Fw: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Leo van de Pas
bothered answering mine.
As you state that Countess was an accepted first name in England in medieval
times, I am sure you can give one example.
There is this story that Edward III remained faithful to Philippa until she
died, yet you attribute an illegitimate child by Alice Perrers born several
years
before Philippa died. Which is correct? Did Edward III remain faithful or
did he not?
In answer to your questions, you have made it clear you have access to even
more sources than I have, but in the past you have identified
the Cahiers de Saint Louis and ES (at least Schwennicke) as within your
grasp.
Sources :
Cahiers de Saint Louis page 16 and 961
ES Isenburg Volume III Tafel 109
ES Schwennicke Volume III/2 Tafel 203 and Volume VI Tafel 28
Burke's Peerage 1938 Page 802
Complete Peerage Volume IV page 325
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Dear Newsgroup ~
As I survey the printed literature, I find much disagreement among the
major sources in print about the Luxembourg family. As such, I
believe we all can learn from the topic of this thread by studying the
original documents of the period and comparing them against the
printed secondary sources.
In my own book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), I state that Maud de
Holand married (2nd) Waleran III de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and
Saint-Pol. I believe that information is correct. But I note that
Anselme, Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny) says her name was"Mahaud de Roeux." This is clearly an error.
And, this error is echoed in MANY sources which I have encountered.
The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into
"Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753].
To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either
"Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her
lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or
Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame
de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have
been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay.
When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a
contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King
Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de
Roeux," or both.
Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own
correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes"
which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet &
Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante,
Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2
(1824): 450-451].
Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was
" Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor
his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition
of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg.
Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply
a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed
the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles. If Waleran III
de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much like to
know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his
database and delete the error.
Once again, I wish to extend my thanks to Will and Leo for bringing
these matters to my attention. It's much appreciated. We're going to
learn a lot from this thread, I can tell. And this is just the
beginning.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Leo van de Pas
Dr. A. W. E. Dek "Genealogie der Graven van Holland", page 93
Leo van de Pas
been a reason. And why does Cahiers de Saint Louis call her Mathilde, Dame
de Roeux? Also confusingly there is a Roeulx as well.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
> P.S. In my post just now I stated that Pere Anselme referred to Maud
> de Holand as "Maud de Roeux." He actually called her ""Mahaud de
> Roeux." Be it Maud or Mahaud, though, the "de Roeux" of her name is
> just plain wrong.
>
> DR
Leo van de Pas
Stammtafeln, that does not mean that Schwennicke has it wrong.
See below
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.
I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As expected, I
found many of the usual errors that have appeared elsewhere in other
secondary sources for the Luxembourg family. For example, Schwennicke
says that the fist wife of Waleran de Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux"
and that they married in 1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first
wife was Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at
Windsor, Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never
called "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error
carried over from Pere Anselme.
===========Peter Stewart already referred to a source mentioned by you that
she was
Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the statement
that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, died 2 June
1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see it has
been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan Hirschbiegel's
Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online.
My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband,
==========People get uptight when I say Richardson is
grandstanding--------"My research" indeed.
Cahiers de Saint Louis is at times rather messy as it repeats genealogical
segments and as a result aspects can be missed.
In the last volume (30) page 66 (published in 1987) clearly is marked off
Bonne (died apres/after 1419) married 2 June 1400 Waleran III who lived 1355
to 1415 and so Bonne "survived" her husband.
Here Waleran is also recorded as widower of Mahaut de Roeux.
Waleran
de Luxembourg's death in April 1415.
========ES Volume VI Tafel 28 gives 10 March 1415
---------------Of course!! As this page shows the legitimate family,
bastards have to be found elsewhere. Admittedlly ES sometimes gives bastards
with the legal family but not all the time.
In May 1415, Bonne, then styled
"Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of Nogent-le-Rotrou,
Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action to obtain the assignment
of 6,000 livres of rent which was granted to her by her contract of
marriage dated 1393. She presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou
in Oct. 1417. She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la Société des
lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): 140-142].
============"She was living in 1419" as Cahiers de Saint Louis said in 1987
She died 'after' 1419
Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the
VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to Bonne and
Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 3 (1728):
724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne was
neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown in
an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime
before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard II
of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources
state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt
been able to confirm that date as of yet.
==============ES Volume VI Tafel 28 says Bonne and Waleran married "May
1393", pretty good. I agree her date of death on this chart is wrong......
In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date
of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like to
have either of them with the proper documentation provided.
Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke
omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and
Simon, both of whom were named in his will.
========How wrong you are!!! Try to find your way through Schwennicke. You
might realise that the series III books cover MANY bastards, including those
of Waleran. See Europaische Stammtafeln Volume III/2 Tafel 203 where both
are mentioned.
One gets the impression
that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check
any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on
Schwennicke in the future.
============== Grandstanding and belittling is something we can do without.
Get a grasp on Schwennicke and Cahiers de Saint Louis and you will make less
public gaffes.
I still would like to get one, just one, example of an English (Welsh and
Scottish also will do) woman who was called "Countess"
And was Edward III faithful to his Queen until she died? Or wasn't he?
Any comments on the find of Peter Stewart that in a source _you_ quoted
Matilda (de) Holand was referred to as Mahaut de Roeux?
As always, with best wishes.
Leo van de Pas