Aalst (Alost) - Medieval Lands - The Flemish Nobility

[Hans Vogels]

The "accuracy" of the database of Medieval Lands of Charles Evans has been spoken of many times here on the newsgroup, that's a fact that needs no clarification. However something he writes about the family of the Châtelains of Gand makes me wonder if E. Warlop in his The Flemish Nobility (1976) is right or wrong in an assumption. It has to do with Gisela, the sister of Ogiva wife of count Baldwin IV of Flanders. Let's start with quote:

>> Her marriage is indicated by the charter dated 1056 under which Baudouin V Count of Flanders approved the donation made by "matrona Gisla" of "Ronneka" to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand, signed by "Balduini de Warnastum, Hugonis de Oldenaerde, Roberti et Wenemari de Lens, Balduini filii ipsius Gisle, item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti..."[823] and "Gisla" granted a serf to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand by charter dated Apr 1058, signed by "Balduuini filii ipsius Gislæ, item filiorum eius Rodulfi, Gisleberti..."[824]. <<

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FLEMISH%20NOBILITY.htm#BoudewijnGentdied1097A

The traditional view presented by Warlop and Charles Evans has it that Gisela and Ralph (Rudolf) of Gent had as sons: Baldwin, Ralph, Gilbert and Ragenfrid.

But as I see the quote mentioning "Balduini filii ipsius Gisle, item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti" in 1056 and "Balduuini filii ipsius Gislæ, item filiorum eius Rodulfi, Gisleberti" in 1058 I wonder about the separate phrasing. Was it not much simpler to state both times Baldwin, Ralph and Gilbert in one breath as sons of Gisela? The quotes mentioned leave open the possibility that it could be read as Baldwin (of Alost) son of Gisela, and his sons Ralph and Gilbert. Or am I seeing things that Medieval usage of Latin does not cover?

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart via]

The Medieval Lands database is the work of Charles Cawley, not of
Charles Evans (who was a competent scholar, the grandfather of the FMG
founders whose website hosts Medieval Lands).

As to the charter evidence, the use of "item" indicates that "ipsius"
and "eius" refer to the same person - the literal meaning is "[the
subscriptions of] Balduin son of Gisla, also her sons Radulph and
Gislebert". Balduin was most probably distinguished from his younger
brothers in the list due to his higher rank.

Apart from that, the dates of these charters are almost certainly too
early for Gisla's grandsons, and anyway the known names of Balduin's
sons did not include a Radulph. However his brother, Gisla's son of this
name, was the comital chamberlain from the 1050s until the 1090s, and he
stated his own parentage in a charter for Bergues-Saint-Winoc abbey in 1094.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Thanks for your answer Peter.

I was trying to schetch out the generations from Ogiva and her sister Gisela per generation side by side. Ogiva's eldest grandson Flanders married in the fifties so Gisela's grandchildren could likewise start to pop-up in that period.

There is an indication for doubt with regards to the number of Baldwin generations between Baldwin the son of Gisela en the brothers Baldwin and Ivan of Alost in de 1e-2e quartor of the 12th century.

Warlop provides his genealogy as a final product but shows no insight in how he comes to that conclusion. Medieval Lands provided the formentioned quote that gave a possibility for rethinking.

With regards,
Hans Vogels


Op maandag 12 oktober 2015 10:45:02 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart via:

[Peter Stewart via]

On 12/10/2015 10:31 PM, Hans Vogels via wrote:
> Thanks for your answer Peter.
>
> I was trying to schetch out the generations from Ogiva and her sister Gisela per generation side by side. Ogiva's eldest grandson Flanders married in the fifties so Gisela's grandchildren could likewise start to pop-up in that period.

The family of Ogiva should be taken only with caution as a comparison
for the chronology of her sister's descendants - Ogiva's son Balduin V
had to be married to Adela of France before expected, due to his
biologcal urges, while her sister Gisla may not have been married in
Flanders until her husband Radulf of Aalst had succeeded as advocate of
Saint-Pierre abbey, apparently in the early 1030s.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Triggered by a question I looked anew to my initial question and got myself a second opinion. It now seems that my thoughts on the matter could be right.

There is a charter dated 1056 under which Baudouin V Count of Flanders approved the donation made by "matrona Gisla" of "Ronneka" to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand, signed by

Balduini de Warnastum,
Hugonis de Oldenaerde,
Roberti et Wenemari de Lens,
Balduini filii ipsius Gisle,
item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti.

Another charter dated April 1058 shows that "Gisla" granted a serf to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand, signed by

"Balduuini filii ipsius Gislæ,
item filiorum eius Rodulfi, Gisleberti.

The both times mentioned filiorum are to be seen as the sons of Balwin, the son of Gisla.

Hans Vogels



Op maandag 12 oktober 2015 10:45:02 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart via:

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 6:54:30 AM UTC+11, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Triggered by a question I looked anew to my initial question and got myself a second opinion. It now seems that my thoughts on the matter could be right.
>
> There is a charter dated 1056 under which Baudouin V Count of Flanders approved the donation made by "matrona Gisla" of "Ronneka" to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand, signed by
> Balduini de Warnastum,
> Hugonis de Oldenaerde,
> Roberti et Wenemari de Lens,
> Balduini filii ipsius Gisle,
> item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti.
>
> Another charter dated April 1058 shows that "Gisla" granted a serf to the abbey of Saint-Pierre de Gand, signed by
> "Balduuini filii ipsius Gislæ,
> item filiorum eius Rodulfi, Gisleberti.
>
> The both times mentioned filiorum are to be seen as the sons of Balwin, the son of Gisla.

If you want to insist on this interpretation, that I consider highly implausible, then you will need to explain:
1. the insertion of the word 'item';
2. why Balduin's eldest son and eventual heir Balduin was not named along with Rodulf and Gislebert;
3. why his other sons Siger and Wenemar were omitted; and
4. the evidence of Rodulf's own charter dated 1094 in which he named his parents as Rodulf and Gisla (see here, pp 79-80, https://books.google.be/books?id=0TUxAQAAMAAJ).

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

>> If you want to insist on this interpretation, <<

I had lingering doubts and got myself a second opinion of a fellow Dutchman skilled in Latin. It was he who was quite positive. Even after a second reflection.

>> that I consider highly implausible, then you will need to explain:
>> 1. the insertion of the word 'item';

Het gaat om: "Balduini de Warnastum, Hugonis de Oldenaerde, Roberti et Wenemari de Lens, Balduini filii ipsius Gisle, item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti..."
Ik neem aan dat vóór deze passage heeft gestaan "in de aanwezigheid van...." Dat verklaart de 2e naamval van de eerstvolgende 4 personen. Dus: "in de aanwezigheid van (Balduini de Warnastum, Hugonis de Oldenaerde, Roberti et Wenemari de Lens)".
Dan volgt er weer een Balduinus. De vraag is: is dit de eerder genoemde Balduinus? Dat lijkt me niet waarschijnlijk, want dan zou het onderwerp van een nieuw zinsdeel zijn en de 1e naamval krijgen: "....., welke Balduinus...enz."
Hier staat weer een 2e naamval, dus ...., van Balduinis, de zoon van dezelfde (of: eerder genoemde) Gisela = de 'matrona Gisela' die de schenking deed. Deze tweede Balduinus had ook zijn twee zoons bij zich: "item filiorum eius", d.w.z. "en (eveneens) van zijn zonen Rodulphus, Gislebertus, ...( en misschien nog wel meer)".

Er is dus een schenking door een dame Gisela, welke schenking wordt goedgekeurd door Boudewijn, graaf van Vlaanderen. In de schenkingsacte staan hier minstens 7 getuigen: 1 Boudewijn van Warnastum, (wat dat ook moge zijn), 2 Hugo van Oldenaerde, en (de broers) 3 Robert en 4 Wenemar van Lens, 5 Boudewijn zoon van Gisela en (de broers) 6 Robert en 7 Wenemar, zoons van 5 Boudewijn, ….enz.


Peter Stewart leest "earum" (van haar, Gisela), maar er staat "eorum" (van hem, dus niet Gisela).
Verder heb ik er niets aan toe te voegen.

>> 2. why Balduin's eldest son and eventual heir Balduin was not named along
>> with Rodulf and Gislebert; <<

This is the interpretation from what is assumed to be known. It can also be found in Warlop.

2.a. Ragenfrid (1075) brother of Ralph (Rodulf) the Chamberlain is not mentioned either in 1056.
2.b. The Baldwin son of Baldwin that you see as heir need not be the one that continued the lineage of the lords of Alost. In 1088 he is mentioned for the first time as a witness when his brother Giselbert bought property in Alost, Rasseghem and Lede.

>> 3. why his other sons Siger and Wenemar were omitted; and

These were sons of a Baldwin. It does not say which Baldwin! They could easily be younger brothers of the in 1056 named brother pair Rodulf and Gislebert. Siger is mentioned 1086-1096. Wenemar has no fixed year of mentioning. In Medieval Lands a Walterus filius Balduini de Gandova is witness in 1088 behind Balduinus filius Balduini de Gandova when Gisilberto Balduini Gandensis filio bought property in Alost, Rasseghem and Lede. It looks like three brothers being mentioned in 1088. One acting and two witnessing. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FLEMISH%20NOBILITY.htm#BoudewijnGentdied1097A

>> 4. the evidence of Rodulf's own charter dated 1094 in which he <<
>> named his parents as Rodulf and Gisla (see here, pp 79-80, <<
>> https://books.google.be/books?id=0TUxAQAAMAAJ).

If you look at the matter more closely you would notice that this Rodulf is identical to Radulph the Chamberlain, known from 1075-1096. Nothing about him changes.

>> Peter Stewart

Warlop and Medieval Lands both show Ralph of Gent and Gisela of Luxemburg to have 4 known children:
1. Baldwin (1046-1082†),
2. Ralph, the chamberlain (1075-1096),
3. Gilbert, lord of Folkingham (after 1066-1075),
4. Ragenfrid (1075).

Nothing changes in this perspective but the first mentioning’s in 1056 of a Ralph and a Gilbert that are attributed to the above mentioned Ralph (2) and Gilbert (3).

These two mentioning’s from 1056 belong to the next generation. That was what I suggested and what my source confirmed.

With regards,
Hans Vogels





Op maandag 12 november 2018 23:30:21 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:

[Peter Stewart]

On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:31:10 AM UTC+11, Hans Vogels wrote:
> >> If you want to insist on this interpretation, <<
>
> I had lingering doubts and got myself a second opinion of a fellow Dutchman skilled in Latin. It was he who was quite positive. Even after a second reflection.
>
> >> that I consider highly implausible, then you will need to explain:
> >> 1. the insertion of the word 'item';
>
> Het gaat om: "Balduini de Warnastum, Hugonis de Oldenaerde, Roberti et Wenemari de Lens, Balduini filii ipsius Gisle, item filiorum eius Rodulphi, Gisleberti..."
> Ik neem aan dat vóór deze passage heeft gestaan "in de aanwezigheid van...." Dat verklaart de 2e naamval van de eerstvolgende 4 personen. Dus: "in de aanwezigheid van (Balduini de Warnastum, Hugonis de Oldenaerde, Roberti et Wenemari de Lens)".
> Dan volgt er weer een Balduinus. De vraag is: is dit de eerder genoemde Balduinus? Dat lijkt me niet waarschijnlijk, want dan zou het onderwerp van een nieuw zinsdeel zijn en de 1e naamval krijgen: "....., welke Balduinus...enz."
> Hier staat weer een 2e naamval, dus ...., van Balduinis, de zoon van dezelfde (of: eerder genoemde) Gisela = de 'matrona Gisela' die de schenking deed. Deze tweede Balduinus had ook zijn twee zoons bij zich: "item filiorum eius", d.w.z. "en (eveneens) van zijn zonen Rodulphus, Gislebertus, ...( en misschien nog wel meer)".
>
> Er is dus een schenking door een dame Gisela, welke schenking wordt goedgekeurd door Boudewijn, graaf van Vlaanderen. In de schenkingsacte staan hier minstens 7 getuigen: 1 Boudewijn van Warnastum, (wat dat ook moge zijn), 2 Hugo van Oldenaerde, en (de broers) 3 Robert en 4 Wenemar van Lens, 5 Boudewijn zoon van Gisela en (de broers) 6 Robert en 7 Wenemar, zoons van 5 Boudewijn, ….enz.
>
>
> Peter Stewart leest "earum" (van haar, Gisela), maar er staat "eorum" (van hem, dus niet Gisela).
> Verder heb ik er niets aan toe te voegen.
>

I'm afraid the last sentence indicates that your fellow Dutchman is not skilled in Latin and talking through his hat.

He has failed to address the point I made about the word "item" - this can be translated simply as "also", but it carries the implication of "again" referring to something in common between what follows and what has gone before. ("Also" without this connotation is "etiam").

In this context, "item" strongly indicates that "filiorum eius" refers to more sons of "ipsius Gisle", as there could be no sense of "again" if they were sons of her first-named son Balduin (who is quite obviously not the same man as Balduin de Warnastum).

> >> 2. why Balduin's eldest son and eventual heir Balduin was not named along
> >> with Rodulf and Gislebert; <<
>
> This is the interpretation from what is assumed to be known. It can also be found in Warlop.

This doesn't address the point either - why would two younger sons of Gisla's son Balduin occur in the charter without their eldest brother? They are presumably named in order to record the assent of Gisla's then-living potential heirs, so why omit the most likely?

> 2.a. Ragenfrid (1075) brother of Ralph (Rodulf) the Chamberlain is not mentioned either in 1056.

As a fourth son, why is the omission of Ragenfred in 1056 relevant to the identification of two older brothers (or two nephews in your interpretation) who were present?

> 2.b. The Baldwin son of Baldwin that you see as heir need not be the one that continued the lineage of the lords of Alost. In 1088 he is mentioned for the first time as a witness when his brother Giselbert bought property in Alost, Rasseghem and Lede.
>

I don't see how you propose to fit in an extra generation, if that is where you are going with this idea. I see no evidence to multiply Balduins in this family, which surely has enough of them already.

> >> 3. why his other sons Siger and Wenemar were omitted; and
>
> These were sons of a Baldwin. It does not say which Baldwin! They could easily be younger brothers of the in 1056 named brother pair Rodulf and Gislebert. Siger is mentioned 1086-1096. Wenemar has no fixed year of mentioning. In Medieval Lands a Walterus filius Balduini de Gandova is witness in 1088 behind Balduinus filius Balduini de Gandova when Gisilberto Balduini Gandensis filio bought property in Alost, Rasseghem and Lede. It looks like three brothers being mentioned in 1088. One acting and two witnessing. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FLEMISH%20NOBILITY.htm#BoudewijnGentdied1097A
>
>
>
> >> 4. the evidence of Rodulf's own charter dated 1094 in which he <<
> >> named his parents as Rodulf and Gisla (see here, pp 79-80, <<
> >> https://books.google.be/books?id=0TUxAQAAMAAJ).
>
> If you look at the matter more closely you would notice that this Rodulf is identical to Radulph the Chamberlain, known from 1075-1096. Nothing about him changes.
>
> >> Peter Stewart
>
> Warlop and Medieval Lands both show Ralph of Gent and Gisela of Luxemburg to have 4 known children:
> 1. Baldwin (1046-1082†),
> 2. Ralph, the chamberlain (1075-1096),
> 3. Gilbert, lord of Folkingham (after 1066-1075),
> 4. Ragenfrid (1075).
>
> Nothing changes in this perspective but the first mentioning’s in 1056 of a Ralph and a Gilbert that are attributed to the above mentioned Ralph (2) and Gilbert (3).
>
> These two mentioning’s from 1056 belong to the next generation. That was what I suggested and what my source confirmed.

What source? I can't follow this unless you mean the fellow Dutchman who misunderstood my point and the Latin in question.

You seem to want to place namesakes Rodulf and Gilbert in two generations on no better evidence than arbitrarily negating the import of "item" in a context where this word would be entirely misplaced if you are right.

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 5:31:10 PM UTC+1, Hans Vogels wrote:

> Warlop and Medieval Lands both show Ralph of Gent and Gisela of Luxemburg to have 4 known children:
> 1. Baldwin (1046-1082†),
> 2. Ralph, the chamberlain (1075-1096),
> 3. Gilbert, lord of Folkingham (after 1066-1075),
> 4. Ragenfrid (1075).
>
> Nothing changes in this perspective but the first mentioning’s in 1056 of a Ralph and a Gilbert that are attributed to the above mentioned Ralph (2) and Gilbert (3).

Hans, I guess you realize this, but Sherman's article names the same four sons. (Ragenfrid is in a footnote.)

[Hans Vogels]

The article of Sherman is indeed known to me. I acquired it in October from Nottingham University. It deals with the story of the continental origin of the English family. It's quite useful and it makes a very likely case. Nevertheless one has to be critical in all the details.

Like I wrote before I do not change the perspective of the 4 known children of Ralph and Gisela. I only propose that there is a case that two brothers mentioned in 1056 and 1058 are not the brothers of the eldest son but the two eldest grandchildren of Gisela (sons of the eldest son Baldwin).

There is an indication from around 1200 that the 12th-century lords of Alost descended from a Gilbert and not from a Baldwin. In the years following the death of Baldwin of Gent, lord of Alost, in 1082, there are a few mentionings of sons of Balwin but without a clear indication on the succession of their father.

It has been assumed that was through his son Balwin but it easily could have been through his brother Gilbert. This Gilbert is the one whom I see as being firstly mentioned in 1056 and 1058 along with an older brother (who probably died without children before his father.

Warlop mentioned a Siger as son of Baldwin I but the three mentionings of this Siger 1086 and 1096 only speak of him as a of Alost and not of a son of Baldwin and that in a mentioning alongside another "brother" but not following him in the witness list or with the addition of being mentioned as a "son of" or "brother of". Thus things are not so clear cut as they used to be presented and one has to be critical.

Hans Vogels



Op vrijdag 11 januari 2019 20:57:19 UTC+1 schreef Andrew Lancaster:

[Peter Stewart]

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 1:42:34 AM UTC+11, Hans Vogels wrote:
> The article of Sherman is indeed known to me. I acquired it in October from Nottingham University. It deals with the story of the continental origin of the English family. It's quite useful and it makes a very likely case. Nevertheless one has to be critical in all the details.
>
> Like I wrote before I do not change the perspective of the 4 known children of Ralph and Gisela. I only propose that there is a case that two brothers mentioned in 1056 and 1058 are not the brothers of the eldest son but the two eldest grandchildren of Gisela (sons of the eldest son Baldwin).

However, the contradiction to this proposed case of "item" (likewise) occurring in the charter has not been addressed. Unless some unforeseeable interpretation of this word is proposed, there is no sustainable case.

> There is an indication from around 1200 that the 12th-century lords of Alost descended from a Gilbert and not from a Baldwin. In the years following the death of Baldwin of Gent, lord of Alost, in 1082, there are a few mentionings of sons of Balwin but without a clear indication on the succession of their father.
>
> It has been assumed that was through his son Balwin but it easily could have been through his brother Gilbert. This Gilbert is the one whom I see as being firstly mentioned in 1056 and 1058 along with an older brother (who probably died without children before his father.

The line of descent could not "easily" have been through Gilbert, as the contemporary evidence for him suggests that he had no wife or sons when he departed on crusade in 1096. There are two original charters in question - one dated 1088 when he acquired several allods from the abbot of Hasnon, and the other dated 1096 when he donated these to Affligem for the establishment of a nunnery where his sister Lietgard was to live. In 1106/10 the abbot transferred the nuns to Forest, and in a cartulary version of that time reciting Gilbert's donation (also copied in a 1242 charter of Petronilla, abbess of Forest) his mother is named as Oda and is said to have been provided for as a nun along with her daughter. Crusaders generally made provisions of this kind for their wives, if living, and certainly would have obtained the consent of any sons in order to assure that the donation could not come under challenge later. Gilbert's donation, however, was not made with the assent of any heirs or for that matter in memory of any deceased wife.

You can view the original 1096 charter here (the date is writtten out on the reverse, not reproduced): http://www.diplomata-belgica.be/view_img.php?src=images/45121.JPG.

By the way, as a warning never to trust online sources, the purported transcription from this original here http://www.diplomata-belgica.be/charter_details_fr.php?dibe_id=1396 includes the subsequently interpolated name of Gilbert's putative mother Oda, which of course is not in the original document itself or in the edition of it by Gysseling and Koch that is claimed as the basis.

> Warlop mentioned a Siger as son of Baldwin I but the three mentionings of this Siger 1086 and 1096 only speak of him as a of Alost and not of a son of Baldwin and that in a mentioning alongside another "brother" but not following him in the witness list or with the addition of being mentioned as a "son of" or "brother of". Thus things are not so clear cut as they used to be presented and one has to be critical.

The mid-17th century chronicle of Drongen named Siger, Gilbert and Wenemar as brothers of Baldwin II, giving the date of the latter's death. According to a footnote by Aubert Le Mire there was an epitaph for Baldwin III at Affligem (where he died as a monk) describing him as son of Baldwin II. This is far from definite proof, but along with circumstantial evidence it accounts for the lineage traditionally given.

The attribution of Ragenfrid as a fourth son of Gisla is also open to question in my view - he was described as brother to her son Radulf the chamberlain, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he was a legitimate full-sibling as they may have been paternal half-brothers.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

I should have added: along with circumstantial evidence and explicitly the partly unreliable account by Lambert of Ardres written ca 1190/1200 ...

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op zondag 13 januari 2019 05:44:08 UTC+1 schreef Peter Stewart:

Hello Peter,

What specifically says Lambert of Ardres?
It has been noted before that he is partly unreliable, but in between those parts his account is acceptably verifiable?

With regards,
Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

According to Lambert of Ardres, Balduin II was the father of Balduin III of Aalst and Iwain of Ghent - the unreliability in this account is in his making Balduin II's wife Matilda the mother of these sons instead of Reinewif (unless these were alternative names for the same lady), and in his making Ingelbert of Petegem the brother instead of brother-in-law of Balduin II.

See here, p 620, https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=620:

"Fuit igitur quidem in terra Braibandorum nobilis quidam Alostensis dominationis heres et dominus Balduinus cognomento Grossus sive Magnus, qui habuit uxorem nobilibus ortam natalibus nomine Mathildem ... Siquidem hic Balduinus Grossus habuit fratrem Inglebertum nomine de Petinghem ... Genuit autem Balduinus Grossus ex uxore sua Mathilde Grossa Balduinum Luscum, propter barbe prolixitatem dictum Gernobodatum, Alostensis terre postea dominum, et Ivenum de Gandavo nominatum."

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op woensdag 24 april 2019 00:35:58 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart:

Thank you Peter.

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

It's worth pointing out that Lambert of Ardres was a first cousin once removed to Balduin III of Aalst - Lambert's paternal grandmother was a sister of Balduin II and consequently had the same relationship as his to Ingelbert of Petegem, probably their brother-in-law, whom Lambert described as Balduin's brother.

As for Mathilde as the wife of Balduin II and mother of his sons, the reason for doubting this is that the 12th-century chronicle of Affligem called the mother of Balduin III and his brother Iwain of Ghent "domna Remundis de Alost". In the 16th century Jacques de Meyere (or his nephew and editor Antoine) named her as "Reynevvidis" and gave 9 June in an unknown year as the date of her death, presumably drawing this information from a necrology since lost. In the 16th century the anonymous chronicler of Drongen (Tronchiennes) called her "Remavindis, otherwise Regnewidis" - Warlop called her "Reinewif" on this basis, but it is arguably preferable to use the only recorded medieval form of her name, Remundis. Given the family connection of Lambert, she may well have been the same person as his "Matilda Grossa" by an alternative name.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:51:02 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:

> In the 16th century the anonymous chronicler of Drongen (Tronchiennes) called her "Remavindis, otherwise Regnewidis"

Apologies for my typo - this should read "In the 17th century the anonymous chronicler of Drongen ..."


Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:51:02 PM UTC+10, Peter Stewart wrote:

> As for Mathilde as the wife of Balduin II and mother of his sons, the reason for doubting this is that the 12th-century chronicle of Affligem called the mother of Balduin III and his brother Iwain of Ghent "domna Remundis de Alost". In the 16th century Jacques de Meyere (or his nephew and editor Antoine) named her as "Reynevvidis" and gave 9 June in an unknown year as the date of her death, presumably drawing this information from a necrology since lost. In the 16th century the anonymous chronicler of Drongen (Tronchiennes) called her "Remavindis, otherwise Regnewidis" - Warlop called her "Reinewif" on this basis, but it is arguably preferable to use the only recorded medieval form of her name, Remundis.

I was wrong about the basis for Warlop choosing to call her Reinewif - this actually comes from another medieval source, an undated record in Saint-Pierre abbey's 'Liber traditionum' of her donation after Balduin II was killed on crusade in 1097: "Reinewif dedit sancto Petro mansum unum in Brachbanto in villa Borsta pro anima domini sui Baldwini Gandensis, qui apud Niceam in Grecia vulneratus obiit".

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

[snip]

> > >
> > > According to Lambert of Ardres, Balduin II was the father of Balduin III of Aalst and Iwain of Ghent - the unreliability in this account is in his making Balduin II's wife Matilda the mother of these sons instead of Reinewif (unless these were alternative names for the same lady), and in his making Ingelbert of Petegem the brother instead of brother-in-law of Balduin

[snip]

> It's worth pointing out that Lambert of Ardres was a first cousin once removed to Balduin III of Aalst - Lambert's paternal grandmother was a sister of Balduin II and consequently had the same relationship as his to Ingelbert of Petegem, probably their brother-in-law, whom Lambert described as Balduin's brother.
>

[snip]

>
> Peter Stewart

Georges Duby in his The Knight, the Lady and the Priest (1994), mentions in his chapter on the counts of Guines, that Arnulf I (+ 1220) count of Guines, obtained a dispensation for his marriage (< 1194) in the 4th degree with Beatrix of Bourbourg (+ 1214)

Arnulf and Beatrix both have a descent from the lords of Alost (Aalst). Sketching this descent – taking into account their consanguinity - one arrives at Baldwin II (+1097) as their common ancestor.

In the account of Lambert of Ardres, one finds that he mistakenly makes Arnulf II of Ardres (+ 1139) a brother in law of Baldwin II of Alost (+ 1097), thus providing consanguinity in the 5th degree.

4. Baldwin II of Alost
3. Gertrud x Arnulf II of Ardres
2. Adeline x Arnulf IV of Marciennes
1. Christiane x Baldwin II of Guines
0. Arnulf I of Guines x Beatrix of Bourbourg

4. Baldwin II of Alost
3. Baldwin III of Alost
2. Beatrix x Henry of Bourbourg
1. Walter of Bourbourg
0. Beatrix of Bourbourg x Arnulf I of Guines

When one looks at the chronology it would almost seem that another “brother in law” named Engelbert of Peteghem would also have been a son in law.

Baldwin I of Alost (1046-1082) + 1082
N.N. x Engelbert of Peteghem + 1135
John of Peteghem + < 1154
Petronille of Peteghem + > 1177
John of Cysoing (Peteghem) x < 1197 Mabelia of Guines

However, this suggestion would indicate that for the marriage between John of Cysoing and Mabelia of Guines also a dispensation for consanguinity in 4th degree would have been needed! In Warlop I find no clues for such a dispensation.

4. Baldwin II of Alost (+ 1097)
3. Gertrud x Arnulf II of Ardres
2. Adeline x Arnulf IV of Marciennes
1. Christiane x Baldwin II of Guines
0. Mabelia of Guines x < 1197 John of Cysoing (Peteghem)

4. Baldwin II of Alost (+ 1097)
3. N.N. x Engelbert of Peteghem + 1135
2. John of Peteghem + < 1154
1. Petronille of Peteghem + > 1177
0. John of Cysoing (Peteghem) x < 1197 Mabelia of Guines

Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

I'm afraid Georges Duby should not be relied on for this sort of
information - however good his work may be in other respects, he was not
the most meticulous of historians or writers.

In this case he has extemporised a little about the "dispensation" for
the marriage of Beatrix of Bourbourg with Arnulf of Guines, and Lambert
of Ardres was not mistaken about the relationship of his own grandmother
Gertrude as a sister of Balduin II of Aalst.

The fourth degree comes about from the ancestry of Beatrix, and this
reckoning is unchanged by the descent of Arnulf in a more distant
degree. Until the 13th century dispensations were not formally granted
with a statement of the degrees on both sides, and the focus in any
consideration was usually on the closer of the two if they were unequal
- Duby fixed on fourth degree, quite accurately as the closer connection
the common ancestor, and evidently assumed that this was the reason for
seeking consent from the bishop of Thérouanne and the archbishop of Reims.

However, Lambert made it clear that the reason for asking consent was
that Arnulf had been under excommunication for tearing down a widow's
mill. Lambert himself, as the local priest, did not hear in time that
consent had been duly given and refused to ring church bells for the
nuptials. Consanguinity does not enter into his account. If a
dispensation had been sought for this reason, the bishop and archbishop
would not have been the authorities empowered to provide one.

The matter is clarified by looking at the chronology - Gertrude's
husband was called Arnulf the Old, and he died after her death ca 1137
following that of their son Manasses on crusade. If Gertrude had
actually been a daughter of Balduin II rather than his sister, then she
would have been a sister Balduin III and Iwain whose children were
evidently much younger than hers: Iwain's son Thierry was not born until
1144.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op woensdag 3 juli 2019 02:08:08 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart:

Struggling through Lambert of Ardres I get confused about the Lords of Ardres and vice-comes de Marchiennes's claim to descent. There seemed to be two options.

A)
1. Adela of Selnessa x (2) Elbod, brother of the vice-comes of Bergues.
2. Arnold I, 1th lord of Ardres, fought in England,
x Mathilde dtr of Gonfrid of Marchiennes.
3. Arnold II alias Senex vel Vetulus, lord of Ardres (has a brother Gonfrid)
x Gertrud of Alost, sister of Baldwin alias Grossus sive Magnus.
4. Arnold III, lord of Ardres, alias juvenem, juniorem and Rufus, + < 1144.

I have the impression that Arnold I married twice (also with a Clementia) or that an extra generation Arnold (mentioned himself in a deed in 1069 with his parents, wive and children) above generation Arnold I is needed.

B)
1. Elembert, vice-comes of Marchiennes
x (1) in England a Matilde
x (2) Adelide, sister of Eustace of Liskis
2. ex 1: Elembert, Eustace, Pagan (= Elembert); Adelide (married),
ex 2: Arnold, Simon, 7 sisters.

From this Arnold, vice-comes of Marchiennes, descent the lords of Ardres.

Or should I see this Arnold of Marchiennes as the one who married < 1144 with Adelina, younger daughter of Arnold II alias senex of Ardres, became lord of Ardres in 1147, whose only daughter Christiana became engaged [1147-1149] as an infant to Balwin, the eldest son (< 10 years) of count Arnold of Guines?

Does Lambert say anything about the relation between Gonfrid of Marchiennes and the vice-comes of Marchiennes?

Hans Vogels

[Hans Vogels]

Op vrijdag 5 juli 2019 13:07:11 UTC+2 schreef Hans Vogels:

It indeed looks like Arnold, edest son of Elembert, vice-comes of Marchiennes, is identical to Arnold "of Colvida", the son in law of Arnold II alias senex of Ardres.


The Foundation for Medieval GenealogyFoundation for Medieval Genealogy gives a muddle picture:
https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORTHERN%20FRANCE.htm#ArnaudColvideArdresMAdelineArdres


Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

I don't have time at the moment to look into the genealogical questions
you have raised, but _please_ don't follow Medieval Lands in _anything
whatsoever_ - in this case, "Marchiennes" is an absurdity. The place
name that Cawley has so flagrantly mistranslated is Marquise,
approximately 25kms from Ardres, between there and Boulogne-sur-Mer, NOT
Marchiennes that is far from the local sphere, roughly 125kms away.

Anyone who takes so much a comma on trust from Medieval Lands is asking
for trouble.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 05-Jul-19 9:07 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:

> Struggling through Lambert of Ardres I get confused about the Lords of Ardres and vice-comes de Marchiennes's claim to descent. There seemed to be two options.
>
> A)
> 1. Adela of Selnessa x (2) Elbod, brother of the vice-comes of Bergues.

This is stated here, p. 611 chapter 103,
https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=611:

"Herredus mortuus est. Et Adela non per multos dies remanens vidua ...
cuidam viro nobili, Bergensis castellani fratri Elbodoni ... nupsit."

However, Lambert calls Eilbod's brother castellan of Bergues, not viscount.

> 2. Arnold I, 1th lord of Ardres, fought in England,
> x Mathilde dtr of Gonfrid of Marchiennes.

Also p. 611 chapter 103: "[Adela] nocte cognita viro [Eilbod], mox
concepit et peperit Arnoldum"

and here, p. 614 chapter 110,
https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=614,
adding that Mathilde was Gonfrid's only child and heiress to all his lands:

"Postquam Arnoldus suam munivit Ardeam qualicumque firmitate et
castello, Markisie domino Gonfrido mortuo ... duxit in uxorem Mathildem,
eiusdem Gonfridi filiam, quam post se reliquit unicam et totius terre
sue heredem".

> 3. Arnold II alias Senex vel Vetulus, lord of Ardres (has a brother Gonfrid)
> x Gertrud of Alost, sister of Baldwin alias Grossus sive Magnus.

Also p. 614 chapter 110, adding that Arnold II's brother Gonfrid became
lord of Marquise: "Cognovit autem Arnoldus uxorem suam et ex ea genuit
Arnoldum, postea dictum Senem, et Gonfridum, postea Markisie dominum"

and p. 620 chapter 122, here

https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=620:
"Fuit igitur quidem in terra Braibandorum nobilis quidam Alostensis
dominationis heres et dominus Balduinus cognomento Grossus sive Magnus

... Siquidem hic Balduinus Grossus habuit ... sororem pulcerrimam nomine
Gertrudem, Ardensium domino Arnoldo Seni sive Vetulo propter Arnoldum,
filium suum, Iuvenem sive Iuniorem dictum, nominato quandoque
desponsatam uxorem".

> 4. Arnold III, lord of Ardres, alias juvenem, juniorem and Rufus, + < 1144.

Arnold III was murdered not long after he succeeded as lord of Ardres.
Lambert placed his death on 28 December (the feast of the Holy
Innocents), but this date has been questioned as a literary trope rather
than fact. Anyway, the event is usually ascribed to 1139 or 1140.

> I have the impression that Arnold I married twice (also with a Clementia) or that an extra generation Arnold (mentioned himself in a deed in 1069 with his parents, wive and children) above generation Arnold I is needed.

No need for an extra generation, it was Arnold I who married Clementia
the widowed countess of Saint-Pol after the death of his first wife
Mathilde of Marquise, see here p. 615 chapter 114,
https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=615:

"Igitur dum Arnoldus et Gonfridus, frater eius, memorato regi Anglorum
gloriosissime militarent, pater eorum Arnoldus ... famosissimus fuit et
notissimus ... Interea Teruannici populi vel Sancti-Pauli comite Hugone,
videlicet Sene, susceptis de uxore sua Clementia liberis, universe
carnis viam ingresso ... Sancti-Pauli comitissa Clemencia Ardensi domino
Arnoldo legitimo coniuncta est matrimonio."

>
> B)
> 1. Elembert, vice-comes of Marchiennes
> x (1) in England a Matilde
> x (2) Adelide, sister of Eustace of Liskis
> 2. ex 1: Elembert, Eustace, Pagan (= Elembert); Adelide (married),
> ex 2: Arnold, Simon, 7 sisters.
>
> From this Arnold, vice-comes of Marchiennes, descent the lords of Ardres.
>
> Or should I see this Arnold of Marchiennes as the one who married < 1144 with Adelina, younger daughter of Arnold II alias senex of Ardres, became lord of Ardres in 1147, whose only daughter Christiana became engaged [1147-1149] as an infant to Balwin, the eldest son (< 10 years) of count Arnold of Guines?

You have confused two different places and families - Elembert was
viscount at Merck, not Marquise (and certainly not Marchiennes, as
explained before). Elembert was lord of Merck and was given the title
viscount because he deputised for the count of Guines, see here p. 627
chapter 133,
https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=627:

"Siquidem apud Markinium fuit olim quidam vicecomes, Ghisnensis
videlicet comitis, cuius vices in absencia comitis agebat et inde nomen
habebat, nomine Elembertus. Hic Elembertus in Anglia duxit uxorem
sanctissimi meriti et placite Deo vite, nomine Matildem ... Ex qua
genuit idem Elembertus Eustacium et Paganum et Adelidem".

>
> Does Lambert say anything about the relation between Gonfrid of Marchiennes and the vice-comes of Marchiennes?

Gonfrid himself (the father-in-law of Arnold I of Ardres) was the lord
of Marquise, not Marchiennes, and there was no viscount.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

On 05-Jul-19 9:23 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:

> It indeed looks like Arnold, edest son of Elembert, vice-comes of Marchiennes, is identical to Arnold "of Colvida", the son in law of Arnold II alias senex of Ardres.

Arnold of Merck (son of Elembert the viscount of Merck), came to be
called Arnold of Colvida. He was lord of Merck, and later also of Ardres
by right of his wife, see here p. 594 chapter 69,
https://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000866.html?pageNo=594:

"Ardensem dominum, prius Markiniensem, nunc autem de Colvida vocatum".

His wife Adelina was daughter of Arnold II of Ardres and Gertrude of Aalst.

Peter Stewart

[Hans Vogels]

Op zondag 7 juli 2019 07:34:55 UTC+2 schreef Peter Stewart:

Thank you for illuminating me on the subject. Latin is difficult for one who has to use the dictionary, but Medieval Lands is simply dangerous. This was again a very obvious example of an information snare even when one is forwarned.

With regards,
Hans Vogels

[Peter Stewart]

On 09-Jul-19 3:50 AM, Hans Vogels wrote:

> Medieval Lands is simply dangerous. This was again a very obvious example of an information snare even when one is forwarned.

Well put, Hans - it needs to be repeated here from time to time that
Medieval Lands is not a reliable go-to for information, and unsafe to
use no matter how readily accessible it may be.

Just because it is there and massive is not reason to accept a single
word in it, any more than the existence of Mt Everest is a sufficient
excuse for tourist climbers to leave their rubbish and many of their
corpses on it.

Peter Stewart