Judith of Lens
Andy Herron
I've been looking at some lines and corresponding with various people and
have come up with some questions I just can't answer - so I thought I would
put it out to all of you -
The first question concerns the parentage of Judith of Lens (b. 1054) m.
Waltheof II, Earl of Northumberland and mother of Maud (Matilda) of
Huntingdon and Alice. Judith's mother is said to be Adelaide de Normandie,
dau. of Robert. but does anyone know more about which of her husbands
fathered Judith? Lambert or Enguerrand of Ponthieu?
Thanks for the help -
Jen
John Yohalem
--
John Yohalem
ench...@herodotus.com
"Opera depends on the happy fiction that feeling can be sustained over
impossibly long stretches of time." -- Joseph Kerman
Andy Herron wrote in message <01BE76C8.8B2...@msn.com>...
>The first question concerns the parentage of Judith of Lens (b. 1054) m.
>Waltheof II, Earl of Northumberland and mother of Maud (Matilda) of
>Huntingdon and Alice. Judith's mother is said to be Adelaide de Normandie,
>dau. of Robert. but does anyone know more about which of her husbands
>fathered Judith? Lambert or Enguerrand of Ponthieu?
>Thanks for the help -
>Jen
Her father was Lambert of Lens, or she wouldn't have been called Judith of
Lens.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Dcrdcr4
I'd be glad to answer your question. Countess Judith, wife of Waltheof, Earl
of Northumberland, is known to have been the niece of William the Conqueror,
King of England. Countess Judith is named in a French document as the
daughter of his sister, Adelais (or Alice), Countess of Aumale, who was sister
of the Conqueror (they both being children of Robert, Duke of Normandy).
As for Adelais (or Alice), Countess of Aumale, she married (first) Enguerrand,
Count of Ponthieu, by which marriage she had one child, Adelais (or Alice), who
appears to have married Count Ives (or Ivo) of Beaumont-sur-Oise. She married
(2nd) Count Lambert of Lens, by which marriage she had one child, Judith, who
married Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland. She lastly married Eudes (or Odo)
of Champagne, by which marriage she had one child, Stephen, Count of Aumale.
There are numerous descendants of all three children of Adelais, Countess of
Aumale.
The evidence for Judith's paternity consists of three documents, of which one
is contemporary, one nearly contemporary, and one somewhat later. Some
genealogists, most recently Col. Charles Hansen, have alleged that Judith's
father was Count Enguerrand, but I know of no evidence to support that
allegation. The evidence is quite clear that Lambert was Judith's father.
Dcrdcr4
the effect that Col. Charles Hansen stated in print that Count Lambert of Lens,
the reputed father of Judith, Countess of Nothumberland, was a ficticious
person.
The truth is that some years ago I happened to be in New York City visiting
with Henry Hoff, a mutual friend of both Col. Hansen and myself. Dr. David
Faris, author of Plantagenet Ancestry, was present at this meeting. Henry,
who is a stickler for accuracy, told us that Col. Hansen doubted the existence
of Count Lambert of Lens. To which BOTH Dr. Faris and I expressed amazement
that any serious scholar would maintain such a position.
Following that meeting, Dr. Faris and I researched the matter in depth. We
found excellent evidence which fully proved Count Lambert's existence.
Likewise we found evidence that Lambert was the father of King William the
Conqueror's niece, Countess Judith.
In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier position that
Count Lambert of Lens was a ficticious person. However, he still was uncertain
if Count Lambert was Judith's father.
So, Paul, you are correct Col. Hansen never printed that Count Lambert was
ficticious. Rather, he told Henry Hoff who told me. I hope that
satisfactorily explains things. If I created any confusion over the matter,
you have my sincerest apology. Best always, Douglas Richardson
Dcrdcr4
one child, Adelais. Please re-check your sources. Best always, Douglas
Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
complex.
The important thing is what Colonel Hansen published, not what he
allegedly told 'A' at some earlier time, [time interval not stated,
infra] who allegedly told 'B' and 'C'.
'C' is now telling 'D' through 'ZZ' --- but *ad interim* Colonel
Hansen has published an article.
Personally, I'll take the evidence of a published genealogical article
as to Hansen's opinions on Count Lambert of Lens over hearsay, gossip
and innuendo, any day of the week.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "I like to think of him [William Shakespeare
(1564-1616)] as poacher, as village ne'er-do-well, denounced by the
local grammar-school master." J. K. Jerome, "Second Thoughts of Idle
Fellow" p. 266 [1898]
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990326041213...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I haven't done the slightest bit of research for this on my own (how's
> that for honesty?), but I see I have a note that Adelais and
> Enguerrand had a son, Guy I de Ponthieu (c1030 - 13 Nov 1100). In my
> notes I have "ES, iii 635, cited, see DejaNews." I trotted off to
> find whatever message I once found in DN, and the closest match to my
> scribble was a post by Alan Wilson at:
> http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=133822336
Guy is typically given as brother of Enguerrand II. (I have not looked
closely at this myself, so I cannot cite a reliable source.)
taf
Dcrdcr4
unwisely relied on an secondary source to form a conclusion on a medieval
genealogical problem. That was the issue then. That is the issue now. Not
what who said to whom. There's a lesson in there for all of us, including me.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
No, that's not 'the issue' at all.
There are several issues here --- they overlap, cluster and
inter-penetrate each other.
1. Why do you see the need to downput Colonel Hansen and pass on
treacly genealogical gossip and innuendo about him?
2. Why do you do it about others as well?
3. Do you think it builds up your own reputation to do so?
4. Do you think folks here will find it entertaining and get a
*frisson* from it?
5. Who gives a rat's tail what Colonel Hansen may or may not have
said to a friend and colleague, Henry Hoff, while Hansen was working
up an article? Perhaps he was just bouncing ideas off Hoff, using him
as a sounding board; writers and intellectuals in general often do
that. Perhaps Hansen was unsure at that point about the affiliations.
It's always best to start from a firm ground of absolute doubt in
Genealogy and then be forced to prove a solid case of ascent or
descent, without any preconceptions.
6. What Colonel Hansen said to anyone about his work before he
published it is interesting perhaps, in a gossipy sort of way, I'd not
seek to proscribe it. [N.B. Nor could I if I tried.] But, the
important thing is what did he publish, or lecture or write and pass
out?
7. Are you implying that Colonel Hansen poached or stole genealogical
information from you? You pussy-foot around that issue. Is that why
you are afraid to talk about 'Countess Ida'?
8. You wrote:
"Following that meeting, Dr. Faris and I researched the matter in
depth. We found excellent evidence which fully proved Count Lambert's
existence. Likewise we found evidence that Lambert was the father of
King William the Conqueror's niece, Countess Judith.
In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier
position that Count Lambert of Lens was a ficticious [sic] person.
However, he still was uncertain if Count Lambert was Judith's father."
A. First off, the writing has a curious sort of 'behind-the-hand'
quality --- as if you were going to reveal some deep, dark, secret but
are not quite ready to do so yet. Curiouser and curiouser.
B. Did you and Faris publish your findings? If so, when? Did you
tell Colonel Hansen, but not publish? Did you tell him AND publish?
Man you write like a 12 year-old girl waxing emotional to a girlfriend
about her first kiss, but afraid her Mother might find the letter and
read it. It's a peek-a-boo style --- most unbecoming in a grown man.
Agatha Christie, on her worst day, doesn't even go as far into the
peek-a-boo style as do you.
C. How long is 'in due time'? Are you implying that Hansen made off
with the goods from you and Faris? Why 'fortunately'? You are glad
he didn't make a mistake, or it was fortunate for him that he did not
disagree with you and Faris?
D. You say Colonel Hansen was still uncertain if Count Lambert was
Judith's father. Did his article, which you've not cited, even deal
with that issue? You've not even given us the title of his piece.
E. Are you implying that he incorporated some of your work, i.e,, the
fact that Count Lambert of Lens did exist but not that he was Judith
of Lens's Father into his article?
Say what you mean man and mean what you say. Chuck the girlish
peek-a-boo style and behind-the-hand cheap innuendo and insinuations
about the reputation of Colonel Hansen and other respected
Genealogists.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "I like to think of him [William Shakespeare
(1564-1616)] as poacher, as village ne'er-do-well, denounced by the
local grammar-school master." J. K. Jerome, "Second Thoughts of Idle
Fellow" p. 266 [1898]
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990326130848...@ng109.aol.com...
Dcrdcr4
matter on which I posted. If you are unable to stay on topic, please refrain
from commenting. I also recommend you see a therapist. The delight you
display in twisting words out of context is unnatural. The board is not the
place to resolve your personal issues. I feel sorry for you. Best always,
Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
concerning your snide remarks about Colonel Charles Hansen and his
genealogical work, because you have no defense.
2. Lose the peek-a-boo writing style. For a twelve-year-old girl it
works --- not for a grown man.
3. Quit bad-mouthing other genealogists like Colonel Hansen and
backing and filling on substantive issues with Paul Reed such as the
proper translation of the Latin 'amicus' --- you looked like a total
charlatan in that exchange.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990327141452...@ng08.aol.com...
Dcrdcr4
You seem like a decent fellow. I honestly don't take anything you say
personally. I certainly don't take much of it seriously. All the same, it is
apparent from reading your posts that you have a learned behavior pattern of
saying outrageous things to get attention. This strategy doubtless worked well
for you as a child, but, as an adult, it is inappropriate behavior. To work
past this issue, you'll need to work with professional therapist. The
purpose of this board is to discuss genealogical issues, not grab attention for
yourself. If you can stick to topic, great! If not, please refrain from
commenting. Best always, Douglas Richardson
D. Spencer Hines
attention to the genealogical subjects in hand concerning Judith of
Lens, you, and Colonel Hansen.
You are making some progress on the writing style. Good boy.
Just remember not to bad-mouth other genealogists, in a cheap ploy to
make yourself look important, as you did with Colonel Charles Hansen,
and you may emerge from this episode without further embarrassing
pratfalls or loss of tender skin.
No promises, however. It all depends on your behavior.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Exitus Acta Probat
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990327155424...@ng08.aol.com...
> Spencer:
>
> You seem like a decent fellow. I honestly don't take anything you
say
> personally. I certainly don't take much of it seriously. All the
same, it is
> apparent from reading your posts that you have a learned behavior
pattern of
> saying outrageous things to get attention. This strategy doubtless
worked well
> for you as a child, but, as an adult, it is inappropriate behavior.
To work
> past this issue, you'll need to work with [sic] professional
D. Spencer Hines
You appear to be having some severe difficulties in reading and
understanding what I've written to you. Here it is again, in very
simple language.
You say to us:
> That Col. Charles Hansen unwisely relied on an [sic] secondary
> source to form a conclusion on a medieval genealogical problem.
3/26/99
[N.B. This is verbatim, both above and below.]
Previously, after having been directly challenged by Paul Reed, you
admitted:
>So, Paul, you are correct Col. Hansen never printed that Count
>Lambert was ficticious. [sic]
3/25/99
But, you still have made a slur on Colonel Charles Hansen by saying
he, "unwisely relied on an [sic] secondary source to form a
conclusion." You have refused to withdraw that slur and recant.
Now, you recently came here and made noises about being a professional
genealogist and you touted your book. There is nothing wrong with
that. We all look forward to "Magna Carta Ancestors" by David Faris
and you. Many here will be buying it, including me.
However, there are certain responsibilities that operate in concert
with stature as a professional genealogist. One of those
responsibilities is that when you make a criticism of someone else you
have the evidence in hand to back up your statement, or you humbly
recant.
That keeps people honest. Now if you have hard evidence that Colonel
Charles Hansen, "unwisely relied on a secondary source to form a
conclusion" --- bring it forward.
Remember, that you said "to form a conclusion" and Hansen, by your own
admission, did not include this allegedly false "conclusion" in his
article.
In your own words:
>In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
>Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier
>position that Count Lambert of Lens was a ficticious [sic] person.
3/25/99
Now, if you have a shred of integrity as a man and as a professional
genealogist, you will either present us with the evidence for that
charge of bad judgment *de minimis* and perhaps malfeasance --- or
recant and withdraw your charge, coupled with a full apology to
Colonel Hansen.
D. Spencer Hines
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.
Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
Leana Randall
and how of it and I never did see where there were "snide" remarks. I'm
tired of skimming through your replies to find substantial information and
only finding agrumentations.
Leana Randall
Susanaville, CA
>1. You've not dealt with any of the substantive issues I've raised
>concerning your snide remarks about Colonel Charles Hansen and his
>genealogical work, because you have no defense.
>
>2. Lose the peek-a-boo writing style. For a twelve-year-old girl it
>works --- not for a grown man.
>
>3. Quit bad-mouthing other genealogists like Colonel Hansen and
>backing and filling on substantive issues with Paul Reed such as the
>proper translation of the Latin 'amicus' --- you looked like a total
>charlatan in that exchange.
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Lux et Veritas
>--
>
>D. Spencer Hines --- Sir Robert De Lesseps: "She is a beauty, my lord,
>as would take a king to church for a dowry of a nutmeg."; Lord Wessex:
>"My plantations in Virginia are not mortgaged for a nutmeg. I have an
>ancient name that will bring you preferment when your grandson is a
>Wessex. Is she fertile?; Sir Robert: "She will breed. If she do not,
>send her back."; Lord Wessex: "Is she obedient?; Sir Robert: "As any
>mule in Christendom. But if you are the man to ride her, there are
>rubies in the saddlebag."; Lord Wessex: "I like her" --- "Shakespeare
>In Love" [1998]; Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard; p. 42.
>
>Dcrdcr4 <dcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
Leana Randall
this agruing. It is getting boring. Which one of you is the more mature
and will stop this childish arguing and get on with the purpose of this
board.
Leana Randall
Susanville, CA
>Spencer:
>
>You seem like a decent fellow. I honestly don't take anything you say
>personally. I certainly don't take much of it seriously. All the same,
it is
>apparent from reading your posts that you have a learned behavior pattern
of
>saying outrageous things to get attention. This strategy doubtless worked
well
>for you as a child, but, as an adult, it is inappropriate behavior. To
work
>past this issue, you'll need to work with professional therapist. The
Henry Sutliff
conversation on this list of late. As no one has pointed out this 1999
source, I thought I would. The brand new Dr. Katharine S. B. Keats-Rohan
_Domesday People; A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English
Documents, 1066-1166: 1-Domesday Book_ has just been published. I think
it was Todd Farmerie who mentioned it earlier in the week.
At any rate Judith is listed twice that I have found so far, once under
her mother's listing (Adelaid Comitissa de Albamarla) and secondly under
her own listing (Judita Comitissa). She is identified by Keats-Rohan as
niece of William I, daughter of Lambert, count of Lens and
Adelaide.There are more than 50 citations relating to Judith which could
be consulted for further documentation.
Henry Sutliff
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> By the way, does anyone have an e-mail address for Dr. Keats-Rohan? If so, I'd
> appreciate it if someone could send it to me.
This can be found on her web page, which is:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/research/prosop/HOME.STM
taf
Dcrdcr4
Thanks for the information regarding Countess Judith's parentage in Katherine
Keats-Rohan's new book. Dr. Keats-Rohan is an excellent researcher. She does
very good work. She is correct that Countess Judith's father was Count Lambert
of Lens.
By the way, does anyone have an e-mail address for Dr. Keats-Rohan? If so, I'd
appreciate it if someone could send it to me.
Thanks again, Hap. You're the best! As ever, Douglas Richardson
Reedpcgen
She says the only thing definite in her book is that which is backed up from
the evidence therein. No evidence is given for Lambert and Judith other than
what we already know.
Understandably, Katharine will not, and does not have time to, discuss every
discrepancy with individuals. There are over 11,000 people covered in her
work, so it was impossible (read: the time did not exist) to carefully examine
each one of them.
But the prosopographical connections and associations with Judith and others do
show the possibility to a connection with Lens existed. Morton and Muntz
raised good points, but there are many unknown factors. As I said before, I
personally have no aversion to Judith being Lambert's daughter, but one still
has to address the points raised by Morton and Muntz in an intelligent and
direct point by point manner before flippantly dismissing them.
pcr
Reedpcgen
>In two recent posts, Paul Reed asked that I retract a statement that I made to
the effect that Col. Charles Hansen stated in print that Count Lambert of Lens,
the reputed father of Judith, Countess of Nothumberland, was a ficticious
person.
>
>The truth is that some years ago I happened to be in New York City visiting
with Henry Hoff, a mutual friend of both Col. Hansen and myself. Dr. David
Faris, author of Plantagenet Ancestry, was present at this meeting. Henry,
who is a stickler for accuracy, told us that Col. Hansen doubted the existence
of Count Lambert of Lens. To which BOTH Dr. Faris and I expressed amazement
that any serious scholar would maintain such a position.
>
>In due time, Col. Hansen published his opinion on this subject in The
Genealogist, which piece fortunately did not include his earlier position that
if Count Lambert was Judith's father.
>
satisfactorily explains things. If I created any confusion over the matter,
you have my sincerest apology. Best always, Douglas Richardson
>
Point 1: Charles did not state or, more importantly, did not publish [which was
your initial claim] that Count Lambert of Lens never existed. He certainly
would know better than that, and as he discusses practically all such Medieval
matters with Neil Thompson, Neil would not have let him think it.
Point 2: Anything Doug thinks he remembers Henry Hoff saying would be hearsay
and secondary. It is not best evidence. If you are going to disparage
someone, you ought to get it from the horses mouth.
Points 3 & 4 [I could not address this before because Henry was out of town]:
I talked at length with Charles. He does doubt that Judith was daughter of
Lambert of Lens for the reasons Morton and Mutz stated [which I have previously
posted to this group].
In separate contact, Henry states [note that this is from Henry's mouth] that
he certainly never discussed the matter with Charles in the first place, and
would not have brought the matter up in direct discourse with Doug in the
second place.
Henry states further that Medieval genealogy is not his area of interest, and
that though he might have been aware that Judith was William the Conqueror's
niece, he would have had no idea of details concerning Lambert, let alone
remembering such details. As Henry is a "stickler for accuracy," according to
your testimony, we should believe and respect what he says.
So, Doug, it is inexplicable to me why you have gone about disparaging Charles
and trying to make him seem less intelligent that he is--and in public too.
What is your motivation here? Why harp on such a thing? What good does it do
our field?
I expect your memory will remain the way it is, but I would expect, as a
professional specializing in this field, that your actions in public should
change.
pcr
Dcrdcr4
I really like you dude. That matters more than a MINOR medieval question.
Best always, Douglas Richardson
Leana Randall
the argument have halted the discussion. I think we all understand both
sides of this old issue and have put it to bed.
PLEASE no more about it. It is not good to have old wounds fester.
Leana Randall
Susanville, CA