Early MONTGOMERYs
U...@aol.com
ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
<< Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
reconstructions. >>
So--Does this reflect the above??
Descendants of Hugues de Montgomery
1 Hugues de Montgomery d: Bef. 1050
.. +Josceline de Ponteaudemer d: Aft. 1067
2 Roger I de Montgomery b: Abt. 975 in Montgomery, Normandy, FRA
d: Bef. 1056
.. +Emma .... d: Aft. 1067
3 Roger II de Montgomery b: Abt. 1022 d: 27 July 1094 in
Shrewsbury Abbey, ENG
.. +Mabel d'Alencon-Belleme b: Abt. 1026 in Alencon, Ome,
Basse-Normandie, FRA d: 02 December 1082 in Chateau de Burres
4 Maud de Montgomery b: Abt. 1039 d: Abt. 1085
.. +Robert de Mortaigne b: Aft. 1040 in Normandie, FRA d: 08
December 1091
5 Emma de Mortaigne b: Abt. 1058 in Mortagne-au-Perche, Orne,
Basse-Normandie, FRA d: 1080
.. +Guillaume IV de Toulouse b: Abt. 1040 m: Bef. 1073 d: 1094
in Huesca, ESP
5 Agnes de Mortaigne b: Abt. 1054
.. +Andre de Vitre b: Abt. 1050 d: 1139
4 Roger III de Montgomery b: Abt. 1050
.. +Almodis de la Marche
4 Hugh de Montgomery
4 Robert II de Belleme b: Abt. 1034 d: 08 May 1131
.. +Agnes de Ponthieu
5 William I de Talvas b: Abt. 1090 d: 29 June 1172
.. +Alice de Bourgogne d: Abt. 1195
Always optimistic--dave
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> In a message dated 8/16/99 11:11:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
> ta...@po.cwru.edu writes:
>
> << Specifically, the Roger de Montgomery who was son of Hugh
> and Josceline was the Roger, father of Roger named in the contemporary
> grant, and not the Conqueror's comanion himself. This novel (at the
> time) suggestion does a good job of harmonizing the available sources,
> and from my perspective, must take precidence over prior
> reconstructions. >>
>
> So--Does this reflect the above??
>
> Descendants of Hugues de Montgomery
>
> 1 Hugues de Montgomery d: Bef. 1050
> .. +Josceline de Ponteaudemer d: Aft. 1067
> 2 Roger I de Montgomery b: Abt. 975 in Montgomery, Normandy, FRA
> d: Bef. 1056
> .. +Emma .... d: Aft. 1067
> 3 Roger II de Montgomery b: Abt. 1022 d: 27 July 1094 in
> Shrewsbury Abbey, ENG
> .. +Mabel d'Alencon-Belleme b: Abt. 1026 in Alencon, Ome,
Except that Josceline was not de Ponte Audemer. That is tha family of
yet another sister of Wevia, Senfria, and Gunnora, named Duvelina. If
you must apply a toponym, it should probably come from her father, who
was forester of St. Vaast d'Equiqueville, do perhaps "de St. Vaast"
(imperfect, but as good as any other - toponyms were not used in
Normandy prior to to the second quarter of the 11th century, so even
calling Hugh and Roger I "de Montgomery" is anachronistic). Likewise,
the birthplace of Roger I cannot be identified as Montgomery. He is the
first of the family that we can document there, so it might have been
his acquisition.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:09:50 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu>
> writes:
> >raymond l montgomery wrote:
> >>
> who do you have senfrei married to
> Who do you have wevia married to
>
> I haave senfrei married to pontaudemere
> and wevia or wevie married to forrester
Well, this is in conflict with the only original source for this
information, and thus should be taken as an indication of the inaccuracy
of whatever source it derived from if this is from the Paris library
mss., then one must question it's value.
From Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Rogert de Torigni's autographed redaction
(trans. van Houts):
"Because we have refered to Countess Gunnor on account of Roger de
Montgomery's mother, her niece, I should like to write down the story as
reported by people of old of how Gunnor cane to be Duke Richard's wife.
One day when Duke Richard was told of the celebrated beauty of the wife
of one of his foresters, who lived at a place called Equiqueville near
the town of Arques, he deliberately went hunting there in order to see
for himself whether the report he had learned from several folk was
true. While staying in the forester's house, the duke was so struck by
the beauty of his wife's face that he summonedhis host to bring his
wife, called Sainsfrida, that night to his bedchamber. Very sadly the
man told this to Sainsfrida, a wise woman, who comforted him by saying
that she would send in her place her sister Gunnor, a virgin even more
beautiful than her. And thus it happened. Once the duke perceived the
trick he was delighted that he had not committed the sin of adultery
with another man's wife. . . .
Apart from Sainsfrida, Gunnor had two sisters, Wevia and Duvelina. The
latter (Duvelina)*, with the help of the countess, who was a very wise
woman, married Turulf of Pont-Audemer. He was the son of someone called
Torf, after whome several towns are called Tourville to the present
day. Turulf's brother was Turketil, father of Ansketil of Harcourt.
Turulf had by his wife Humphrey of Vieilles, father of Roger of
Beaumont. The third of Countess Gunnor's sisters (Wevia)* married
Osbern de Bolbec, by whom she bore the first Walter Giffard, and then
Godfrey, father of William of Arques. . . ."
* The original manuscript, of which several copies survive, did not
further identify these sisters, other than as "the latter" and "the
third". This resulted in a certain degree of confusion, since Duvelina
is actually named third, but had already been described as "the
latter". However, in Robert's autographed copy, he has specifically
inserted their names, which removes all ambiguity. Thus we have
Sainsfrida married to the unnamed forester of (St. Vaast
d')Equiqueville, Wevia married to Osbern de Bolbec, and Duvelina married
to Turulf de Pont-Audemer.
> >What did this hypothetical older Roger do to be called 'the great'?
> it is believe via the document in the bibioth library that this roger the
> great is Gorm
> the danish prince that was conquering in rouen and st germain and
> obtained the
> place of the monte gormerie castle area was the great!
> Roger was the baptismal name of gorm just as robert was rollos
> equivelant.
Boy, that's convenient, but I recall no source calling him Roger.
> >How
> >can we draw this conclusion when this document is the only record we
> >have of any 'earlier' Roger?
>
> There seems to be some evidence to support the above in the manuscript
> before noted.
But can this manuscript be trusted. What is its date?
> >> Wevie was married to De forrester who it appears did not own very
> >much
> >> property whom you are stating as the source for the montgomerys
> >lands.
> >
> >Wevia married Osbert de Bolbec, not a forester and definitely not De
> >(of) Forrester. The Forester (title, not surname) was Senfria's
> >husband.
> What is your source for this info
> I need to sort this out as now i am confused.
See above.
> >Again, what is the evidence (other than the one charter you mention
> >above, the dating of which is subject to debate) for any Montgomerys
> >prior to Hugh?
> agian this is from the manuscript in the library in paris.
What does this manuscript purport to be. Is it a charter, a history, a
chronicle? What is its date?
> >> >2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been
> >> >split in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony
> >of
> >> >historian and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person
> >> >involved. Thus Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline
> >> >(rejecting the charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the
> >> >testimony of the historian and clergyman).
> >
> >> What charter are you speaking of here??
> >> if it is the charter of toarne (not sure of spelling here as going
> >from
> >> memory) this charter does not list the names of wifes.
> >
> >I am not saying that it does, only that it states that Roger was son
> >of
> >Roger (not Hugh). In so doing, it is in conflict with the historian
> >(Robert de Torigny) and the priest (Bishop? Ivo). (This of course
> >assumes that it is refering to Roger, husband of Mabel.)
> >
> >> Also yeatman shows documents if i remember right that proved the
> >count of
> >> heismois status. This property (heismois) had been esheated to the
> >crown
> >> so how did the montgomerys come up with it?
> >
> >What were these documents. This question, of when the first Norman
> >Counts were named was addressed by Douglas:
> >
> >Douglas, David C. "The Earliest Norman Counts." EHR 61 (1946):
> >129-156.
> >
> >And he concluded that there were no Counts before Richard I's time,
> >and
> >none outside Richard's immediate family until later than that. If we
> >don't know HOW the Montgomerys came to posess the property in
> >question,
> >how do we know WHEN?
> Thanks todd!!! :) good point
> i think that is why the charters date is at question
I should add that Douglas places the origin of the County of Heimois
only after the death of William, son of Richard I, and thus in the time
of Roger I or II, and not prior to Hugh.
taf
flc...@my-deja.com
> Apart from Sainsfrida, Gunnor had two sisters, Wevia and Duvelina.
The
> latter (Duvelina)*, with the help of the countess, who was a very wise
> woman, married Turulf of Pont-Audemer. He was the son of someone
called
> Torf, after whome several towns are called Tourville to the present
> day. Turulf's brother was Turketil, father of Ansketil of Harcourt.
> Turulf had by his wife Humphrey of Vieilles, father of Roger of
> Beaumont. The third of Countess Gunnor's sisters (Wevia)* married
> Osbern de Bolbec, by whom she bore the first Walter Giffard, and then
> Godfrey, father of William of Arques. . . ."
> taf
>
>
Weis' "Ancestral Roots" 7th Ed. has Duvelina marrying Osbern (line
127). Can't find Wevia or Sainsfrieda (obviously if she didn't have a
line). I've seen these sisters as one person instead of two.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> > Apart from Sainsfrida, Gunnor had two sisters, Wevia and Duvelina.
> The
> > latter (Duvelina)*, with the help of the countess, who was a very wise
> > woman, married Turulf of Pont-Audemer. He was the son of someone
> called
> > Torf, after whome several towns are called Tourville to the present
> > day. Turulf's brother was Turketil, father of Ansketil of Harcourt.
> > Turulf had by his wife Humphrey of Vieilles, father of Roger of
> > Beaumont. The third of Countess Gunnor's sisters (Wevia)* married
> > Osbern de Bolbec, by whom she bore the first Walter Giffard, and then
> > Godfrey, father of William of Arques. . . ."
>
> 127). Can't find Wevia or Sainsfrieda (obviously if she didn't have a
> line). I've seen these sisters as one person instead of two.
Well then AR7 is wrong, since the above is the only source for this
information. While the author was ambiguous when he originally wrote
it, he clarified in his own personal copy by inserting the names, thus
removing any ambiguity. There has been a lot of confusion in the
secondary literature regarding these people, due to people either
misunderstanding the original, or else thinking that their solution was
more elegant, but the above text is the primary source upon which
everything else is based and should be accepted unless there is strong
evidence suggesting otherwise. At least regarding the number and names
of the sisters, and who they married, no such evidence is known to
exist.
taf
flc...@my-deja.com
"Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
> Well then AR7 is wrong, since the above is the only source for this
> information.
>
Thanks. I'll try to get it corrected.