AT of Matilda of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
Todd A. Farmerie
Burgundy and daughter of Walter of Mayenne, a poster asked for the
ancestry of Walter. At the time, I couldn't supply this information,
but have since discovered some information in an article by Keats-Rohan.
Now I can give an AT for Matilda:
1. Matilda-Felicia of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
2. Walter of Mayenne
3. Aelina of Presles
4. Geoffrey Fitz Haimon of Mayenne
5. Matilda of Alluyes (widow of William Gouet)
6. Turstin of Creully/of Presles
8. Haimon of Mayenne
10. Walter of Alluye
12. Richard Goz, Vicomte of Avranches
13. Emma of Conteville
24. Turstan Goz of Creully, Vicomte of Avranches
25. Turuvia
26. Herluin de Conteville
27. Herleve (mother of William the Conqueror)
taf
Leo van de Pas
This ancestry list you prepared with the assistance of the work of
Keats-Rohan (to which I have no access) varies from what
ES gives us.
In volume II it gives Hugues II Borel of Burgundy as wife
Mathilde of Mayenne. Sadly it does not give her parents.
In volume XIII table 133 nr. 2 and 3 of this displayed
ancestor list are recorded as
Gautier, Sire de Mayenne, crusader 1096-1098
dies in Italy after 18 December 1116 and marries
Adeline (Alix) (de Presles)
they are parents of
Hamelin, Juhael I, NN, Felicie and a daughter who married
the Comte de Mortagne.
Volume XIII was published in 1990, do you know when the work of Keats-Tohan
was published?
Dates I have for Hugues II is born 1085, died after 6 February 1143, he
married circa 1115 Mathilde of Mayenne
and she died after 1162. In Volume XIII with Felicie is mentioned the date
of 1120, by which time she was supposed to be already the wife of Hugues II,
that is, if Felicie and Mathilde are the same person. Does Keats-Rohan
elaborate
how she makes Mathilde ES II and Felicie ES XIII into one
person?
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
children of Herleve (mother of William the Conqueror) became quite prominent
after 1066 and
Emma (nr 13) and Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches,
are allotted four children by ES III/4 table 694B
1.Hugues (Hugo) d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester,
Vicomte d'Avranches who married and had one son.
2.Marguerite, who married Ranulph Vicomte de Bayeux
3.Helisende, married to Guillaume, Comte d'Eu, who belongs
to the House of Normandy
4.Judith, who married Richard l'Aigle , their son, Gilbert, was the father
of Marguerite who married Garcia VI, King of Navarre.
There doesn't seem to be room for Turstin de Creuilly or de Presles. If he
was the brother of the above four, surely he would have been Lord or Earl of
something as well? And surely the name of his wife would be known?
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Apologies for coming back a second time querying this ancestor list. The
> children of Herleve (mother of William the Conqueror) became quite prominent
> after 1066 and
> Emma (nr 13) and Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches,
> are allotted four children by ES III/4 table 694B
>
> 1.Hugues (Hugo) d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester,
> Vicomte d'Avranches who married and had one son.
>
> 2.Marguerite, who married Ranulph Vicomte de Bayeux
>
> 3.Helisende, married to Guillaume, Comte d'Eu, who belongs
> to the House of Normandy
>
> 4.Judith, who married Richard l'Aigle , their son, Gilbert, was the father
> of Marguerite who married Garcia VI, King of Navarre.
>
> There doesn't seem to be room for Turstin de Creuilly or de Presles. If he
> was the brother of the above four, surely he would have been Lord or Earl of
> something as well? And surely the name of his wife would be known?
First of all, you must treat the sons and the daughters separately. The
daughters were all married relatively prominantly, but this cannot be
used to imply that younger sons would have been great lords
(particularly when the marriages may have taken place after Hugh reached
greater prominance, which would not have trickled down to his younger
brother if he was already married). That being said, the family apper
to have posessed the Vicomte of Avranches, and were lords of Creully.
Avranches went to the eldest son Hugh, and he became Earl of Chester
through his own accomplishments. By this theory, Creully went to
Turstin, so this fits perfectly well with what you would predict - the
major title, to Avrances, went to Hugh, and the lesser, Creully went to
Turstin. As Turstin clearly remained in Normandy, I am not sure why one
would expect him to have achieved higher title.
As to the name of his wife, my failure to include it need not imply that
it is unknown to anyone other than me. Perhaps consultation of the
original source suggesting this identification, L. Musset, "Les origines
et le patrimoine de l'abbaye de Saint-Sever" in La Normandie benedictine
au temps du Guillaume le Conquerant (1967) would provide this
information.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Keats-Rohan (to which I have no access) varies from what
> ES gives us.
>
> In volume II it gives Hugues II Borel of Burgundy as wife
> Mathilde of Mayenne. Sadly it does not give her parents.
>
> In volume XIII table 133 nr. 2 and 3 of this displayed
> ancestor list are recorded as
>
> Gautier, Sire de Mayenne, crusader 1096-1098
> dies in Italy after 18 December 1116 and marries
> Adeline (Alix) (de Presles)
> they are parents of
> Hamelin, Juhael I, NN, Felicie and a daughter who married
> the Comte de Mortagne.
I am not sure I see the conflict with what I presented. Of these, Juhel
married Clemence, daughter of WIlliam Talvas of Ponthieu and Ela of
Burgundy, while Hersendis married Ralph (or Rivallon) Fitz Geoffrey Fitz
Rivallon de Gorron. The proposed marriage between a daughter of Walter
and the Count of Mortain we know of through its episcopal prohibition,
for reasons of consanguity, and there is no reason to think it ever took
place (the connection, if this reconstruction is accurate, is a shared
descent from Herluin and Herleve).
> Volume XIII was published in 1990, do you know when the work of Keats-Tohan
> was published?
This was "The prosopography of post-Conquest England: four case
studies", Medieval Prosopography 14.1:1-52 (1993)
> Dates I have for Hugues II is born 1085, died after 6 February 1143, he
> married circa 1115 Mathilde of Mayenne
> and she died after 1162. In Volume XIII with Felicie is mentioned the date
> of 1120, by which time she was supposed to be already the wife of Hugues II,
> that is, if Felicie and Mathilde are the same person.
The 1120 date for Felicia represents her appearance in a charter of that
date, and this certainly could have followed her marriage.
> Does Keats-Rohan
> elaborate how she makes Mathilde ES II and Felicie ES XIII into one
> person?
She says "Felicia became the wife of Eudes Borel's son Hugh II duke of
Burgundy. After her marriage she was called Mathilde. One of her
great-granddaughters was Mathilde-Felicite of Donze, wife of Erard I of
Chacenay." For this she cites J. Richard, but the reference only
applies to the last relationship.
Moving over to my own speculation, we know that Hugh marriage Matilda,
daughter of Walter de Mayenne and his wife Aelina (Adelina). Charters
from Maine show Walter with four children, Hamelin, Juhen, Hersende, and
Felicia. We know that Hersende marries someone else. That leaves
Felicia without a husband, while Matilda is left without any
documentation with her family. That she had a great-reanddaughternamed
Matilda-Felicite is suggestive that this could have been the case with
her as well, explaining both what happened to Felicia and why Matilda
never appears in the Maine documents. The alternative is that there
were two daughters, one Felicia that disappears after 1120, and a
second, named Matilda, that never appears with the rest of the family in
Maine. Either way, it doesn't change the ancestry shown.
taf
J.C.B.Sharp
> Apologies for coming back a second time querying this ancestor list. The
> children of Herleve (mother of William the Conqueror) became quite
> prominent
> after 1066 and
> Emma (nr 13) and Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches,
> are allotted four children by ES III/4 table 694B
>
> 1.Hugues (Hugo) d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester,
> Vicomte d'Avranches who married and had one son.
>
> 2.Marguerite, who married Ranulph Vicomte de Bayeux
The only evidence that I have seen calls her Maud (EYC vii 4 citing
Orderic).
> 3.Helisende, married to Guillaume, Comte d'Eu, who belongs
> to the House of Normandy
>
> 4.Judith, who married Richard l'Aigle , their son, Gilbert, was the
> father
> of Marguerite who married Garcia VI, King of Navarre.
>
> There doesn't seem to be room for Turstin de Creuilly or de Presles. If
> he
> was the brother of the above four, surely he would have been Lord or
> Earl of
> something as well? And surely the name of his wife would be known?
After the death of Richard son of earl Hugh in 1120 the earldom of Chester
passed to the eldest son of his aunt Maud. Had there been an uncle surely
he would have been preferred?
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Cristopher Nash
>Leo van de Pas wrote:
[SNIP]
> > Gautier, Sire de Mayenne, crusader 1096-1098 dies in Italy after
>18 December > 1116 and marries Adeline (Alix) (de Presles) they are
>parents of Hamelin,
> > Juhael I, NN, Felicie and a daughter who married the Comte de Mortagne.
>
>I am not sure I see the conflict with what I presented. Of these, Juhel
>married Clemence, daughter of WIlliam Talvas of Ponthieu and Ela of
>Burgundy, while Hersendis married Ralph (or Rivallon) Fitz Geoffrey Fitz
>Rivallon de Gorron. The proposed marriage between a daughter of Walter
>and the Count of Mortain ...
Forgive me for this, but wherever we see this confusion of Mortain
and Mortagne, before going any further can we try to make sure which
we mean? (No blame here, honest - we know this particular mixup
actually besets medieval records themselves - but wherever we can I
for one would feel easier if we could avoid bouncing it on over
research's future horizon, yes?)
Cheers!
Cris
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Subject: Re: AT of Matilda of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
> Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >
> > Apologies for coming back a second time querying this ancestor list. The
> > children of Herleve (mother of William the Conqueror) became quite
prominent
> > after 1066 and
> > Emma (nr 13) and Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches,
> > are allotted four children by ES III/4 table 694B
> >
> > 1.Hugues (Hugo) d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester,
> > Vicomte d'Avranches who married and had one son.
> >
> > 2.Marguerite, who married Ranulph Vicomte de Bayeux
> >
> > 3.Helisende, married to Guillaume, Comte d'Eu, who belongs
> > to the House of Normandy
> >
> > 4.Judith, who married Richard l'Aigle , their son, Gilbert, was the
father
> > of Marguerite who married Garcia VI, King of Navarre.
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be room for Turstin de Creuilly or de Presles. If
he
> > was the brother of the above four, surely he would have been Lord or
Earl of
> > something as well? And surely the name of his wife would be known?
>
> First of all, you must treat the sons and the daughters separately. The
> daughters were all married relatively prominantly, but this cannot be
> used to imply that younger sons would have been great lords
> (particularly when the marriages may have taken place after Hugh reached
> greater prominance, which would not have trickled down to his younger
> brother if he was already married). That being said, the family apper
> to have posessed the Vicomte of Avranches, and were lords of Creully.
> Avranches went to the eldest son Hugh, and he became Earl of Chester
> through his own accomplishments. By this theory, Creully went to
> Turstin, so this fits perfectly well with what you would predict - the
> major title, to Avrances, went to Hugh, and the lesser, Creully went to
> Turstin. As Turstin clearly remained in Normandy, I am not sure why one
> would expect him to have achieved higher title.
>
> As to the name of his wife, my failure to include it need not imply that
> it is unknown to anyone other than me. Perhaps consultation of the
> original source suggesting this identification, L. Musset, "Les origines
> et le patrimoine de l'abbaye de Saint-Sever" in La Normandie benedictine
> au temps du Guillaume le Conquerant (1967) would provide this
> information.
> taf
>
Dear Todd,
Here in Western Australia it is impossible to have access to such sources as
you mention, but my main query is : Why does ES not mention him? Apparently
ES was published (1989) 22 years after the French source you mention. ES
provides quite a comprehensive sources list for this specific table 694b..
Leo van de Pas
Leo van de Pas
I did not say there was a conflict. I presented the details I could find and
am just curious on what grounds or proof it was established that the
Mathilde without parents is the same person as Felice without a husband.
Women changing names after their marriage has happened before, just think of
the wife of Henry I of England, Edith became Mathilde.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: AT of Matilda of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
> Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >
> > This ancestry list you prepared with the assistance of the work of
> > Keats-Rohan (to which I have no access) varies from what
> > ES gives us.
> >
> > In volume II it gives Hugues II Borel of Burgundy as wife
> > Mathilde of Mayenne. Sadly it does not give her parents.
> >
> > In volume XIII table 133 nr. 2 and 3 of this displayed
> > ancestor list are recorded as
> >
> > Gautier, Sire de Mayenne, crusader 1096-1098
> > dies in Italy after 18 December 1116 and marries
> > Adeline (Alix) (de Presles)
> > they are parents of
> > Hamelin, Juhael I, NN, Felicie and a daughter who married
> > the Comte de Mortagne.
>
> I am not sure I see the conflict with what I presented. Of these, Juhel
> married Clemence, daughter of WIlliam Talvas of Ponthieu and Ela of
> Burgundy, while Hersendis married Ralph (or Rivallon) Fitz Geoffrey Fitz
> Rivallon de Gorron. The proposed marriage between a daughter of Walter
Leo van de Pas
Mr. Sharp made a very valuable observation in this quest,
why went the Earldom of Chester in 1120 the way it did?
On 25 November 1120 Richard d'Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, drowned near
Harfleur as one of the passengers on the White Ship. If Turstin de Creully
(or de Presles) was his father's brother, surely he had a better claim then
the son of an aunt? Richard was about 26 years of age and, we cannot be
sure, both his "uncle" Turstin as well as his aunt Margaret d'Avranches
could be alive. Why then went the Earldom,
bypassing the father's "brother" and sister and went to that sister's son?
Perhaps they preferred France but, somehow, I
don't believe that.
The Complete Peerage Volume III page 166, tells us
that Ranulph de Meschines "being thus 1st cousin and heir to the last Earl
(whom he succeeded as Vicomte d'Avranches) obtained, after the Earl's death
in 1120, the grant of the County Palatine of Chester, becoming thereby Earl
of Chester." Reading between the lines, his mother, Margaret, was death and
the children of "uncle" Turstin, who himself could still be alive, are
ignored?
Also, you tell that Felicie marrying circa 1115 Hugues II Borel, Duke of
Normandy, changes her name to Mathilde.
But why then, in 1120, is she named Felicie? Interesting.
A pity for all of us, we can't see what Keats-Rohan has produced to make
those two claims, Felicie is Mathilde and Turstin de Creully/Presles is the
son of Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches. Where do we go from Here?
Leo van de Pas
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> you mention, but my main query is : Why does ES not mention him? Apparently
> ES was published (1989) 22 years after the French source you mention. ES
> provides quite a comprehensive sources list for this specific table 694b..
I do not consider ES to be comprehensive and accurate for any particular
family. As the numerous internal inconsistancies show (for example,
comparing the Burgundy chart with that of Mayenne, the first showing
Hugh to have married Matilda, daughter of Walter, and the second giving
Walter no daughter Matilda and no daughter married to Hugh) a source of
this magnitude is inescapably incomplete and inaccurate in specific
instances. It is impossible for anyone to stay up to day on the broad
subject of European royal and noble genealogy, there being simply too
many regional and specialty publications to keep up with. (At best, one
can accept the opinion of a specialist in each area, but in such cases
one is often left with internal inconsistancies based on differences of
opinion among the experts.) That Schwennicke was not aware of a book of
regional interest that by title appears to have nothing in particular to
do with genealogy does not surprise me in the least.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
I have not seen this post yet (my ISP seems to be having problems with
their news server).
> why went the Earldom of Chester in 1120 the way it did?
It was not inherited. Such a practice (inheritance of Earldoms) was
still ambiguous, and in this case it was regranted to a relative
(curiously, by most grants this would have been the case as well, since
the legitimate male line, and in fact, it would seem, the entire
legitimate issue of the first grantee had become extinct, so it reverts
to the crown). Henry was a master of manipulating his unruly nobility
by playing branches of families off of each other through passing
properties to people other than the "legitimate" heirs when given the
least opportunity.
> On 25 November 1120 Richard d'Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, drowned near
> Harfleur as one of the passengers on the White Ship. If Turstin de Creully
> (or de Presles) was his father's brother, surely he had a better claim then
> the son of an aunt? Richard was about 26 years of age and, we cannot be
> sure, both his "uncle" Turstin as well as his aunt Margaret d'Avranches
> could be alive. Why then went the Earldom,
> bypassing the father's "brother" and sister and went to that sister's son?
Because that's who the King chose to give it to. It appears that
Turstin II was also stripped of Creully at some point, and given Presles
as compensation, when Creully was given to Robert Fitz Hamon (whose
ancestor Hamon Dentalis had Creully taken from him and given to the
first Turstin). He was certainly not a favorite.
> Perhaps they preferred France but, somehow, I
> don't believe that.
It was not their preference, but King Henry's that was important.
> The Complete Peerage Volume III page 166, tells us
> that Ranulph de Meschines "being thus 1st cousin and heir to the last Earl
> (whom he succeeded as Vicomte d'Avranches) obtained, after the Earl's death
> in 1120, the grant of the County Palatine of Chester, becoming thereby Earl
> of Chester." Reading between the lines, his mother, Margaret, was death and
> the children of "uncle" Turstin, who himself could still be alive, are
> ignored?
I think this is a case where CP is inappropriately applying the later
concept of inheritance to explain the fact that Ranulph got the title
next.
> Also, you tell that Felicie marrying circa 1115 Hugues II Borel, Duke of
> Normandy, changes her name to Mathilde.
> But why then, in 1120, is she named Felicie? Interesting.
The theory is that she adopted the name Matilda on marriage, and thus
was known as such in Burgundy. This need not imply that she abandonned
her original name in Mayenne.
> A pity for all of us, we can't see what Keats-Rohan has produced to make
> those two claims, Felicie is Mathilde and Turstin de Creully/Presles is the
> son of Richard Goz, Vicomte d'Avranches. Where do we go from Here?
The latter is not Keats-Rohan's. She is following Musset. According to
her summary, his argument is based on 1) a documented tie between the
Goz clan and manor (if you will) of Creully, and 2) a direct
correspondence between the names and chronology found in the Goz and
Creully families. While she does not specifically mention it, since she
does not doubt the correlation to begin with, that the web of
relationships constructed by such an equation explains the consanguious
relationship between the Mortain and Mayenne families (otherwise
inexplicable) supports this identification.
As to Felicite being Matilda, she provides no explanation, but I suspect
it was similar to that which I speculated in my earlier post. We know
Matilda was daughter of Walter, and no material from Mayenne gives
Walter a daughter of that name, so either one of his daughters escaped
notice, or an existing daughter used a double name. Felicia is the
daughter of Walter unaccounted for, and we know that "Matilda" had a
descendant with what would be the identical double name (if "Matilda"
did in fact have one).
taf
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: AT of Matilda of Mayenne, wife of Hugh II of Burgundy
Leo van de Pas
If I read your message correctly, to me it seems that Felicia is Matilda
still rests on guesswork? Perhaps an educated guess but still guess work. As
I have pointed out, ES does not give Matilda de Mayenne, the wife of Hugues
II Borel, a father.
This makes it still more guesswork as I have received a message that Hugues
Borel married a daughter of a Juhael de Mayenne, sadly this was given
without sources. On the ES page covering the Mayenne family there are two
Juhaels.
One, part of the family as his a son of whom you call Walter de Mayenne and
Aelina de Presles. But I am convinced this Juhael is too late, as he marries
about five years after the marriage or circa 1115 of his "daughter". Then
there is another one, but he was not connected in anyway and was Lord of
Tottness in Devon and was probably much too early.
Leo van de Pas
Todd A. Farmerie
> You must not accuse ES of what they are not guilty of, nor make me say
> things I didn't.
>
> ES Volume II tafel 20 tells that Hugues II Borel married about 1115 Mathilde
> de Mayenne, but it does not mention a father for her as you assert.
OK, but this simply removes the claim of inconsistancy (in this case,
there being plenty of other examples, and only somewhat - where is
Matilda on the Mayenne pedigree?) by replacing it with one of
incompleteness. Matilda's identity with Mayenne traces back to a paper
by Richard, where he proved she was daughter of Walter (and in fact, the
identity of her mother, Walter's wife, in particular is central to the
demonstration), so either Schennicke saw this paper and inexplicably
left out her father (which makes my point about the completeness of ES
as a reference source), or else he didn't see this paper (which makes my
point about the completeness of ES as a reference source).
> I still believe that the sources list for Volume III book 4 table 694b is
> comprehensive. It shows about 20 related people, some with, and some
> without, a spouse and gives 14 lines of
> sources (some more than once).
It could chart out hundreds of people and have a list of references 10
pages long, but still miss one important source. What we know is that
it DID miss THIS important source. (The alternative is that Schwennicke
saw it but decided it was wrong, but Schwennicke, unlike Musset or
Keats-Rohan, is certainly not an expert in the mid-level Norman
nobility, so I wouldn't trust his judgement on it anyhow.) In the end,
the fact that he didn't mention it either in support or refutation means
that we have no idea whether he knew it existed at all. ES is thus of
no value in addressing this particular question.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
> still rests on guesswork? Perhaps an educated guess but still guess work.
Guesswork on my part, at least. Dr. K-R did not present the reasoning
behind her statement.
I should make sure this is clear, though. We know that Matilda was
daughter of Walter. We know that Felicia was daughter of Walter. The
only issue in question is whether Felicia and Matilda represent the same
person, and to an extent, it doesn't hardly matter.
(And as to guesswork, much of what appears in ES and other such sources
is guesswork, its just that the guesses were made so long ago, and are
hidden so far behind a sequence of bibliographical references, that you
don't know it. Take a look at the ancestry of the Conradin Emperors,
and then compare it to a different set of guesses recently put forward
by Jackman. Most of the same people are there, but all the lines
connecting them are different. Likewise, I challenge anyone to
reconstruct the first family of Kings of Asturias/Leon without
guessing.)
> This makes it still more guesswork as I have received a message that Hugues
> Borel married a daughter of a Juhael de Mayenne, sadly this was given
> without sources. On the ES page covering the Mayenne family there are two
> Juhaels.
>
> One, part of the family as his a son of whom you call Walter de Mayenne and
> Aelina de Presles. But I am convinced this Juhael is too late, as he marries
> about five years after the marriage or circa 1115 of his "daughter".
We know from an obit that Matilda's mother was named Aelina ("Aelina
mater Matildis ducisse Burgundie"). We know that Matilda is given
toponyms in contemporary sources (de Meduana, de Magne) that appear to
derive her from Mayenne (and it is extremely unlikely that the Duke of
Burgundy would marry someone of a significantly lower rank, so looking
below the Count is pointless). We know that the Count of Mayenne in the
generation before Matilda, Walter, had a wife named Aelina. This is
about as good as we can hope for.
> Then
> there is another one, but he was not connected in anyway and was Lord of
> Tottness in Devon and was probably much too early.
Talk about guesswork, the placement of Juhel de Totnes among the family
of the Counts of Mayenne is just that.
taf
Ernst Hoffmann
Instead of beating each others sources to death, can I suggest a scholarly
approach ?
I bet the three of us will easily agree, that names in a family were not
taken by chance, but followed certain rules.... or should I say uncertain
rules <sm> Would you also agree, that the children of a couple are
preferably selected from the namestock in BOTH families concerned ?.
Then lets try it:
Mathilda (Ladys first!) and Hugo had twelve children: (out of which I do
have 11 names:
Girls:
Angeline
Mathilde
Sibylle
Clemence
Arenburge
Boys:
Robert
Henry
Walter
Hugo
Eudo
Raymond
It would be wonderful, if we had their birthdays.... but nevermind. In the
absence of such facts.... Lets blame it on the local parish priest.... he
was so fond of genealogical discussion groups <sm>
1. Observation: there is NO FELICIA !
2. Now lets subtract parents of the father, father and mother (the latter
ones ore usaually "Junior" kids)
Whats left:
Girls:
Angeline = she seems to be the oldest daughter
Clemence
Arenburge
Boys:
Robert = Uncle "bishop" of Hugo
Henry = Grandfather of Hugo
Walter
Raymond = GGrandfather of Hugo (<Raymond Berengar of Barcelona>) + Uncle of
Hugo <Rainald Abbot of Flavigny-St Pierre...
BTW: It was me, who followed an educated guess and came up with Juhael I of
Mayenne.....BUT THERE IS NO KID WITH THAT NAME.... <sniff>
OK: I have tabled the evidence, how about the internal grand-jury making up
its mind and come up with an unanimous vote----- O.K. we then make that to
read 1:1 ......and the respective winners will be deported to USA and
Australia respectfully
Ernst
PS: This is not a PROOF, but statistically sound to improve the odds to lets
say 51 to 49
malinda jones
progenitor of my Creully/Cruel/Criolle/Kyrle/Curle... (etc) line.
Where would be a good source (both reliable and accessible) of further
information about the Creully family....(who is the Goz family) ?
Thank you both for letting the rest of us eaves drop on your learned conversation
malinda
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> Leo van de Pas wrote:
> >
Damien.Rauline
Leo van de Pas <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 25 November 1120 Richard d'Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester, drowned
near
> Harfleur as one of the passengers on the White Ship. If Turstin de
Creully
> (or de Presles) was his father's brother, surely he had a better claim
then
> the son of an aunt?
The White Ship ran aground near Barfleur (in Cotentin, near Cherbourg) not
Harfleur (near
Rouen, on the Seine River).
--
Damien Rauline
Généalogie normande et commune de Villiers-Fossard
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/damien.rauline/
Todd A. Farmerie
> >married Clemence, daughter of WIlliam Talvas of Ponthieu and Ela of
> >Burgundy, while Hersendis married Ralph (or Rivallon) Fitz Geoffrey Fitz
> >Rivallon de Gorron. The proposed marriage between a daughter of Walter
>
> Forgive me for this, but wherever we see this confusion of Mortain
> and Mortagne, before going any further can we try to make sure which
> we mean?
My reference is to William Fitz Robert, nephew of William the Conqueror.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd and Leo!
>
> Instead of beating each others sources to death, can I suggest a scholarly
> approach ?
Evaluating the quality of sources is the certerpiece of a scholarly
approach.
> I bet the three of us will easily agree, that names in a family were not
> taken by chance, but followed certain rules.... or should I say uncertain
> rules <sm> Would you also agree, that the children of a couple are
> preferably selected from the namestock in BOTH families concerned ?.
I will play along, but since we have both a toponyme and the mother's
name of Matilda from contemporary documents, I am not sure why all this
is necessary.
>
> Then lets try it:
> Mathilda (Ladys first!) and Hugo had twelve children: (out of which I do
> have 11 names:
>
> Girls:
>
> Angeline
> Mathilde
> Sibylle
> Clemence
> Arenburge
>
> Boys:
>
> Robert
> Henry
> Walter
> Hugo
> Eudo
> Raymond
>
> It would be wonderful, if we had their birthdays.... but nevermind. In the
> absence of such facts.... Lets blame it on the local parish priest.... he
> was so fond of genealogical discussion groups <sm>
>
> 1. Observation: there is NO FELICIA !
Observation: if her name was Matilda-Felicia, then we would not
necessarily expect a Felicia when we already have a Matilda (who may
have been Matilda-Felicia, with the source only recording the first
name). FWIW, Felicia (basically "Happy") is suggestive of a nickname,
and thus a daughter named Matilda might have been called "Felicia" among
her family but not in distant Burgundy. Note that in the
Provence-Barcelona clan "Dulce" (= "Sweet") appears to have started
similarly as a nick- or second name of a Stephanie, and only later
evolved into a given name, in memory of the earlier bearer of the
nickname.
> 2. Now lets subtract parents of the father, father and mother (the latter
> ones ore usaually "Junior" kids)
>
> Whats left:
>
> Girls:
>
> Angeline = she seems to be the oldest daughter
> Clemence
> Arenburge
Clemence is the name which came into the family with Sybil of Burgundy,
Hugh's mother. Arenberge is a more distant female name among the Dukes
of Burgundy. That leaves "Angeline" which is certainly a novelty in the
family, and I have to wonder if it isn't a mis-elaboration of Aeline
(which appears to have actually been a shortened form of Adeline), the
documented name of Matilda's mother.
>
> Boys:
>
> Robert = Uncle "bishop" of Hugo
> Henry = Grandfather of Hugo
> Walter
> Raymond = GGrandfather of Hugo (<Raymond Berengar of Barcelona>) + Uncle of
> Hugo <Rainald Abbot of Flavigny-St Pierre...
The g-grandfather part is wrong. Even if the connection to Barcelona is
correct (again, talk about speculation . . . .) Vajay, in presenting it,
made an unfortunate error and flipped the names of the prospective
father of Eudes' mother. Based on both the chronology and the name he
gave his wife, it is clear that Berenger Ramon (I) was the intended
Count, and thus, if true, Ramon Berenger (I) would be an uncle (or you
could go to Ramon Borell, father of Berenger).
> BTW: It was me, who followed an educated guess and came up with Juhael I of
> Mayenne.....BUT THERE IS NO KID WITH THAT NAME.... <sniff>
Not to mention Juhel didn't marry a Aeline, but instead a Constance.
> OK: I have tabled the evidence, how about the internal grand-jury making up
> its mind and come up with an unanimous vote-----
Who are we left with among these childrens' names? Walter and
A(ng)eline.
Now we look at the Count and Countess of Mayenne of the generation
immediately preceeding Matilda, and what do you know - Walter and
Aeline.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> This is a fascinating discussion....Robert Fitz Hamon is purportedly the
> progenitor of my Creully/Cruel/Criolle/Kyrle/Curle... (etc) line.
Hold on. Some Curle historian decided that the name originated as
Creully, and then noticed, as we have just done, that Robert was given
Creully by Henry I. They then made a rather large assumption that the
Curle family descends from Robert. This is not the case, as Robert's
family is well known, and includes no avenue for such a descent.
taf
Cristopher Nash
>Leo van de Pas wrote:
>> >
>> > >I am not sure I see the conflict with what I presented. Of these, Juhel
>> > >married Clemence, daughter of WIlliam Talvas of Ponthieu and Ela of
>> > >Burgundy, while Hersendis married Ralph (or Rivallon) Fitz Geoffrey Fitz
>> > >Rivallon de Gorron. The proposed marriage between a daughter of Walter
>> > >and the Count of Mortain ...
>> >
>> > Forgive me for this, but wherever we see this confusion of Mortain
>> > and Mortagne, before going any further can we try to make sure which
>> > we mean?
>>
>My reference is to William Fitz Robert, nephew of William the Conqueror.
>
>taf
Got you. Leo's allusion to -
> > Gautier, Sire de Mayenne...and ... Adeline (Alix) (de Presles)
>... parents of...a daughter who married the Comte de Mortagne.<
- should read "comte de Mortain". Thanks.
Cris
John P. DuLong
> This is a fascinating discussion....Robert Fitz Hamon is purportedly the
> progenitor of my Creully/Cruel/Criolle/Kyrle/Curle... (etc) line.
>
> Where would be a good source (both reliable and accessible) of further
> information about the Creully family....(who is the Goz family) ?
My friends and I have done some research on the Creully (or Creuilly)
family. One book we used was Romain Auguste Laurent Pezet's, _Les barons de
Creully : études historiques_ (Bayeux, Typographie de St-Ange Duvant,
imprimeur de la Société, 1854, 510 pages). However, we were very
disappointed in the lack of information on the specific Creully lineage we
are researching. Nevertheless, it might prove of help to you.
Two other sources we consulted are the article on the Creully family in La
Chenaye-Desbois and Badier's _Dictionnaire de la noblesse_ and an article
about the family done by Paul Leportier, "de Creully", _Héraldique et
généalogie_ (March 1989), no. 110, p. 85.
Does anyone know if there has been any more research on this family?
Specifically, we are looking for the connection between Thomas de Creully
and Richard I de Creully, baron of Creully, died in 1184 and married to
Mathilde de St-Clair. Thomas de Creully, seigneur de Saint-Clair et de
Villiers, flourished 1425-1446, was married to Jeanne de Thère. We would
like to see some solid evidence of the lineage connected this men.
JP
John P. DuLong, Ph.D.
Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy
959 Oxford Road
Berkley, MI 48072-2011
(248) 541-2894
http://habitant.org
J.C.B.Sharp
A. Farmerie) wrote:
> > why went the Earldom of Chester in 1120 the way it did?
>
> It was not inherited. Such a practice (inheritance of Earldoms) was
> still ambiguous, and in this case it was regranted to a relative
> (curiously, by most grants this would have been the case as well, since
> the legitimate male line, and in fact, it would seem, the entire
> legitimate issue of the first grantee had become extinct, so it reverts
> to the crown). Henry was a master of manipulating his unruly nobility
> by playing branches of families off of each other through passing
> properties to people other than the "legitimate" heirs when given the
> least opportunity.
Rannulfus Baiocensis obtinuit comitatum Cestrae, cum toto patrimonio
Ricardi comitis, quia ipse contiguus heres erat, utpote nepos ex Mathilda,
sorore Hugonis comitis (Orderic Vitalis, ed le Prevost, iv 422).
J.C.B.Sharp
London
jc...@obtfc.win-uk.net
Todd A. Farmerie
I am not sure that this negates my comment.
taf
mmro...@gmail.com
> When this group discussed the origins of Matilda, wife of Hugh II of
> ancestry of Walter. At the time, I couldn't supply this information,
> but have since discovered some information in an article by Keats-Rohan.
> Now I can give an AT for Matilda:
>
> 3. Aelina of Presles
> 4. Geoffrey Fitz Haimon of Mayenne
> 5. Matilda of Alluyes (widow of William Gouet)
> 6. Turstin of Creully/of Presles
> 8. Haimon of Mayenne
> 10. Walter of Alluye
> 12. Richard Goz, Vicomte of Avranches
> 13. Emma of Conteville
> 24. Turstan Goz of Creully, Vicomte of Avranches
> 25. Turuvia
> 26. Herluin de Conteville
>
>
> taf