "Gender, Memories and Prophecies in Medieval Europe,"
published in Verbeke, Medieval Narrative Sources (2005): 21–36 states
Queen Alice was not buried at Afflighem Abbey but rather Reading
Abbey. On page 36 she says:
"For unknown reasons in 1150 Adeliza retired to the nunnery of
Afflighem in her home country where she died the following year. She
was, however, buried in Reading Abbey the monastery she and first
husband had founded in the year of their marriage thirty years ago."
END OF QUOTE.
For Queen Alice's death year, van Houts cites Margan Annals which I've
already cited above.
As for Queen Alice's place of burial, van Houts cites The Reading
Abbey Cartularies, ed. Kemp, I: 416. She notes that C[okayne],
Complete Peerage, I:235 and Wertheimer, 'Adeliza of louvain,' p. 115
are wrong to say that she was buried at Afflighem.
The van Houts article may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6sqeFv4YjJoC&pg=PA36
In support of van Houts, I find that there is a modern biography of
Queen Alice of Louvain in German published in Tobias Weller, Die
Heiratspolitik des deutschen Hochadels im 12. Jahrhundert (2004): 464–
476. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=r8mt_ycA8U4C&pg=PA464.
“On page 476, Weller states: “Seine Gattin Adelheid von Löwen, die
ehemalige Königin von England, war schon 1151 während des
Bürgerkrieges verschieden und wurde in Reading beigesetzt.”
In two footnotes, he gives the same source for the 1151 death date of
Queen Alice as does van Houts, namely Margan Annals, which I've cited
above.
In footnote 195 on page 476, he explains his statement that Queen
Alice was buried at Reading Abbey in Berkshire:
"Der Begräbnisort Kgn. Adelheids geht aus einem Schreiben Jocelins v.
Löwen an Bf. Hilarius v. Chichester eindeutig hervor; vgl. Reading
Abbey Cartularies 1, No. 551, 416f.; s.a. Bartlett, England 596.
Nicht stichhaltig ist demgegenüber die van Sanderus, Chorographia 1,
45, verbreitete Nachricht, wonach Adelheid vor ihrem Tod in ihre
Heimat übergesiedelt und im Kloster Afflighem gestoren and begraben
sei; heirnach auch John Horace Round in dem Art.: Adeliza of Louvain,
in DNB 1 (1885): 137f.; Complete Peerage 1, 235. Allerdings ist Kgn.
Adelheid als Wohltäterin von Afflighem aufgetreten unde hat dem
Kloster einigen Besitz in England gestiftet; vgl. Cart. Afflighem, No.
79, 121-124 (hier 122)." END OF QUOTE.
Weller cites a letter of Jocelin of Louvain to Bishop Hilary, Bishop
of Chichester, which "clearly states" that Queen Alice was buried at
Reading Abbey in Berkshire. The letter is published in Kemp, Reading
Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden Soc. 4th Ser. 31) (1986): 476. I haven't
yet examined the letter, but I presume it states what van Houts and
Weller claim it does.
Regarding Queen Alice's date of marriage to William d'Aubeney, Weller
merely says on page 471 that the marriage occurred before summer 1139
["spätestens im Sommer 1139"].
In summary, we see that Queen Alice married (2nd) before summer 1139
William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England. She died 25 March 1151,
at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant, and was buried at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire. I've found no evidence that Queen Alice died or was buried
23 March, although such a source probably exists.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Complete Peerage 1 (1910): 233-235 (sub Arundel) includes a biography
of William d'Aubigny, Chief Butler of England (died 1176), the second
husband of Queen Alice of Louvain (died 1151), widow of King Henry I
of England. Regarding this marriage, the following information is
provided:
"He married, in 1138 (the 3rd year of her widowhood), Adeliz, Queen
Dowager of England (widow of Henry I), 1st daughter of Godfrey à la
Barbe, Duke of Lothier (i.e., Lorraine Inférieure), Count of Brabant
and Louvain, by his 1st wife, Ide, daughter of Albert III, Count of
Namur. His wife, the Queen Dowager, retired in 1150 to a nunnery at
Afflighem, in South Brabant, where she died, and was buried 23 April
1151, aged about 48." END OF QUOTE.
There is no documentation provided by Complete Peerage for any of
these statements. Red flag.
Previous to the publication of this material, the inestimable
historian and genealogist, John Horace Round, published a biography of
Queen Alice in the Dictionary of National Biography, 1 (1885):
137-138. He gives the following information regarding her second
marriage to William d'Aubeney and her death and burial in 1151:
Adeliza of Louvain: "The date of her marriage to William de Albini is
unknown; but as she left him seven children, it cannot have been long
after Henry's death. Her only recorded acts after 1139 are her
foundation of the small priories of Pyneham and of the Causeway (De
Calceto), and her benefactions to that of Boxgrove, all in Sussex,
with her gifts to Henry's abbey of Reading and to the cathedral church
of Chichester. To the latter she presented the prebend of West Dean
in the year 1150, after which date there are no further traces of
her. It is stated by Sandford that 'she was certainly buried at
Reading;' but she has since been proved to have left her husband and
retired to the abbey of Affligam near Alost, in Flanders, which had
been founded by her father and uncle, and to which her brother Henry
had withdrawn in 1149. Here she died on 23 March (the year not being
recorded), and was buried: 'Affligenam delata vivendi finem facit ix.
kal. Aprilis et sepulta est e regione horologii nostri' (Sanderus,
Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae). " END OF QUOTE.
The above material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433082197199;size=125;view=image;page=root;seq=147;num=137
Unlike Complete Peerage, Mr,. Round does not date the marriage of
Queen Alice and William d'Aubebeny, only to say it "cannot have been
long after [King] Henry's death" which took place in 1135.
That Queen Alice died 23 March as stated by Round is not documented by
him. Rather, there are two accounts of her death occuring on 25 March
in the following two sources:
Wailly et al., La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894):
pg. 471 (Ex Obituariis Lirensis Monasterii: “25 Mart. Obiit Adelicia
regina.”).
pg. 476 (Ex Necrologio Monasterii Crucis Sancti Leufredi: “25 Mart.
[Obiit] Adeliza, regina Anglorum.”).
Elsewhere the year of the queen's death, 1151, is confirmed by Luard,
Flores Historiarum 2 (1890): 68:
"Anno gratiæ MCLI. Obiit Adelicia regina, uxor regis Stephani." The
editor notes that the name "Stephani" is erased in Ch. and altered to
"Henrici I."
The above item may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5slCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69
The year of 1151 is also given as the year of her death in Margan
Annals:
“MCLI. Obiit Adelidis, regina secunda Henrici regis.” [Reference:
Luard Annales Monastici 1 (Rolls Ser. 36) (1864): 14].
The above record may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IiilXTu_wrsC&pg=PA14
Both Complete Peerage and Round claim that Queen Alice died in 1151 at
Afflighem Abbey, where she was buried. The source for Round's
statement appears to be Sanderus, Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae.
Even so the competent modern historian Elizabeth van Houts in her
article "Gender, Memories and Prophecies in Medieval Europe,"
published in Verbeke, Medieval Narrative Sources (2005): 21–36 states
Queen Alice was not buried at Afflighem Abbey but rather Reading
Abbey. On page 36 she says:
"For unknown reasons in 1150 Adeliza retired to the nunnery of
Afflighem in her home country where she died the following year. She
was, however, buried in Reading Abbey the monastery she and first
husband had founded in the year of their marriage thirty years ago."
END OF QUOTE.
For Queen Alice's death year, van Houts cites Margan Annals which I've
already cited above.
As for Queen Alice's place of burial, van Houts cites The Reading
Abbey Cartularies, ed. Kemp, I: 416. She notes that C[okayne],
Complete Peerage, I:235 and Wertheimer, 'Adeliza of louvain,' p. 115
are wrong to say that she was buried at Afflighem.
The van Houts article may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=6sqeFv4YjJoC&pg=PA36
In support of van Houts, I find that there is a modern biography of
Queen Alice of Louvain in German published in Tobias Weller, Die
Heiratspolitik des deutschen Hochadels im 12. Jahrhundert (2004): 464–
476. This material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=r8mt_ycA8U4C&pg=PA464.
“On page 476, Weller states: “Seine Gattin Adelheid von Löwen, die
ehemalige Königin von England, war schon 1151 während des
Bürgerkrieges verschieden und wurde in Reading beigesetzt.”
In two footnotes, he gives the same source for the 1151 death date of
Queen Alice as does van Houts, namely Margan Annals, which I've cited
above.
In footnote 195 on page 476, he explains his statement that Queen
Alice was buried at Reading Abbey in Berkshire:
"Der Begräbnisort Kgn. Adelheids geht aus einem Schreiben Jocelins v.
Löwen an Bf. Hilarius v. Chichester eindeutig hervor; vgl. Reading
Abbey Cartularies 1, No. 551, 416f.; s.a. Bartlett, England 596.
Nicht stichhaltig ist demgegenüber die van Sanderus, Chorographia 1,
45, verbreitete Nachricht, wonach Adelheid vor ihrem Tod in ihre
Heimat übergesiedelt und im Kloster Afflighem gestoren and begraben
sei; heirnach auch John Horace Round in dem Art.: Adeliza of Louvain,
in DNB 1 (1885): 137f.; Complete Peerage 1, 235. Allerdings ist Kgn.
Adelheid als Wohltäterin von Afflighem aufgetreten unde hat dem
Kloster einigen Besitz in England gestiftet; vgl. Cart. Afflighem, No.
79, 121-124 (hier 122)." END OF QUOTE.
Weller cites a letter of Jocelin of Louvain to Bishop Hilary, Bishop
of Chichester, which "clearly states" that Queen Alice was buried at
Reading Abbey in Berkshire. The letter is published in Kemp, Reading
Abbey Cartularies 1 (Camden Soc. 4th Ser. 31) (1986): 476. I haven't
yet examined the letter, but I presume it states what van Houts and
Weller claim it does.
Regarding Queen Alice's date of marriage to William d'Aubeney, Weller
merely says on page 471 that the marriage occurred before summer 1139
["spätestens im Sommer 1139"].
In summary, we see that Queen Alice married (2nd) before summer 1139
William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England. She died 25 March 1151,
at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant, and was buried at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire. I've found no evidence that Queen Alice died or was buried
23 March, although such a source probably exists.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Watson
Jun 25, 2012, 1:38:53 AM6/25/12
to
Round quotes his source for the date of 23 March as:
"Here she died on 23 March (the year not being recorded), and was buried: 'Affligenam delata vivendi finem facit ix. kal. Aprilis et sepulta est e regione horologii nostri' (Sanderus, Chorographia Sacra Brabantiae). "
i.e. she died on the 9th of the kalends of April. Unfortunately he may be out by a day, since 9th kalends of April is 24 March.
Regards,
John
Douglas Richardson
Jun 25, 2012, 2:07:34 AM6/25/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
Below is a copy of the record taken from Continuatio Chronici
Afflegemiensis which indicates that Alice of Louivain, Queen of
England, died 23 April, and was buried at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant:
D’Achery, Spicilegium 10 (1671): 612-613 (Continuatio Chronici
Afflegemiensis: “Filia præfati Ducis Aleidis juncta matrimonio Regi
Angliæ, post obitum secundi conjugis Afflegemiensis Claustri
solitudinem ad reliquum vitæ ad humandum corpus elegit in domo turri
Ecclesiæ contigua, cum una aut altera ancilla in Fratrum
Afflegemiensium quieta taciturna multitudine solitaria habitavit, &
beato fine quievit, de qua epitaphium: Aleidis Regina Angliæ, filia
Ducis Godefridi cum barba, Regnum suscepit in Anglia an MCXXI. obiit 9
Kal. Maii [23 April], sepulta è regione horologii nostri.”).
The above record may be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4IZ3eBtclsC&pg=PA612
The above appears to be the record which John Horace Round and
Complete Peerage used to indicate the death date and burial place of
Alice of Louvain, Queen of England. The reliability of the above
record is questionable, however, as it makes at least two errors: (1)
that Queen Alice became a nun at Afflighem Abbey after the death of
her 2nd husband, William d'Aubeney; actually William d'Aubeney
survived Queen Alice over twenty years; and (2) that Queen Alice was
buried at Afflighem Abbey; she was actually buried at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire.
Did she really become a nun?
Below is a copy of the record taken from Continuatio Chronici
Afflegemiensis which indicates that Alice of Louivain, Queen of
England, died 23 April, and was buried at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant:
D’Achery, Spicilegium 10 (1671): 612-613 (Continuatio Chronici
Afflegemiensis: “Filia præfati Ducis Aleidis juncta matrimonio Regi
Angliæ, post obitum secundi conjugis Afflegemiensis Claustri
solitudinem ad reliquum vitæ ad humandum corpus elegit in domo turri
Ecclesiæ contigua, cum una aut altera ancilla in Fratrum
Afflegemiensium quieta taciturna multitudine solitaria habitavit, &
beato fine quievit, de qua epitaphium: Aleidis Regina Angliæ, filia
Ducis Godefridi cum barba, Regnum suscepit in Anglia an MCXXI. obiit 9
Kal. Maii [23 April], sepulta è regione horologii nostri.”).
The above record may be found at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=J4IZ3eBtclsC&pg=PA612
The above appears to be the record which John Horace Round and
Complete Peerage used to indicate the death date and burial place of
Alice of Louvain, Queen of England. The reliability of the above
record is questionable, however, as it makes at least two errors: (1)
that Queen Alice became a nun at Afflighem Abbey after the death of
her 2nd husband, William d'Aubeney; actually William d'Aubeney
survived Queen Alice over twenty years; and (2) that Queen Alice was
buried at Afflighem Abbey; she was actually buried at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire.
Did she really become a nun?
Derek Howard
Jun 25, 2012, 2:51:54 AM6/25/12
to
Brabantiae, sive celebrium aliquot in ea provincia abbatiarum,
coenobiorum, monasteriorum, ecclesiarum, piarumque fundationum
descriptio", v 1, 1726, p 45; which can be seen at:
<http://books.google.be/books?id=myJqazGqHxsC&pg=PA45>
Sanderus lived and died at the abbey of Affligem/Afflighem, for what
it is worth.
Derek Howard
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 1:11:42 AM6/28/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER" of 1139
I have a particular interest in the exact chronological steps of a certain person who is the main player in that particular claim (hint it's not adeliza)....
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
Derek Howard
Jun 28, 2012, 5:48:35 AM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 7:11 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER" of 1139
This is discussed in further detail in Edmund King: "King Stephen",
> There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER" of 1139
Yale 2010, pp 116-118, especially fn 16, with references therefrom to:
Laura Wertheimer: "Adeliza of Louvain and the Anglo-Norman Queenship",
112-3, in 'Haskins Society Journal', 7 (1997), 101-15; and to Kathleen
Thompson: "Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian Connection", in 'Sussex
Arch Collections', 140 (2002), 57-64.
Derek Howard
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 10:07:31 AM6/28/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In a previous post on Queen Alice of Louvain, I pointed out that there
are two French obits which record the day and month of her death.
These records are:
Wailly et al., La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894):
pg. 471 (Ex Obituariis Lirensis Monasterii: “25 Mart. Obiit Adelicia
regina.”).
pg. 476 (Ex Necrologio Monasterii Crucis Sancti Leufredi: “25 Mart.
[Obiit] Adeliza, regina Anglorum.”).
The above two records may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50141v/f488.image.r=Recueil+des+Historiens+des+Gaules+et+de+la+France.langEN
In addition to the above two records, I've located an English record
of Queen Alice's death in the Canterbury Obituary Lists:published in
Meyer, Culture of Christendom (1993): 136. The record reads as
follows:
“7 Kal. [Apr.] [26 March]. Obiit Atheliza regina.”)
http://books.google.com/books?id=rIXKqdzK0oEC&pg=PA136
The above three records are in basic agreement that the queen died 25
(or 26) March. The uniformity of these records calls into question
the record of the queen's death published in D’Achery, Spicilegium 10
(1671): 612-613 (Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis) which claims
that following the death of her second husband, Queen Alice, went to
live at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant where she died "an MCXXI. obiit 9
Kal. Maii [23 April]" and where she was buried.
While Queen Alice certainly died in 1151 (as attested by other English
records), she certainly was not a widow at the time of her death. Nor
was she buried at Afflighem Abbey, but rather at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire. Given that the other three obits for Queen Alice peg her
death date as 25 (or 26) March, the date 23 April offered by
Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis would appear to be spurious. And,
given so many errors in Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis, I
conclude that this record was written many years after the death of
Queen Alice by someone who only vaguely familiar with her life.
In a related vein, there are three records of the death of the queen's
2nd husband, William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England, who died in
1176. Two of them are English, one is French. These records
specifically are:
1. Journal British Arch. Association (1867): 21–33 (“In the Register
of the Priory of Bromhale, we find the record of his death under the
date of the 4th day of October, 22nd of Henry II (A.D. 1176), in the
following words, ‘obiit Willielmus Comes Arundel’ (no mention of
Sussex or Chichester), et ‘sepultus est in prioratus de Wymondham.’”).
2. Matthew of Paris, Chronica Majora 2 (Rolls Ser. 57) (1874): 298
(sub 1176: “comes etiam Willelmus de Arundel obiit quarto idus
Octobris [12 October] apud Waverle, et sepultus est apud Wimundham,
cellam scilicet ecclesiæ Sancti Albani, cujus cellæ patronus fuisse
dinoscitur.”).
3. Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de
“12 Oct. [Obiit] Guillelmus, comes de Arundel.”).
Of the above, Matthew Paris is considered to be a generally reliable
authority, so I would give weight to his statement. The fact that the
same date, 12 October, is indicated by a French source is good
confirmation of his accuracy. However, the other English record is
taken from the register of Bromhale Priory and seems to be very
specific as to the exact date and place of burial.
As such, I believe it would be good to say that William d'Aubeney died
4 (or 12) October 1176, and leave it at that. This would be an
addition to Complete Peerage.
Regarding the date of the marriage of Queen Alice of Louvain and
William d'Aubeney, the chronicler Robert de Torigny seems to place
this marriage in the year 1139. Here is that record:
Delisle, Chronique de Robert de Torigni 1 (1872): 215 (sub A.D. 1139:
“Invitarerat enim eos Willermus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz
quondam reginam, quæ habebat castellum et comitatum Hardundel, quod
rex Henricus dederat ei in dote.”).
As I've already pointed out, Weller places the marriage as having
taken place by the summer of 1139. It appears that no better estimate
is available for the date of this marriage. Complete Peerage, on the
other hand, states without documentation that Queen Alice and William
d'Aubeney were married in 1138. On this point, the editor of Complete
Peerage has apparently relied on an unsourced statement regarding
Queen Alice's 2nd marriage found in Strickland, Lives of the Queens of
England 1 (1840): 212–256. While I have a high opinion of Strickland,
it is based only on when she is citing contemporary records (which she
does frequently), not when she is making things up.
In a previous post on Queen Alice of Louvain, I pointed out that there
are two French obits which record the day and month of her death.
These records are:
Wailly et al., La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894):
pg. 471 (Ex Obituariis Lirensis Monasterii: “25 Mart. Obiit Adelicia
regina.”).
pg. 476 (Ex Necrologio Monasterii Crucis Sancti Leufredi: “25 Mart.
[Obiit] Adeliza, regina Anglorum.”).
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50141v/f488.image.r=Recueil+des+Historiens+des+Gaules+et+de+la+France.langEN
In addition to the above two records, I've located an English record
of Queen Alice's death in the Canterbury Obituary Lists:published in
Meyer, Culture of Christendom (1993): 136. The record reads as
follows:
“7 Kal. [Apr.] [26 March]. Obiit Atheliza regina.”)
http://books.google.com/books?id=rIXKqdzK0oEC&pg=PA136
The above three records are in basic agreement that the queen died 25
(or 26) March. The uniformity of these records calls into question
the record of the queen's death published in D’Achery, Spicilegium 10
(1671): 612-613 (Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis) which claims
that following the death of her second husband, Queen Alice, went to
live at Afflighem Abbey in Brabant where she died "an MCXXI. obiit 9
Kal. Maii [23 April]" and where she was buried.
While Queen Alice certainly died in 1151 (as attested by other English
records), she certainly was not a widow at the time of her death. Nor
was she buried at Afflighem Abbey, but rather at Reading Abbey,
Berkshire. Given that the other three obits for Queen Alice peg her
death date as 25 (or 26) March, the date 23 April offered by
Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis would appear to be spurious. And,
given so many errors in Continuatio Chronici Afflegemiensis, I
conclude that this record was written many years after the death of
Queen Alice by someone who only vaguely familiar with her life.
In a related vein, there are three records of the death of the queen's
2nd husband, William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England, who died in
1176. Two of them are English, one is French. These records
specifically are:
1. Journal British Arch. Association (1867): 21–33 (“In the Register
of the Priory of Bromhale, we find the record of his death under the
date of the 4th day of October, 22nd of Henry II (A.D. 1176), in the
following words, ‘obiit Willielmus Comes Arundel’ (no mention of
Sussex or Chichester), et ‘sepultus est in prioratus de Wymondham.’”).
2. Matthew of Paris, Chronica Majora 2 (Rolls Ser. 57) (1874): 298
(sub 1176: “comes etiam Willelmus de Arundel obiit quarto idus
Octobris [12 October] apud Waverle, et sepultus est apud Wimundham,
cellam scilicet ecclesiæ Sancti Albani, cujus cellæ patronus fuisse
dinoscitur.”).
3. Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de
Saint Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894): 580 (Notæ Monasterii Montis Sancti Michaelis:
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
“12 Oct. [Obiit] Guillelmus, comes de Arundel.”).
Of the above, Matthew Paris is considered to be a generally reliable
authority, so I would give weight to his statement. The fact that the
same date, 12 October, is indicated by a French source is good
confirmation of his accuracy. However, the other English record is
taken from the register of Bromhale Priory and seems to be very
specific as to the exact date and place of burial.
As such, I believe it would be good to say that William d'Aubeney died
4 (or 12) October 1176, and leave it at that. This would be an
addition to Complete Peerage.
Regarding the date of the marriage of Queen Alice of Louvain and
William d'Aubeney, the chronicler Robert de Torigny seems to place
this marriage in the year 1139. Here is that record:
Delisle, Chronique de Robert de Torigni 1 (1872): 215 (sub A.D. 1139:
“Invitarerat enim eos Willermus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz
quondam reginam, quæ habebat castellum et comitatum Hardundel, quod
rex Henricus dederat ei in dote.”).
As I've already pointed out, Weller places the marriage as having
taken place by the summer of 1139. It appears that no better estimate
is available for the date of this marriage. Complete Peerage, on the
other hand, states without documentation that Queen Alice and William
d'Aubeney were married in 1138. On this point, the editor of Complete
Peerage has apparently relied on an unsourced statement regarding
Queen Alice's 2nd marriage found in Strickland, Lives of the Queens of
England 1 (1840): 212–256. While I have a high opinion of Strickland,
it is based only on when she is citing contemporary records (which she
does frequently), not when she is making things up.
John Higgins
Jun 28, 2012, 10:52:26 AM6/28/12
to
to the woman in question as Adeliza, not Alice. And none of the
sources that DR cites call her Alice....
Derek Howard
Jun 28, 2012, 11:11:41 AM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 4:07 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Regarding the date of the marriage of Queen Alice of Louvain and
> William d'Aubeney, the chronicler Robert de Torigny seems to place
> this marriage in the year 1139. Here is that record:
>
> Delisle, Chronique de Robert de Torigni 1 (1872): 215 (sub A.D. 1139:
> “Invitarerat enim eos Willermus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz
> quondam reginam, quæ habebat castellum et comitatum Hardundel, quod
> rex Henricus dederat ei in dote.”).
>
> As I've already pointed out, Weller places the marriage as having
> taken place by the summer of 1139. It appears that no better estimate
> is available for the date of this marriage. Complete Peerage, on the
> other hand, states without documentation that Queen Alice and William
> d'Aubeney were married in 1138. On this point, the editor of Complete
> Peerage has apparently relied on an unsourced statement regarding
> Queen Alice's 2nd marriage found in Strickland, Lives of the Queens of
> England 1 (1840): 212–256. While I have a high opinion of Strickland,
> it is based only on when she is citing contemporary records (which she
> does frequently), not when she is making things up.
I have already pointed to Edmund King's discussion. At p 118 n 16,
> Regarding the date of the marriage of Queen Alice of Louvain and
> William d'Aubeney, the chronicler Robert de Torigny seems to place
> this marriage in the year 1139. Here is that record:
>
> Delisle, Chronique de Robert de Torigni 1 (1872): 215 (sub A.D. 1139:
> “Invitarerat enim eos Willermus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz
> quondam reginam, quæ habebat castellum et comitatum Hardundel, quod
> rex Henricus dederat ei in dote.”).
>
> As I've already pointed out, Weller places the marriage as having
> taken place by the summer of 1139. It appears that no better estimate
> is available for the date of this marriage. Complete Peerage, on the
> other hand, states without documentation that Queen Alice and William
> d'Aubeney were married in 1138. On this point, the editor of Complete
> Peerage has apparently relied on an unsourced statement regarding
> Queen Alice's 2nd marriage found in Strickland, Lives of the Queens of
> England 1 (1840): 212–256. While I have a high opinion of Strickland,
> it is based only on when she is citing contemporary records (which she
> does frequently), not when she is making things up.
after referring, to Torigni he says while his statement has been
generally accepted, there are good grounds to question it, which he
discusses. He then states that there is an alternative view, that
would see the couple as married late in 1139. On this last point he
cites Thompson.
Derek Howard
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 12:38:13 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 9:11 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
< I have already pointed to Edmund King's discussion. At p 118 n 16,
< after referring, to Torigni he says while his statement has been
< generally accepted, there are good grounds to question it, which he
< discusses. He then states that there is an alternative view, that
< would see the couple as married late in 1139. On this last point he
< cites Thompson.
<
< Derek Howard
Thank you for your comments, Derek. Much appreciated.
< I have already pointed to Edmund King's discussion. At p 118 n 16,
< after referring, to Torigni he says while his statement has been
< generally accepted, there are good grounds to question it, which he
< discusses. He then states that there is an alternative view, that
< would see the couple as married late in 1139. On this last point he
< cites Thompson.
<
< Derek Howard
DR
John Higgins
Jun 28, 2012, 12:42:33 PM6/28/12
to
support the surname of Daubeney for Adeliza's 2nd husband. Daubeney
was used in England by a totally different family (originally
d'Aubigne), but that doesn't justify assigning the surname
retroactively to the family of d'Aubigny.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 12:36:45 PM6/28/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
Louvain referred to as:
Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
Adelide, Adelidis, Adelaidis, Adelize.
These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
It is common for historians to leave women's names in Latin forms,
while converting men's names into the modern vernacular forms (Henry,
William). Needless to say, this is very inconsistent.
Hence we often have Queen Adeliza (Latin form), but King Henry I and
William d'Aubeney (modern forms).
I might point out the Queen Alice's daughter, Alice, Countess of Eu,
had a same given name as did the queen. The countess occurs in
contemporary records with the same various Latin forms as the queen.
Below is one record which calls the countess Aaliz, and another which
calls her Aelidis.
Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
fils et hoir du dit Henry, ... espousa une moult noble dame nommée
Aaliz, fille au conte d’Arondel en Angleterre, et niepce au viconte de
Rohan.”), 449 (Ex Obituario ecclesiæ Augensis: “15 May — Anniversarium
solemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi.”),
One must remember that before 1200 numerous Latin forms existed for
the same given name. After 1200 given names tended to be standardized
in England. So after 1200 you have one or two basic Latin forms for a
given name, but not twenty. I'm not sure what caused the
standardization process, I merely have observed that it took place in
the records.
Myself I try to be consistent whenever I can do so, and I encourage
others to do the same. My opinion is that if we are going to
modernize the men's names, we should do the same with women's names.
Lastly, I might point out that there is an early English text version
of the cartulary of Oseney Abbey. In that version we meet with "quene
Alyz."
Here is a weblink to a page 14 in that source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14
On page 79-80, I note that she is there called "Adelide or Alice
sumtyme quene of Inglonde"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
And, the editor refers to her on page 14 as "queen dowager Alice."
In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
Louvain referred to as:
Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
Adelide, Adelidis, Adelaidis, Adelize.
These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
It is common for historians to leave women's names in Latin forms,
while converting men's names into the modern vernacular forms (Henry,
William). Needless to say, this is very inconsistent.
Hence we often have Queen Adeliza (Latin form), but King Henry I and
William d'Aubeney (modern forms).
I might point out the Queen Alice's daughter, Alice, Countess of Eu,
had a same given name as did the queen. The countess occurs in
contemporary records with the same various Latin forms as the queen.
Below is one record which calls the countess Aaliz, and another which
calls her Aelidis.
Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
la France 23) (1894): 440 (Chronique des Comtes d’Eu: “Jehan, aisné
Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
fils et hoir du dit Henry, ... espousa une moult noble dame nommée
Aaliz, fille au conte d’Arondel en Angleterre, et niepce au viconte de
Rohan.”), 449 (Ex Obituario ecclesiæ Augensis: “15 May — Anniversarium
solemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi.”),
One must remember that before 1200 numerous Latin forms existed for
the same given name. After 1200 given names tended to be standardized
in England. So after 1200 you have one or two basic Latin forms for a
given name, but not twenty. I'm not sure what caused the
standardization process, I merely have observed that it took place in
the records.
Myself I try to be consistent whenever I can do so, and I encourage
others to do the same. My opinion is that if we are going to
modernize the men's names, we should do the same with women's names.
Lastly, I might point out that there is an early English text version
of the cartulary of Oseney Abbey. In that version we meet with "quene
Alyz."
Here is a weblink to a page 14 in that source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14
On page 79-80, I note that she is there called "Adelide or Alice
sumtyme quene of Inglonde"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
And, the editor refers to her on page 14 as "queen dowager Alice."
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 12:54:40 PM6/28/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
"Alice"
http://archive.org/stream/chroniclehenryh01foregoog#page/n284/mode/2up/search/alice
-----Original Message-----
From: John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 8:02 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
On Jun 28, 2:48 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
On Jun 28, 7:11 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER" of
139
This is discussed in further detail in Edmund King: "King Stephen",
Yale 2010, pp 116-118, especially fn 16, with references therefrom to:
Laura Wertheimer: "Adeliza of Louvain and the Anglo-Norman Queenship",
112-3, in 'Haskins Society Journal', 7 (1997), 101-15; and to Kathleen
Thompson: "Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian Connection", in 'Sussex
Arch Collections', 140 (2002), 57-64.
Derek Howard
Note that these sources, and all others I've seen except for DR, refer
o the woman in question as Adeliza, not Alice. And none of the
ources that DR cites call her Alice....
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 12:56:12 PM6/28/12
to jhigg...@yahoo.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
d'Aubeney
http://archive.org/stream/chroniclehenryh01foregoog#page/n308/mode/2up/search/alice
-----Original Message-----
From: John Higgins <jhigg...@yahoo.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 9:45 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
On Jun 28, 7:52 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:48 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:11 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER"
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
On Jun 28, 7:52 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 28, 2:48 am, Derek Howard <dhow...@skynet.be> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 7:11 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> > There is a very specific reason why they say she married before "SUMMER"
f 1139
> This is discussed in further detail in Edmund King: "King Stephen",
> Yale 2010, pp 116-118, especially fn 16, with references therefrom to:
> Laura Wertheimer: "Adeliza of Louvain and the Anglo-Norman Queenship",
> 112-3, in 'Haskins Society Journal', 7 (1997), 101-15; and to Kathleen
> Thompson: "Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian Connection", in 'Sussex
> Arch Collections', 140 (2002), 57-64.
> Derek Howard
Note that these sources, and all others I've seen except for DR, refer
to the woman in question as Adeliza, not Alice. And none of the
sources that DR cites call her Alice....
And, on the subject of names, I doubt that there is any evidence to
> This is discussed in further detail in Edmund King: "King Stephen",
> Yale 2010, pp 116-118, especially fn 16, with references therefrom to:
> Laura Wertheimer: "Adeliza of Louvain and the Anglo-Norman Queenship",
> 112-3, in 'Haskins Society Journal', 7 (1997), 101-15; and to Kathleen
> Thompson: "Queen Adeliza and the Lotharingian Connection", in 'Sussex
> Arch Collections', 140 (2002), 57-64.
> Derek Howard
Note that these sources, and all others I've seen except for DR, refer
to the woman in question as Adeliza, not Alice. And none of the
sources that DR cites call her Alice....
And, on the subject of names, I doubt that there is any evidence to
upport the surname of Daubeney for Adeliza's 2nd husband. Daubeney
as used in England by a totally different family (originally
'Aubigne), but that doesn't justify assigning the surname
etroactively to the family of d'Aubigny.
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 1:00:55 PM6/28/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
DR these are not "all early Latin forms"
What a hoot!! Jesus wept.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 9:57 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
ouvain referred to as:
Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
delide, Adelidis, Adelaidis, Adelize.
These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
It is common for historians to leave women's names in Latin forms,
These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
It is common for historians to leave women's names in Latin forms,
hile converting men's names into the modern vernacular forms (Henry,
illiam). Needless to say, this is very inconsistent.
Hence we often have Queen Adeliza (Latin form), but King Henry I and
Hence we often have Queen Adeliza (Latin form), but King Henry I and
illiam d'Aubeney (modern forms).
I might point out the Queen Alice's daughter, Alice, Countess of Eu,
I might point out the Queen Alice's daughter, Alice, Countess of Eu,
ad a same given name as did the queen. The countess occurs in
ontemporary records with the same various Latin forms as the queen.
elow is one record which calls the countess Aaliz, and another which
alls her Aelidis.
Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
ouis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
hilippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
a France 23) (1894): 440 (Chronique des Comtes d’Eu: “Jehan, aisné
ils et hoir du dit Henry, ... espousa une moult noble dame nommée
aliz, fille au conte d’Arondel en Angleterre, et niepce au viconte de
ohan.”), 449 (Ex Obituario ecclesiæ Augensis: “15 May — Anniversarium
olemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi.”),
One must remember that before 1200 numerous Latin forms existed for
One must remember that before 1200 numerous Latin forms existed for
he same given name. After 1200 given names tended to be standardized
n England. So after 1200 you have one or two basic Latin forms for a
iven name, but not twenty. I'm not sure what caused the
tandardization process, I merely have observed that it took place in
he records.
Myself I try to be consistent whenever I can do so, and I encourage
Myself I try to be consistent whenever I can do so, and I encourage
thers to do the same. My opinion is that if we are going to
odernize the men's names, we should do the same with women's names.
Lastly, I might point out that there is an early English text version
Lastly, I might point out that there is an early English text version
f the cartulary of Oseney Abbey. In that version we meet with "quene
lyz."
Here is a weblink to a page 14 in that source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14
On page 79-80, I note that she is there called "Adelide or Alice
Here is a weblink to a page 14 in that source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14
On page 79-80, I note that she is there called "Adelide or Alice
umtyme quene of Inglonde"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
And, the editor refers to her on page 14 as "queen dowager Alice."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
------------------------------
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xqy0AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA79
And, the editor refers to her on page 14 as "queen dowager Alice."
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
John Higgins
Jun 28, 2012, 1:19:29 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 9:36 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
> Louvain referred to as:
>
> Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
>
> She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
> Adelide, Adelidis, Adelaidis, Adelize.
>
> These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
>
Adelaidis is also an "early Latin form" of Alice? If so, are we to
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> In the immediately preceding message I posted, we saw Queen Alice of
> Louvain referred to as:
>
> Aeliz, Adelicia, Adeliza, and Atheliza.
>
> She occurs in other contemporary records as Aleide, Aleyda, Aelidis,
> Adelide, Adelidis, Adelaidis, Adelize.
>
> These all all early Latin forms for the name, Alice.
>
discard the use of Adelaide and substitute Alice? How exactly does
one decide WHICH modern form is right? And after all, today's English
vernacular does in clude names which are still in a "Latin form".
I think it's better to leave names in a form closer to the ones used
by the persons in question (i.e, the vernacular of the time). But
each to his own preferences...
And Daubeney was a substitute, not for a Latin form, but for a French
name. There's even less justification for this, since there's no
evidence that the family in question used that name.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 1:28:49 PM6/28/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
three variant Latin forms of Alice (or Alix) in his book, Obituaires
de la Province de Sens, 2 (1906), page 489. This list may be viewed
at the following weblink under the name, Adelaidis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
As I stated in my previous post, before 1200 there were numerous Latin
forms in England and in Normandy for the same person's name. After
1200 the name process was greatly standardized in England. I assume
the same standardization process took place in Normandy, but am not
familiar enough with the Norman records to say that with any
certainty.
This explains why you see Queen Alice's name recorded under so many
variant Latin forms.
The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
three variant Latin forms of Alice (or Alix) in his book, Obituaires
de la Province de Sens, 2 (1906), page 489. This list may be viewed
at the following weblink under the name, Adelaidis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
As I stated in my previous post, before 1200 there were numerous Latin
forms in England and in Normandy for the same person's name. After
1200 the name process was greatly standardized in England. I assume
the same standardization process took place in Normandy, but am not
familiar enough with the Norman records to say that with any
certainty.
This explains why you see Queen Alice's name recorded under so many
variant Latin forms.
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 1:42:45 PM6/28/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Hey nutty fruitcake guy :)
These are NOT variant "Latin" forms. No matter how many indexes you produce.
You need some comprehension of *what* exactly he is indexing here
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 10:36 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
Dear Newsgroup ~
The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
hree variant Latin forms of Alice (or Alix) in his book, Obituaires
e la Province de Sens, 2 (1906), page 489. This list may be viewed
t the following weblink under the name, Adelaidis:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
As I stated in my previous post, before 1200 there were numerous Latin
http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
As I stated in my previous post, before 1200 there were numerous Latin
orms in England and in Normandy for the same person's name. After
200 the name process was greatly standardized in England. I assume
he same standardization process took place in Normandy, but am not
amiliar enough with the Norman records to say that with any
ertainty.
This explains why you see Queen Alice's name recorded under so many
This explains why you see Queen Alice's name recorded under so many
ariant Latin forms.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 2:26:22 PM6/28/12
to
Please don't call me names.
> These are NOT variant "Latin" forms. No matter how many indexes you produce.
Molinier is a good historian. He is correct to collect all these
variant names forms under "one roof."
I personally haven't seen Alexis employed for Alice (or Alix), but
I'll trust Molinier that he is right that that name form is also a
variant of Alice (or Alix) in the medieval time period.
> You need some comprehension of *what* exactly he is indexing here
He is indexing names in Latin texts.
DR
> These are NOT variant "Latin" forms. No matter how many indexes you produce.
variant names forms under "one roof."
I personally haven't seen Alexis employed for Alice (or Alix), but
I'll trust Molinier that he is right that that name form is also a
variant of Alice (or Alix) in the medieval time period.
> You need some comprehension of *what* exactly he is indexing here
DR
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 2:37:12 PM6/28/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Names "in Latin texts" (or otherwise in Latin) are not "Latin variant forms" of names.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 11:30 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
On Jun 28, 11:42 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Hey nutty fruitcake guy :)
Please don't call me names.
> These are NOT variant "Latin" forms. No matter how many indexes you produce.
Molinier is a good historian. He is correct to collect all these
Hey nutty fruitcake guy :)
Please don't call me names.
> These are NOT variant "Latin" forms. No matter how many indexes you produce.
Molinier is a good historian. He is correct to collect all these
ariant names forms under "one roof."
I personally haven't seen Alexis employed for Alice (or Alix), but
I personally haven't seen Alexis employed for Alice (or Alix), but
'll trust Molinier that he is right that that name form is also a
ariant of Alice (or Alix) in the medieval time period.
> You need some comprehension of *what* exactly he is indexing here
He is indexing names in Latin texts.
DR
> You need some comprehension of *what* exactly he is indexing here
He is indexing names in Latin texts.
DR
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 2:57:45 PM6/28/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
There are other women in the medieval time period who occur with the
same Latin name forms as does Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King
Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney.
One such person is Alix of Savoie (died 1154), wife of King Louis VI
of France.
She is commonly called "Adelaide" by French and English historians,
but Pastoret, Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisième Race 16
(1814): 321-322 includes a transcript of a charter in which her name
in Latin is given as "Adelaidis Regine."
In an editorial footnote on page 322, he calls her ""Alix de Savoie,
fille de Humbert II." No Adelaide.
Pastoret's material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UI0-AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA321
In a related vein, I may also note that Queen Alix of Savoie's son and
heir, King Louis VII of France, had two daughters who had the same
given name as Queen Alix. They occur with the same Latin forms in
contemporary records as does Queen Alix of Savoie.
Yet strangely historians usually call the granddaughters Alix, rather
than Adelaide.
Thus the inconsistency in handling medieval Latin name forms is not
limited to just English speaking historians and genealogists. French
historians and genealogists fall into the same trap.
For what it is worth, I just checked the Wikipedia page for Alix of
Savoy. She is there called "AdelaIde." No surprise. And her
granddaugjhters who had the same name are called "Alix" and "Alys."
Also no surprise.
This is what I mean about inconsistency. Wikiepedia gives us three
different versions of the same name.
There are other women in the medieval time period who occur with the
same Latin name forms as does Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King
Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney.
One such person is Alix of Savoie (died 1154), wife of King Louis VI
of France.
She is commonly called "Adelaide" by French and English historians,
but Pastoret, Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisième Race 16
(1814): 321-322 includes a transcript of a charter in which her name
in Latin is given as "Adelaidis Regine."
In an editorial footnote on page 322, he calls her ""Alix de Savoie,
fille de Humbert II." No Adelaide.
Pastoret's material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UI0-AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA321
In a related vein, I may also note that Queen Alix of Savoie's son and
heir, King Louis VII of France, had two daughters who had the same
given name as Queen Alix. They occur with the same Latin forms in
contemporary records as does Queen Alix of Savoie.
Yet strangely historians usually call the granddaughters Alix, rather
than Adelaide.
Thus the inconsistency in handling medieval Latin name forms is not
limited to just English speaking historians and genealogists. French
historians and genealogists fall into the same trap.
For what it is worth, I just checked the Wikipedia page for Alix of
Savoy. She is there called "AdelaIde." No surprise. And her
granddaugjhters who had the same name are called "Alix" and "Alys."
Also no surprise.
This is what I mean about inconsistency. Wikiepedia gives us three
different versions of the same name.
Wjhonson
Jun 28, 2012, 3:05:42 PM6/28/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
And again these are not "Latin name forms" any more than a "Latin" name in a Punic inscription is a "Punic name form".
Proper names in foreign tongues are notoriously difficult to interpret and can't merely be categorized as "variant" forms.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 12:00 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
Dear Newsgroup ~
There are other women in the medieval time period who occur with the
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
Dear Newsgroup ~
There are other women in the medieval time period who occur with the
ame Latin name forms as does Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King
enry I of England and William d'Aubeney.
One such person is Alix of Savoie (died 1154), wife of King Louis VI
One such person is Alix of Savoie (died 1154), wife of King Louis VI
f France.
She is commonly called "Adelaide" by French and English historians,
She is commonly called "Adelaide" by French and English historians,
ut Pastoret, Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisième Race 16
1814): 321-322 includes a transcript of a charter in which her name
n Latin is given as "Adelaidis Regine."
In an editorial footnote on page 322, he calls her ""Alix de Savoie,
In an editorial footnote on page 322, he calls her ""Alix de Savoie,
ille de Humbert II." No Adelaide.
Pastoret's material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UI0-AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA321
In a related vein, I may also note that Queen Alix of Savoie's son and
Pastoret's material may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UI0-AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA321
In a related vein, I may also note that Queen Alix of Savoie's son and
eir, King Louis VII of France, had two daughters who had the same
iven name as Queen Alix. They occur with the same Latin forms in
ontemporary records as does Queen Alix of Savoie.
Yet strangely historians usually call the granddaughters Alix, rather
Yet strangely historians usually call the granddaughters Alix, rather
han Adelaide.
Thus the inconsistency in handling medieval Latin name forms is not
Thus the inconsistency in handling medieval Latin name forms is not
imited to just English speaking historians and genealogists. French
istorians and genealogists fall into the same trap.
For what it is worth, I just checked the Wikipedia page for Alix of
For what it is worth, I just checked the Wikipedia page for Alix of
avoy. She is there called "AdelaIde." No surprise. And her
randdaugjhters who had the same name are called "Alix" and "Alys."
lso no surprise.
This is what I mean about inconsistency. Wikiepedia gives us three
This is what I mean about inconsistency. Wikiepedia gives us three
ifferent versions of the same name.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
John Higgins
Jun 28, 2012, 5:50:03 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 10:28 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
> three variant Latin forms of Alice (or Alix) in his book, Obituaires
> de la Province de Sens, 2 (1906), page 489. This list may be viewed
> at the following weblink under the name, Adelaidis:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
>
>
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> The French historian Molinier gives a list of no less than twenty
> three variant Latin forms of Alice (or Alix) in his book, Obituaires
> de la Province de Sens, 2 (1906), page 489. This list may be viewed
> at the following weblink under the name, Adelaidis:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=gTbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489
>
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
From the way Molinier presents this (listing all the variants under
Adelaidis), one could more easily argue that these are variants for
the name Adelaidis rather than for Alice. In fact, the index listings
for all the other names refer the reader back to Adelaidis, which
would suggest (by your reasoning) that he intended Adelaidis, not
Alice, to be the defining name for this group. But it's more likely
that he simply grouped similar names often substituted for one another
together for his readers' convenience. That's a common indexing
technique still seen today.
At the very least, there's certainly no reason to conclude from this
"source" that we should definitively use 'Alice" and only "Alice" in
place of any or all of these names. Based on Molinier, a stronger
case could probably be made for calling her Adelaide instead. I'll
stick with Adeliza - and with d'Aubigny instead of the anachronistic
Daubeney for her husband.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 28, 2012, 11:01:48 PM6/28/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
For other examples of variant Latin name forms of Alice/Alix as found
in medieval texts, one may consult Recueil des Actes de Philippe Ier,
Roi de France (1059-1108) published in 1908.
On page 454 of the index, the modern editor M. Prou indicates five
Latin forms for Alix (or, if you prefer Alice) are:
"Alix - cf. Adalaidis, Adelaidis, Adelais, Adeliz, Adhelidis"
And under entries for Alais/Aelis (which names actually appear in the
text), he gives Adalaidis, Adelaidis, Adelais, Adeliz, Adhelidis,
Adiladis, Alais, Aelis
The above information may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8QQMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454
For other examples of variant Latin name forms of Alice/Alix as found
in medieval texts, one may consult Recueil des Actes de Philippe Ier,
Roi de France (1059-1108) published in 1908.
On page 454 of the index, the modern editor M. Prou indicates five
Latin forms for Alix (or, if you prefer Alice) are:
"Alix - cf. Adalaidis, Adelaidis, Adelais, Adeliz, Adhelidis"
And under entries for Alais/Aelis (which names actually appear in the
text), he gives Adalaidis, Adelaidis, Adelais, Adeliz, Adhelidis,
Adiladis, Alais, Aelis
The above information may be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8QQMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA454
John Higgins
Jun 29, 2012, 12:42:50 AM6/29/12
to
an indexing tool, a way of grouping similar names together for the
convenience of the reader. It's not evidence of any type that the
names themselves are equivalent.
No doubt other examples of this can be found by googling - but it
doesn't prove the point.
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Jun 29, 2012, 2:15:03 AM6/29/12
to
> I might point out the Queen Alice's daughter, Alice, Countess of Eu,
> had a same given name as did the queen. The countess occurs in
> contemporary records with the same various Latin forms as the queen.
> Below is one record which calls the countess Aaliz, and another which
> calls her Aelidis.
>
> Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
> Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
> Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
> la France 23) (1894): 440 (Chronique des Comtes d’Eu: “Jehan, aisné
> fils et hoir du dit Henry, ... espousa une moult noble dame nommée
> Aaliz, fille au conte d’Arondel en Angleterre, et niepce au viconte de
> Rohan.”), 449 (Ex Obituario ecclesiæ Augensis: “15 May — Anniversarium
> solemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi.”),
>
>
> had a same given name as did the queen. The countess occurs in
> contemporary records with the same various Latin forms as the queen.
> Below is one record which calls the countess Aaliz, and another which
> calls her Aelidis.
>
> Wailly et al. La Quatrième Livraison des Monumens des Règnes de Saint
> Louis, de Philippe le Hardi, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis X, de
> Philippe V et de Charles IV (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de
> la France 23) (1894): 440 (Chronique des Comtes d’Eu: “Jehan, aisné
> fils et hoir du dit Henry, ... espousa une moult noble dame nommée
> Aaliz, fille au conte d’Arondel en Angleterre, et niepce au viconte de
> Rohan.”), 449 (Ex Obituario ecclesiæ Augensis: “15 May — Anniversarium
> solemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi.”),
>
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
I think that one has to be careful about multiplying 'Latin' forms of
a name. In this particular case 'Aelidis' is quoted as a variant, but
this is misleading, as 'Aelidis' is in the genitive in the phrase
"Anniversarium solemne Aelidis, comitissæ Augi", which translates as
'the solemn anniversary [of the death] of Aelis [Alice] countess of
Auge. Here I use the nominative case 'Aelis', of which 'Aelidis' is
the genitive. So the name sounds exactly the same, even though the
spelling is variant.
The same confusion can easily occur with the form 'Adelaedis' which
might be a nominative for 'Adelaide' (modern spelling), but equally a
genitive derived from 'Adelaes', perhaps 'Adela', for which I think
there is no obvious and unequivocal modern equivalent. In fact I do
wonder whether the modern name Adelaide is not derived from an
original genitive.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 29, 2012, 7:57:25 AM6/29/12
to
On Jun 28, 10:42 pm, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is essentially the same as the previously cited example - simply
> an indexing tool, a way of grouping similar names together for the
> convenience of the reader. It's not evidence of any type that the
> names themselves are equivalent.
Molinier and Prou are right to group these names together. The reason
> This is essentially the same as the previously cited example - simply
> an indexing tool, a way of grouping similar names together for the
> convenience of the reader. It's not evidence of any type that the
> names themselves are equivalent.
why is because these various name forms are found for the same person
in different records. That is true for Queen Alice of Louvain, Queen
Alix of Savoie, or Alice of Normandy (sister of King William the
Conqueror), their daughters, and their granddaughters. Historians and
genealogists will treat one woman as Adeliza, another as Adelaide, and
another as Alice without ANY consideration that these women had the
SAME name. In time, as the various name forms became standardized and
the vernacular language comes into play, it is clear that the name
behind these various Latin forms is Alice in English, and Alix in
French. But this is not at all clear in the earlier periods when so
many name forms existed for the same person's name.
Being consistent is difficult but necessary if one is going to have a
coherent and logical approach to history and genealogy.
Wjhonson
Jun 29, 2012, 11:28:08 AM6/29/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
The name "Alice" did not exist in English at this time.
So the name *behind* these forms (at that time) could not have been "Alice'
Whether it is today "Alice" or "Adel" is another matter.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 5:01 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
Douglas Richardson
Jun 29, 2012, 1:02:44 PM6/29/12
to
On Jun 29, 9:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> The name "Alice" did not exist in English at this time.
> So the name *behind* these forms (at that time) could not have been "Alice'
> Whether it is today "Alice" or "Adel" is another matter.
That's not what I said .... so please don't twist my words into
> The name "Alice" did not exist in English at this time.
> So the name *behind* these forms (at that time) could not have been "Alice'
> Whether it is today "Alice" or "Adel" is another matter.
something they are not.
So Willelmus, exactly when do you think Alice existed as a name in
England?
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them.
Wjhonson
Jun 29, 2012, 3:39:46 PM6/29/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Alice existed as a name in 1897, since you didn't ask me when I thought the spelling was used first.
You did *certainly* say that "Alice" was the English name *behind* these variants, which is quite a silly thing to say.
So I pointed you up.
That's all.
You're welcome to REPHRASE what you said.
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 29, 2012 10:18 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of England and William d'Aubeney
On Jun 29, 9:28 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
The name "Alice" did not exist in English at this time.
So the name *behind* these forms (at that time) could not have been "Alice'
Whether it is today "Alice" or "Adel" is another matter.
That's not what I said .... so please don't twist my words into
The name "Alice" did not exist in English at this time.
So the name *behind* these forms (at that time) could not have been "Alice'
Whether it is today "Alice" or "Adel" is another matter.
That's not what I said .... so please don't twist my words into
omething they are not.
So Willelmus, exactly when do you think Alice existed as a name in
So Willelmus, exactly when do you think Alice existed as a name in
ngland?
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
------------------------------
Please cite your sources and provide weblinks if you have them.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message
Stewart Baldwin
Jun 29, 2012, 4:15:03 PM6/29/12
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Molinier and Prou are right to group these names together. The reason
>why is because these various name forms are found for the same person
>in different records. That is true for Queen Alice of Louvain, Queen
>Alix of Savoie, or Alice of Normandy (sister of King William the
>Conqueror), their daughters, and their granddaughters. Historians and
>genealogists will treat one woman as Adeliza, another as Adelaide, and
>another as Alice without ANY consideration that these women had the
>SAME name. In time, as the various name forms became standardized and
>the vernacular language comes into play, it is clear that the name
>behind these various Latin forms is Alice in English, and Alix in
>French. But this is not at all clear in the earlier periods when so
>many name forms existed for the same person's name.
>Being consistent is difficult but necessary if one is going to have a
>coherent and logical approach to history and genealogy.
While the name "Adelaide" is not that common today in England or the United
>Molinier and Prou are right to group these names together. The reason
>why is because these various name forms are found for the same person
>in different records. That is true for Queen Alice of Louvain, Queen
>Alix of Savoie, or Alice of Normandy (sister of King William the
>Conqueror), their daughters, and their granddaughters. Historians and
>genealogists will treat one woman as Adeliza, another as Adelaide, and
>another as Alice without ANY consideration that these women had the
>SAME name. In time, as the various name forms became standardized and
>the vernacular language comes into play, it is clear that the name
>behind these various Latin forms is Alice in English, and Alix in
>French. But this is not at all clear in the earlier periods when so
>many name forms existed for the same person's name.
>Being consistent is difficult but necessary if one is going to have a
>coherent and logical approach to history and genealogy.
States, there are still some who possess that name, most of whom I am
guessing would be pretty annoyed to have their names "standardized" into
"English" as "Alice". The problem is that there is no clear-cut criterion
as to what constitutes the "same" or a "different" name. Such pairs as
Alice and Adelaide, Elizabeth and Isabella, John and Evan, can be considered
the "same" name in some settings and "different" names in others. Insisting
on too rigid a "standard" can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.
Although I can't think of a specific example off of the top of my head, I am
betting that a diligent searcher would be able to throw a big monkey wrench
into all of this by finding sisters named Alice and Adelaide. What then?
Stewart Baldwin
Wjhonson
Jun 29, 2012, 4:37:49 PM6/29/12
to sba...@mindspring.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
The name something like Adelheid, which is probably the same as Aethelheid or Edleheid, was then adapted to something like Adelheidis.
The next step would be to make a familiar version of this to something like A(de)l(he)y, Aly, Adely, Ahey,
or other variants like that Adelys, Alys, Adelhys, and so on.
Alys as the simplest version would probably gain the toehold.
By the way Alice as this spelling existed by 1600 at least :)
The problem with finding early examples is to seperate cleanly the "modern" transliteration from the actual
contemporary document. Not a simple task in most cases.
taf
Jun 30, 2012, 9:51:22 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 1:15 pm, "Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> While the name "Adelaide" is not that common today in England or the United
> States, there are still some who possess that name, most of whom I am
> guessing would be pretty annoyed to have their names "standardized" into
> "English" as "Alice". The problem is that there is no clear-cut criterion
> as to what constitutes the "same" or a "different" name. Such pairs as
> Alice and Adelaide, Elizabeth and Isabella, John and Evan, can be considered
> the "same" name in some settings and "different" names in others. Insisting
> on too rigid a "standard" can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.
Just to amplify this, there are also examples where cultural
> While the name "Adelaide" is not that common today in England or the United
> States, there are still some who possess that name, most of whom I am
> guessing would be pretty annoyed to have their names "standardized" into
> "English" as "Alice". The problem is that there is no clear-cut criterion
> as to what constitutes the "same" or a "different" name. Such pairs as
> Alice and Adelaide, Elizabeth and Isabella, John and Evan, can be considered
> the "same" name in some settings and "different" names in others. Insisting
> on too rigid a "standard" can sometimes cause more problems than it solves.
differences have driven different choices among the English-speaking
nations. In the US, Nichole is the more common, but in England,
Nicola is by far the preferred form. These can also change over a
very short time: in the US two generations ago, Maud was not uncommon,
but is becoming increasingly rare, while use of Matilda, long the
preferred form in Australia, has become more popular in the US. These
preferences can also be affected by immigration. Use of Jacob vs
James in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries was strongly influenced
by German and Scottish arrivals, while it wouldn't surprise me at all
if Blanche has been surpassed by Blanca, or soon will be.
> Although I can't think of a specific example off of the top of my head, I am
> betting that a diligent searcher would be able to throw a big monkey wrench
> into all of this by finding sisters named Alice and Adelaide. What then?
find families with two sons named John or William I am not sure your
situation would prevent the renaming rule from being applied.
taf
Douglas Richardson
Jun 30, 2012, 11:13:03 AM6/30/12
to
Dear Newsgroup ~
It is interesting to see various posters weigh in with their opinions
about the name Alice, but they fail to provide any citations or
weblinks to back up their views. Please if you're going to make
comments about this matter, by all means, cite your evidence! If you
disagree with me, feel free to say so, but provide references from
contemporary records. Don't be lazy.
I'll give newsgroup members another case in point.
Alice de Clermont (living c.1136-38) was the wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard, a well known ancestor of the Clare family. She is a
contemporary of Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of
England and William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England. Alice de
Clermont occurs in contemporary English and French records under these
Latin name forms:
Adelicia, Adeliz, Adalicia, Adelidae, Hadalaidis
But her grandson, Roger de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford (died 1173),
specifically refers to her as "Aelicie de Clermunt." [Reference:
Harper-Bill and Mortimer, Stoke-by-Clare Priory. 1 (1982): 22],
Likewise, her female descendants of this same given name are known to
us as Alice, not Adelaide.
Yet Col. Morres refers to Alice de Clermont as Adelaide [Reference:
Les Montmorency de France (1828)].
And the inestimable Mr. Round refers to her as Adeliz [Reference:
Feudal England (1895): 523]. See the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZEQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA523
And the energetic Charles Cawley in his Medlands databse calls her
Adelisa. See the following weblink:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3.htm#GilbertFitzRichardClaredied1117
So confusion reigns!
My point is that if we are going to standard male names such as Henry,
William, Richard, Hugh, etc. (and avoid all Latin forms), then I think
we can safely standardize Alice as a name form for women such as Alice
de Clermont who lived in England in the 1100s, particularly since we
know that their immediate female descendants who bore the same name
are known to us as Alice (or Alix).
Question: How can we be certain their female descendants had the same
name? Because the same Latin forms were used for them as they were
their ancestresses. The only difference is that after 1150 in England
and after 1200 in France the Latin forms began to move more and more
towards Alicia, Aelicia, Aeliz, etc. and away from Adalaidis, Adeliza,
etc. Eventually forms such as Adalaidis, Adeliza, etc. fade from
view.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
It is interesting to see various posters weigh in with their opinions
about the name Alice, but they fail to provide any citations or
weblinks to back up their views. Please if you're going to make
comments about this matter, by all means, cite your evidence! If you
disagree with me, feel free to say so, but provide references from
contemporary records. Don't be lazy.
I'll give newsgroup members another case in point.
Alice de Clermont (living c.1136-38) was the wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard, a well known ancestor of the Clare family. She is a
contemporary of Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I of
England and William d'Aubeney, Chief Butler of England. Alice de
Clermont occurs in contemporary English and French records under these
Latin name forms:
Adelicia, Adeliz, Adalicia, Adelidae, Hadalaidis
But her grandson, Roger de Clare, 2nd Earl of Hertford (died 1173),
specifically refers to her as "Aelicie de Clermunt." [Reference:
Harper-Bill and Mortimer, Stoke-by-Clare Priory. 1 (1982): 22],
Likewise, her female descendants of this same given name are known to
us as Alice, not Adelaide.
Yet Col. Morres refers to Alice de Clermont as Adelaide [Reference:
Les Montmorency de France (1828)].
And the inestimable Mr. Round refers to her as Adeliz [Reference:
Feudal England (1895): 523]. See the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZEQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA523
And the energetic Charles Cawley in his Medlands databse calls her
Adelisa. See the following weblink:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISHNOBILITYMEDIEVAL3.htm#GilbertFitzRichardClaredied1117
So confusion reigns!
My point is that if we are going to standard male names such as Henry,
William, Richard, Hugh, etc. (and avoid all Latin forms), then I think
we can safely standardize Alice as a name form for women such as Alice
de Clermont who lived in England in the 1100s, particularly since we
know that their immediate female descendants who bore the same name
are known to us as Alice (or Alix).
Question: How can we be certain their female descendants had the same
name? Because the same Latin forms were used for them as they were
their ancestresses. The only difference is that after 1150 in England
and after 1200 in France the Latin forms began to move more and more
towards Alicia, Aelicia, Aeliz, etc. and away from Adalaidis, Adeliza,
etc. Eventually forms such as Adalaidis, Adeliza, etc. fade from
view.
Best always, Douglas RIchardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Douglas Richardson
Jun 30, 2012, 11:15:50 AM6/30/12
to
On Jun 29, 12:15 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
Dear Alex ~
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
When you have a moment, however, can you explain the words"genitive"
and "nominative." I'm certain there are many newsgroup members who
have no earthly idea what these words mean.
Again thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
When you have a moment, however, can you explain the words"genitive"
and "nominative." I'm certain there are many newsgroup members who
have no earthly idea what these words mean.
Again thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Wjhonson
Jun 30, 2012, 12:43:26 PM6/30/12
to t...@clearwire.net, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
I believe the point was not that you could find two sisters both named "Alice" but rather that you could fine two sisters, one named "Alice" everywhere, and the other always named "Adelaide" everywhere.
That is, that the names far from treated as the "same' name, were being consistently treated as different names.
-----Original Message-----
From: taf <t...@clearwire.net>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 30, 2012 6:55 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I ofEngland and William d'Aubeney
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
John Higgins
Jun 30, 2012, 12:34:29 PM6/30/12
to
what "genitive" and nominative" mean, perhaps these links will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case
I really doubt that "many newsgroup members" are uninformed in this
regard - perhaps DR is speaking simply for himself.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 30, 2012, 2:41:23 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 10:43 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
< I believe the point was not that you could find two sisters both
named "Alice" but rather that you could fine two sisters, one named
"Alice" everywhere, and <the other always named "Adelaide" everywhere.
This is certainly not the case with King Louis VII's two daughters.
< I believe the point was not that you could find two sisters both
named "Alice" but rather that you could fine two sisters, one named
"Alice" everywhere, and <the other always named "Adelaide" everywhere.
They were both named Alix for his mother, Queen Alix of Savoie.
But please cite some records to prove your point. Otherwise you are
just offfering us your opinions.
Douglas Richardson
Jun 30, 2012, 3:05:30 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 10:34 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
< I really doubt that "many newsgroup members" are uninformed in this
< regard
Thanks for providing the weblinks, John. But there is no need to be
< I really doubt that "many newsgroup members" are uninformed in this
< regard
snarky.
Due to the dumbing down of our education system, very few people take
Latin in school any more. One news story last week indicated that
nearly half of Florida high school students failed the reading portion
of the state's new toughened standardized test,
See here for the weblink:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/half-florida-high-school-students-fail-reading-test-232516894.html
If American students can't read English, they obviously are unable to
understand medieval Latin. That's the current state of affairs.
DR
P.S, For those of you in Florida, snarky means sarcastic,
impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner.
J Cook
Jun 30, 2012, 3:14:14 PM6/30/12
to
these terms when a child in grammar school like the rest of us. I'm
sure he was speaking of people who are not native speakers of English
or another Indo-European language; for instance, a Chinese speaker.
Perhaps what he meant to say is some people might be fooled or unaware
that in Latin (and many other languages, Polish, etc), the case of the
nouns dictates and is identified by their endings; and that these
endings are not "alternate forms" of a persons name, but simply their
grammatical case.
J Cook
Jun 30, 2012, 3:54:30 PM6/30/12
to
For instance, 500 years from now, someone may find the following
written in English:
Sara ate a bun.
Sara's friends ate a bun.
It would not be terrible useful to claim that "Sara" and "Sara's" were
alternate versions of this person's name.
It's difficult to give good examples in English since english is not a
very synthetic language.
written in English:
Sara ate a bun.
Sara's friends ate a bun.
It would not be terrible useful to claim that "Sara" and "Sara's" were
alternate versions of this person's name.
It's difficult to give good examples in English since english is not a
very synthetic language.
John Higgins
Jun 30, 2012, 4:56:32 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 12:05 pm, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:34 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < I really doubt that "many newsgroup members" are uninformed in this
> < regard
>
> Thanks for providing the weblinks, John. But there is no need to be
> snarky.
>
> Due to the dumbing down of our education system, very few people take
> Latin in school any more. One news story last week indicated that
> nearly half of Florida high school students failed the reading portion
> of the state's new toughened standardized test,
>
> See here for the weblink:
>
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/half-florida-high-school-students-fail-readi...
> On Jun 30, 10:34 am, John Higgins <jhiggins...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> < I really doubt that "many newsgroup members" are uninformed in this
> < regard
>
> Thanks for providing the weblinks, John. But there is no need to be
> snarky.
>
> Due to the dumbing down of our education system, very few people take
> Latin in school any more. One news story last week indicated that
> nearly half of Florida high school students failed the reading portion
> of the state's new toughened standardized test,
>
> See here for the weblink:
>
>
> If American students can't read English, they obviously are unable to
> understand medieval Latin. That's the current state of affairs.
>
> DR
>
> P.S, For those of you in Florida, snarky means sarcastic,
> impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner.
The sermon on "the dumbing down of our education system" is out of
> If American students can't read English, they obviously are unable to
> understand medieval Latin. That's the current state of affairs.
>
> DR
>
> P.S, For those of you in Florida, snarky means sarcastic,
> impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner.
place and irrelevant here - and perhaps even "snarky". "Many
newsgroup members" - in fact, perhaps most participants - are quite
sufficiently educated to understand the terms in question. And it's
clear from prior postings that many (if not most) of us here are also
quite familiar with Latin. So it's not at all clear who "the many
newsgroup members" are who "have no earthly idea" what the terms mean,
and thus who specifically DR was describing (or denigrating, rather).
Accordingly, the original remark about "many newsgroup members"
certainly falls within the definition of "snarky" now provided to us
by DR - as does also his comment about "those of you in Florida".
taf
Jun 30, 2012, 8:54:30 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 9:43 am, Wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
> I believe the point was not that you could find two sisters both named "Alice" but rather that you could fine two sisters, one named "Alice" everywhere, and the other always named "Adelaide" everywhere.
>
Yes, I know that was the point, and my point was that given that the
> I believe the point was not that you could find two sisters both named "Alice" but rather that you could fine two sisters, one named "Alice" everywhere, and the other always named "Adelaide" everywhere.
>
'system' being applied ignores the forms found in contemporary records
and only uses the 'correct' modern name, there is nothing to stop them
both being called Alice anyhow.
taf
Wjhonson
Jun 30, 2012, 10:38:34 PM6/30/12
to royala...@msn.com, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
It isn't my *opinion* mister guy-who-reads-one-response-without-comprehension.
I was *clarifying* the point of someone else.
I have no opinion whatsoever on whether Alys and Adelheid are different names or the same name.
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 30, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I ofEngland and William d'Aubeney
Sent: Sat, Jun 30, 2012 11:45 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I ofEngland and William d'Aubeney
Wjhonson
Jun 30, 2012, 10:43:03 PM6/30/12
to t...@clearwire.net, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
That;s correct. I tried to search for something like "babies names" of the 16th century, but didnt turn anything up.
-----Original Message-----
From: taf <t...@clearwire.net>
To: gen-medieval <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sat, Jun 30, 2012 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Correction: Queen Alice of Louvain, wife of King Henry I ofEngland and William d'Aubeney
0 new messages