Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
B.M. Kamp
Is Havide of Brittany x 1110 Baldwin of Flanders (divorced) identical with Hawise x Geoffroy de Porhoët + 1142?
The eldest son of Geoffroy and Hawise was Eudes of Porhoët + post 1168. He was sometime Duke of Brittany because of his marriage to Bertha of Brittany. Bertha was widow of Allan of Richmond, and duaghter of Conan III Duke of Britaany +1148.
Conan III was brother of Hawide x Flanders. In case Hawide was identical with Hawise her son Eudes of Porhoët and his wife Berta of brittany should have been first cousins.
At that time a marriage between first cousins was strictly forbidden by the church.
Bert M. Kamp
The...@aol.com
Hello Bert,
I agree, the apparent first-cousin marriage would have presented a
theoretical (nay, canonical) problem. However, I might point out the
following:
1. I'm not sure how strict the prohibition against a union within the 2nd
degree of consanguinity was enforced. It was certainly loose in the 3rd-4th
degrees at this time (the marriage of Constance of Brittany to Geoffrey, and
of Isabel of Gloucester to John 'Lackland' come to mind). A 'consanguinity
problem' was a problem in the eye of the beholder in some cases (Eleanor of
Aquitaine), and not in others (Abbe Suger and the Pope), even looking at the
same evidence.
2. Alan 'la Zouche' may have been the son of Hawise of Brittany, but the
possibility exists that an older brother, Eudes, was born of a previous
marriage. I'm not certain it has been determined with any certainty who was
the mother of Eudes.......?
Still looking for 'The Answer'.....;)
Good luck, and good hunting.
John
The Peddler
I appear to have a hole in my data, I;'m sure not the only one. She married 2nd Robert Mortimer. Who were his parents and how does he connect to the main trunk of the Mortimer family?
Thank you DDC
>
Ed Mann
Selected Descendants of Roger de Mortimer
1 Roger de Mortimer ref #: BxP:382
+Hawise
2 Sir Ralph de Mortimer aka: 1st Baron Mortimer of Wigmore ref #: BxP:382
+Milicent ref #: BxP:382
3 Sir Robert de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
+Margery de Ferrers ref #: BxP:385
4 Hugh de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
5 Robert de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
+Joyce la Zouche ref #: BxP:598
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@earthlink.net
Reference shown is only one of possibly several sources for this
individual. Not all data shown is necessarily from this source.
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
NK2 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_Two_, [page].
O = Hardy, Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America, [pg].
PA = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, 2d ed. [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat lector.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat lector.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page] Caveat lector.
Patricia Junkin
According to the History and Antiquities of Leicestershire p. 564: Having
no male issue, he [Alan la Zouch] gave the manor of Ashby to William la Zuch
of Richard''s Castle, otherwise called William la Zouche of Mortimer, second
son of his nephew Robert Mortimer, of Richard's Castle,in whom the reversion
of the lordships of Swavesey and Fulbourne was vested. This William called
himself Zouch for that his mother was daughter and heir of William la
Zouche, great uncle to the second Alan.....
In my reading this whould indicate that this William would have been the
brother to Alan who married Elena de Quincy.
Now, if I could just place Almeric b. 1269 son and heir of a William de la
Zouche born at Toteleye and bapt. at Black Torrington, Devon. He held
Blaketoriton Manor, Devon as 1 Knt. fee, late of Alan la Zouche 20 Apr. 1314
and is Lord of Black Torrington and of Nutburne Sussex. He had children but
other than the mention that they were wards of Alan de Cherleton in 1334 I
do not know their names. Nutborne seems to pass in the Zouche de Mortimer
line.
Thanks.
Pat
The Peddler
Ed Mann wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Peddler" <DDCma...@prodigy.net>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
>
> > Re: Joyce la Zouche
> >
> > I appear to have a hole in my data, I;'m sure not the only one. She
> married 2nd Robert Mortimer. Who were his parents and how does he connect
> to the main trunk of the Mortimer family?
> >
Douglas Richardson
You've raised a good point. In all likelihood, the couple you mention
below were not first cousins. A likely scenario is that Geoffrey de
Porhoet (died 1142) had a hitherto unknown first wife by whom he had
his son, Eudes, after which Geoffrey married (2nd) to Havide of
Brittany. This would then permit Geoffrey's son, Eudes, to marry
Havide's niece, Bertha of Brittany, without any kinship being
involved.
Actually a first unknown marriage for Geoffrey would not be such a
surprise, as his known wife Havide of Brittany is thought to have
married previously to Baldwin VII, Count of Flanders, from whom she
was divorced.
If the two marriage scenario is correct, then it remains to be seen if
Geoffrey de Porhoet had his 2nd son, Alan la Ceoche (ancestor of the
Zouche family) by the first wife or by Havide of Brittany. A study of
the Porhoet-Zouche chronology is needed on this point. If Alan was
much younger than his brother, Eudes, it would seem likely that Alan
was Havide's son. Certainly Alan's given name is suggestive, as he
seemingly was named for Havide's father, Alan, Duke of Brittany, died
1119.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
bmk...@wanadoo.nl (B.M. Kamp) wrote in message news:<000801c14b32$ebafcea0$26d4...@xs4all.nl>...
Tim Powys-Lybbe
edl...@earthlink.net (Ed Mann) wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Peddler" <DDCma...@prodigy.net>
> To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
>
>
> > Re: Joyce la Zouche
> >
> > I appear to have a hole in my data, I;'m sure not the only one. She
> married 2nd Robert Mortimer. Who were his parents and how does he connect
> to the main trunk of the Mortimer family?
> >
> > Thank you DDC
>
> Selected Descendants of Roger de Mortimer
>
> 1 Roger de Mortimer ref #: BxP:382
> +Hawise
> 2 Sir Ralph de Mortimer aka: 1st Baron Mortimer of Wigmore ref #: BxP:382
> +Milicent ref #: BxP:382
> 3 Sir Robert de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
> +Margery de Ferrers ref #: BxP:385
> 4 Hugh de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
> 5 Robert de Mortimer ref #: BxP:385
> +Joyce la Zouche ref #: BxP:598
Interestingly CP denies that these last two Mortimers, Robert and Hugh,
come from the main branches at all. But what CP, with a little help
from DNB for Walter Clifford's daughter Lucy, does provide is this:
A selected ancestry of Robert Mortimer, husband of Joyce la Zouche
(1) Llewelyn Fawr AP IOWERTH Prince of North Wales [1, Brewes art, Vol
II. p.302], [1, Mortimer art, Vol IX, p.266 seq], [2], [3, His own
article], [1, Salisbury art, Vol XI, p.373 seq] ( - 1240)
& N. N.
(2) Margaret FERCH LLEWELYN AP IOWERTH*[2],[1, Brewes art, Vol II. p.302
seq], [1, Salisbury art, Vol XI, p.373 seq]
& John de BRAOSE Lord of Bramber & Gower [1, Brewes art, Vol II. p.302
seq], [2] (1198 - <1232)
(2) Margaret FERCH LLEWELYN AP IOWERTH*[2], [1, Brewes art, Vol II.
p.302 seq], [1, Salisbury art, Vol XI, p.373 seq]
& Walter de CLIFFORD[3, His own article], [1, Gifford art, Vol V, p.
639 seq], [1, Salisbury art, Vol XI, p.373 seq] ( - ca 1190)
(3) Lucy de CLIFFORD [3, Father, Walter de Clifford's article], [1,
Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 257]
& Hugh de SAY [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 257], [3,
Father-in-law, Walter de Clifford's artcile] ( - <1190)
(4) Hugh de SAY [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 258] ( -
<1197)
& Mabel MARMION [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 258] ( -
<1210)
(5) Margaret de SAY [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, pp.
258-261] ( - <1242)
& Robert de MORTIMER [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, pp.
259-261] ( - <1219). CP says he was son of Robert Mortimer of Essex and
that no relationship to other Mortimers can be established.
m. 1210 [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, pp. 258-260]
(6) Hugh de MORTIMER [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, pp.
262-3]. CP says his wife is unknown.
(7) Robert de MORTIMER [1, Zouche of Mortimer, Vol XII/2, p. 957 seq],
[1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 263-4] ( - 1287)
& Joyce de la ZOUCHE [1, Mortimer of Richard's castle, Vol IX, p. 256
seq] ( - ca1890)
1. G E C et al, Complete Peerage 2nd edn, c.1910 on.
2. "Braose," Mar 2000, Doug Thompson, doug.t...@virgin.net.
3. Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, ed Leslie
Stephen at al, 1st edn, c.1890 on.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
U...@aol.com
DDCma...@prodigy.net writes:
> Re: Joyce la Zouche
>
> I appear to have a hole in my data, I;'m sure not the only one. She
> married 2nd Robert Mortimer. Who were his parents and how does he connect
> to the main trunk of the Mortimer family?
>
> Thank you DDC
>
Direct Descendants of Hugh of Coutances
1 Hugh of Coutances d: Aft. 990
. +Daughter de Blaatland b: Abt. 980
2 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1002 d: Aft. 1054
. +Odain b: Abt. 1006
3 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1028 d: Bet. 1078 - 1086
. +Hawise b: Abt. 1035 m: Bef. 1054 in Normandy d: Aft. 1086
4 Ralph de Mortimer b: Abt. 1054 d: Aft. 1104
. +Millicent b: Abt. 1060 m: Abt. 1075 d: Bef. 30 March 1088
5 Robert de Mortimer d: Bef. 05 July 1219
. +Margaret de Say m: 1210 d: Abt. 1242
6 Hugh de Mortimer d: 18 November 1274
. +Unknown
7 Robert de Mortimer b: Bef. 1253 d: 07 April 1287 Burial:
08 April 1287 Worcester Cathedral before the Altar of Saints Simon & Jude
Sources include:
Complete Peerage
Ancestry of Elizabeth of York
Burke's Dormant & Extinct Peerages
Always optimistic--Dave
Bill Kullman
----- Original Message -----
From: <U...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
>
> Direct Descendants of Hugh of Coutances
>
> 1 Hugh of Coutances d: Aft. 990
> . +Daughter de Blaatland b: Abt. 980
> 2 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1002 d: Aft. 1054
> . +Odain b: Abt. 1006
> 3 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1028 d: Bet. 1078 - 1086
> . +Hawise b: Abt. 1035 m: Bef. 1054 in Normandy d: Aft. 1086
> 4 Ralph de Mortimer b: Abt. 1054 d: Aft. 1104
> . +Millicent b: Abt. 1060 m: Abt. 1075 d: Bef. 30 March 1088
Anybody notice that there's an obvious generation or two missing here? Same
with Ed's listing...?
> 5 Robert de Mortimer d: Bef. 05 July 1219
> . +Margaret de Say m: 1210 d: Abt. 1242
Did this Robert have two wives.....Margery de Ferrers, AND Margaret de
Saye...
> 6 Hugh de Mortimer d: 18 November 1274
> . +Unknown
> 7 Robert de Mortimer b: Bef. 1253 d: 07 April 1287
Burial:
> 08 April 1287 Worcester Cathedral before the Altar of Saints Simon & Jude
I'm confused...on the old oregon trail.
bill kullman
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
The church's laws banning consanguineous marriages were just coming into
being at this time. There were three articles by a French female
professor/scholar, in HISTORIA, (as little as this is I still may have
misremembered some of it), extrapolating the development of this part of
Canon Law. They had not been established long enough for them to have a
baring on the union in question. Indeed, they were often more breached than
observed for these high nobles & royals even when they had the majesty of
age behind them. Besides which, they may not even have been
effective/established at the time of the marriage.
I came across the aforementioned articles when researching something else,
but remembered them because they completely negated David Williamson's
reason for rejecting the derivation of Harold Godwinson from Æthelstan -
_i.e._ it had too many consaguineous unions IF the prohibition had been in
place AND observed/honoured. The scholar's first name was Constance. Her
last name MAY have been Bouchard?
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
Subject: Re: Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
> Tuesday, 2 October, 2001
>
>
> Hello Bert,
>
> I agree, the apparent first-cousin marriage would have presented a
> theoretical (nay, canonical) problem. However, I might point out the
> following:
>
> 1. I'm not sure how strict the prohibition against a union within the
2nd
> degree of consanguinity was enforced. It was certainly loose in the
3rd-4th
> degrees at this time (the marriage of Constance of Brittany to Geoffrey,
and
> of Isabel of Gloucester to John 'Lackland' come to mind). A
'consanguinity
> problem' was a problem in the eye of the beholder in some cases (Eleanor
of
> Aquitaine), and not in others (Abbé Suger and the Pope), even looking at
the
> same evidence.
John,
You are correct in your contention. You are also correct in your numbering
of the degrees of consanguinity as used by the Church for purposes of this
issue; however Isabel of Gloucester & Softsword were indifferent generations
in their descent from Henry I. Therefore Canon Law did not apply.
Cousins-removed were not covered.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Direct Descendants of Hugh of Coutances
>
> 1 Hugh of Coutances d: Aft. 990
> . +Daughter de Blaatland b: Abt. 980
> 2 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1002 d: Aft. 1054
> . +Odain b: Abt. 1006
Hold it. Roger, husband of Hawise, is the earliest known member
of this family who can firmly be documented. Robert de Torigny,
writing in the early 12th century and thus the earliest source,
states that Roger was brother of William de Warenne, and son of a
relative of Duchess Gunnor. This cannot be true, as William and
Roger were of different generations. Katherine Keats-Rohan has
recently suggested that Robert de Torigny compressed two
generations, and that WIlliam de Warenne was son of Ranulph de
Warenne, brother of Roger, both being son of an earlier Ranulph
de Warenne by Beatrice, a relative of the Duchess Gunnor. At any
rate, the Mortimer do not descend from Hugh of Coutances (this ia
a late mistake), who did not marry the daughter of Blaatlant (in
whom we see the old Harald Blaatand descent often applied to
these Gunnorid Norman families).
> 3 Roger de Mortimer b: Abt. 1028 d: Bet. 1078 - 1086
> . +Hawise b: Abt. 1035 m: Bef. 1054 in Normandy d: Aft. 1086
> 4 Ralph de Mortimer b: Abt. 1054 d: Aft. 1104
> . +Millicent b: Abt. 1060 m: Abt. 1075 d: Bef. 30 March 1088
-----------
> 5 Robert de Mortimer d: Bef. 05 July 1219
> . +Margaret de Say m: 1210 d: Abt. 1242
Complete Peerage (which you cite) specifically states that Robert
de Mortimer, husband of Margaret de Say of Richard's Castle, was
son of Robert de Mortimer of Little Woodham, Essex. It is
suggested that he more likely links to the Mortimer of Attleboro
rather than the Wigmore line. But then, look at your own
chronology. Millicent d. (bef) 1088, her son Robert m. 1210.
'Nuff said.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> The scholar's first name was Constance. Her
> last name MAY have been Bouchard?
Constance Bouchard is a researcher in this field, so unless you
are confusing two different references, and hence authors, you
have named her correctly.
taf
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> Constance Bouchard is a researcher in this field, so unless you
> are confusing two different references, and hence authors, you
> have named her correctly.
>
Thanks. I wanted to give what help, (and authority), I could; but I have
moved 10 times since those days & felt that it was incumbant upon me to
point out that I was working on memory, (since I didn't have the copies of
the three articles handy. I think that I posted them to David, anyway.),
and where there was some uncertainty. Your back-up has removed that bit of
uncertainty. It was Constance Bouchard. I am not sure of the HISTORIA; it
could have been FRANCIA; but I think not as the topic was rather broader
than FRANCIA normally uses. The articles due have some lovely charts to
illustrate.
B.M. Kamp
----- Original Message -----
From: Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne <smo...@peoplepc.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: Zouche and the Dukes of Brittany
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne wrote:
>
> The church's laws banning consanguineous marriages were just coming into
> being at this time. There were three articles by a French female
> professor/scholar, in HISTORIA, (as little as this is I still may have
> misremembered some of it), extrapolating the development of this part of
> Canon Law. They had not been established long enough for them to have a
> baring on the union in question. Indeed, they were often more breached
than
> observed for these high nobles & royals even when they had the majesty of
> age behind them. Besides which, they may not even have been
> effective/established at the time of the marriage.
> I came across the aforementioned articles when researching something else,
> but remembered them because they completely negated David Williamson's
> reason for rejecting the derivation of Harold Godwinson from Æthelstan -
> _i.e._ it had too many consaguineous unions IF the prohibition had been
in
> place AND observed/honoured. The scholar's first name was Constance. Her
> last name MAY have been Bouchard?
>
I do not fully agree with this comment.
I do not pretend to be an expert in canonical law, but as far as I know the
church ban on consanguineous marrages was in full force at a much earlier
date. King Henry II of France lost his second wife Mathilde of Friesland
in 1044. He was 36 at that time and still without children. Nevertheless it
took seven years to find him a new bride, Anne of Kiev. All other available
princesses were too closely related.
According to canonical law all marriages up to the seventh degree were
forbidden (seventh degree means sixth cousins). Most people are not aware
who their sixth cousins are. Of course that was also true in the years 1000.
If the marriage was a failure a distant cousinship, discovered only after
the marriage, was often a convenient reason to get the marriage annuled.
Dispensation was possible, but depended on the (personal) point-of-view of
the Pope, often inspired by political motives. The Fourth Lateran Council in
1215 under Pope Innocentius III lessened the rules by forbidding all
marriages up to the fourth degree (third cousins). (Source: Pierre
Belperron:
La croisade contre les Abigeois, Paris 1942, reprint 1967 page 475).
Note that the marriage of Eudes de Porhoët and Bertha of Brittany took place
in 1147, that is hundred years after Henry's marriage to Anna of Kiev.
Certainly the rules were not applied as strictly as before, but a marriage
between first cousins remains extremely unlikely. The first marriage between
first cousins that I am aware of was that of Louis of Orléans with Valentine
Visconti as late as 1389. 90 years earlier (1299) Edward I married
Marguerite of France, who was his first cousin once removed.
Some members of the group suggested that Eudes might have been the son of an
earlier marriage of Geoffroy de Porhoët. That is of course a possibility.
Another possibility is that Hawise, Geoffroy's wife, is after all not
identical with Hawide of Brittany.
I do hope somebody is able to provide the complete reference to the article
by Constance Bourchier.
Bert M. Kamp
Douglas Richardson
The prohibition against parties closely related intermarrying was
strictly followed in England for first and second cousins. In fact, I
don't know of a single first cousin marriage in the medieval period in
England. That doesn't mean there wasn't such a marriage. I just
can't think of an example. I did come across a French king who
reportedly married his first cousin. That may be true. But, I'd
want to see the dispensation for the marriage before I accepted it as
fact. In this period, men and women had children by multiple
marriages. As such, some of their children would be first cousins to
certain parties, but not all of their children. It depended on which
marriage produced which child.
As for the possibility I raised that Alan la Zouche (or Ceoche) was a
half-brother to Eudon de Porhoet, Complete Peerage shows that Eudon
was active in the period, 1148-1156. Alan la Zouche, his younger
brother, made his first appearance in the records in 1153, when he
witnessed a charter for his brother, Eudon. Serving as a witness
doesn't tell us much about Alan's likely birthdate as teenagers often
served as witnesses in this period. However, we do know that Alan
lived until 1190, way after his brother Eudon. Also, Alan's younger
son, Roger, lived until 1238. Bsed on the death dates of Alan and
Roger alone, I think a good case could be made that Alan was younger
(perhaps much younger) than Eudon de Porhoet and possibly his
half-brother. And, if Eudon had a different mother than Alan, it
could explain why Eudon could have had a wife closely related to the
Brittany ruling house, without there being a conflict with
consanguinity.
As for other evidence of Alan's mother being Hawise of Brittany,
Complete Peerage mentions a charter issued by William son of Roger la
Zouche in which William confirmed the gifts of his grandfather, Alan
la Zouche, whom he called "quondam comitis Britanniae" (that is,
formerly Count of Brittany). Complete Peerage was under the
impression the charter was mistaken when it referred to Alan la Zouche
as a Count of Brittany. However, it is known that other high born
members of the Brittany family were also called "Counts of Brittany."
I personally find it odd that William would have been mistaken as to
his grandfather's title, given the fact that Alan lived so late. As a
general rule, the people in this period knew all of their immediate
family connections quite well.
According to Complete Peerage, there is supposed to be material on
Alan la Zouche's ancestry in Morice, Histoire de Bretagne, Preuves, i.
col. 656. I located a copy of Morice's history yesterday on
microfilm. I was unable to find the section marked "Preuves" (or
Evidences). However, I did find a chart at the beginning of volume
one in which Morice identified Alan la Zouche's parents as Geoffroi de
Porhoet and his wife, Havoise. Havoise's parentage was not stated.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<ce.1b351c6...@aol.com>...
Nathaniel Taylor
(Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne) wrote:
You are referring to Bouchard's article in Speculum, which I formerly
summarized and commented on in the blurb on consanguinity attached to the
website for this group:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/consang.htm
The article is:
Constance Brittain Bouchard, "Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the
Tenth and Eleventh Centuries," Speculum 56 (1981), 268-87.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
if both Eudons married Breton women, speculating about multiple
marriages to otherwise undocumented women, and such, I would like
to see more serious consideration given to the more obvious
solution - exactly how certain is it that Eudon did, in fact,
marry Hawise, daughter of Count Alan? If this is just someone's
speculation to begin with, then there is little point in arguing
that he had to have married a second wife, when the real question
is whether he married a different one.
taf
Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne
> summarized and commented on in the blurb on consanguinity attached to the
> website for this group:
>
> http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/consang.htm
>
> The article is:
>
> Constance Brittain Bouchard, "Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the
> Tenth and Eleventh Centuries," Speculum 56 (1981), 268-87.
>
> Nat Taylor
>
>
Yes, yes, yes!! That's it exactly! SPECULUM! Except that it was a serial
of three articles. Thank you for clarifying. For everyone. Sorry that I
missed the referrence. I have a filter in place to delete things with any
referrence to certain things or persons. Also, the list seems to
unsubscribe me at times. But this is it!