Descent from Kings of Wessex

[Michael o Hearn]

I recently discovered probable 18th century a descent from the Butlers of Ireland at the County Carlow IGP.  Since the particular ancestor was Mary Murphy who is likely of the Ballymurphy group listed in O'Harts Irish Pedigrees, she likely descends from the Butlers of Ormonde, or more likely from the Butlers of Ikerrin as the later location is very close to where her family lived near the Kilkenny border.  The Ikerrin Butlers branch off  one generation before the the 1st Butler of Ormonde goes back to Wessex from James Butler's marriage to Eleanor de Bohun.  The Wessex descent apparently does not go back from the prior ancestor Sir Edmund de Botiller who married John Fitzgerald.

There are several possibilities for Wessex descent including those going back to Charles the Simple of France, or more conjecturally from Sihtric  King of Dublin.  Regarding the latter possibility, I have found a reference a listserve message from Stewart Baldwin from December 1998.

The Murphy ancestors go back to MacMurrogh-Kavanagh ancestors according to O'Hart.  This would include the marriage of Donchad O'Brien and Cacht daughter of Ragnall of the Isle of Man, and possibly a second marriage to a daughter of Godwin Earl of Wessex.  This first marriage then apparently goes back to Sitric II grandson of Ivar King of Dublin and York.

My question is whether there is an actual line of descent for Eadgifu, daughter of King Edward?

Is there a possible descent from Hugh the Great of France and Eadhild daughter of Edward?

There is also mention of a marriage between Edward's daughter Edgiva and a "prince from near the Alps" purportedly Boleslaus II of Bohemia.

Michael O'Hearn

[wjhonson]

Your question sort of scatters around a bit. But as to Eadgyth and
her sister Aelfgifu the situation as reported is this.

Henry "the Fowler" who died in 936, wanted a spouse for his son of
heir Otho and so he sent to Edward to ask him to send him one of his
daughters (or perhaps two, so Otho could choose).

So Eadgyth and Aelfgifu came to the Empire and Otho ended up marrying
the older one Eadgyth. I have a year of 924 and cite the ASC, but I
need to double check that.

As to what happened to "Aelfgifu" we are told she "married a prince
and high official of the court."

That's all I have. Not too helpful for narrowing down exactly who.

Will Johnson

[Marshall Whitlock]

Will-

This is the entry for 924 from the Anglo Saxon Chronicle (1961 ed.
edited by Dorothy Whitelock):

A (E, F):

924 (925F) In this year King Edward died6 and his son Athelstan
succeeded to the Kingdom.

Mercian Register:

In this year King Edward died at Farndon in Mercia, and his son
Ælfweard died very soon after7 at Oxford, and their bodies are buried
at Winchester. And Athelstan was chosen by the Mercians as king, and
consecrated at Kingston,8 and he gave his sister in marriage9 [over
the sea to the son of the king of the Old Saxons].

Footnores:

6. 17 July
7. 'D' adds: 'after 16 days'
8. This did not take place until 4 September 925.
9. Here is the copy used by 'B' and 'C' must be broken off. The
conclusion is from 'D', but is probably only a guess. 'D''s reference
is to the marriage of Edith to Otto the Great, but the Mercian
Register may have gone on to tell of the marriage of another sister to
Sihtric, king of York.

-Marshall

[Michael o Hearn]

I think that I figured out what happened.

I had been researching Mandeville and recalled seeing a pedigree in which Geoffrey Earl of Essex was descended from the Kings of Wessex.  Then later I concluded that the Irish Mandevilles were not in fact descended from Geoffrey, although related to him, but rather from subsequent arrivals from Normandy with King John.  However, I later discovered through due diligence a descent from Butler to Geoffrey de Say nephew of William de Mandeville the crusader who later assumed the Mandeville inheriting some of the estate.

Incidentally, the Butlers are probably descended from another branch of the same folks by Gilbert Becket's marriage to Matilda (aka Roheise) de Mondeville near Caen in Normandy.  The descent from Becket is mentioned in another thread this month regarding Botelier.

Checking again, the supposed line of descent is from Adeliade of Aquitaine wife of Hugh Capet.  Elgiva Princess of England listed as her grandmother and wife of Ebles Duke of Aquitaine.  In fact, Ebles Manzer the Bastard was apparently married to two wives of unknown origin, these being (1) Aremburga and (2) Emiliene the latter being the mother of Adelaide's father William III Towhead of Poitiers.

This being the case, the only other possible descent that I can determine from Edward the Elder, if indeed Mary Murphy is descended from the Butler family of Ikerrin as supposed, would have to be by way of King Sithric of Dublin from her paternal ancestors.  To clarify, I have located her probably grandparents Peter Murphy and Betty Butler, based upon her known time of birth, and location being Borris, County Carlow, Ireland, which match her baptismal record from the Borris Parish.

Regarding the Mandeville placename, I speculate that it could be etymologically derived from "magin" as in the now obsolete phrase "might and main" where MAIN refers to physical strength.  This is of Germanic origin as in the Westfalen St. Magenulf or Meinulf temp Charlemagne, whose sobriquet is also apparently from the same root, the Flemish priest Menno founder of the Mennonites, and the conjectural epononymous ancestor Manno for Magnevilla, which would then correspond to the other place names in France such as Vaudeville meaning "Walter's villa", and similar locations particularly in Normandy such as Glanville, Barneville, etc., all derived from Germanic personal names or nicknames.

Michael O'Hearn

--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Marshall Whitlock <whitt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Will-

A (E, F):

Mercian Register:

Footnores:

-Marshall

-------------------------------
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

[WJho...@aol.com]

There's no reason to stop at Sihtric since his father-in-law was Brian Boru
who must be significantly more well-known.

Also Sihtric was the grandson of another Sihtric who was King (or ruler) of
Northumbria, but the connection is unlikely to be through his only named
wife Eadgyth daughter of King Edward, as they apparently did not marry until
925 and Olaf (Amlaib) was already King of York by 940 or about.

[taf]

On Dec 10, 4:21 pm, Michael o Hearn <mohearn_brights...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> My question is whether there is an actual line of descent for Eadgifu, daughter of King Edward?
>

Given names are not all that helpful. Primary sources give conflicting
names for the same daughter, and the same name to different daughters.
Which one is supposed to be Eadgifu?

> Is there a possible descent from Hugh the Great of France and Eadhild daughter of Edward?
>

No.

> There is also mention of a marriage between Edward's daughter Edgiva and a "prince from near the Alps" purportedly Boleslaus II of Bohemia.
>

That is just somebody's guess, and a chronologically problematic one
at that. There are two problematic daughters. One married to this
"prince from the Jupiter mountains" - this was the daughter sent as
one of two possible brides for Otto I. She is mentioned by
AEthelweard, in the preface to his chronicle, and is reliable, but
obscure. There is a second daughter named by a much later source who
married Louis , Prince of Aquitaine, at a time when there was no
Louis, Prince of Aquitaine. This appears in a source from almost a
century later, and hence is less reliable. People have tried to
identify this daughter's husband as someone named Louis who wasn't
Prince of Aquitaine, or someone who was Prince of Aquitaine but wasn't
named Louis. None of the identifications that have been made for this
daughter should be considered reliable.

As to descendants of Sihtric, I have been unable to find the Baldwin
post to which you refer, but I find the possibility that Olaf Cuaran
was son of Sihtrc Coach by this daughter of Edward very unlikely, as
the couple was married for about 1 year before he died, the earliet a
child could have been born was 927, and Olaf was an active man in
941.

As to the Geoffrey de Mandeville descent, there is no documented one,
although I think a descent from Alfred the Great is likely.

taf

[Renia]

Michael o Hearn wrote:
> I recently discovered probable 18th century a descent from the Butlers of Ireland at the County Carlow IGP. Since the particular ancestor was Mary Murphy who is likely of the Ballymurphy group listed in O'Harts Irish Pedigrees, she likely descends from the Butlers of Ormonde, or more likely from the Butlers of Ikerrin as the later location is very close to where her family lived near the Kilkenny border. The Ikerrin Butlers branch off one generation before the the 1st Butler of Ormonde goes back to Wessex from James Butler's marriage to Eleanor de Bohun. The Wessex descent apparently does not go back from the prior ancestor Sir Edmund de Botiller who married John Fitzgerald.

Murphy is one of the most common names in Ireland, and you need to
establish which family your Mary Murphy descends from before you can try
to leap back to the Kings of Wessex. There were also many different
Butler families in Ireland, and you can't establish which, if any, you
descend from, until you find Mary Murphy's forebears, which is not easy
among the sparcity of Irish records.

[Michael o Hearn]

My query is to find out whether there is a descent from the Kings of Wessex.  Brian's historical ancestors only go back a few generations, none of which descend from Wessex.

If we know of no other wife for Sihtric, then it is at least possible that Olaf Cuaran's mother or stepmother was Eadgyth of Wessex from whom Ragnall descended.

Michael O'Hearn

[Michael o Hearn]

The Ballymurphy sept mentioned in O'Hart's "Irish Pedigrees" originate in th mid-17th century with settlement by Mathew Murphy from County Wexford to County Carlow after the Great Rebellion in 1641.  He married a sister of Daniel Oge Kavanagh and cousin of Sir Morgan Kavanagh, and their son James, whom as far as I can determine is the only one of their four sons who returned to Ballymurphy after the Battle of the Boyne, married a sister of Bryan Oge Kavanagh.  All of the Murphys of Ballymurphy therefore descend from the MacMurrogh-Kavanaghs through the maternal line.  The Kavanagh sept apparently is located in Borris, County Carlow from its inception.  All of the Kavanagh sept descend paternally in a direct line from Dermot MacMorrogh King of Leinster who was descended from Donnchad mac Brian and who MAY have been descended from Donnchad's wife Cacht daughter of Rannell King of the Isle of Man.  Donnchad also MAY have married a daughter of Godwin
Earl of Wessex also descended from the Wessex Kings.  More likely, Dermot MacMurrogh descended from Cacht because there is only one child of Donnchad attributed to Godwin's daughter this being Donald Bane O'Brien who was not the ancestor of Murrogh.  Then the question becomes, was Cacht descended from King Edward of Wessex?  

I have established Mary Murphy's descent based upon her KNOWN  birth and location of Borris, County Kilkenny which match the date on her baptismal record in Borris Parish, her father being Michael Murphy.  From there, I have found probable grandparents Peter Murphy and Betty Butler also living in Borris Parish, father of Michael Murphy whose baptismal record in Borris Parish is within the relevant time frame for being the father of Mary, and who is the ONLY Michael Murphy whose baptismal record matches from the available records.

With regard to the Butlers, I have already stated that Mary's grandfather Peter Butler is likely of the Ormonde Butlers and even more likely of the Ikerrin Butlers, which branched off a generation earlier, based upon their location at Borris, County Carlow very close to Ikerrin in County Kilkenny.  It is certainly possible, but not likely, that they were of the Cahir Butlers of County Tipperary a later branch from the Ormonde Butlers, or directly from the first Butlers of Dunboyne in County Meath.  Certainly they are not descended from the Rawcliffe Butlers.

Michael O'Hearn

[taf]

On Dec 11, 1:25 pm, Michael o Hearn <mohearn_brights...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> If we know of no other wife for Sihtric, then it is at least possible that Olaf Cuaran's mother or stepmother was Eadgyth of Wessex from whom Ragnall descended.
>

I am not sure what you are after here, but we can be almost certain,
based on chronology and other information, that Eadgyth was not the
mother of Olaf, nor of any other children by Sihtric (she retired to a
convent, which would not be the expected behavior for a widow with an
infant child, nor do any of the chroniclers mention such a child).

taf

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/11/2009 1:26:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mohearn_b...@yahoo.com writes:

All of the Kavanagh sept descend paternally in a direct line from Dermot
MacMorrogh King of Leinster who was descended from Donnchad mac Brian and
who MAY have been descended from Donnchad's wife Cacht daughter of Rannell
King of the Isle of Man. Donnchad also MAY have married a daughter of Godwin
Earl of Wessex also descended from the Wessex Kings.>>

Attacking a different section of this from Todd, I would certainly like to
see your sources for this possibly fictitious claim of descent of the
Kavanaughs "paternally in a direct line" from Dermot. Sounds pretty slim to me.

What source is telling yout that Donnchad married a daughter of the King of
Man? And what source is telling you that he married a daughter of
Godwin? The later seems exceptionally remote, the former only somewhat.

Will Johnson

[Michael o Hearn]

Will Johnson<Would you cite exactly where Saxo makes this claim?  I want to read
that exact passage myself.

That would be in "Gesta Danorum" Book IX, page 295 in the English text edited by Hilda Ellis Davidson, translated by Peter Fisher.

My comment pertains to Thyra's descent, not Godwin's.  I guess I may not have completed the sentence.

With regard to Godwin, there is an interesting chart called "House of Wessex family tree which demonstrates his descent from Aethelred.

Michael O'Hearn

[Michael o Hearn]

In additional to Kavanagh's line of descent, there is another possible descent from John Butler Viscount Ikerrin by way of William Marshal's marriage to Isabel de Clare, daughter of Strongbow.

Michael O'Hearn

[WJho...@aol.com]

Book 9 is online at this link
_http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book9.html_
(http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book9.html)

Perhaps you could point out exactly where this citation is, and what it
states.

[taf]

Will, go to the page and search for Ethelred. Saxo makes him father-
in-law of Gorm.

From there you go by via marriage to Styrbjorn (accepted by at least
some historians), to the descent Styrjorn to Thorgils to Gytha
(probably invented).

As to the descent of Godwin from AEthelweard, and on to AEthelred, we
all know that the literature on that goes back a century and it is
still supported by many genealogists (and dismissed by many
historians). Unlike the above descent, which is based on old
material, the suppositions underlying the connection from Godwin to
AEthelweard are modern, and circle around the interpretation of the
will of the AEtheling AEthelstan, of the Cild title (if that it was)
and of certain lands passing by descent (if that's what they did).
And, of course, it depends on whether one accepts the fact that
AEthelweard the Ealdorman is the same as AEthelweard the Historian,
who only a hypercritic would dismiss as a descendant of AEthelred I.

taf

[taf]

On Dec 12, 2:50 am, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:42 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Book 9 is online at this link
> > _http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book9.html_
> > (http://omacl.org/DanishHistory/book9.html)
>
> > Perhaps you could point out exactly where this citation is, and what it  
> > states.
>
> Will, go to the page and search for Ethelred.  Saxo makes him father-
> in-law of Gorm.

Here is the original (Gesta Danorum, 9,11,2):

"Hic a maioribus coniugalia sacra celebrare permonitus Anglorum regis
Hedelradi filiam Thiram nuptiali studio insecutus est."

Now whether it is true or not is a separate question.

taf

[Michael o Hearn]

To summarize, the descent of Viscounts Ikerrin Butler from the kings of Wessex is quite problematic.  The Earl of Ormonde i the succeeding generation, however, is descended directly from King Edward of England by way of Charles III's of France marriage to Eadgifu.

The possibilities of Ikerrin's descent appear to be limited to Dermot MacMorrogh's descent from Dervorgilla daughter of Donchad O'Brien by Cacht daughter of Ragnall King of the Isle of Man as documented by Stewart Baldwin in "The Kings of the Isle of Man" [AT] [CS] [AI].  This would be based upon Sihtric II's marriage to Athelstan's sister Eadgyth in 925 of Wessex but the accession of Sihtric's Olaf to the kingship of York in 944 makes it seem rather unlikely that Eadgyth was his mother, although she may have been his stepmother.  There is also a possible descent from Donnchad's second wife, a daughter of Godwin Earl of Wessex, either through Godwin's supposed descent from King Ethelred I, or that of Godwin's wife Gytha from Thyra, mother of Harald Bluetooth of Denmark, who was a daughter of Ethelred as alleged by Saxo Grammaticus although other sources are contra.  Here again, Godwin's daughter was most likely a stepmother because the only child of
Donnchad mac Brian attributed to her is Donald Bane who was not an ancestor of Dermat MacMurrogh.

Michael O'Hearn

[David Teague]

Is there a current consensus on whether Anna of Byzantium, daughter of the emperor Leo VI, was indeed the mother of Louis III's son, Charles, Count of Vienne, a.k.a. Charles Constantine? Or, are the two camps still about where they were a couple of years ago, when this question last reared its head on the newsgroup?

Thanks in advance.

David Teague

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/

[WJho...@aol.com]

The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of the
East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the
illegitimate son of a remote ruler. And you should provide a disclaimer whenever
you call him "Constantine".



In a message dated 12/12/2009 7:39:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

[pj.evans]

On Dec 12, 11:52 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of the
>  East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the
> illegitimate  son of a remote ruler.  And you should provide a disclaimer whenever
> you  call him "Constantine".
>
> In a message dated 12/12/2009 7:39:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
>

> davtea...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> Is there  a current consensus on whether Anna of Byzantium, daughter of the
> emperor Leo  VI, was indeed the mother of Louis III's son, Charles, Count
> of Vienne, a.k.a.  Charles Constantine? Or, are the two camps still about
> where they were a  couple of years ago, when this question last reared its head
> on the  newsgroup?

Why should he have to produce a disclaimer? He's using the name[s]
most likely to be found in references to the person.

[WJho...@aol.com]

There's a long thread here
_http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-02/11710680
13_
(http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2007-02/1171068013)

He was never called Constantine during his lifetime. This "nick-name" was
applied to him much later and stuck.



In a message dated 12/12/2009 1:10:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pj.eva...@usa.net writes:

-------------------------------

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/12/2009 11:53:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
WJho...@aol.com writes:

> The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of
> the
> East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the
> illegitimate son of a remote ruler. And you should provide a disclaimer
> whenever
> you call him "Constantine".>>

What I said makes no sense.
What I should have said is, the marriage is unlikely because we have a fair
idea of how old Anna was. Charles was already active not too far
afterward, but yet did not inherit his father's lands, or not enough of them to make
it clear that he was legitimate. So he is believed to have been
illegitimate, which would not work out if his mother was the legal spouse of her
husband.

It's probably better just to re-read that old thread I linked to, since I'm
not able to summarize it well.

[Michael o Hearn]

Based on the location of ancestral records in the town of Borris, County Carlow, there is no reason for me to have presumed descent from the Ikerrin branch of the Butlers who were located in North County Tipperary.  It is true that there could have been descent from any of the various branches, or for that matter from someone unrelated named Butler.  My information is that the earliest Butlers in Ireland lived in Tipperary, and that Sir Edmund de Botiller, who married Joan Fitzgerald and who died in 1321, was Earl of Carrick from whom the Ikerrin and Ormonde branches originate.  This location in southeast County Tipperary is a place that I once visited, and nearest in location to Borris of all the historical Butler estates in Ireland. 

Michael O'Hearn

[WJho...@aol.com]

That's right. There were people in the landed gentry or baronetcy named
Smith or Hunt or Johnson, but that does not mean that all people in that area,
of that surname are descended from those people.

You need a clear paper trail or at least a trail only faintly grey to make
a claim like that. If part of your paper trail is black (missing) then you
simply can't say. Speculation on one link or even two, might be allowed,
speculation on five missing generations just isn't going to be a good way to
do genealogy, imho.

[David Teague]

From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:52:54 -0500
Subject: Re: The Count of Vienne, again
To: davt...@hotmail.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com

The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of the East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the illegitimate son of a remote ruler. And you should provide a disclaimer whenever you call him "Constantine".

Thanks, Will, for the reply.

As for the disclaimer, that was rather the point of the "a.k.a."

David Teague

In a message dated 12/12/2009 7:39:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, davt...@hotmail.com writes:
Is there a current consensus on whether Anna of Byzantium, daughter of the emperor Leo VI, was indeed the mother of Louis III's son, Charles, Count of Vienne, a.k.a. Charles Constantine? Or, are the two camps still about where they were a couple of years ago, when this question last reared its head on the newsgroup?

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/

[taf]

On Dec 13, 11:20 am, David Teague <davtea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: WJhon...@aol.com

> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:52:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: The Count of Vienne, again

> To: davtea...@hotmail.com; gen-medie...@rootsweb.com

>
> The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of the East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the illegitimate son of a remote ruler.  And you should provide a disclaimer whenever you call him "Constantine".
>
> Thanks, Will, for the reply.
>

I find myself in disagreement with Wills statement. What he presented
was the viewpoint of the critics of the relationship, but as with many
debated questions in medieval genealogy, there is a polarization, and
there are scholars who fully accept the connection between Charles and
Anna and Leo. To speak of consensus implies agreement on something
that is not agreed upon.

taf

[WJho...@aol.com]

I didn't mean "a.k.a. Charles Constantine" but rather "Charles a.k.a.
Constantine"

That is, he was never called Constantine in his lifetime. One writer
called him Constantius (or something like that) and others picked it up.
But not in his lifetime.



In a message dated 12/13/2009 11:21:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
davt...@hotmail.com writes:

From: WJho...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:52:54 -0500
Subject: Re: The Count of Vienne, again
To: davt...@hotmail.com; gen-me...@rootsweb.com

The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of
the East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the
illegitimate son of a remote ruler. And you should provide a disclaimer whenever
you call him "Constantine".

Thanks, Will, for the reply.

[WJho...@aol.com]

Could you tell us how those scholars account for Charles not inheriting his
father's major land holdings?



In a message dated 12/13/2009 12:05:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

[John]

On Dec 13, 12:42 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I didn't mean "a.k.a. Charles Constantine" but rather "Charles a.k.a.  
> Constantine"
>
> That is, he was never called Constantine in his lifetime.  One writer  
> called him Constantius (or something like that) and others picked it up.
> But not in his lifetime.
>
> In a message dated 12/13/2009 11:21:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
>

> davtea...@hotmail.com writes:

>
> From:  WJhon...@aol.com
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:52:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: The  Count of Vienne, again
> To: davtea...@hotmail.com;  gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
>
> The consensus still is, paraphrasing Peter Stewart, that the Emperor of  
> the East (or the known world) would not send his daughter to marry the  
> illegitimate son of a remote ruler.  And you should provide a disclaimer  whenever
> you call him "Constantine".
>
> Thanks, Will, for the reply.
>
> As for the disclaimer, that was rather the point of the "a.k.a."
>
> David Teague
>
> In a message dated 12/12/2009 7:39:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
>

> davtea...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> Is  there a current consensus on whether Anna of Byzantium, daughter of the
>  emperor Leo VI, was indeed the mother of Louis III's son, Charles, Count
> of  Vienne, a.k.a. Charles Constantine? Or, are the two camps still about
> where  they were a couple of years ago, when this question last reared its head
> on  the  newsgroup?

What is your basis and evidence for saying that he was referred to as
"Charles a.k.a. Constantine" rather than "Charles a.k.a Charles
Constantine"? The earlier threads seem to make it clear that
Constantine was used in addition to, not in place of, Charles. And
thus the original poster in this thread was correct in referring to
him as "Charles a.k.a. Charles Constantine" and not "Charles a.k.a
Constantine" as you state. And so the disclaimer, if one is
necessary, is appropriately used here.

And the question still remains: has anything changed since the thread
of 2007, when there definitely was NOT a consensus on the issue raised
by the current poster?

[Christopher Ingham]

I know that there is a study -- sorry about not being more specific --
which shows that "Constantin" and "Constantia" were fairly common
given names in Provence in that era. This would seem to mitigate
against Charles' supposed connection to Constantinople.

Christopher Ingham

[taf]

On Dec 13, 12:45 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Could you tell us how those scholars account for Charles not inheriting his
>  father's major land holdings?

No, you will have to take it up with them (e.g. Settipani, Jackman).

taf

[wjhonson]

I'm showing the image of the book scan from the 1905 edition of
Flodard here
http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/-/4hmquk6fx4gu/390#view

So evidently it's true that Constantinus was used in addition to
Karlus.
The quote is "...Karlus Constantinus Viennae princeps...."

The only way to move forward on this question, is for people to look
into the sources and cite and quote them.
Now I've contributed to that movement.
Next?

Will Johnson

[David Teague]

Having watched the old film Passport to Pimlico over the weekend, which proceeds on the basis of a fictional grant of the Borough of Pimlico by Edward IV to his brother-in-law, Charles the Bold of Burgundy, I have a question:

Disregarding the fictional line of descent alluded to in the film, who would inherit the Burgundian title now (or even in the late 1940s, which is when the film came out)? I am certainly aware that the descendants of Maximillian von Hapsburg (husband of Duke Charles' daughter Mary) were styled Dukes or Duchesses of Burgundy at least as late as the days of Maria Theresa, because the title appeared on her famous thaler coin. So, does this mean that the Austrian Hapsburg heir would inherit, or would it be the Spanish Hapsburg descendants (presumably King Juan Carlos), because they are descended fron Carlos I of Spain (= the HRE Charles V), who was older than his brother Ferdinand, who succeeded as Emperor after Charles' retirement from the world, and from whom the later Austrian Hapsburgs derived?

Or would the Salic Law have applied, and if so, who would be the heir of Charles the Bold then?

Thanks in advance.

David Teague

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/

[Hovite]

Burgundy was a fief of France. King John II created his son, Philip,
Duke of Burgundy in 1363. When Charles, 4th Duke of Burgundy, died
without a male heir in 1477, the dukedom reverted to the French crown.
The title was subsequently granted to others. Louis (born 1682, died
1712), eldest son of Louis, Dauphin of Viennois, was created Duke of
Burgundy by his grandfather Louis XIV, and Louis (born 1751, died
1761), eldest son of Louis, Dauphin of Viennois, was created Duke of
Burgundy by his grandfather Louis XV.

[Leo]

I understand that the rules of inheritance of the duchy of Burgundy given to
Philippe the Bold was different from the other royal duchies. But when
Charles the Bold was killed the French king applied to the rules of the
royal apanage applicable to the other royal duchies and maintainted Burgundy
had to be returned to the crown. Especially Emperor Charles V disagreed (and
I think he was right) which was the cause of the wars between the Emperor
and France.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[M Sjostrom]

the legitimist succession to tge duchy of Burgundy, granted once to Philip
the Bold:

a) the later french doctrine, i.e Salic Law: upon the death of Charles the
dumb one, there actually survived one heir-male of the original grantee,
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00026239&tree=LEO
i.e Jehan de Bourgogne, comte de Nevers et Rethel, would have been the
legitimarte duke. It is sometimes reported that king Lou XI came to some
settlement with comte Jehan upon this matter, but I have not seen any
tangible evidence about his any renunciation....
After Jehan, it went extinct, and only then reverted to the french crown.
So, Louis XI was anyway an usurper in this matter. Too hasty to take it.

b) some semi-salic provision: Arguably, in any semi-salicism, comte Jehan
would have been the rightful heir anyway, and then the semi-salicism should
have pivoted from him.
According to the principle of Proximity of Blood (which is most relevant
when a female or a female's issue is needed in semi-salicism), his heir
would upon his death have been his younger (but surviving) daughter,
Charlotte de Nevers, comtesse de Rethel.
This actually is the closest to laws and customs what the succession seems
to been during the first ducal dynasty of Burgundy from 1000s to 1300s.
Her sucession would naturally pass to the dukes of Mantova and Montferrat,
after their extinction to the closest heir, the then Duke of Lorraine and
Bar - and his male line is not extinct, but is alive and well, in
primogeniture in the person of the senior heir, the Duke of Hohenberg, in
Austria.
Between 1760s and 1916, this succession would have coincided with the
Austrian patrimony, from emperor Joseph II to emperor Franz Joseph.
Observe that Mary Theresa was not the rightful heiress, instead her hubby
Francis Stephen of Lorraine was that. Still, Theresa was duchess-consort in
this succession.

c) the only way how emperor Charles V would have been legitimist successor
to that dukedom (and duchy) of Burgundy, would have been the normal feudal
succession. like the thrones of Britain and Spain today. Because,
otherwise, Mary of Burgundy would not have been (instead of her cousin, the
old comte Jehan de Nevers) the successor to this duchy.
This wasn't exactly how the duchy had passed during the first ducal dynasty
of Burgundy from 1000s to 1300s, and I am not aware of precise evidence what
were terms of the grant to the second ducal Burgundian dynasty in person of
Philip the bold.

so, I would say that Charles V was probably in wrong when claiming that
duchy from the other usurper.... :)

however, if firstly Mary, then Philip the fair and then Charles V, were
heirs, then upon the death of Charles II of Spain, the succession would have
passed to his eldest sister's only surviving son, Louis, the grand dauphin.
he woould in turn have succeeded -whoah- by Louis, the duke of Burgundy, who
actually was the duke of Burgundy.
After him, it passed along the throne of France, until possibly upon the
death of so-called Louis XVII, the duchess of Angouleme succeeded to (some)
rights....

Her death would have left it to the comte de Chambord, and again the
legitimist pretension to the throne of France. No-brainer how after him: his
nephew, Robert, duke of Parma, and after some vicissitudes, today the
multiple-heiress-of-ancient-lines, Alice of Parma, dowager duchess of
Calabria - the one in Spain.
After the yet-surviving her, in third generation, there will arise a
problem, namely whether the matrimonium subsequens between parents of of don
Jaime de Borbon y Landaluce will legitimise him for its succession or his
younger brother Jon were the rightful heir.

-----

so, to the great disappointment of some, neither king Juan Carlos, nor
empress Maria Theresa, are or were its rightful heirs.

[M Sjostrom]

however, any honor or title or property conferred to Charles the dumb one,
does not necessarily pass on like Burgundy should.

alternative 1) a grant to Charles, would have been (like most English
titles and honors granted in that very epoch), limited to Salic Law. In that
case, the said Pimlico would have reverted to the English crown when Charles
deceased without male issue.
So, no luck for those who look forward to a dynasty in Pimlico

alternative 2) Pimlico would have been a property, inheritable by Charles'
heirs whatsoever, or at least without limitation on basis of gender. Well,
in that epoch and also later, usual English landed properties, if not
entails, were inherited by heirs-general - or whatever was the correct
property passage.

In thart case, Pimlico could have been inherited by Charles' daughter, and
so forth onwards.
But what happens when an english monarch is at war against its rightful
owner. Such as, Philip II of the Armada fame being in war against Elizabeth
I..... how long would that inherited piece of Burgundy survive in midst of
english lands ?
and, when Charles II of spain would have been inherited in 1700 by the grand
dauphin, and England went to war (the so-called war of Spanish succession)
against any French pursuance of inheritance of spain... ?
At such a time, Pimlico surely would get annexed to English crown, right?

Many of these monarchs would not have settled to Pimlico, not by any stretch
of imagination. They had bigger realms to reign, such as Spains and France.

If however not, then (if assuming succession like the throne of Britain) it
simply would pass along French kings, to the duchess of Angouleme, she
leaving it to the comte de Chambord, and in turn then the deposed dukes of
Parma, until infanta Alice, dowager duchess of Calabria, would to-day hold
it...

[Leo]

Jean II 'the Good', king of France, came into possession of Burgundy in 1361
not through reversion to the crown but because he was the closest heir.

In 1363 he gave Burgundy to his son Philippe and "the heirs (who would be)
begotten from his body in legitimate matrimony", he did not specify 'male
heirs', as he had done in 1360 when granting Berry and Auvergne to his son
Jean.

This indicates that he may have had reservations about the legality of the
duchy of Burgundy being considered henceforth a normal apanage, which women
could not inherit. Significantly, he himself had qualified as the closest
heir through a woman, his mother Jeanne de Bourgogne, the previous duke's
great-aunt.

See the biography for Maria the Rich on my website.

[M Sjostrom]

like I indicated, there's certain difficulty in regarding that Mary of
Burgundy (daughter of Charles) actually ever in her lifetime were the
rightful heiress of Burgundy:

there were precedents in the tenure of the first ducal dynasty of Burgundy
that daughters of elder sons did not succeed if there was a male-line male
of the dynasty still surviving.

In other words, semi-salic succession.

Namely, Robert, third son of duke Eudes IV, succeeded as duke, not any of
the very surviving daughters of his elder brothers. not Yolande, comtesse de
Nevers, nor Beatrix, dame de Bourbon.
So, certainly a male-line male of the ducal dynasty had enjoyed priority
over females, genealogically seniot though such female was.

And what would been the things which would have changed this order of
succession, this customary law entrenched in the Burgundian law and custom,
if the entire argument was that king Jean II respected too much the
Burgundian custom and position, not to chage it to the 'normal' system of
royal appanages.

Certainly there is no testimony for Jean II meaning to change the Burgundian
succession custom even FURTHER from both the royal standard for younger sons
AND from the entrenched Burgundian customary law, which the king is claimed
to have respected in that.

I remind that Jean II did NOT inherit Burgundy as heir of the 'eldest'
branch,
instead he inherited it as closest kinsman of the previous duke albeit from
thge line of a younger daughter.

Mary of Burgundy had the benefit of troops and resources of those other
lands she had inherited directly from her father. But that does not make her
necessarily the rightful heir of the ducal Burgundy.

In that, the net result imo was funny - it can be said that two usurpers
battled over the duchy, having totally left a more rightful heir aside.
But such it was in many cases. Like, Edward III was never heir-general of
the Capetians, still he made biggest disturbances and noises about it.

[Ford Mommaerts-Browne]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo" <leov...@netspeed.com.au>
To: "David Teague" <davt...@hotmail.com>; <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: A bit of fun

>I understand that the rules of inheritance of the duchy of Burgundy given
>to
> Philippe the Bold was different from the other royal duchies. But when
> Charles the Bold was killed the French king applied to the rules of the
> royal apanage applicable to the other royal duchies and maintainted
> Burgundy
> had to be returned to the crown. Especially Emperor Charles V disagreed
> (and
> I think he was right) which was the cause of the wars between the Emperor
> and France.

> Leo van de Pas
> Canberra, Australia

Actually, I believe that, when asked why France and Spain were always at
war, Charles replied, 'We both want Italy!'

Ford
'We are here to add what we can to life, not to get what we can from life.'
-- William Osler

[Ford Mommaerts-Browne]

----- Original Message -----
From: "M Sjostrom" <mqs...@gmail.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 10:42 PM
Subject: A bit of fun

Edward III was never heir-general of
> the Capetians, still he made biggest disturbances and noises about it.

No, he weren't. The senior heirs-general would have been the royal line of
Navarra, which, ironically, eventually did inherit the French crown, Paris
being worth a mass.

Stanford