Mathieu: Queen Willa and Empress Engelberge
Todd A. Farmerie
Jean-Noel Mathieu, Recherches sur les origines de deux princesses
du IXe s.: la reine Guille de Bourgogne et l'imperatrice
Engelberge. in Onomastique et Parente dans l'Occident medieval,
K.S.B. Keats-Rohan and C. Settipani, eds., (2000) pp. 171-84.
Part I, Willa.
Willa, wife of Rodulf I, King of Burgundy, was a woman who played
a central role in the geo-politics of the breakup of the
Carolingian hegemony over western Europe. This period saw
non-Carolingians come to power across the old empire, and many of
them claim crowns. Willa was married to two such men, Rodulf I
of Burgundy, and then Hugh of Vienne, King of Italy. Her
immediate family included three known children, Rodulf II, her
husband's successor, Louis, and a daughter Waldrada, wife of
Boniface of Spoleto. Her ancestry has been speculated upon, but
the solutions seem somewhat unsatisfying. The pattern of names
allows the question to be viewed with more clarity.
Willa is found several times in subsequent generations. (This
may get rather confused, as the same names occur repeatedly.) A
Willa (II), of the generation subsequent to the Queen, married
King Hugh's brother, Boso, Marquis of Tuscany. They separated,
and Willa (II) took refuge in Burgundy, which has led to the
reasonable supposition that this Willa (II) was daughter of
Rodulf I and Queen Willa (I). Boso and Willa (II) had four
daughters: Willa (III) wife of Berenger, King of Italy; Bertha,
wife first of Boso of Arles (thought to be the son of Richard le
Justicier - more on this later), and then Raymond "of Gothie",
identified with Raymond I, Count of Rouergue; Richilde; and
Gisele. Hubert of Tuscany, illegitimate son of King Hugh of
Italy and step-son of Willa (I), is also known to have married a
Willa (IV) of Spoleto, daughter of the above Waldrata and
granddaughter of Queen Willa (I). Finally, a Willa (V) married
Hugh of Vienne, maternal nephew of King Hugh, having (it would
seem) Boso, Garnier, Thibaud, and Hubert. Thibaud would become
Archbishop of Vienne, and his _Vita_ calls his mother niece of
Rodulf of Burgundy, a connection shich certainly comes through
Rodulf's wife Queen Willa (I).
That Rodulf and Willa would name their second son Louis
immediately points to a Carolingian origin. This should come as
no surprise, as Rodulf was trying to establish himself as an
autonomous ruler, so marrying a wife with such contacts would be
politically expedient. Since it is known that King Conrad of
Burgundy was kinsman of Charles Constantine, the obvious place to
look is among the descendants of Louis II, King of Italy and
Emperor. Chaume suggested that Queen Willa was daughter of King
Boso by his wife Ermengarde, Louis's daughter. Such a connection
would account for the relationship (Charles Constantine was son
of Louis III, son of Boso), and the use of the name Louis for a
son. Boso is known to have had one son (Louis) and two
daughters, Engelberge wife of William the Pious of Aquitaine and
another unknown, who would be identified here with Willa.
Hlawichka objected based on several grounds, but none are serious
impediments. He cited consanguinity (Willa and Rodulf would have
been second cousin's, once removed, based on shared descent from
the Ethiconid Hugh of Tours, but at this time such distant links
need not automatically to have prevented marriage), onomastic
(Willa does not appear in the Carolingians, but Willa doesn't
appear anywhere, Carolingian or not, so it is no worse of a
solution than any other), and chronology (based on a
misinterpretation of a document). He had assigned Willa to an
otherwise unknown earlier wife of Boso, but there is no reason to
invent such a union - Willa (I) would appear to be daughter of
Boso and Ermengarde. This would, by the way, suggest that Willa
(V) was daughter of King Louis III, and accounts for the name
Boso going to her oldest son (chronologically, by Louis' wife
Anna, thus giving a Byzantine ancestry to her descendants, the
house of Savoy perhaps among them).
(I said I would get back to Boso, husband of Willa (IV). As this
solution would have it, he was son of Richard le Justicier, while
his wife Willa (IV) would then be great-granddaughter of
Richard's brother, King Boso. While not impossible (Richard of
York comes to mind), it raises a red flag with the sum total of
Mathieu's identifications.)
Part II, Engelberge.
We are still left with the annoying question of the origin of
Willa, and as there appears no obvious avenues among the
Carolingians or Bosonids, the obvious place to examine is
Engelberge, wife of Louis II and proposed grandmother of Willa.
She is generally associated with the Supponids of Spoleto, but
the evidence is slim, and overlooks an important notice - Charles
the Fat specifically calls her "sister", and her daughter, Boso's
wife "niece". This is usually explained as sister-in-law, but
the wife of Charles is daughter of alsacian Erchanger, and there
are no indications of alsacian ties. Others suggest that this
was an indication that Louis the German, father of Charles, was
godfather of Engelberge, but this again is unsatisfying. An
alternative not explored before is that she was half-sister -
that Emma, mother of Charles, had children by a second husband.
Because of the need to explain Willa, and the vagueries of the
Supponid links, Mathieu pursues this prior-husband hypothesis.
The name Willa evokes the family of William of Gellone. The
majority of appearances of this name and it's variants are
thought to trace to this one kinship group. For example, William
(along with Boso) in the Counts of Provence, is though to have
arrived with the mother of the first Boso, placed as daughter of
William the Pious of Aquitaine, also "consanguineus" of Ramnulf,
progenitor of the later Williams of Poitou/Aquitaine. (Mathieu
cites for example Melgueil, whose first count had mother
Guillerma, but his later example in the family, with siblings
Constance and Willelma, also reflects a Provence tie which
Mathieu misses.) It is noted that there is onomastic suggestion
for a Supponid/Guilhelmid link, perhaps allowing ties of
Engelberge to the Supponids through the family of William.
Looking for a canditate of the appropriate age who disappears
(dies) prior to the marriage of Emma to Louis the German, Mathieu
lights of Thierry, son of William of Gellone by Cunegunde, who
could be sister of Suppo I, explaining that link. (He presents
an alternative possibility, but it is clear that he is not warm
on it.)
(I shouldn't have to say this, but this type of work is EXTREMELY
SPECULATIVE, and only a fool would enter these relationships into
their databases or publish them in their books or journals
without strong qualification.)
taf
Detlef Meister
> [...] Boso and Willa (II) had four
> daughters: [...] Bertha,
> wife first of Boso of Arles (thought to be the son of Richard le
> Justicier - more on this later)
> (I said I would get back to Boso, husband of Willa (IV). As this
> solution would have it, he was son of Richard le Justicier, while
> his wife Willa (IV)
It's an interesting article, thank you.
But it's a little bit confusing me: Bertha, Willa (IV)...
It's Bertha I think.
> While not impossible (Richard of
> York comes to mind), it raises a red flag with the sum total of
> Mathieu's identifications.)
I'm not familiar with the restrictions of marriages between relatives
(genealogy and history is my hobby only), so why not?
And do one know the birthdates of all the persons in this lines?
Does there exists any other solution for Louis d'Arles? Or have we to
find another Willas?
Detlef.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie schrieb:
> > [...] Boso and Willa (II) had four
> > daughters: [...] Bertha,
> > wife first of Boso of Arles (thought to be the son of Richard le
> > Justicier - more on this later)
> > [...]
> > (I said I would get back to Boso, husband of Willa (IV). As this
> > solution would have it, he was son of Richard le Justicier, while
> > his wife Willa (IV)
>
> It's an interesting article, thank you.
> But it's a little bit confusing me: Bertha, Willa (IV)...
> It's Bertha I think.
Yes. That was my mistake (as if it wasn't confusing enough). It
was Bertha to whom I was refering. The paragraph should have
read:
(I said I would get back to Boso, husband of Bertha. As this
solution would have it, he was son of Richard le Justicier, while
his wife Bertha would then be great-granddaughter of
Richard's brother, King Boso. While not impossible (Richard of
York comes to mind), it raises a red flag with the sum total of
Mathieu's identifications.)
> > While not impossible (Richard of
> > York comes to mind), it raises a red flag with the sum total of
> > Mathieu's identifications.)
>
> I'm not familiar with the restrictions of marriages between relatives
> (genealogy and history is my hobby only), so why not?
There are two aspects of this question - the legal and the
practical. As to the practical, it is extremely rare, just
date-wise, to accumulate two generations difference in just two
generations, that one branch would ave two generations pass in
the time another generation has four pass. On the legal side,
church law prohibited marriage within a certain degree, but the
interpretation of that relationship varied - anywhere from 'third
cousins or closer' to 'sixth cousins or closer'. There were also
ways around this - a dispensation could be purchased, while
likewise they could just pretend they didn't know and hope no one
noticed (or hope that eventually someone would notice, allowing
for a divorce and a new marriage with a new set of political
alliances).
> And do one know the birthdates of all the persons in this lines?
Many of these people are only known from charters as adults, in
some cases single charters. At best a birthdate is based on when
they begin appearing in 'adult' activities - we almost never have
a birthdate.
> Does there exists any other solution for Louis d'Arles?
Louis or Boso?
> Or have we to find another Willas?
If I understand the sources correctly, it is not a matter of
finding another Willa (actually bertha - again, my mistake) but
of finding another Boso for the one we knw to marry. Perhaps a
candidate (and I speculate this without having my notes handy)
would be Boso, son of William the Pious and maternal grandson of
King Boso. He would at least be in the same generation as
Bertha, and is thought by some to be maternal uncle of Counts
William and Boso of Provence. The disadvantage is that while
making the two of the same generation, it would bring their
common ancestor a generation closer, making it King Boso rather
than his parents.
I realize that my error may have cause some confusion, so please
don't hesitate to ask for further clarification if I have not
answered your question.
taf
Detlef Meister
> Yes. That was my mistake (as if it wasn't confusing enough). It
Sorry, your little mistake was _not really_ confusing me - I know how it
is to write or answer fast and faster and..., then suddenly Bertha is
Willa...
> Louis or Boso?
What did I write? Fast and faster answer - and so Boso was Louis! He
should be Boso.
> interpretation of that relationship varied - anywhere from 'third
> cousins or closer' to 'sixth cousins or closer'. There were also
But 'third cousin' is not the last border ("or closer") - until what
degree of relationship does the 'practice' (papal dispensation, hoping
no one will see it) 'work'?
And what degree of relationship would our couple Bertha/Boson have? Is
Boson (if he was son of Richard) not far enough from his relative
Bertha?
> they begin appearing in 'adult' activities - we almost never have
> a birthdate.
We will never have enough sources, I think (But what will _our
descendants_ do - how long will all our 'sources' living in computers or
'the internet'...)
> I realize that my error may have cause some confusion, so please
For one half it's only my bad English, the other half - read on top!
For now I have to _study_ your answer first (and finding your new named
people in the database).
Thank you,
Detlef
Detlef Meister
"Todd A. Farmerie" schrieb:
> If I understand the sources correctly, it is not a matter of
> finding another Willa (actually bertha - again, my mistake) but
> of finding another Boso for the one we knw to marry. Perhaps a
> candidate (and I speculate this without having my notes handy)
> would be Boso, son of William the Pious and maternal grandson of
> King Boso. He would at least be in the same generation as
> Bertha, and is thought by some to be maternal uncle of Counts
> William and Boso of Provence. The disadvantage is that while
> making the two of the same generation, it would bring their
> common ancestor a generation closer, making it King Boso rather
> than his parents.
This is all what I have found about Boson, possible
husband of Bertha of Tuscany, and the brothers
(brothers?) Guillaume and Boson of Provence:
Guillaume I. le Pieux
duc d'Aquitaine
| +918
__|________
| |
Boson unnamed ===== Rotbaud II.
d.s.p. daughter | count of Arles
|
Boson II.
count of Arles
+965/967
Source Steven/Southworth database
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jast/
cites
- Weis, Ancestral Roots... (Boson II., Rotbaud II.)
- ES III:731 (Guillaume I.)
Source soc.genealogy.medieval
- Nathaniel Taylor, Saint Guillaume, König David,
und Makhir, 1997 [ES II:187 und III:731]
(the unnamed daughter)
There were no further dates, no parentage of Rotbaud II (why the 2nd?),
no Guillaume (I guess he's the brother of this Boson II)
Detlef
Todd A. Farmerie
Boso
|
+-------------------------------------+
Hubert Richilde=Bivin
} +------------+
Theobald Boso |
| +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +-------| Richard
+--->|<-----------------+---+ | * |
Hugh=Willa I=Rodulf I | Theutberge Louis |
} | | +----+ + - - +-----+ |
{ +---+ - + | # Hugh=Willa V $ |
} Waldrada Willa II=Boso +----+--------+ |
{ | | Hubert Theobald Boso |
} | +---------------------------+ |
Hubert=Willa III Willa IV=Berenger Raymond=Bertha=Boso
*
|
Engelberge=William of Aquitaine
|
# $ + - - - - - - +
Theutburge=Charles Boso ?=Rotbaud I
|Constantine |
| |
+ - - - - - - + +---------+
Constance=Boso I William I
Key:
+-------+ Documented relationship
+ - - - + Hypothesized relationship
} Illegitimate
--->|<--- Two unrelated lines crossing
*$# Connections, top to bottom
The top part is the reconstruction according to Mathieu. The
bottom is how Provence is thought by some to plug into the top.
The long line from Richard to his son Boso is what raises a red
flag. The alternative I suggest is that Bertha married Boso, son
of William. This would make both great-grandchildren of the
earlier Boso, which would still be within the prohibited degree,
but at least closer generation-wise. Either way, it appears that
Bertha had no children by this marriage.
taf
Detlef Meister
>
> Let me lay out the story here (non-proportional font):
It's a good work, very fine, thank you. It clears up something better,
but it left me again with more questions than before...
> Hugh=Willa I=Rodulf I | Theutberge Louis |
> } | | +----+ + - - +-----+ |
> { +---+ - + | # Hugh=Willa V $ |
Is Willa V daughter of Louis the blind rather than daughter of Richard
le Justicier, as I have? [Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (173:36) cited
by the Steven/Southworth database]
I think, Willa V is the niece of Rodolphe I through his sister Alais,
wife of Richard, isn't she?
> } Waldrada Willa II=Boso +----+--------+ |
> { | | Hubert Theobald Boso |
> } | +---------------------------+ |
> Hubert=Willa III Willa IV=Berenger Raymond=Bertha=Boso
Here we have to exchange Willa III and Willa IV, I think?
> Theutburge=Charles Boso ?=Rotbaud I
> |Constantine |
> | |
> + - - - - - - + +---------+
> Constance=Boso I William I
I have Guillaume I (+993/4) as son of Boson (+966/7) - is it a counting
problem (IS my Guillaume son of Boson or your Guillaume I) or is my
database wrong? [Steven/Southworth says "Weis, Ancestral Roots...
(53:21), (101:21), (136:21), (137:21), (141A:20), Guillaume II., Marquis
de Provence. Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (298:34), cites Moriarity, 4,
28, Guillaume I., Comte de Provence and Arles, Marquis de Provence.
Allstrom, Dictionary of Royal Lineage (Provence), calls him Guilliame
I."]
Thanks,
Detlef.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie schrieb:
> >
> > } | | +----+ + - - +-----+ |
> > { +---+ - + | # Hugh=Willa V $ |
>
> Is Willa V daughter of Louis the blind rather than daughter of Richard
> le Justicier, as I have? [Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (173:36) cited
> by the Steven/Southworth database]
That is the traditional assignment, but . . .
> I think, Willa V is the niece of Rodolphe I through his sister Alais,
> wife of Richard, isn't she?
The problem with this is that it doesn't account for where the
name Willa came from. One could argue that it was a name shared
by the descendants of Bivin and Richilde, but there are no
precursors there. Mathieu is suggesting that it came instead
from Engelberge, wife of Louis II, and thence from the family of
(and specifically, as a femanine form of) William of Gellone.
(It is perhaps noteworthy that the second of Count Otto-William's
names has been attributed to his paternal grandmother Willa, wife
of Berenger II, which might add weight to the William/Willa
equivalence.) I am not saying that either is right - they are
both guesses. It's just that Willa's placement as daughter of
Richard is an older and much copied guess (Chaume's, I think, but
copied by Stuart and others without any indication of it's
speculative nature), while making her daughter of Louis the Blind
is a recent guess.
This is an unfortunate legacy of speculative genealogy. Guesses
come to be viewed as authoratative based not on the soundness of
the hypothesis, but instead on the number of sources that repeat
them, and how long it has been since someone suggested a good
alternative. Much of what we think we know is nothing more than
guesses of long standing, and in some cases, a careful analysis
completely overturns the accepted relationships. As an example,
in spite of the discovery of two church donations by William
Longespee in memory of his mother Ida, there are those who still
argue that that is wrong because a database or published book
shows her to have been Rosamunde Clifford, a solution that was
never more than a guess.
Just for your information, Royalty For Commoners is an
untrustworthy source.
> > Hubert=Willa III Willa IV=Berenger Raymond=Bertha=Boso
>
> Here we have to exchange Willa III and Willa IV, I think?
Did I. These numbers are arbitrary anyhow - they are not used by
historians, I just used them to keep them straight (and failed).
They should not be used in anyone's records.
> > + - - - - - - + +---------+
> > Constance=Boso I William I
>
> I have Guillaume I (+993/4) as son of Boson (+966/7) - is it a counting
> problem (IS my Guillaume son of Boson or your Guillaume I) or is my
> database wrong? [Steven/Southworth says "Weis, Ancestral Roots...
> (53:21), (101:21), (136:21), (137:21), (141A:20), Guillaume II., Marquis
> de Provence. Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (298:34), cites Moriarity, 4,
> 28, Guillaume I., Comte de Provence and Arles, Marquis de Provence.
> Allstrom, Dictionary of Royal Lineage (Provence), calls him Guilliame
> I."]
The earliest work on the Counts of Provence failed to detect the
existance of a William, brother of Boso, who shared the title and
power with him (as would be done at least two other times in
Provence). This extra William died without known issue. He
would thus be William I, which would make Boso's son (Stuart and
Weis' William I, the husband of Adele of Anjou) William II, and
his son William III. It is a renumbering, not a change in the
pedigree.
taf
Detlef Meister
>
> Just for your information, Royalty For Commoners is an
> untrustworthy source.
Yes I know it. But I've written it before: I'm an amateur. And I have no
access to the "right" sources. The Stevens/Southworth database (based on
Weis, Stuart etc) is all I have. And I think it's one of the best
because it has named all its sources AND further includes a lot of
articles from soc.genealogy.medieval.
The "untrustworthy source" is one of the reasons why I _diligently (?)
study_ this group.
> Did I. These numbers are arbitrary anyhow - they are not used by
> historians, I just used them to keep them straight (and failed).
> They should not be used in anyone's records.
Yes, I know what you mean. But without this kind of numbering the matter
would be completely unreadable (without a family tree in an article).
> The earliest work on the Counts of Provence failed to detect the
> existance of a William, brother of Boso, who shared the title and
> power with him (as would be done at least two other times in
> Provence). This extra William died without known issue. He
> would thus be William I, which would make Boso's son (Stuart and
> Weis' William I, the husband of Adele of Anjou) William II, and
> his son William III. It is a renumbering, not a change in the
> pedigree.
Okay, it's just one small correction.
Thank you again for explaining and patience.
Detlef
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie schrieb:
>
> > historians, I just used them to keep them straight (and failed).
> > They should not be used in anyone's records.
>
> Yes, I know what you mean. But without this kind of numbering the matter
> would be completely unreadable (without a family tree in an article).
I won't argue this. (Others would - it wasn't that long ago that
there was a drawn out discussion on this list over whether it is
proper to assign numbers to the first several Queen Matilda's of
England.) However, if numbers are to be assigned for use on more
than just a temporary basis, then it should be done in some
systematic way, by, say, generation and date of first appearance,
rather than arbitrarily as I did, in whatever order I ended up
refering to them.
I did find another Willa though (VI, I guess) - about a century
later there was a (St.?) Thibaud whose mother was Willa,
suggesting a descent from Boso and Willa (II), Hubert and Willa
(III using my chart numbers) or Hugh and Willa (V), since his
name reflects the father of Boso and grandfather of the other
two.
taf
Detlef Meister
> I won't argue this. (Others would - it wasn't that long ago that
> there was a drawn out discussion on this list over whether it is
> proper to assign numbers to the first several Queen Matilda's of
> England.) However, if numbers are to be assigned for use on more
> than just a temporary basis, then it should be done in some
> systematic way, by, say, generation and date of first appearance,
> rather than arbitrarily as I did, in whatever order I ended up
> refering to them.
I've seen this numbering wich was temporarily too (I think) in other
sources (on the site http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/ citeing
"Borgolte, Grafen Alamanniens").
> I did find another Willa though (VI, I guess) - about a century
> later there was a (St.?) Thibaud whose mother was Willa,
> suggesting a descent from Boso and Willa (II), Hubert and Willa
> (III using my chart numbers) or Hugh and Willa (V), since his
> name reflects the father of Boso and grandfather of the other
> two.
In my sources (sorry, Stuart and Allstrom! but maybe you can check it?)
there are some Willas too:
- The only son of Humbert of Tuscany (illegitimate son of King Hugues of
Italy) and Willa (IV), was Hugues le Grand, marchio of Tuscany (+21.
Dezember 1001) [ES II:186], who (according to one theory) possibly had a
sister Guilla, wife of Thibaud count of Modena (or Canossa, +8.Mai
1015). Another theory says that this Guilla was the daughter of another
Theubaldus, marchio of Spoleto (+957/61), son of Bonifatius I. of
Spoleto (and/or Bologna) and Waldrada (daughter of Willa I). (The son of
Guilla and Thibaud de Modena was Bonifatius II. marchio de Spoleto and
Tuscany). Hugues le Grand too had a daughter named Willa, who married
Ardicino, Prince of Italy, and they had Arduin II. count of Ivrea
[Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (198:34), zitiert Moriarity, 103-104].
- The wife of Guigues V. Sire de Vion, Graf von Albon (+bef 6. Juni
1009), Gotelena de Clerieu, was the daughter of a Silvion, Sire de
Clerieu, and a Willa de Clerieu (sister of a Guillaume). Guigues V and
Gotelena were parents of Guigues VI the Old, Sire de Vion, count of
Albon (+22. April 1063, Cluny) [Stuart, Royalty for Commoners (196:35)].
--- How many Willas do we have now - 9?
Thanks,
Detlef
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Hugues le Grand too had a daughter named Willa, who married
> Ardicino, Prince of Italy, and they had Arduin II. count of Ivrea
> [Stuart, Royalty For Commoners (198:34), zitiert Moriarity, 103-104].
Moriarty, in turn, cites: Berone Domenico Carrutti, "Il Conte
Humberto I (Bianca Mano) i Il Re Ardoino" (Rome 1884) for this
connecion. Stuart actually includes this source in his
bibliography twice in a row, without realizing that he is
describing the same book (typical). This is again evidence of
him citing sources he has not read (as with his "Saly" reference)
- had he seen the source, he would have known the two citations
were to the same work.
> - The wife of Guigues V. Sire de Vion, Graf von Albon (+bef 6. Juni
> 1009), Gotelena de Clerieu, was the daughter of a Silvion, Sire de
> Clerieu, and a Willa de Clerieu (sister of a Guillaume). Guigues V and
> Gotelena were parents of Guigues VI the Old, Sire de Vion, count of
> Albon (+22. April 1063, Cluny) [Stuart, Royalty for Commoners (196:35)].
Here Stuart has misunderstood Moriarty. Gotelena was the sister
of William.
taf