The ancestry of Agatha: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
The subject of Agatha, wife of Edward Ætheling (d. 1057) has been
a topic of discussion and debate on SGM for many years, and for some
centuries well before SGM was created. Most recent research has
sought to support or disprove theories as to a Hungarian, German or
Kievan origin for Agatha [1]. In June 2009, my article in The
Scottish Genealogist proposed that Agatha was the daughter of Mieszko
II, duke of Poland (d. 1034) by his wife Richeza, niece of the Emperor
Otto III [2].
2) Aelfleda = Edward I 'the Elder' = 3) Aedgiva
_________I K of England (d. 924) I_______
I I
1) Eadgyth = Otto I = 2) Adelaide Edmund I
_______I Emperor I of Burgundy K of England
I d. 973 I___ d. 946
I I I
Matilda = Conrad Otto II = Theophano Edgar
_____I C Palatine Emperor I K of England
I d. 955 d. 983 I d. 975
I __________________I__ I
I I I I I
Otto Otto III Sophia Matilda Æthelred II
C of Emperor (Abbess) = Erenfrid K of England
Worms d. 1002 C Palatine d. 1016
I ____I______ I
I I I I
Henry Mieszko II = Richeza Sophia Edmund
C of Worms 'Lambert' I 'Ironside'
d. 1000 duke of I K of England
I Poland I d. 1016
I ___________I____________________ I______
I I I I I I
Conrad II Casimir Gertrude Richeza Agatha = Edward
Emperor duke of = Iziaslav QUEEN OF I Etheling
d. 1039 Poland of Kiev HUNGARY I d. 1057
I = Maria = Bela I
I (Dobronega) K of Hungary I
Henry III of Kiev I I
Emperor ______________________I_____ I
d. 1056 I I I I I
Geza Laszlo Sofia Lambert Margaret
K of K of = 2)Magnus = Malcolm III
Hungary Hungary Billung K of Scots
d. 1077 d. 1095 D of Saxony d. 1093
A number of sources identify Agatha as a 'kinswoman of the
Emperor', but the nature of the relationship, the identity of 'the
Emperor' in question and the validity of the statement have been as
much a matter of contention as any other issue dealing with Agatha's
parentage. One of the more important pieces of evidence concerning
Agatha and her origin is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. To be more exact,
one of the major manuscripts (generally referred to as MS D) records
the return of Edward Ætheling to England in 1057 after having
'obtained the emperor's cousin in marriage, and by her had a fair
offspring. Her name was Agatha.' [3] Norm Ingham cited the accounts
in MS D in his article in Russian History, but prefaced this with
speculation that the imperial relationships stated in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle were invalid and intended to glorify Agatha's ancestry.
After stating that 'memory of a connection with Rus' had been lost and
replaced with a Hungarian origin for Agatha', Ingham wrote,
' Starting from similar information, someone
else, perhaps at Worcester, made the false
deduction that Agatha was related to Salomon's
wife, and thus also to an Emperor Henry. The
grandchildren, as far as we can tell, did not
subscribe to the imperial idea, no doubt
because they never heard it from their
mother. '[4]
Following on this, Ingham discusses the portions of MS D [for
years 1057 and 1067] dealing with Agatha and her imperial
relationships, concerning which he states that 'the interpolations in
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D do not help us much, except they may show that
the story about a connection with an emperor was already around near
the beginning of the twelfth century.' [5]
The late dating of MS D by earlier scholars on which Ingham
relied has been called into question by more recent research. Thomas
Bredehoft noted in 2001 that the dating as proposed by Whitelock and
others appears to be later than the actual date, and suggested that
'The 1067D poem may well have been written specifically for the
Chronicle (perhaps for this very manuscript) some time in the early
1070s.’[6] G. P. Cubbin edited MS D as part of a new collaborative
edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (general editors, David Dumville
and Simon Keynes). In this work, he noted the concerns of Plummer and
Whitelock, including Plummer's dating of the 1067 entry as being a
twelfth-century creation, but found these unproven and inconclusive
[7]. Cubbin concluded that MS D was created by, or more likely at the
direction of, Aldred, bishop of Worcester (c.1046-1062) and of York
(1061-1069), stating that
' ... the interest follows Aldred so precisely that
he clearly emerges as the person responsible for
the creation of D. Indeed, it seems surprising
that scholarly concensus fails to acknowledge him
as the person responsible. Even if it is
possible that much was delegated to members of
his household, both general considerations and
details are evidence of his dominant role.'[8]
The attribution of the creation of MS D to a later period,
allegedly for the purpose of glorifying the ancestry of Agatha with
erroneous imperial ancestry, should then be seen as speculation that
provides no significant support to the suggested Kievan origin.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] See the SGM archives for discussion of the
issue back to 1996 and before. Reference to
the various article themselves is suggested;
an overview of the various theories down to
2008 can be found on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha,_wife_of_Edward_the_Exile
[2] John P. Ravilious, 'The Ancestry of Agatha,
Mother of St. Margaret of Scotland', The
Scottish Genealogist, Vol. LVI, No. 2
(June 2009), pp. 70-84.
[3] James Ingram and James H. Ford, The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle [El Paso: Norte Press, 2005], p. 148,
sub A.D. 1057. The entry for A.D. 1067 states
in part concerning Agatha's daughter Margaret,
'..and her maternal kindred goeth to the
Emperor Henry, who had the sovereignty over
Rome.' (p. 160)
[4] Norman W. Ingham, “Has a Missing Daughter
of Iaroslav Mudryi Been Found?”, Russian
History, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Fall 1998), p. 244.
[5] Ingham, ibid., p. 245.
[6] Thomas Bredehoft, Textual Histories:
Readings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
(Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 2001),
p. 115:
"It is important to observe that Plummer believed the 1067D poem
(along with the other material relating to Margaret in the 1067D
annal) was composed after 1100, after the marriage of her daughter to
Henry I. Whitelock suggests that the verse passage, in particular,
could not have been inserted into D before 1093: ‘the interpolator…
could hardly have had access to a Life of [Margaret] before her death
in 1093’ (ASC xvi; my ellipses). Such interpretations, I think, could
well be supplemented by the line of reasoning I have indicated here:
the 1067D poem can be read in the context of the Chronicle poems (and
the D manuscript’s poems, in particular) without imagining activity
quite so late. 1067D’s concern with an alternative branch of the West
Saxon line fits well within the Chronicle’s poetic tradition, without
our having to hypothesize either a lost Life of Margaret in Old
English verse or a meaningful context after the marriage of Edith-
Matilda to Henry I. The 1067D poem may well have been written
specifically for the Chronicle (perhaps for this very manuscript) some
time in the early 1070s.’
[7] G. P. Cubbin, ed., The Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle: A Collaborative Edition,
Volume 6: MS D (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer,
1996), pp. lxv, lxxiv.
[8] Cubbin, ibid., p. lxxix. The most relevant
portion of Cubbin's conclusion follows
(pp. lxxviii-lxxix):
' D displays a Northumbrian interest in its entries for the
tenth century. But these may be copied form \E or northern annals
also reflected in Historia Regum, and in the eleventh century
Worcester diocese interests predominate. The Worcester diocese
interest is especially lively in the 1050s. York returns as a centre
of interest between 1056 and 1075.
Because of this, it is surely a matter of the greatest
significance that Aldred was bishop of Worcester from c.1046 to 1062
and bishop of York from 1061-9. He was a friend of Odda in Pershore,
a foundation which also receives some coverage in 1033, 1053 and
1056.
He is, it is true, only one of the figures linking the two
cities in this period. The two sees were held in plurality between
972-1016 by Oswald (972-992), Ealdwulf to 1002 and Wulfstan to 1016.
There was a further joint tenure by Aelfric Puttoc in 1040-1, before
Aldred's joint tenure of 1061-2.
Nevertheless, the interest follows Aldred so precisely that he
clearly emerges as the person responsible for the creation of D.
Indeed, it seems surprising that scholarly concensus fails to
acknowledge him as the person responsible. Even if it is possible
that much was delegated to members of his household, both general
considerations and details are evidence of his dominant role.'
Cubbin conjectured that, after the death
of Bishop Aldred in 1069, MS D was taken
back to Worcester, noting an entry relevant
to Worcester in 1078 (p. lxxx).
Nathaniel Taylor
<2fde6664-7414-4044...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
"John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com> wrote:
> ... In June 2009, my article in The
> Scottish Genealogist proposed that Agatha was the daughter of Mieszko
> II, duke of Poland (d. 1034) by his wife Richeza, niece of the Emperor
> Otto III [2]...
<snip of discussion of dating of 'D' MS of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle,
which contains a set of claims about Agatha's connections>
John, thanks for posting on this. I hope everybody can access a copy
of your article.
To her credit Whitelock did not believe the old orthodoxy of Plummer,
that D was embellished after Margaret's marriage to Henry I in 1100.
Whitelock accepted a Northern / Scottish court focus as probably one of
the motivations of D, which was of course independent of the English
marriage. She did think that D's encomium to Margaret in a. 1067 must
have been based on a source from around the time of her death in 1093,
but even if that were not the case it does not prove that the encomium
was inserted in the chronicle right around 1067. And Whitelock does not
suggest, as Ingham later did, that the interpolations were explicitly
designed to *inflate* Margaret's (i.e. Agatha's) ancestry; this seems to
me a bit of circularity that can be ignored. And at any rate, whether
the 'D' entry which concerns Agatha comes from closer to 1067 or to 1093
doesn't much affect (in my mind) what we are to make of it.
So, as I've said to you before, I think the Polish solution is certainly
a viable contender. It harmonizes some of the same political
observations that have been understood to support the Kievan case; it
harmonizes some of the apparently contradictory genealogical statements
as well or better than the Kievan case; and it makes interesting use of
what we know about Knut. I think the Agatha question remains open, and
with your proposal firmly on the table with the others.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://www.nltaylor.net/sketchbook/
John P. Ravilious
> In article
> <2fde6664-7414-4044-a3c4-e7d227077...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
========================
Dear Nat,
Thanks for your message of yesterday. I've had a message from
Caroline Gerard at SGS, and she advises that back issues of TSG are
available through online request but only those 2 years old, or
older. Evidently the more recent volumes are acquired solely through
subscription.
I believe the Family History Library has their copy available.
Hal Bradley's website gives a designation of "Family History Library
book 941 B2g" as the location of the article, so presumably it is
accessible there at the present time. I believe also the Library of
Congress has an ongoing subscription, but am not aware of what other
library(ies) carry the journal at present.
Cheers,
John
Renia
> Friday, 28 August, 2009
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> a topic of discussion and debate on SGM for many years, and for some
> centuries well before SGM was created. Most recent research has
> sought to support or disprove theories as to a Hungarian, German or
> Kievan origin for Agatha [1]. In June 2009, my article in The
> Scottish Genealogist proposed that Agatha was the daughter of Mieszko
> II, duke of Poland (d. 1034) by his wife Richeza, niece of the Emperor
> Otto III [2].
>
>
> 2) Aelfleda = Edward I 'the Elder' = 3) Aedgiva
> _________I K of England (d. 924) I_______
> I I
> 1) Eadgyth = Otto I = 2) Adelaide Edmund I
> _______I Emperor I of Burgundy K of England
> I d. 973 I___ d. 946
> I I I
> Matilda = Conrad Otto II = Theophano Edgar
> _____I C Palatine Emperor I K of England
> I d. 955 d. 983 I d. 975
> I __________________I__ I
> I I I I I
> C of Emperor (Abbess) = Erenfrid K of England
> Worms d. 1002 C Palatine d. 1016
> I ____I______ I
> I I I I
> Henry Mieszko II = Richeza Sophia Edmund
> C of Worms 'Lambert' I 'Ironside'
> d. 1000 duke of I K of England
> I Poland I d. 1016
> I ___________I____________________ I______
> I I I I I I
> Conrad II Casimir Gertrude Richeza Agatha = Edward
> Emperor duke of = Iziaslav QUEEN OF I Etheling
> d. 1039 Poland of Kiev HUNGARY I d. 1057
> I = Maria = Bela I
> I (Dobronega) K of Hungary I
> Henry III of Kiev I I
> Emperor ______________________I_____ I
> d. 1056 I I I I I
> Geza Laszlo Sofia Lambert Margaret
> K of K of = 2)Magnus = Malcolm III
> Hungary Hungary Billung K of Scots
> d. 1077 d. 1095 D of Saxony d. 1093
I can't really add to this except to say Lambert II was crowned King of
Poland soon after the death of his father in 1125. He was exiled in
Bohemia in 1031.
Lambert aka Mieszko II was son of Boleslaw Chrobry (The Brave)
(967-1025) by his wife, Emnilda, a western Slav princess. He had at
least one brother, Bezprym, who stood in for Mieszko during his exile.
[An Illustrated History of Poland by Dariusz Banaszk, Tomasz Biber,
Richard Brzezinski and Maciej Leszczynsk; Posesdlik-Raniowski & Co,
Poznan, Poland, 1998]
Renia
Oops, I have corrected a little typo.
> I can't really add to this except to say Lambert II was crowned King of
> Poland soon after the death of his father in 1025. He was exiled in
Renia
> Renia wrote:
>> Lambert aka Mieszko II was son of Boleslaw Chrobry (The Brave)
The pronounciation of Mieszko is - M-yesh-ko (open o as in bob).
royala...@msn.com
As the much esteemed John Ravilious has noted, there are a number of
sources which identify Agatha, wife of Edward the Atheling, as a
"kinswoman of the Emperor."
In this early time period, when kinship was noted in records, such
relationships were always close in nature, usually no further than
first or second cousin. I've studied many examples of kinship in this
time period in English, French, and German contemporary records and
they ALL fall into this pattern with one exception. The one
exception is a young German emperor who addressed an aged German
bishop as his kinsman. The two were related in the 2nd and 6th
degrees, or 1st cousins 5 times removed. The old bishop was the
younger son of an earlier German emperor, and thus was a member of the
imperial family. Even so, while the kinship while wide on one side,
it was still of the nature of first cousins.
If I understand the solution that John Ravilious has proposed, it
would make Agatha a third cousin of Emperor Henry III, who was the
ruling emperor in the time period in question. If so, this would be a
wider kinship than I've noted in records of this time period. As
such, I think the Polish solution has problems on that point alone.
Likewise, there is at least one source which states that Agatha's
father was the "germanus" (brother or kinsman) of the Emperor.
However, the Polish solution advanced by Mr. Ravilious has the kinship
between Agatha and the Emperor coming through Agatha's proposed
mother. This also causes concern as the kinship between Agatha and
the Emperor is not coming through Agatha's father.
These two issues need to be addressed before Polish solution can be
termed "a viable contender." The Polish solution is possible, but
more evidence should be put forth before the solution can be termed
"viable" or even "likely." While I have my doubts about the Polish
solution, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Ravilious is looking for an
answer to the Agatha problem. I, for one, would like to see Mr.
Ravilious find conclusive evidence regarding Agatha's parentage and
prove his theory.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
taf
> These two issues need to be addressed before Polish solution can be
> termed "a viable contender." The Polish solution is possible, but
> more evidence should be put forth before the solution can be termed
> "viable" or even "likely."
This is only a fair evaluation if we accept that none of the existing
theories are "viable contenders". Yes, the Polish solution does not
present a relationahip to the Emperor that some sources claim existed,
but neither do the Russian, Bulgarian, or some of the Hungarian
solutions. The Friesian solution fails to provide the in-law
relationship with the Queen of Hungary, and fails to make her of noble
Russian blood, as other sources would have it. Remember too that one
source makes her daughter of the Emperor Henry, and no one seems to
have any problem dismissing that out of hand. The heart of the problem
is that the sources present muddled and mutually exclusive
information, and no explanation yet has been able to harmonize all of
the different claims. To say, then, that the Polish solution does not
satisfy this particular attributed kinship is only to say that it is
no worse than any of the others, which each fail similary to satisfy
all of the competing kinship claims.
taf
Renia
Presumably, there is difficulty in locating Polish sources which might
help with this problem?
taf
>
> Presumably, there is difficulty in locating Polish sources which might
> help with this problem?
That would assume that there are Polish sources which might help with
the problem. There aren't even any Hungarian sources that help with
the problem, and we know they spent a good bit of time there.
Given that genealogists and historians have been addressing this
question since the 16th century, the chances of a novel document being
discovered that resolves the issue are slim indeed. (That being said,
were it to happen it would likely come from somewhere nobody has been
looking, like Bulgaria or Poland, and not Hungary, Germany, Russia,
England or Scandanavia.)
taf
Renia
I may be wrong, but haven't some Polish sources ended up in Sweden?
John P. Ravilious
-----------------------------------------
Good morning Doug,
I think Todd has adequately addressed the issue of conclusive
proof (and lack thereof) with regard to Agatha's ancestry.
As to relationships and their identification or inference in this
period, it may (accent on may) be important to note that Agatha did
not call herself kinswoman of the Emperor in the records in question -
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Vita S. Edwardi Regis et Confessoris,
etc. Rather, the relationship was stated, usually in inexact terms
(for good reason I think) by the authors of these works. There were
no charters or gifts involved in these records: I don't believe we can
infer any rules as to distance of relationship in these cases (this
case).
An example I might bring back to mind is from a thread in August
of this year, having to do with the relationship between Edward 'the
Confessor' and Henry I of France (see below). Edward and Henry were
3rd cousins, as shown in the chart. The 'distance' in this
relationship did not appear to cause any problems, either in 1042 or
in 2009.
Cheers,
John
********************************
the parentage of Adela, wife of Hugh 'Capet'
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval
From: royalances...@msn.com
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Aug 19 2009 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: the parentage of Adela, wife of Hugh 'Capet'
Great post, John. Thank you for sharing this information with the
newsgroup. Much appreciated.
I might note that Edward the Confessor, King of England, was also
styled kinsman ["kyneges mines mǽg," "cognatus meus," "consanguineus
meus"] by William the Conqueror, King of England) [Reference: Lynn S.
Bickley, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normanorum: The Acta of William I
1066-1087 (1998): 49, 342, 381, 466, 885, 893, 920]. The
relationship
between these two men is well known to historians and genealogists.
In a related vein, I should add that if King Henri I of France was
descended from the Duke of Aquitaine, it would have been common
knowledge to all of these parties. In fact, it appears that a
dispensation was required following the marriage of William the
Conqueror and his wife, Maud of Flanders. As I recall, in this time
period, a dispensation was needed if the two parties were related
within the 7th degree. My file notes indicate that Maud of Flanders
was a great-granddaughter of Hugh Capet and his wife, Adélaïde. If
Adélaïde, wife of Hugh Capet, was the daughter of Guillaume I, Count
of Poitou, Duke of Aquitaine, then Maud of Flanders and William the
Conqueror would have been related in the 5th degree of kindred (or,
if
you prefer 4th cousins) by virtue of their common descent from Rollo,
Duke of Normandy, died 931, as shown below.
1. Rollo, Duke of Normandy, died 931.
2. Guillaume I, Duke of Normandy.
3. Richard I, Duke of Normandy.
4. Richard II, Duke of Normandy.
5. Robert I, Duke of Normandy.
6. William the Conqueror, King of England, married Maud of Flanders.
1. Rollo, Duke of Normandy, died 931.
2. Adèle of Normandy, married Guillaume I, Count of Poitou.
3. Adélaïde, married Hugh Capet, King of France.
4. Robert II, King of France.
5. Adèle of France, married Baldwin V, Count of Flanders.
6. Maud of Flanders, married William the Conqueror, King of England.
Unfortunately, I don't have an immediate citation for the record
relating to the matter of the marriage of William the Conqueror and
Maud of Flanders, nor does this record seem to be mentioned by
Stewart
Baldwin in his account of Maud of Flanders. By any chance, does
someone have the reference handy for this item? As I recall, this
matter was mentioned in an early papal register. It states that
there was a problem with the marriage of William the Conqueror, as
well as the marriage of his sister, Adélaïde (or Alice), which two
marriages required action. No dispensation was mentioned directly
in
this record, but the need for a dispensation would be the likely
reason for the the Pope to get involved in such matters.
If we assume that William the Conqueror and Maud of Flanders were
related within the 7th degree (which is likely), then this
information
can be added to the evidence which you've cited in your post as
additional support of the identification of the parentage of
Adélaïde,
wife of Hugh Capet, as the daughter of Guillaume I, Count of Poitou.
Even so, the possibility of another route of kinship between William
and Maud within the 7th degree should be ruled out before the kinship
set forth above is used as evidence for the identification of the
parentage of Adélaïde, wife of Hugh Capet.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From: "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Aug 18 2009 7:40 pm
Subject: the parentage of Adela, wife of Hugh 'Capet'
Tuesday,18 August, 2009
Hello all,
Most of the members of the newsgroup are familiar with Stewart
Baldwin’s excellent project concerning the ancestry of Henry II,
count
of Anjou, King of England & c. (d. 1189). Today I noted the page
concerning Adelaide, or Adela, wife of Hugh ‘Capet’, King of France
(d. 996) and ancestress of all subsequent French royalty [1]. The
bulk of the page in question concerns the evidence regarding
Adelaide’s parentage. Guillaume III, Duke of Aquitaine (I of Poitou)
is the best candidate for her father based on the evidence presented,
but Stewart shows this is not conclusive.
There is an additional item of evidence which I would like to
mention, written some time after the death of the individuals in
question, but which has a direct bearing on this matter. In 1163,
Aelred, abbot of Rievaulx undertook to write a ‘new’ life of Edward
the Confessor following on his reinterment at Westminster. In this
work, the Vita Sancti Edwardi Regis et Confessoris, Aelred wrote in
part of many happy changes following Edward‘s accession in 1042:
‘ The report of this felicity, as Edward began to govern,
was carried to certain neighboring kingdoms. Kings and
princes, moved by admiration at such a shift in affairs,
were happy to enter a pact with such a king, to join him
in friendship, and to establish peace. The Roman Emperor,
rejoicing in the king’s great prosperity, sent messengers
north and joined him to himself in friendship and con-
federation; the king’s nephew, Edmund Ironside’s son -
one of the two whom Cnut had condemned to exile - had
married the emperor’s kinswoman. The king of the Franks,
a near relative in blood, became still nearer by the
intervention of peace. ‘ [2]
In a footnote to the above, Professor Dutton stated, ‘No
relationship is known to exist between Edward and Henry I, king of
the
Franks (r. 1031-1060). ‘ [3] However, it is apparent that a
relationship did exist, and this was known to Abbot Aelred. In fact,
Edward the Confessor and Henry I of France would have been 3rd
cousins
if th e identification of William/Guillaume III, Duke of Aquitaine
and
Gerloc/Adela of Normandy as the parents of Adelaide is correct.
Rollo of Normandy
______________I___________
I I
William ’Longespee’ Gerloc/Adela
D of Normandy = William III
I D of Aquitaine
I I
I I
Richard I Adelaide
D of Normandy = Hugh ‘Capet
I K of France
I I
I I
Emma/Aelfgifu Robert II
= Aethelred II K of France
K of England I
I I
I I
Edward ‘the Confessor’ Henry I
K of England K of France
It is evident from Abbot Aelred’s account that a near
relationship existed. Given the known ancestry of both Edward and
Henry, the only identifiable source of common ancestry would appear
to
be the family of the counts of Rouen, later Dukes of Normandy.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Stewart Baldwin, The Henry Project. The webpage for
Adelaide can be accessed via the following link:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/adela002.htm
[2] The Life of Saint Edward, King and Confessor, chap. 5,
from Marsha L. Dutton, ed. (Jane Patricia Freeland, trans.),
Aelred of Rievaulx: The Historical Works (Kalamazoo:
Cistercian Publications, 2005), p. 141. For an earlier
translation, see Jerome Bertram, The Life of Saint Edward,
King and Confessor by Blessed Aelred, Abbot of Rievaulx
(Guildford: St. Edward’s Press, 1990), pp. 32-33.
[3] Dutton, ibid., p. 141, note <28>.
royala...@msn.com
third degree kinship between two kings mentioned in a contemporary
source is very good. And, yes, I think it is significant that another
party other than the two kinsmen noted the relationship. I say that
because when the kinsfolk themselves acknowledged relationships in
this period, it tended to be very close kinships which were
acknowledged in records before 1250. Since Agatha did not herself
directly address the Emperor as her kinsman, or the Emperor address
Agatha as his kinswoman, I think you're on safe ground to go out to a
further kinship relationship between the two.
As for the reference that Agatha's father (not mother) was germanus
(brother or cousin) to the Emperor, I get the impression that the
people writing about Agatha after her death were not certain as to her
exact kinship to the Emperor. I say that because had she been the
Emperor's blood niece, I suspect that chroniclers would have called
Agatha the "niece" (or neptis) of the Emperor which they never did.
As such, the kinship was probably more further afield than niece and
uncle.
If the chroniclers did not have the exact kinship available to them,
it's entirely possible that they claimed the kinship between the
Emperor and Agatha came through her father, whereas it may actually
have come through her mother. Whatever the case, I seriously doubt
that chroniclers would have been mistaken that Agatha was actually the
Emperor's kinswoman as people in that day took "blood royal" kinships
very seriously. That mistake would not easily have been made by
anyone. Blood royal was well, blood royal.
So, the possibility of your proposed Polish theory holds up. Now if
you can just find some additional supporting evidence.
In the meantime, I very much appreciate your direct response.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
< Good morning Doug,
> ...
>
> read more »
royala...@msn.com
For "a fourth third degree kinship between two kings"
please correct it to read "a fourth degree kinship between two kings"
I intended to delete the word "third" in the sentence before I posted
the message, but overlooked making that change.
DR