Eberhard van Betuwe/van Orten

[antoin...@gmail.com]

Good evening,

Among my ancestors, one continues creating me problems to trace back his ancestors.
Eberhard van Betuwe (also known in the English-speaking world as Eberhard of Orthen) is the father of Adelheid, wife of count Henry 2 of Louvain.

I have been unable to find reliable sources of information with references regarding Eberhard, most probably because I don't read Dutch...

any non-Dutch bibliographical advice, or any piece of information regarding his ancestors will be very well received!

regards

Antoine

[Peter Stewart]

The family of Henri II of Louvain's wife Adela is unknown. She is often
identified with Adelaide daughter of Eberhard, count in the Betau and
Teisterbant, who donated Orthen to Sint Maarten cathedral and the bishop
of Utrecht in the last quarter of the 11th century. This unwarranted
identification of Adela's father was made by Alphonse Wauters in his
article on Henri in *Biographie nationale de Belgique* vol. 9 (1886-87).

However, Orthen came into the possession of Adela's son Godfried I from
the archbishop of Cologne, as a benefice in reward for his supporting
the Church during the investiture controversy rather than due to rights
inherited from his mother. Orthen had been exchanged by the congregation
of Brauweiler (it is not known how or when it came into their
possession) because its distance from the abbey made it practically
worthless to them.

Peter Stewart

[antoin...@gmail.com]

Thank you Peter for this detailed response and sorry for the late reply. Adela will then keep her mistery...
As for those interested in Flemish and Brabant nobility, I suggest to follow the work of Robin Moens
https://kuleuven.academia.edu/RobinMoens
He is slowly but surely becoming a specialist of the van Oudenaarde family, heir to the van Petegem, and starting point for numerous Brabant families including the Chièvres.

regards

antoine

[Peter Stewart]

On 08-Sep-20 6:54 AM, antoin...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you Peter for this detailed response and sorry for the late reply. Adela will then keep her mistery...

The evidence I mentioned doesn't match the weight that Wauters put on
it, or at least not all of his reasoning behind this, but also does not
preclude the suggestion he made.

He wrote: "On ne sait qui elle était. Il faut probablement l'identifier
avec Adelhaïde, fille du comte Everard, veuve d'un comte nommé Henri,
qui donna au chapitre de Saint-Martin, d'Utrecht, des biens à Orten
(près de Bois-le-Duc). Sa charte ne porte pas de date, mais a toujours
été placée vers l'an 1088. Le pays aux environs d'Orten ayant dans la
suite fait partie des domaines des ducs de Brabant, ma supposition n'a
rien que de vraisemblable."

Unfortunately this is the kind of speculation that readily gets turned
into genealogical factoid.

Eberhard's daughter Adelaide was a countess and widow of a man named
Henri who, unlike her father, was not called count in the document from
which we know this ("Adelheyt, comitissa, comitis Everhardi filia, ob
remedium anime sue ac mariti sui Henrici").

Her husband may or may not have been Henri II of Louvain - her
possession of property at Orthen is not a solid indicator one way or the
other. It may be that Frederic of Schwarzenburg, archbishop of Cologne,
later gave allodial property at Orthen to Adelaide's son Godfried
explicitly to reward his loyalty to the Church ("propter fidem tempore
persecutionis beato Petro exhibitam") but perhaps also, without stating
it, because this augmented other rights he held in the vicinity through
his mother.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

> Eberhard's daughter Adelaide was a countess and widow of a man named
> Henri who, unlike her father, was not called count in the document from
> which we know this ("Adelheyt, comitissa, comitis Everhardi filia, ob
> remedium anime sue ac mariti sui Henrici").

Does her own title comitissa not imply that her late husband was a count?

[Hans Vogels]

Op dinsdag 8 september 2020 om 11:44:31 UTC+2 schreef lancast...@gmail.com:

Strangely her husband is not mentioned as a count.
The rough period (1076-1099) in which the transaction took place can be narrowed down to 1084-1099.
Emperor Henry IV assigned a Hermann as tutor to countess Adelheit. Henry IV was crowned emperor in Italy on 31 March 1084.

Hans Vogels

[Hans Vogels]

Op dinsdag 8 september 2020 om 11:44:31 UTC+2 schreef lancast...@gmail.com:

Not every comitissa needs to be a countess. I am familiar with an Emmissa known as 'la comtessa'.
Emmissa de Valenciennes known as ‘la comtesse’, was not married to a count. She married three times but not with counts. It is suggested that she might have been the granddaughter of a Emma Comitessa (1035) married to a Anselme I (†1071), lord of Ribemont-Bouchain.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/bcrh_0001-415x_1981_num_147_1_1201

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

Not if she took the title countess as heiress of her father whom she
called count rather than from her marriage to a man she did not call
count - we simply don't know enough about these people to be sure.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Yes, I only said "imply", but I am interested to hear more examples like the one Hans gives in order to get a feeling about how likely it is that this is not the case. The more I learn about 10th and 11th century Lotharingian counties the less confident I am that anyone really has a clear simple definition of what made someone a count. It seems to have been evolving a bit?

[Peter Stewart]

I don't understand the 'only said "imply"' comment, as I thought we were
already talking just about the implication of Adelaide's use of
"comitissa" and my response was that we don't know enough to be certain
what this implies.

Apart from that, you have - implicitly - raised two separate questions:

1. Can we get a reliable sense of offically-sanctioned title usage from
cartulary recensions of private acts, or even necessarily from original
charters? and

2. Was there notably less discipline about adopting the comital title in
some regions, especially in the political construct of
Lotharingia/Lorraine, during a feudal upheaval following the extinction
of the Carolingian dynasty?

As for 1., there are cases over many centuries scattered throughout the
former empire of Charlemagne where women dropped the title "countess" as
widows, or kept this but dropped "count" for their deceased husbands, or
called late husbands and currently-ruling sons "count" but not
themselves or their daughters-in-law "countess", or called living
husbands "marquis" but themselves "countess", and so on through just
about every variant one can think of. A sense or feeling about this is
not very helpful, and looking for specific patterns in such matters -
even in the case of an individual woman - is very likely to be a waste
of time.

As for 2., the aristocracy in Lotharingia/Lorraine was in general less
focused on a central power than in the west & east Frankish kingdoms.
The political entity they functioned within was not based on an ethnic
or cultural unity and after it had been reduced from a kingdom to a
duchy there was a scramble for higher status at lower levels of power.
Petty countships appear more frequently than elsewhere, often conjured
into existence for cadets of families with the prestige to make their
own rules. Eberhard in the Betuwe and his daughter Adelaide may have
been examples of this in taking a comital title where it had not
regularly belonged in earlier generations - but then, as said already,
she may have taken her title from (or perhaps had bestowed her right to
it on) her husband Henri.

We normally don't have patents of nobility or other administrative
records to sort out these questions: we are left with diplomatic and
narrative sources that no doubt occasionally apply anachronistic titles,
giving them to people generations before they came into use or inventing
them out of thin air from not knowing the person's status accurately.
Again, a sense or feeling - liable to change aanyway - is not a very
reliable guide to the complexity of variables almost a millennium ago.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Hans and Peter, those replies are helpful. I've noticed that while the stories of counties going back to the Carolingians, such as found in Vanderkindere, are still very influential, there is a long period where there are almost no clear counties. Even the early Reginars seem more to appear more often with titles which suggest connections to abbeys, forts, royal "palaces" and military responsibilities. At least in the cases I have looked at, I keep getting the feeling the new 10th century advocacies quickly became one of the most important ways of moving up in the world, and perhaps this is because they were partly based on management ability. This is not a question now, just a musing. Obviously there were also still forts, palace lands, and up in the Rhine delta there were the military prefecture offices. In my region the county of Duras almost certainly started as a jurisdiction connected to an advocacy held by a cadet family in my opinion, and I suspect something similar happened a bit earlier with Loon. I am guessing this does not sound crazy to either of you, but let me know if it does. :)

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Sep-20 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Hans and Peter, those replies are helpful. I've noticed that while the stories of counties going back to the Carolingians, such as found in Vanderkindere, are still very influential, there is a long period where there are almost no clear counties. Even the early Reginars seem more to appear more often with titles which suggest connections to abbeys, forts, royal "palaces" and military responsibilities. At least in the cases I have looked at, I keep getting the feeling the new 10th century advocacies quickly became one of the most important ways of moving up in the world, and perhaps this is because they were partly based on management ability. This is not a question now, just a musing. Obviously there were also still forts, palace lands, and up in the Rhine delta there were the military prefecture offices. In my region the county of Duras almost certainly started as a jurisdiction connected to an advocacy held by a cadet family in my opinion, and I suspect something similar happened a bit earlier with Loon. I am guessing this does not sound crazy to either of you, but let me know if it does. :)
>

The early Reginars were advocates of Echternach and Stavelot-Malmédy,
neither of which ended up within their descendants' control as counts of
Hainaut. In the case of Duras, as far as I recall the counts descended
from a sub-advocate of Sint-Truiden who was brother-in-law to a king.
The prestige of his connections quite probably had more to do with his
comital title than his own management skills.

It is safer to look into individual histories and then see if any
meaningful patterns tend to emerge, rather than to develop fractals and
then try to fit individual stories into these.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 12:13:03 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> The early Reginars were advocates of Echternach and Stavelot-Malmédy,

I was making a distinction between lay abbots and advocates?

> neither of which ended up within their descendants' control as counts of
> Hainaut.

Which was for most of the 10th century only referred to as comital jurisdiction over Mons, so this county perhaps originated in the holding of a fort. (Speculation only, but I certainly disagree with accounts which treat Hainaut as a sinlge county in the 10th century.)

> In the case of Duras, as far as I recall the counts descended
> from a sub-advocate of Sint-Truiden who was brother-in-law to a king.
> The prestige of his connections quite probably had more to do with his
> comital title than his own management skills.

No the first sub-advocate was Otto, brother of Emmo, Count of Loon. Their ancestry is very difficult to be confident about, though I see no strong reason not to believe the Vita of Arnulf of Soissons which makes their mother Lutgarde, daughter of a count of Namur and descendant of the Carolingian Duke Charles of Lower Lotharingia.

Previous to his superior being assigned by the Bishop of Metz (who gave it to his own brother) there was probably no two level advocacy at Sint-Truiden. Otto and Emmo were referred to at least twice as Counts of Loon; and Otto was never entitled count of anything else, raising the possibility than you could be called a count without any county of your own. Emmo was the ancestor of the later counts of Loon. Duras castle probably did not exist yet. Gilbert, Otto's son, was called advocate and count, or just son of Count Otto for some time (at least in royal charters). The castle appears first during his lifetime, when he helped the Abbot out of a jam, and after then we hear of an actual county of Duras, only in the 12th century.

The fuzzy bit in the standard account comes from the fact that the 14th century 3rd continuation of the Gesta of St Truiden describes an early 11th century advocate of St Truiden as the brother of the count of Duras of that time. Presumably that earlier family had some lordships connected to their advocacy which were handed down to Otto and his family. Mantelius suggested that Otto the brother of Emmo must have married their heiress, and Vanderkindere and Baerten follow Mantelius. But actually Mantelius also thought Otto and Emmo were relatives of that earlier advocate (as the continuator specifically states) and that it was an appanage of their family. This means no heiress is needed in the story. Put simply, to me this looks like an example of a junior line which held offices that were not quite comital, but managed to get them considered as such.

> It is safer to look into individual histories and then see if any
> meaningful patterns tend to emerge, rather than to develop fractals and
> then try to fit individual stories into these.
>

Yes, mainly I have been looking at detailed cases, trying not to assume any pattern, but the posts triggered some musing.

[Peter Stewart]

On 10-Sep-20 8:38 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 12:13:03 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>> The early Reginars were advocates of Echternach and Stavelot-Malmédy,
>
> I was making a distinction between lay abbots and advocates?

Once again, I don't understand what you are getting at - after abbeys
were reformed there were still advocates but no longer lay abbots: I
don't see how countships could have developed from advocacies yet not
from the lay abbacies that had preceded (and overlapped with) them.

A count was a kind of local viceroy, and in many cases an abbey - the
prime piece of local infrastructure - was granted as the power-base of
an appointee ("abbas et comes"). As countships became hereditary, the
families that possessed them often if not always provided advocates for
the abbeys that had previously been held in tandem.

>
>> neither of which ended up within their descendants' control as counts of
>> Hainaut.
>
> Which was for most of the 10th century only referred to as comital jurisdiction over Mons, so this county perhaps originated in the holding of a fort. (Speculation only, but I certainly disagree with accounts which treat Hainaut as a sinlge county in the 10th century.)
>
>> In the case of Duras, as far as I recall the counts descended
>> from a sub-advocate of Sint-Truiden who was brother-in-law to a king.
>> The prestige of his connections quite probably had more to do with his
>> comital title than his own management skills.
>
> No the first sub-advocate was Otto, brother of Emmo, Count of Loon.

I thought we are talking about the same person - was not Immo's and
Otto's sister Sophia married to King Géza I of Hungary?

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > I was making a distinction between lay abbots and advocates?
> Once again, I don't understand what you are getting at - after abbeys
> were reformed there were still advocates but no longer lay abbots: I
> don't see how countships could have developed from advocacies yet not
> from the lay abbacies that had preceded (and overlapped with) them.

Did advocacies evolve from lay abbacies? Can you explain the evidence for this? I am not asking this sarcastically. Obviously it is not a shocking statement you make, but I have developed doubts. In Lower Lotharingia where I have tried to understand the details I feel there are actually very few counties we can really define at all. In terms of defining counts the two Ansfrieds must have been very important but where where their "15" counties? Now, the Ansfrieds (and for that matter one or more Eremfrieds in the Rhineland) who were counts, were very likely advocates of multiple abbeys, but how do we connect any of them to the old lay abbacies? I see no evidence for a smooth (or disruptive) transition? There is a massive gap in the evidence, and we are all strongly influenced by 100 year old "grand narrative" (e.g. Vanderkindere). We do know there were big disruptions in the 10th century. Concerning forts, we have a bit more evidence. Comital rights at Mons were claimed by rebellious Reginars on the basis of an ancestor holding it, but despite the impression we get from most books or websites they failed until the 11th century. It was held by a series of royal loyalists with connections to the house of Ardennes and the Matfrieds. Chevremont near Liège was handed, it seems, to cunning old Count Immo, but then destroyed. Argenteau near Visé ended up somehow bound to the new March of Antwerp, and so on.

> A count was a kind of local viceroy, and in many cases an abbey - the
> prime piece of local infrastructure - was granted as the power-base of
> an appointee ("abbas et comes"). As countships became hereditary, the
> families that possessed them often if not always provided advocates for
> the abbeys that had previously been held in tandem.

Can you give an example of an "abbas et comes"? I am guessing that might be a term from pre 939, but I do not remember seeing this combination. Also, I do not know of any evidence that the advocates were heirs of the old lay abbots in Lower Lotharingia? I'd say they were appointments of the "Imperial Church"? I see no evidence that the new counts were appointed in that same process, but obviously they were from the same families and circles, and I suspect they were building their new dominions in a very rough and ready way. Just to be clear, I am doubting the simple stories, but not offering a new one.

> I thought we are talking about the same person - was not Immo's and
> Otto's sister Sophia married to King Géza I of Hungary?

It is a bit of a mystery but according to that same Vita of St Arnulf of Soisson (a cousin of Emmo and Otto) Emmo had a daughter who was a "Duchess" of Hungary and mother of both a King of Hungary and a "Duchess of Huy". I am not up to date on the best guesses on those. Huy was of course a county within the secular lordship of the bishop of Liège for already almost a century at this time, so there is something going on here. Perhaps her daughter was a Duke who also held Huy under the bishop - presumably then a descendant of Godefrey the captive?

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-Sep-20 4:50 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>>> I was making a distinction between lay abbots and advocates?
>> Once again, I don't understand what you are getting at - after abbeys
>> were reformed there were still advocates but no longer lay abbots: I
>> don't see how countships could have developed from advocacies yet not
>> from the lay abbacies that had preceded (and overlapped with) them.
>
> Did advocacies evolve from lay abbacies? Can you explain the evidence for this? I am not asking this sarcastically. Obviously it is not a shocking statement you make, but I have developed doubts. In Lower Lotharingia where I have tried to understand the details I feel there are actually very few counties we can really define at all. In terms of defining counts the two Ansfrieds must have been very important but where where their "15" counties? Now, the Ansfrieds (and for that matter one or more Eremfrieds in the Rhineland) who were counts, were very likely advocates of multiple abbeys, but how do we connect any of them to the old lay abbacies? I see no evidence for a smooth (or disruptive) transition? There is a massive gap in the evidence, and we are all strongly influenced by 100 year old "grand narrative" (e.g. Vanderkindere). We do know there were big disruptions in the 10th century. Concerning forts, we have a bit more evidence. Comital rights at Mons were claimed by rebellious Reginars on the basis of an ancestor holding it, but despite the impression we get from most books or websites they failed until the 11th century. It was held by a series of royal loyalists with connections to the house of Ardennes and the Matfrieds. Chevremont near Liège was handed, it seems, to cunning old Count Immo, but then destroyed. Argenteau near Visé ended up somehow bound to the new March of Antwerp, and so on.

The subject of lay abbacy and advocacy doesn't really belong in a
genealogy forum - it should be fairly readily understood that families
holding lay abbacies were not likely to step aside in favour of new men
coming into their hereditary turf as advocates.

There is a considerable literature on the phenomenon and progression of
lay lordship over abbeys and advocacy for their temporal business when
regular abbots held spiritual authority. With your sphere of local
interest you might start with these:

Karl Voigt - *Die karolingische Klosterpolitik und der Niedergang des
westfränkischen Königtums: Laienäbte und Klosterinhaber*, (Stuttgart, 1917)

Hermann Aubin - *Die Entstehung der Landeshoheit nach niederrheinischen
Quellen: Studien über Grafschaft, Immunität und Vogtei* (Berlin, 1920)

Egon Boshof - 'Untersuchungen zur Kirchenvogtei in Lothringen im 10. und
11. Jahrhundert', in *Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für
Rechtsgeschichte*, kanonistische Abteilung 65 (1979)

>
>> A count was a kind of local viceroy, and in many cases an abbey - the
>> prime piece of local infrastructure - was granted as the power-base of
>> an appointee ("abbas et comes"). As countships became hereditary, the
>> families that possessed them often if not always provided advocates for
>> the abbeys that had previously been held in tandem.
>
> Can you give an example of an "abbas et comes"? I am guessing that might be a term from pre 939, but I do not remember seeing this combination.

There are many examples after 939 - for instance, in 987/88 Heribert
called himself abbot and count of Saint-Quentin (de Vermandois): "Ego
Heribertus gratia Dei testis Christi Quintini monasterii abbas et comes
dictus"; in 992 Hugo of Chalon subscribed a charter of the bishop of
Autun as abbot of Paray-le-Monial: "Hugo abbas et comes".

> Also, I do not know of any evidence that the advocates were heirs of the old lay abbots in Lower Lotharingia? I'd say they were appointments of the "Imperial Church"? I see no evidence that the new counts were appointed in that same process, but obviously they were from the same families and circles, and I suspect they were building their new dominions in a very rough and ready way. Just to be clear, I am doubting the simple stories, but not offering a new one.

You seem to have the bases fairly comprehensively covered for just what
I suggested about the same families. It is not at all clear to me what
"simple stories" you are doubting - my point is that these stories are
not homogeneous enough to validate simple patterns.

>
>> I thought we are talking about the same person - was not Immo's and
>> Otto's sister Sophia married to King Géza I of Hungary?
>
> It is a bit of a mystery but according to that same Vita of St Arnulf of Soisson (a cousin of Emmo and Otto) Emmo had a daughter who was a "Duchess" of Hungary and mother of both a King of Hungary and a "Duchess of Huy". I am not up to date on the best guesses on those. Huy was of course a county within the secular lordship of the bishop of Liège for already almost a century at this time, so there is something going on here. Perhaps her daughter was a Duke who also held Huy under the bishop - presumably then a descendant of Godefrey the captive?
>

The genealogy with alleged Hungarian royal children of Sophia, including
the "duchess of Huy", is not in the Vita of Arnulf of Soissons but
occurs as an addition to it (and can also be found in some manuscripts
that do not include the Vita). The genealogy states: "Emmo genuit
Arnulfum comitem de Lo et Sophiam ducissam de Hungaria. Ista Sophia
genuit regem de Hongaria et ducissam de Hui". However, Arnulf's sister
Sophia evidently married Heinrich of Schwalenberg, while there is no
king of Hungary whose mother could have come from modern Belgium as late
as her generation, so it has been assumed that the Sophia married in
Hungary may have been Arnulf's aunt, sister rather than daughter of Emmo
and therefore of Otto the (sub-)advocate of Sint-Truiden. The exact
connection is not recoverable, but the prestige of Otto's family that
allowed for this royal link to be thought credible is what I meant as
probably having more influence over his descendants' comital status in
Duras than his own management abilities. There is a limit to how closely
the runes can be read in such cases.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-Sep-20 9:06 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> The genealogy with alleged Hungarian royal children of Sophia, including
> the "duchess of Huy", is not in the Vita of Arnulf of Soissons but
> occurs as an addition to it (and can also be found in some manuscripts
> that do not include the Vita).

There is some confusion in the literature about the provenance of this
genealogy - as noted, it is not found in the Vita itself but first
appears as a gloss added in a copy made at the end of the 12th century
in Saint-Omer, written in the hand of the Vita copyist.

It has been ascribed to Hariulf (abbot of Oudenbourg) or Lisiard de
Crépy (bishop of Soissons), both of whom may have worked on the extant
version of the Vita in the first decades of the 12th century in the
cause of St Arnulf's canonisation. However, there is no direct evidence
for its authorship at this time and no compelling reason to suppose that
the information in it came from a sister or nephew of St Arnulf (who
died in 1087) as supposedly related personally to Hariulf. It was
certainly not written by Johannes Mantelius in the 16th century as some
have mistakenly represented.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 11, 2020 at 1:06:24 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

Thanks Peter. I have not seen those German references. I note that your examples were from France, but that does not make them irrelevant. On the other hand, of course in Lotharingia the most well-known lay abbots there, the Reginars and their friends, got themselves into all sorts of trouble and would not have had much choice in the way things then changed in the 10th century. You are right this is a bit off-topic for genealogy but in reality the standard understandings of these families are heavily influenced by ideas about the Reginars.

> You seem to have the bases fairly comprehensively covered for just what

> It is not at all clear to me what
> "simple stories" you are doubting - my point is that these stories are
> not homogeneous enough to validate simple patterns.

I think Vanderkindere is still incredibly influential concerning all these 10th century families, and he does make numerous generalizations which are still cited surprisingly often (and not only by genealogists). I have him in mind. More recent writers about some of these counties, like Baerten in the 1960s concerning Loon, tended to try to preserve as much as possible of his narrative.

> The genealogy with alleged Hungarian royal children of Sophia, including
> the "duchess of Huy", is not in the Vita of Arnulf of Soissons but
> occurs as an addition to it (and can also be found in some manuscripts
> that do not include the Vita).

Yes you are right and perhaps it is interesting to give this relatively recent (and online) reference about that topic, which has influenced me:

Renée I. A. Nip, Arnulfus van Oudenburg, bisschop van Soissons (1087), mens en model: een bronnenstudie, (Doctoral thesis, University of Groningen, 1995), chapter 4.

(I think this point addresses some of the authorship issues you raised in your follow up post.)

The genealogy states: "Emmo genuit
> Arnulfum comitem de Lo et Sophiam ducissam de Hungaria. Ista Sophia
> genuit regem de Hongaria et ducissam de Hui". However, Arnulf's sister
> Sophia evidently married Heinrich of Schwalenberg, while there is no
> king of Hungary whose mother could have come from modern Belgium as late
> as her generation, so it has been assumed that the Sophia married in
> Hungary may have been Arnulf's aunt, sister rather than daughter of Emmo
> and therefore of Otto the (sub-)advocate of Sint-Truiden. The exact
> connection is not recoverable, but the prestige of Otto's family that
> allowed for this royal link to be thought credible is what I meant as
> probably having more influence over his descendants' comital status in
> Duras than his own management abilities. There is a limit to how closely
> the runes can be read in such cases.

Makes sense. I accept your point about Emmo and Otto being from a good family which is indeed how the above-mentioned Vita understood it. My guess about advocates and junior branches being able to build up their acceptance as counts was of course not meant to imply that these were nobodies, only that when a noble family ran out of counties to give to its boys, they were sometimes apparently able to develop new ones out of their sub-infeudations, advocacy lands, grants of royal palatial lands etc.

One reason this is relevant is that in later medieval records countships and counties were rather fixed, as they probably had been during Carolingian times, and so genealogists and historians make assumptions about inheritances etc that allow them to fill in records in the poaper trail. The more I look at the 10th and even 11th century the more cautious I think we have to be about such assumptions in that period. From what I understand, you do not disagree.

Another article which has influenced my thinking on this is this well-known one, which is also available online:

Christian Dupont and Arlette Laret-Kayser, ‘A propos des comtés post-carolingiens: les exemples d'Ivoux et de Bastogne’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, 57 (1979), pp. 805-23;

[Peter Stewart]

It should be borne in mind that many of these people were predatory
opportunists who got away with whatever they could - the sources are
full of woeful tales from abbots and other clerics about incursions on
their property and thefts of their wealth by aristocratic thugs. A few
repented, others were shamelessly arrogant to the end of their Trumpish
lives. To some extent the Crusades redirected this kind of rapacity
towards the Levant and Palestine, but it was far from disappearing
entirely in western Europe.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

> It should be borne in mind that many of these people were predatory
> opportunists who got away with whatever they could - the sources are
> full of woeful tales from abbots and other clerics about incursions on
> their property and thefts of their wealth by aristocratic thugs. A few
> repented, others were shamelessly arrogant to the end of their Trumpish
> lives. To some extent the Crusades redirected this kind of rapacity
> towards the Levant and Palestine, but it was far from disappearing
> entirely in western Europe.

Oh yes. My most local chronicle, the one from Sint-Truiden, is wonderfully colorful and FULL of complaints about the local advocates, and the over-advocates for that matter - apart from the incidents where they were on the "right" side - not to mention the bishops of Liège, and worldly lords of Liège's princedoms like Loon, Montaigu, Bouillon and Brabant (who all got involved in crusading). Of course it is impossible to hide that the abbots, even the hard-core reformists, were "not unambitious". Some of the themes in a book like that are not all that different to the ones we face today. They certainly had riots and debates about who provoked them. (There is a wonderful story about a devilish boat on wheels, for those who are looking for something interesting to read.) I am lucky there is a Dutch translation to help me, but it strikes me the world could do with more translations of these old chronicles. From a genealogical point of view though, it is fascinating that there are hints all over the place that all these secular and spiritual lords were often cousins. I can see the crusades were part of a very complex and even pragmatic cause and effect that was not as dumb or avoidable as I once thought. Thanks for your notes on this Peter.

[Peter Stewart]

On 11-Sep-20 9:06 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> On 11-Sep-20 4:50 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>> It is a bit of a mystery but according to that same Vita of St Arnulf
>> of Soisson (a cousin of Emmo and Otto) Emmo had a daughter who was a
>> "Duchess" of Hungary and mother of both a King of Hungary and a
>> "Duchess of Huy". I am not up to date on the best guesses on those.
>> Huy was of course a county within the secular lordship of the bishop
>> of Liège for already almost a century at this time, so there is
>> something going on here. Perhaps her daughter was a Duke who also held
>> Huy under the bishop - presumably then a descendant of Godefrey the
>> captive?
>>
>
> The genealogy with alleged Hungarian royal children of Sophia, including
> the "duchess of Huy", is not in the Vita of Arnulf of Soissons but
> occurs as an addition to it (and can also be found in some manuscripts
> that do not include the Vita). The genealogy states: "Emmo genuit
> Arnulfum comitem de Lo et Sophiam ducissam de Hungaria. Ista Sophia
> genuit regem de Hongaria et ducissam de Hui". However, Arnulf's sister
> Sophia evidently married Heinrich of Schwalenberg, while there is no
> king of Hungary whose mother could have come from modern Belgium as late
> as her generation, so it has been assumed that the Sophia married in
> Hungary may have been Arnulf's aunt, sister rather than daughter of Emmo
> and therefore of Otto the (sub-)advocate of Sint-Truiden. The exact
> connection is not recoverable

The last (part-)sentence in my post is true, but I was wrong in the
sentence before this.

On looking further into it, I can see no reason to doubt the accuracy of
the genealogy added as a marginal gloss to the Vita of St Arnulf -
whether this was written at the end of the 12th century or earlier.

The alleged marriage of a Sophie daughter of Emmo of Loon to "Heinrich
of Schwalenberg" appears to be fictitious. According to Friedrich von
Dalwigk, who published a study of the Schwalenberg genealogy in 1915,
there was no such person as this Heinrich and the earliest ancestor
known by the Schwalenberg toponym was Widekind who occurs for the first
time in 1127. He is thought to have belonged to the family of earlier
counts in Westphalia of the same name, but there is not enough evidence
to trace a connected lineage and no Heinrich can be definitely placed
into their family orbit in the 11th century anyway.

Removing this marriage from the picture, there is no reason to shift
Sophie "duchess of Hungary" back a generation: if she was Emmo's
daughter, as asserted in the St Arnulf of Soissons genealogy, then her
personal chronology is fine for marriage in the early 1060s. This fits
with the otherwise unknown first marriage of Géza I of Hungary, who in
the 1060s was indeed titled duke (he became king in 1074). This would
make Sophie the mother of Kálmán the Learned, who was king from 1095
(died 1116). There is no certain evidence that Kálmán had a full-sister,
but no evidence against this either. As for her being called duchess of
"Hui", I suspect this may not refer to Huy in Belgium at all, but rather
to Hoya in Saxony.

However, the rationale for this is far from certain. Géza I was born in
Poland and spent some years of his childhood there (where his younger
brother was also born), presumably knowing his maternal grandmother
Queen Richeza (a granddaughter of Emperor Otto II and Theophanu) whose
father was Ezzo, count palatine of Lorraine. In 1047 Richeza returned to
her homeland and was a redoubtable figure in the Rhineland and in Saxony
until her death in 1063. She may have chosen a daughter of Emmo of Loon,
whose family had been connected with Saxony and the Ottonians, as a
bride for her grandson Géza. By around the mid-1060s or perhaps later
Géza had remarried to a Byzantine lady (surnamed Synadene), who may have
been mother to his second son (Álmos, who became king of Croatia) and
perhaps also a daughter. It is conceivable that an older daughter of
Géza, born to Sophie of Loon who may have died in childbirth, was
married to a count of Hoya (in Lower Saxony), though there is no better
evidence for this than the mention of "ducissam de Hui" as daughter of
Emmo of Loon's daughter Sophie. At any rate, no-one who knew enough to
call Sophie "duchess of Hungary" and mother to a king would be likely to
have supposed there had ever been a "duchess of Huy", though perhaps
this inflated title could have been given to a countess of Hoya.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The last sentence is probably wrong in two respects - certainly in
calling Álmos king rather than duke, his real title, but also in dating
the second marriage of his father Géza I to around the mid-1060s.

The only source for his marriage to a Synadene wife is the anonymous
continuation of the chronicle by Ioannes Skylitzes, and the text taken
literally would place the second wedding after Géza had become king in
1074 since the daughter of Theodoulos Synadenos is said to have been
married by her maternal uncle, Nikephoros Botaneiates (subsequently
emperor), to the "kral" of Hungary ("κράλῃ Οὐγγαρίας").

It adds that after Géza's death (in April 1077) she returned to
Byzantium - this has been taken as evidence that she had no children, or
at least no son/s. Any that she had would have been infants, and it
seems hardly likely that she would have abandoned her child/ren or that
her brother-in-law St László (who succeeded as king because Géza's known
sons Kálmán and Álmos were too young) would have let her take other
potential heir/s out of Hungary.

A 14th-century chronicle says that Duke Géza, i.e. before he became king
in 1074, had two sons and an unspecified number of daughters ("Dux autem
Geysa genuit Colomannum et Almum ac filias"). These may all have been
born to his first wife, evidently Sophie of Loon - the genealogy
mentioned above does not say that she had no children apart from the
king of Hungary and the duchess of "Hui".

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 15-Sep-20 4:55 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

> The only source for his marriage to a Synadene wife is the anonymous
> continuation of the chronicle by Ioannes Skylitzes, and the text taken
> literally would place the second wedding after Géza had become king in
> 1074 since the daughter of Theodoulos Synadenos is said to have been
> married by her maternal uncle, Nikephoros Botaneiates (subsequently
> emperor), to the "kral" of Hungary ("κράλῃ Οὐγγαρίας").

Ah, scrub that - the continuation (which was probably written by
Skylitzes himself) cannot be taken to the letter in this respect: it
calls Nikephoros Botaneiates "basileus" when stating that he married his
niece to the "kral" of Hungary, and Nikephoros did not become emperor
until after Géza had died.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:04:47 PM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

For what it is worth, for anyone reading, the spelling we have been referring to as Huy is Hui.

The reference is Vita Arnulfi Episcopi Suessioniensis, ed. by Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH Scriptores, 15.2 (Hannover, 1888), p. 879 https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_15_2/index.htm#page/879/mode/1up

Breaking up the relevant short sentences...

:Ludgard geenuit Emmonem et Ottonem, fratrum eius.

:Emmo genuit Arnulfum comitem de Ló et Sophiam ducissam de Hungaria.

:Ista Sophia genuit regem de Hungaria et ducissam de Hui.

:Otto, frater Emmonis, genuit Gislebertum de Duraz.

My idea that a "Duke" of Huy might be a member of the House of Verdun who was a Duke with some sort of jurisdiction in Huy comes from reading the following article, but I'd have to look at it again to make any serious proposal.

G. Roland, "Un faux diplôme de Conrad II. Étude diplomatique et historique" Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire Année (1907) 76 pp. 548-567. https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/bcrh_0001-415x_1907_num_76_1_2088.pdf

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-Sep-20 1:16 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 1:04:47 PM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, for anyone reading, the spelling we have been referring to as Huy is Hui.

We have been referring to Huy in English, but the Latin text giving
"Hui" - whatever this meant - was quoted upthread.

>
> The reference is Vita Arnulfi Episcopi Suessioniensis, ed. by Oswald Holder-Egger, MGH Scriptores, 15.2 (Hannover, 1888), p. 879 https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_15_2/index.htm#page/879/mode/1up
>
> Breaking up the relevant short sentences...
>
> :Ludgard geenuit Emmonem et Ottonem, fratrum eius.
>
> :Emmo genuit Arnulfum comitem de Ló et Sophiam ducissam de Hungaria.
>
> :Ista Sophia genuit regem de Hungaria et ducissam de Hui.
>
> :Otto, frater Emmonis, genuit Gislebertum de Duraz.
>
> My idea that a "Duke" of Huy might be a member of the House of Verdun who was a Duke with some sort of jurisdiction in Huy comes from reading the following article, but I'd have to look at it again to make any serious proposal.
>
> G. Roland, "Un faux diplôme de Conrad II. Étude diplomatique et historique" Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire Année (1907) 76 pp. 548-567. https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/bcrh_0001-415x_1907_num_76_1_2088.pdf

I'm not sure what relevance you find in this article by Roland unless it
is the references on pp. 554 and 556 to Vanderkindere's idea about a
Gozelo count of Huy occurring in 1028, within whose county was the
church of Havelange (not far south of Huy) - the St Arnulf of Soissons
genealogy is not mentioned.

The document cited by Vanderkindere is a charter of Emperor Konrad dated
19 April 1028, known only from the late-14th century cartulary of
Sainte-Croix de Liège: "in comitatu Gozelonis de Hoio ecclesiam de
Hafflangia ...".

Huy in medieval Latin was usually Hoium or Hogium, and a territorial
designation in the form "de Hui" could mean this or perhaps Hoya in
Saxony that was usually Hogia. My point is that a writer in the 12th
century either at Soissons or at Saint-Omer would be somewhat unlikely
to suppose there had been a "duke of Huy" in the late-11th century,
while he had perhaps never otherwise known of Saxon counts or lords of
Hoya in order to know their rank correctly.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 12:54:53 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
> > G. Roland, "Un faux diplôme de Conrad II. Étude diplomatique et historique" Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire Année (1907) 76 pp. 548-567. https://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/bcrh_0001-415x_1907_num_76_1_2088.pdf
> I'm not sure what relevance you find in this article by Roland unless it
> is the references on pp. 554 and 556 to Vanderkindere's idea about a
> Gozelo count of Huy occurring in 1028, within whose county was the
> church of Havelange (not far south of Huy) - the St Arnulf of Soissons
> genealogy is not mentioned.
>
> The document cited by Vanderkindere is a charter of Emperor Konrad dated
> 19 April 1028, known only from the late-14th century cartulary of
> Sainte-Croix de Liège: "in comitatu Gozelonis de Hoio ecclesiam de
> Hafflangia ...".
>
> Huy in medieval Latin was usually Hoium or Hogium, and a territorial
> designation in the form "de Hui" could mean this or perhaps Hoya in
> Saxony that was usually Hogia. My point is that a writer in the 12th
> century either at Soissons or at Saint-Omer would be somewhat unlikely
> to suppose there had been a "duke of Huy" in the late-11th century,
> while he had perhaps never otherwise known of Saxon counts or lords of
> Hoya in order to know their rank correctly.

Yes my reference to that article was not meant to argue against your suggestion, but just to list some relevant information, given that for now the answer to this question seems uncertain either way. I don't see that Roland attempts to explain who Count Gozelon of Huy in 1028 was, though I see that the 1028 charter makes it clear he was a different person to Gozelon of Bastogne. (I may have been thinking they were the same.) For me the interesting point is that there was a person called a count of Huy still (despite it now being under the bishop), and secondly that there was a swirl of Count Gozelons during the 11th century in this region, many of whom were related to Dukes (of Lower Lotharingia), which means that perhaps in subsequent generations a Duke of that large family (the House of Verdun) may conceivably held that county. Not very convincing though, because Dukes did not tend to be remembered for their lesser lordships. So yes, that looks like a dead end.

Perhaps the mystery is also affected by a problem similar to the one we discussed before concerning how to explain when a lady was called a Countess - though in this case she was a Duchess. Could she have taken the title as a "rank" from her Hungarian father? Or might she have had it from a previous husband before ending up in Huy perhaps with another husband? I guess many such scenarios could be made.

Probably the best we can say is that the medieval evidence at least isn't making the Vita's account sound unbelievable. In fact, it allows too many options to really say much at all?

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, that is my view - though the genealogy is an addition to the Vita
and strictly not "the Vita's account".

I don't think we can take the text as we have it of Konrad II's charter
in 1028 as definitely establishing that there was a count "of Huy" at
that date. Territorial designations, especially such as this one in the
form "de X", were common at the end of the 14th century when the
cartulary of Saint-Croix de Liège was compiled, but not at all in the
early 11th century. Gozelo was evidently count in the pagus of Condroz
("in pago Condrustriensi in comitatu Gozelonis de Hoio"). It seems
probable to me that the original charter did not contain the last two
words, and that the cartularist added these because Huy was closer to
Liège than Ciney or any other town from which he thought the Condroz
might have been governed more than 300 years earlier.

We know nothing more about daughters of Géza I of Hungary than that he
reportedly had at least two ("filias", quoted upthread). Marriage in
either Lorraine or Saxony would not seem very likely, since there are
various sources from those parts that might be expected to mention a
lady of such exalted and exotic origin married to a local magnate and
there is no obvious political context for such a union anyway. There may
have been a source indicating a similarly-named place in Hungary that
the genealogy writer took to mean Huy, while the rank of duchess may
have been just a supposition from the status of her parents (as there
were no dukes in 11th-century Hungary apart from cadets of the royal
family).

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 12:56:44 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> I don't think we can take the text as we have it of Konrad II's charter
> in 1028 as definitely establishing that there was a count "of Huy" at
> that date. Territorial designations, especially such as this one in the
> form "de X", were common at the end of the 14th century when the
> cartulary of Saint-Croix de Liège was compiled, but not at all in the
> early 11th century. Gozelo was evidently count in the pagus of Condroz
> ("in pago Condrustriensi in comitatu Gozelonis de Hoio"). It seems
> probable to me that the original charter did not contain the last two
> words, and that the cartularist added these because Huy was closer to
> Liège than Ciney or any other town from which he thought the Condroz
> might have been governed more than 300 years earlier.

You are absolutely right according to my smaller experience, and I should correct myself on that.
Count Gozelon of Huy not only does not need to be "Count of Huy", but now that I think about it, probably wasn't.
Huy was possibly a residence, as I believe it had become a well-endowed place to be by then.
We only know he had a county which included part of the Condroz.
There were likely several counties in the Condroz.
There might be records which could be used to try to guess whether this county corresponded to the old County of Huy which the bishop received from Ansfrid in the 10th century - or a part of it.
At least for some of his counties, the bishopric's later records divide up the fiefs based on their old counties.
(This is one of the only ways we can guess which places were in the county of Duras.)

[Peter Stewart]

I haven't looked into other counts in the Condroz ca 1028, but it may be
that Huy was the main residence of Gozelo and that he was distinguished
by noting this from other/s in the same area.

However, the usual form in royal/imperial charters around this time is
shown in the next-dated charter of Konrad written 13 days later naming
Richuin as a count in the Charpeigne ("in pago Scarpona in comitatu
Richuini") with no more specific location mentioned. I suppose the
chancery didn't care very much about tracking demarcations of comital
authority spheres within pagi that might shift from time to time.

The text of the charter naming Gozelo of Huy was partly modeled on a
charter of Heinrich II from 1005 in the same cartulary, that was in turn
modeled on Carolingian charters. The editors suggested in both cases
that these were written outside the royal/imperial chancery, though I
don't see how this can be proved rather than that the Sainte-Croix
cartularist may have paraphrased - and in the process partly
standardised to his own preferred "house" style - documents that had
been prepared in the chancery.

Anyway, I wouldn't put too many eggs into the basket of a county based
around Huy in 1028.

Peter Stewart

[wwwsto...@gmail.com]

Welcome to the official marijuana weed Shop. Your sensual pleasure weed shop with all the marijuana strains you need. Buy weed packaged in tins & cans, hermetically sealed to prevent oxidation. We’ve also got out weed packaged in pre-roll packages for immediate puffing.. at our website website :http://kingplacecannabis.com

Our marijuana collective consists of a multitude of strains, specially cultivated and prepared according to your needs. You will find varieties like purple cake, wedding cake, Rosin, mimosa, etc.
We also offer types of marijuana (cannabis) and seeds at the best wholesale prices. We have a large collection of weed, clothing and apparel products online that you would like to buy from medical marijuana online We do discreet shipping to all 50 states (Legal quantities). We also ship to Europe and Asia. Shipping is done in smell-proof mylar packets. buy marijuana online without a marijuana card, where to purchase marijuana seeds online, recreational marijuana for sale online, can you purchase medical marijuana online, marijuana online shop, marijuana edibles online stores, can you order marijuana online can i buy marijuana fname cartridges online
We do discreet shipping to all 50 states (Legal quantities). We also ship to Europe and Asia. Shipping is done in smell-proof mylar packets. buy marijuana online without a marijuana card, where to purchase marijuana seeds online, recreational marijuana for sale online, can you purchase medical marijuana online, marijuana online shop, marijuana edibles online stores, can you order marijuana online in illinois, can i buy marijuana fname cartridges online

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 7:31:39 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> Anyway, I wouldn't put too many eggs into the basket of a county based
> around Huy in 1028.

No I can only file it as "needs other evidence before any conclusions can be drawn". That's a big file. :)

But before I give up I discover looking at my notes that I was reading that C-G Roland article with an older one. He clearly changed his opinions between the two articles concerning some things, such as counts of Engis, but in any case there is a longer discussion of counts of Huy. In 1893 then, he though Gozelon of Huy was probably Count Gozelon of Montaigu and Clermont, another of the Bishop's more important comital families in those times. But to be clear this family weren't ever Dukes.

Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) 70 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/76/

[Peter Stewart]

I wonder if Roland or anyone else discussed the possibility that Gozelo
of Huy in 1028 may have been identical with Gozelo II, duke of Lower
Lorraine from 1044 (died by 18 May 1046).

In 1028 this Gozelo was a younger son of Gozelo I (died 1044), marquis
of Antwerp & duke of Lower Lorraine. The elder son, Godfrid the Bearded,
was count of Verdun from 1026 and became duke of Upper Lorraine in 1044.

If Gozelo II progressed from being a count in the Condroz based at Huy
to duke, perhaps the genealogy writer in the 12th century was confused
into thinking that other men had been dukes of Huy in the decades after him.

But this doesn't help to solve the mystery of who this could have been
in the late-11th century in order to identify a possible husband for a
daughter of Géza I.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 12:47:52 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> I wonder if Roland or anyone else discussed the possibility that Gozelo
> of Huy in 1028 may have been identical with Gozelo II, duke of Lower
> Lorraine from 1044 (died by 18 May 1046).
>
> In 1028 this Gozelo was a younger son of Gozelo I (died 1044), marquis
> of Antwerp & duke of Lower Lorraine. The elder son, Godfrid the Bearded,
> was count of Verdun from 1026 and became duke of Upper Lorraine in 1044.
>
> If Gozelo II progressed from being a count in the Condroz based at Huy
> to duke, perhaps the genealogy writer in the 12th century was confused
> into thinking that other men had been dukes of Huy in the decades after him.
>
> But this doesn't help to solve the mystery of who this could have been
> in the late-11th century in order to identify a possible husband for a
> daughter of Géza I.

Yes this was what I was seeing as the direction hinted at in Roland's later article, cited first. See pages 562 and 563 which concern this exact Gozelon "dit le Fainéant". But indeed this is all too early for Sophia's daughter, and I don't know of any descendants who still could have been called a Duke and been associated with Huy.

I just thought of someone else who was clearly a relative of the counts of Loon and associated with Huy in this time: Countess Ermengarde/Ermentrude, the widow of Gozelon of Montaigu and Clermont. Of course there is a leading theory about her parentage and her link to Loon though, given most clearly by Kupper.

Jean-Louis Kupper, "La donation de la comtesse Ermengarde à l'Église de Liège (1078)", in Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire 179 (2013) pp. 5-50 https://www.persee.fr/doc/bcrh_0001-415x_2013_num_179_1_4098

Still too early though. My best guess for now is that Sophia's Duchess status was "inherited". You've also made me realize that it is difficult to be certain which Huy she should be associated. Huy on the Meuse is of course the first one that comes to mind if you started out by looking at the counts of Loon, but is there any definitive reason she would be be married to someone living in the area where her grandparents came from?

[Peter Stewart]

Not that I can see - this is why I thought Hoya might make more sense,
or perhaps some like-named place in Hungary (though I can't suggest one).

My point in bringing up Gozelo II was not to imply that he could have
anything to do with a son-in-law of Géza I - he died without any
recorded offspring in 1046, a few years after Géza was born. It just
occurred to me that his ducal title might have gotten mixed up with
subsequent counts of Huy (supposing there were any) if he had been the
one in 1028.

I am not convinced that the count named in Huy and Engis in 1028 and in
the 1039s (presumably the same man) was Gozelo of Montaigu and Clermont,
who does not otherwise occur until decades later and was succeeded by a
son living until 1106. In 1037 Gozelo I of Lorraine, father of Gozelo
II, gathered a force in Liège to oppose Eudes II of Blois who was trying
to take the kingdom of Burgundy. Gozelo reportedly took the bishop,
Reginard, with him to the battle where Eudes was killed in November 1037
- after the victory, Gozelo gave much of the credit to Reginard, who
died within a few weeks of wounds he had received. In this context, a
young son of Gozelo who had been appointed count in Huy by Reginard as a
favour to the duke might not be expected to figure in the narrative
alongside his father and episcopal overlord, but it is harder to see why
a different Gozelo would play no recorded part when he should have been
the bishop's main military proxy at the time.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 18-Sep-20 4:34 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 12:47:52 AM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>> I wonder if Roland or anyone else discussed the possibility that Gozelo
>> of Huy in 1028 may have been identical with Gozelo II, duke of Lower
>> Lorraine from 1044 (died by 18 May 1046).
>>
>> In 1028 this Gozelo was a younger son of Gozelo I (died 1044), marquis
>> of Antwerp & duke of Lower Lorraine. The elder son, Godfrid the Bearded,
>> was count of Verdun from 1026 and became duke of Upper Lorraine in 1044.
>>
>> If Gozelo II progressed from being a count in the Condroz based at Huy
>> to duke, perhaps the genealogy writer in the 12th century was confused
>> into thinking that other men had been dukes of Huy in the decades after him.
>>
>> But this doesn't help to solve the mystery of who this could have been
>> in the late-11th century in order to identify a possible husband for a
>> daughter of Géza I.
>
> Yes this was what I was seeing as the direction hinted at in Roland's later article, cited first. See pages 562 and 563 which concern this exact Gozelon "dit le Fainéant".

I wonder why Roland didn't explicitly identify Gozelo count of Huy in
1028 with Gozelo count of Engis in the 1030s - it seems unlikely to me
that Bishop Reginard would have enfeoffed two different men of the same
name in different countships on the Meuse less then 20 kilometres apart,
and more likely that one man held a single county extending on both
banks of the river, within which he shifted between residences in both
towns or perhaps moved his base after April 1028 from Huy to Engis in
order to be closer to Liège.

In any event I agree with Roland in rejecting Vanderkindere's arbitrary
identification of the last witness, Gozelo of Montaigu, in the charter
misdated 1050 as the seigneur of Engis unnamed in the text - this makes
no sense at all to me.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

FWIW I just noticed that Alan V. Murray seems to believe the counts of Montaigu continued to hold Huy as "episcopal counts": "Cuno was one of the most important vassals of the church of Liège. As well as being advocate of Dinant he was episcopal count of Huy, the fortress which lay at the centre of the prince-bishop's dominions and which was his place of refuge in times of danger. "

Murray Alan V. The army of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1096-1099 : Structure and dynamics of a contingent on the First Crusade. In:
Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 70, fasc. 2, 1992. Histoire médiévale, moderne et contemporaine —
Middeleeuwse, moderne en hedendaagse geschiedenis. pp. 301-329;
doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.1992.3824
https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1992_num_70_2_3824

One of his sources is Roland's older article, already discussed, but the way I read that it was quite uncertain even about Gozelon, let alone his heirs, and he changed his mind later, at least concerning nearby Engis. Clearly that family held nearby Clermont though. He also cites Kupper's famous book about Liège and l’Église impériale in this period which is online, but I don't see anything immediately. (It is certainly relevant to our original discussion of the way in which it is unclear what made nobili viri into counts within this region and period.)

The source I have not seen is André Joris, La ville de Huy au Moyen Âge, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, 152 (Paris, 1959). Looks interesting.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 10:30:33 AM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

> Clearly that family held nearby Clermont though.

Sorry, that is an over-simplification. The counts of Montaigu came to hold Clermont in the later 11th century. This is discussed by Roland and Murray. Murray shows how Clermont was sold to the counts of Montaigu in the 1090s, according to Gilles of Orval.

As another side issue, I notice on MEDLANDS that Cawley understands that the selling count of Clermont, named Giselbert, seemed to name Countess Ermengarde, who (by this reading) would be the widow of the old count of Montaigu, Gozelon, as his "amita". Kupper does not seem to mention this relationship in his important article on that Ermengarde, and neither does Murray, although he cites the same 1091 charter. According to Kupper, Ermengarde was a member of the comital family of Grandpré, but Cawley tries out some other ideas based on this "amita" which he reads. The published transcription he cites gives amite ending with a ligature which Cawley converts to "amitae".

Peter, the relevant charter which supposedly makes Ermengarde an aunt of Giselbert is here https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k28911f/f10.image How do you read that relationship? Murray cites the edition of Miraeus which seems to have something completely different! https://books.google.be/books?id=4YgsF47MqgkC&pg=PA813 Something going on there. If we can locate the I can suggest a tweak on MEDLANDS. Are there several variants of this charter or just massively different readings of it?

[Peter Stewart]

I can't spare time to go into this at present - the amita (paternal
aunt, amitae or amite in the Cluny charter are the genitive singular of
this word) of Gislebert of Clermont was not the lady of this name Kupper
wrote about, of Grandpré, who married Gozelo but rather Ermengarde of
Clermont, daughter of Widric, who married Fredelon.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 2:03:55 PM UTC+2, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

> the amita (paternal
> aunt, amitae or amite in the Cluny charter are the genitive singular of
> this word) of Gislebert of Clermont was not the lady of this name Kupper
> wrote about, of Grandpré, who married Gozelo but rather Ermengarde of
> Clermont, daughter of Widric, who married Fredelon.

The comment helps because it helps me see Cawley is proposing that these Ermengardes were the same person. Now I see that the reasoning is odd: Fredelon's grandson mentioned his father Gilbert count of Esch (son of Fredelon and an Ermengarde) and Count Lambert (reasonably assumed to be of Montaigu, and thus grandson of a Gozelon and an Ermengarde) as his predecessors concerning a grant involving wood in Clermont. But if we know Lambert bought his position as count of Clermont this grant gives no reason to see him as an ancestor, except for the name of their grandmother(s).

Cawley does not seem to be aware of the Gilles of Orval comment which Murray cites (and which I have not yet looked up), because he writes "The fact that Lambert Comte de Montaigu and Giselbert Graf von Esch both shared rights in property in Clermont is best explained by the co-identity of the two persons named Ermengarde from whom they were both descended, and from whom they would have inherited these rights."

Still, the coincidence of name is interesting, and it would be nice to have stronger proof that these were not one person. And I am also still surprised at the large differences in the charter reported by Miraeus, which does not give her name as Ermengarde at all, and does not describe her relationship as amita! I am also wondering why Murray chose to quote specifically that edition.

[Peter Stewart]

Murray's citation of an obsolete edition of the Cluny charter was just
carelessness on his part - the matter was hardly central to his subject.
In the edition by Aubert Le Mire ("Miraeus"), the note says that he took
it from a 17th century history by Barthélémy Fisen. This has garbled
names and substituted words that are plainly not in the original, which
can be seen here:
http://form-tei.irht.cnrs.fr/uploads/originaux/10000-20000/17221.jpg.
Note that transactor calls himself Gilebertus not "Ghibertus", his wife
is named Leugardis not "Longardis", and the lady in question is very
clearly called amita (paternal aunt) not "matertera" (maternal aunt) and
her name is Ermingardis, not "Cungardis".

As for the difference between the widows of Gozelo and Fredelo both
named Ermengarde, the lady married to the former is sometimes called
Ermentrude (of Harzé) in line with the extant version of her own charter
dated 1064 in which she helpfully named her recently deceased husband
along with their five sons headed by Count Cuno (of Montaigu) as well as
her own three brothers headed by Hezelin (of Grandpré) - "unde ego
Ermentrudis de Harenzey super doloris mei consolata magnitudine pro
anima mariti mei Gozolonis ... suadentibus filiis meis et mecum
tradentibus Cunone comite Rodulfo Guidone Joanne Henrico et fratribus
meis Hezelino comite et Rainaldo et Balduino"). This is the lady Kupper
and Roland were writing about.

The name Ermengarde (sometimes varied as Ermentrude in medieval sources
for the wife of Gozelo, as Kupper showed) was very frequent in the 11th
century, not least in Lorraine. Ermengarde of Granpré, aka Ermentrude of
Harzé, was the great-aunt of Adelidis (or Alix) of Granpré who married
(as her second husband) Godfrid of Esch, a younger son of Fredelo and
Ermengarde the amita of his cousin Giselbert of Clermont. This marriage
of course would have been impossible in the absurd scheme proposed by
Cawley.

I wish SGM readers' time and mine were not so often wasted by people
having recourse to Medieval Lands, despite so many warnings not to trust
anything in it.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Peter. Your advice is registered of course. Of course we are in the early days of the internet though and for some families MEDLANDS is one of the only websites which gives any attempted summary of primary evidence at all. I am always on the look-out for both websites and publications that can help, and hoping google will release more of its scans.

Concerning this specific attempt to come up with new proposals, for what it is worth, I guess MEDLANDS would not see itself having the problem you mention because it does not accept that Ermengarde/trude of Montaigu was sister a Grandpré as in Kupper. (MEDLANDS does cite Kupper in this case at least, which I think is because of me.) Personally I think the evidence for Kupper's version is pretty strong though.

This has been an interesting cross-check for me concerning families potentially relevant to those of Loon and Duras which I've worked on more carefully. But I am not aware of any good modern secondary source on the Grandpré family, or indeed those families of Esch and Clermont. Does anyone have any reading suggestions?

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

Somewhat related issue (beacuse it involves the same family group of families and because it boils down to a charter of the same Ermengarde from 1078), that I have not been able to resolve myself so far: the ancestry of the grandfather of Lambert of Montaigu from his mother's side, Lambert of Fouron. According to Kupper in his book " a 1078 charter mentions him as "Lambertus filius Tiebaldi de Foron", but the versions of this charter that I was able to look at (Mantelius & Robyns, Diplomata Lossensia sive Privilegia, available via Google Books, and the Diplomata Belgica website that uses the Mantelius & Robyns transcript) only mention "Lambertus de Foron" and skip the father's name. It seems that the original can be found in the Archives d'Etat in Liege, but even if I could go there I would not have the skills to decipher the medieaval manuscript.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong 1078 charter or maybe I am otherwise misreading Kupper's statement, which litterally reads "Nous ne pouvons admettre cette identification car dans le doc. de 1078 cité ici-même, Lambert est dit « filius Tiebaldi de Foron »", which in my opinion refers to his earlier statement in the same note, which says "A. Ev. L., Cart, de Saint-Laurent, t. I, f° 7 R° (1078)."

Nico van Dinther (http://www.nicovandinther.nl/kwartierstaten/De-Luihgouw-en-de-Heren-van-Voeren.pdf) also suggests that Lambert of Fouron might be a son of a Dietbaldus, count in "pago Lingouwe". He doesn't mention the Kupper statement, so he is probably not aware of it. But it would support his hypothesis.

Does anybody know the 1078 charter that gives Lambert of Fouron as a son of a Tiebaldus?

Willem Nabuurs

[Peter Stewart]

You can either mean "one of the few websites ..." or else "the only
website ...", since the common error "one of the only ..." makes no sense.

Using Medieval Lands just because it is there is rather like stepping
out onto a busy road without looking left or right just because a
pedestrian crossing is there. Convenience is not a good reason to
indulge in unassessed risk.

>
> Concerning this specific attempt to come up with new proposals, for what it is worth, I guess MEDLANDS would not see itself having the problem you mention because it does not accept that Ermengarde/trude of Montaigu was sister a Grandpré as in Kupper. (MEDLANDS does cite Kupper in this case at least, which I think is because of me.) Personally I think the evidence for Kupper's version is pretty strong though.

It is not interesting enough for me to look into Medieval Lands to see
what possible rationale Cawley can have given for rejecting the evidence
Kupper compiled: I would say this is better than just "pretty strong".
Perhaps since you are prepared to enter into the minefield of Cawley's
work you could tell us.

> This has been an interesting cross-check for me concerning families potentially relevant to those of Loon and Duras which I've worked on more carefully. But I am not aware of any good modern secondary source on the Grandpré family, or indeed those families of Esch and Clermont. Does anyone have any reading suggestions?

These families are not covered in depth in recent works that come to
mind - the standard older works on the families of Grandpré and Esch,
probably accessible online, are:

Anatole de Barthélémy, Notice historique sur la maison de Grandpré, in
*Revue de Champagne et de Brie* 8-18 (1880-1885)

Jules Vannérus, Les anciens dynastes d'Esch-sur-la-Sûre, in *Ons
Hémecht* 11-16 (1905-1910)

A search for citations of these may turn up later works delving into the
same subjects, and for Montaigu-Clermont you can probbaly find any in
Kupper's article on Ermengarde as well as his book *Liège et l'église
impériale*, both of which you have mentioned.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

It would be helpful to give page references for what you have already
found - readers are not likely to go happily through whole works in
order to track these down.

In the note from which you quoted, Kupper cited for the Fournon family
Jacques Stiennon's *Étude sur le chartrier et le domaine de l'abbaye de
Saint-Jacques de Liège 1015-1209 (Paris, 1951), p. 309. Have you looked
at this?

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Thanks Peter, If I get a chance to spend more time on it, I'll decide whether I need to take the proposal on MEDLANDS seriously and possibly ask Charles directly, or at least tell him how I understand it.

Willem, Thietbald was count in the pagus of Liugas. Recently I've started turning this Wikipedia article into a more correct article about that pagus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_of_Li%C3%A8ge (I have also proposed an article name change.) Interestingly, all the places named in his county are very close to Aachen and are close to, but do not overlap, with 10th century records of the same pagus.

One of the more influential discussions about Thietbald is still, as far as I know, the one by Ernst which is cited in that Wikipedia article. Lambert is mentioned on page 330 for example.

From memory there is no actual record which names Lambert as son of Thietbald, but a relationship is often assumed because Lambert's family also used the name? Voeren is close to the old county of Thietbald, and the old pagus name more or less stopped being used after him. A big part of it became the new county of Limbourg, but this did not include Voeren or Dalhem or the places named as being in Thietbald's county.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Another work which covers some of these families was P.C. Boeren, De oorsprong van Limburg en Gelre en enkele naburige heerschappijen
https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/view?coll=boeken&identifier=MMKB06:000001872

I think this might have influenced several Dutch websites in the way it proposes various links between different counties

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Because Google Books won't show me the right page I give this link to Stiennon: http://www.chokier.com/FILES/STJACQUES/SJStiennon5.html
You have to use your page search to find Lambert of Voeren (Fouron).
I don't see 1078. I suppose the documents Stiennon discussed involve a younger Thibaut (or Thibauts) and not the one sometimes proposed to be a father or other elder relative of Lambert.
"nous ne pouvons donner, avec confiance, raison à M. Boeren quand il identifie Thibaut de la Haye- Fouron Fauquemont avec Thibaut, sous-avoué de l'abbaye de Saint-Hubert, qui nous est connu par des chartes de 1059 à 1087. Il est vrai qu'on rencontre Thibaut de Saint-Hubert en compagnie de Lambert de Fouron, le frère de Thibaut de Fauquemont, et que Raoul et Jean, oncles de Thibaut de Fouron, sont les homonymes des deux fils de Thibaut de Saint-Hubert."

We know that some of the ideas which Roland, Boeren and Stiennon had about for example the various Ermengardes of the time are no longer generally accepted because of the work of people like Verdonk and Kupper. Which reminds me that Verdonk's Ermentrude article is another one to look at for the Voeren, Valkenburg etc families.

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

I had indeed also checked out Stienneon at the Royal Library in The Hague and concluded that it does not provide tell where Kupper found the "filius Diepoldi" reference. I suspect Kupper checked out the original charter at the Archives de l'Etat in Liege itself. But without doing exactly the same thing (or asking it to Kupper himself, I don't know if he is still alive) I guess we will never find the answer.

Willem Nabuurs

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

I will provide the exact references next time, although in this case I left them out for a reason: I found out that the electronic copy of the book that I have bought has a different page numbering than the original print, so giving page numbers might in this case be as confusing as not giving them. For completeness sake, I was referring to the note on pag. 239 in the electronic copy.

The Mantelius/Robyns charter that I was referring to can be found here: https://www.diplomata-belgica.be/charter_details_en.php?dibe_id=1183. But on second thought, I doubt whether that is really the one that Kupper refers to, because Charter seems to refer to a charter from the cartulaire of Saint Laurent whereas this particular charter is from Saint Barthelemy. So it might as well be another one from the same year.

Willem Nabuurs

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Willem in answer to your question yes Kupper is still active and publishing in Liège University. Not difficult to track down his details via the University website.

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 5:43:36 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> Willem in answer to your question yes Kupper is still active and publishing in Liège University. Not difficult to track down his details via the University website.

I have found his e-mail address. I will contact him and provide an update if he comes back with an answer

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 2:53:12 PM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

I checked Verdonk's work on Ermentrude just now. It doesn't mention anything about the older generations of the Fouron family; it only mentions Thibaut and his siblings

[lancast...@gmail.com]

> I have found his e-mail address. I will contact him and provide an update if he comes back with an answer

Great

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 12:55:15 AM UTC+2, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have found his e-mail address. I will contact him and provide an update if he comes back with an answer
> Great

Mr. Kupper has answered my question with the following response:

Cher Monsieur,
J'ai vérifié le texte qui vous intéresse. Il s'agit d'une charte du 26 décembre 1078 de l'évêque de Liège Henri Ier pour l'abbaye de Saint-Laurent de Liège ; dans la liste des témoins ("testes") ont lit:"Laicos ingenuos:... Lambertum filium Tiebaldi de Foron..."; le document,connu par une copie du XVIIe siècle, est retranscrit dans le Cartulaire de Saint-Laurent, t.1, fo 7ro aux Archives de l'évêché de Liège.
Je reste à votre disposition, J.L.K.

I guess this means that the father of Lambert of Fouron can be identified as a certain Tiebaldus. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that this Tiebaldus has to be the same person as the count of that name in the pagus of Liugas but it certainly supports the already existing theory that these two men were father and son.

Willem Nabuurs

[Peter Stewart]

This is odd - the charter Kupper references, but with the date 26
December 1079 (though with indiction and regnal year corresponding to
this date in 1078), was printed in 1729 by Martène and Durand in
*Veterum scriptorum ... amplissima collectio* vol. 4 columns 1184-1186,
with the different wording "laicos ingenuos ... Lambertum filium
Lamberti de Foron", see here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FGtopdS9BEMC&pg=PA1185.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Interesting case. It seems an interesting find but I don't recall seeing it in the normal reference collections for this period like Nonn etc. If I understand correctly Professor Kupper has now looked at the actual charter?

[Peter Stewart]

On 25-Sep-20 6:11 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> Interesting case. It seems an interesting find but I don't recall seeing it in the normal reference collections for this period like Nonn etc. If I understand correctly Professor Kupper has now looked at the actual charter?
>

No, he has cited a 17th-century copy transcribed into a cartulary
compiled in the 17th-18th century now in the diocesan archive of Liège.
A 12th-13th century cartulary of Saint-Laurent, now in London, does not
contain this 1078 charter.

The version printed in 1729 that I linked to before is in the
15th-century chronicle of Adrien d'Oudenbosch. The naming of Lambert as
son of Lambert of Foron in this may be preferable to calling him son of
Tiebald - partly considering that the last clerical witness before the
lay witnesses including Lambert was a chaplain Tiebald whose name may
have mistakenly caught the copyist's eye from a line above, or even
perhaps the eye of Jean-Louis Kupper. Without checking the copy he took
it from, which could settle this in favour of the earlier version - or
if not, then without being able to check this against the original - we
may never know.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 25-Sep-20 9:13 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
> On 25-Sep-20 6:11 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Interesting case. It seems an interesting find but I don't recall
>> seeing it in the normal reference collections for this period like
>> Nonn etc. If I understand correctly Professor Kupper has now looked at
>> the actual charter?
>>
>
> No, he has cited a 17th-century copy transcribed into a cartulary
> compiled in the 17th-18th century now in the diocesan archive of Liège.
> A 12th-13th century cartulary of Saint-Laurent, now in London, does not
> contain this 1078 charter.
>
> The version printed in 1729 that I linked to before is in the
> 15th-century chronicle of Adrien d'Oudenbosch.

Apologies, the 1078 charter was transcribed by Adrien d'Oudenbosch not
in his chronicle but in a shorter work that he probably did not write
himself but only copied, about St Peter's church at Incourt (east of
Liège, between Louvain and Namur), titled 'Brevis historia collegiatae
Sancti Petri Eyncurtensis ecclesiae ad Lovaniensem Sancti Jacobi
parochialem ecclesiam translatae' - as far as I know, the 1729 edition
of this by by Martène and Durand is the only one in print.

Peter Stewart

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

OK, so I guess the only thing we can conclude for sure is that a copyist - we don't know which one - must have made a typo at some point in time - somewhere between the 12th and 20th century - by either writing Tiebaldi instead of Lamberti or writing Lamberti instead of Tiebaldi. I understand Peter's argumentation of mistakingly writing Tiebaldi instead of Lamberti because of the occurence of "capellanum Thiebaldum" in the next row, but the opposite might just as well be the case: a copyist writing "Lambertum filium Lamberti de Foron", because of the occurence of the same name immediately before and after (Lambert of Fouron is followed by "Lambertum de Kamont", so there actually is a sequence of three Lamberts in this particular charter).

BTW In case "Lambertum filii Lamberti" is correct, which one of the two (father or son) would be the Lambert of Fouron that is mentioned in other contemporary documents? Would the younger Lambert be the brother of Thibaud, lord of Fouron and Valkenburg, and Steppo, canonicus of Saint Lambert, or would the younger Lambert be Thibaud's and Steppo's father and the elder one their grandfather? I know that it is impossible to prove either one of these theories, but I am interested in your opinion.

Willem Nabuurs

[Peter Stewart]

I wrote that Incourt is "east" of Liège when I should have written west.
Mindless errors with words are easily made.

As for the generation of Lambert son of Lambert (if that is correct), I
would assume that the father Lambert was living at the time (1078) as
seigneur of Fouron - otherwise the witness would more probably have been
called Lambert of Foron tout court, without identifying him by his
father who is instead designated with the toponym.

My worthless guess is that Cono of Montaigu (who lived until 1106)
married a sister of the son Lambert, so that he was a son-in-law of the
father Lambert of Fouron. This is just a hunch, not from any study of
the family.

Peter Stewart

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

I would certainly not call your guesses "worthless", I have seen that they usually are very valuable :-)

I have my information from Murray (The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, pag. 190), who states "the chronicle of the abbey of Saint-Hubert states that Cono's only known wife, also called Ida, was a daughter of Lambert 'the Old', a nobleman of the territory of Liege, who was buried at the abbey of Saint-Hubert".

The two relevant phrases from the Chronicon Sancti Huberti Andaginensis are:

(ca. 1093): Nam cum illo suo more quasi ad fratres suos sustentandos quaestionarias circuitiones ageret, ad Idam uxorem Cononis comitis venit, eamque apid Montemacutum infirmatam invenit; quae praesentiens sibi mortem proximam, dum se apud beatum Hubertum quo pater eius Lambertus iacet deliberaret sepeliendam, Berengerus omnino obstitit ne id fieret, utque ob subiectionem Otberti excommunicatos vitaret, Stabulensem sepulturam potius expeteret, ibidemque elemosinam suam constitueret. Causentibus filiis eius Lamberto et Henrico, quomodo Stabulensis ecclesia videretur absolutior, cum ex dono subiaceret regi Henrico et ex cura pastorali Otberto, Berengeri sententia praevaluit, et reditum trium librarum quotannis ecclesiae beati Huberti in perpetuum abstulit (pag. 609 in the MGH transcription)

(1105): Comes Cono de Monteacuto pater comitis Lamberti, qui prospere reversus fuerat a partibus transmarinis sepelitur apud sanctum Hubertum, cuius uxor fuit Ida filia senioris Lamberti. (bron: pag. 804, 815 en 816 in the MGH transcription, could not check which page exactly because apparently the Historica volumes are not available only at the moment at https://www.dmgh.de/)

So no hard evidence that Cono was the son-in-law of Lambert of Fouron, but at least proof that he was the son of a Lambert senior who lived in what is now the Eastern parts of Belgium. Which is in line with your humble guess

Willem Nabuurs.

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Between the lines of what you are saying "Lambert son of Lambert" is easier to explain, or does not require us to make any big decision.

If it was Lambert son of Thibault, then we are confronted with the question of whether his father was, as is already often assumed, the one who was a count in the previous generation in ROUGHLY the same area, sometimes described as having a county in the pagus of the Ardennes and sometimes in the little pagus of Luihgau.

But being cold about it, this does not give us any reason to choose Lambert junior son of Lambert senior. Lambert senior's father could well have been a Thibault. It is already something genealogists seem to assume quite often?

[Peter Stewart]

I understand that some genealogists postulate a father/son relationship
between a count Thibaut who is not documented as either count or lord of
Fouron and a Lambert who is documented as lord of Fouron.

If the reading by Jean-Louis Kupper is correct, then we would have to
admit that there was a Thibaut lord of Fouron who was not called count.
This then would throw a new spanner into the works, and some evidence
would still be required to identify this Thibaut with the documented
count in "ROUGHLY the same area".

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 25-Sep-20 9:13 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

The second edition of this charter in print evidently provides
independent confirmation of the reading "Lambert son of Lambert of
Foron" - this appeared in 1734, in the first supplementary volume to
Aubert Le Mire's work, edited by Jean François Foppens under the title
*Diplomatum belgicorum nova collectio sive supplementum ad Opera
diplomatica Auberti Miræi*, here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3HFXAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA17.

The marginal notation "Carta Henrici episcopi ..." apparently indicates
that it was taken directly from the original charter, as Foppens would
presumably have cited Adrien d'Oudenbosch if he had taken the text from
his manuscript or from the edition of it printed by Martène and Durand
five years earlier.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

The MGH digital site is in the course of an "improvement", that I can
only hope won't turn out à la Google - the (1105) passage quoted above
is on p. 816. This is in the chronicle of Alberic de Troisfontaines,
derived from the chronicle of Saint-Hubert as indicated by the editor.
However, he mistakenly said that Alberic unaccountably placed Cono's
burial at Saint-Hubert despite having the abbey's chronicle before his
eyes placing this at Dinant. In his 1906 edition of the Saint-Hubert
chronicle, Karl Hanquet addressed this and concluded that Alberic's
reading is correct, see here (note 7)
https://archive.org/details/lachroniquedesa00minogoog/page/n315/mode/1up.

> So no hard evidence that Cono was the son-in-law of Lambert of Fouron, but at least proof that he was the son of a Lambert senior who lived in what is now the Eastern parts of Belgium. Which is in line with your humble guess

Interestingly, Charles-Gustave Roland proposed this Lambert as the
father-in-law of Cono (his guess according with mine that it was the
older of two namesakes, father and son), and he cited the charter we
have been talking about but in the process managed to get the page
reference, the name of the bishop, the date of the charter and the
number of Foron witnesses wrong. Such slips are all-too readily made -
he wrote (p 110m
https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasoci04namugoog/page/n137/mode/1up):
"Ce Lambert de Foron et son fils Lambert ... se rencontrent parmi les
témoins qui, avec Conon de Montaigu, signent une charte de l'évêque
Théoduin en faveur de l'abbaye de Saint-Laurent, le 25 décembre 1078",
citing "Martène et Durand, Amplissima collectio, t. IV, col. 1173". The
citation should be to columns 1184-86, the bishop was Henri not Théoduin
(who died in 1075), the date is 26 December 1079 (with other elements
indicating 1078 as mentioned), and only one Lambert witnessed not both.

So whoever misread/wrote Tiebaldi for Lamberti, or perhaps vice-versa,
was doing comparatively well.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

> I understand that some genealogists postulate a father/son relationship
> between a count Thibaut who is not documented as either count or lord of
> Fouron and a Lambert who is documented as lord of Fouron.
>
> If the reading by Jean-Louis Kupper is correct, then we would have to
> admit that there was a Thibaut lord of Fouron who was not called count.
> This then would throw a new spanner into the works, and some evidence
> would still be required to identify this Thibaut with the documented
> count in "ROUGHLY the same area".
>
> Peter Stewart

To add to the complications among the lordships the earlier COUNT Thibaut held in his "county with no name" were Valkenburg (whose later lords also perhaps had connections to Voeren) and Hervé (which became part of the distinct new county, later Duchy, of Limburg, and is indeed the home of the famous smelly Limburger cheese). Voeren is more or less between these two places, but also a little to the west. So the county histories, like the family connections, are very tempting to propose, but apparently impossible to prove Willem?

Looking at the bigger genealogical picture one 10th century clan or family which is likely to be behind some of these people is the so-called Matfried family discussed by Hlawitschka in 1969, and among Dutch writers, Verdonk continued to discuss those ideas. Obviously this is influencing the website of Nico Van Dinther which was mentioned higher up in this thread. But that website gets difficult to use because it also picks and choose some ideas from various secondary sources including not only Ernst, Boeren, Hlawitschka and Verdonk, but also the more "heterodox" Jackman whose proposals tend to come out of the blue.

[willem...@xs4all.nl]

I found it not more than the right thing to do to provide your views on the matter to mr. Kupper, and his reply only complicates things further:

La charte comporte donc deux difficultés: La première concerne la date: elle est datée du 26 décembre 1079, indiction I, date qui correspond, en réalité, au 26 décembre 1078 (indiction I) dans le "nouveau style", puisque le style de Noël était utilisé à Liège. Second problème: Lambert, fils de Lambert ou Thiebaut? La leçon " Theobaldi" ou "Tiebaldi" est donnée par le Cart. de Saint-Laurent, fo 7ro, de même que par une autre copie moins connue qui se trouve à l'ARCHEVECHE DE MALINES (XVIIe siècle). Pour ma part, je choisirais cette "lectio difficilior" , donc "Lambertum, filium Tiebaldi", qui est, ce me semble, la plus solide. Bien à vous, J.L.K.

Willem Nabuurs

[Peter Stewart]

Christmas style in use at Liège neatly explains the year 1079 but this
is not problematic anyway since the regnal year and indiction match
1078. It's always worth noting the date as given in a document, and then
glossing it with Christmas style or whatever, instead of just silently
changing it as in Kupper's book.

The substantial point at issue here is the name of the witness Lambert's
father, and his saying he prefers "Tiebaldi" as seeming more sound thatn
"Lamberti" is rather an arbitrary brush-off. Since he did not even cite
the two 18th-century editions, I can only suppose he hadn't come across
these and is not giving them due consideration now.

I can't say I blame him, as the question probably doesn't concern him
much, but in the context of this thread his response is pointless.

Peter Stewart

[lancast...@gmail.com]

Bedankt Willem; it is good to have a more complete account of this record now on record.

[Peter Stewart]

This account of the record is not clearly in accord with the account in
Jean-Louis Kupper's previous email to Willem.

In the first (posted on 22 September) he wrote "le document,connu par

une copie du XVIIe siècle, est retranscrit dans le Cartulaire de

Saint-Laurent, t.1, fo 7ro". I take this to mean that there is one
source - the 17th century copy not in the Saint-Laurent cartulary
compiled around the same time - that was itself copied into the
cartulary, i.e. effectively one version to be set against two (the
15th-century copy in Adrien d'Oudenbosch's manuscript and the
18th-century edition by Foppens apparently both taken separately from
the original charter).

In the second email (posted on 26 September, quoted above) he wrote

"donnée par le Cart. de Saint-Laurent, fo 7ro, de même que par une autre
copie moins connue qui se trouve à l'ARCHEVECHE DE MALINES (XVIIe

siècle)". I take this to mean there are two 17th-century copies - the
one in Malines and the other in the Saint-Laurent cartulary -
independently giving the same reading.

The objective discipline required when encountering a "lectio
difficilior" is to take it into account, not blithely to accept it as
preferable by subjective choice. The scholarly requirement when aware of
variant readings is to point out both versions, not to give just the
preferred one and ignore the other. Jean-Louis Kupper either did know of
the Oudenbosch and Foppens versions in 1981 or else deliberately chose
to withhold the contradictory information in these from his readers. I
see no reason to condemn him for the latter and presume he was just
following what he then thought to be the sole lead available, so that
his emails do not provide us with a "more complete account" but just an
arbitrary sticking to a less complete one from 1981 that he has not
substantiated now.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 28-Sep-20 8:28 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:

> The objective discipline required when encountering a "lectio
> difficilior" is to take it into account, not blithely to accept it as
> preferable by subjective choice. The scholarly requirement when aware of
> variant readings is to point out both versions, not to give just the
> preferred one and ignore the other. Jean-Louis Kupper either did know of
> the Oudenbosch and Foppens versions in 1981

I meant to write "Jean-Louis Kupper either did not know of ..."

Peter Stewart