Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne
rwje...@hctc.net
of Godfrey's role in the 1st Crusade, and the presenter claimed that
he (Godfrey) was a descendant of Charlemagne.
Can anyone provide me with the link, if there is one?
Robert
MTaHT
any corrections will be appreciated.
12. EMP.of the West, Charlemagne, b.2 Apr 742 Ingolheim,
d.28 Jan 814 Aachen[Pepin/m./Bertrada GrandPied deLAON]
m. SWABIA, Hildegarde v.Vinzgau,b.758, d.30 Apr 783
| [Gerold 1 hg./m./Emma v. ALLEMANIA]
|
11. FRANCE,KING, H.R.EMP., Louis 1 lePieux,
b.Aug 778 Garonne, d.20 Jun 840 Mainz
m. BAVARIA, Judith d'Altorf,b.800?, d.19 Apr 843
| [Guelf 2 gf.Andech hg./m./Edith/Hedwige v.SAXE]
|
10. FRANCE,KING, Charles 2 theBald,
b. 13 Jun 823 Paris, d.6 Oct 877 Brides les Bains
m. ORLEANS, Ermentrude d', b. 27 Sep 830,
| d.6 Oct 869 [Otone/Eudes/m./Ingeltrude dePARIS]
|
9. FRANCE, Judith de, b. 843, d. Apr 870
m. FLANDERS, Baudoin 1 Bras-de-Fer ct.de,
| b. Aug 840, d. 879 [Odoacer ct.]
|
8. FLANDERS, Baudoin 2 leChauve ct., b.865? Fland., d.918
m. ENGLAND, Elfride of, b. 877, d. 7 Jun 929
| [Alfred the Great/m./Aelhswith of MERCIA]
|
7. FLANDERS, Arnoul 1 leGrand ct.,b.900? Fland.,d.27 Mar 964
m. VERMANDOIS, Adele de, b. 915?, d. 960
| [Herbert 2/m./Hildebrand/Lieutgarde deFRANCE]
|
6. FLANDERS, Hildegarde de, b. 930?Flanders, d.10 Apr 990
m. W.FRIESLAND, Dietrich 2 gf.v., b. 920?,
| d. 5 Jun 988 [Dietrich/m./Geva cts.FRIESLAND]
|
5. W.FRIESLAND, Arnulf 1 ct.Ghent,
b.950?, d. 18 Sep 993
m. LUXEMBOURG, Luitgarde de Cleves, b. 960?
| [Siegfried ct.d'Ardennes/m./Hedwige v. SAXE]
|
4. HOLLAND, Adele de Ghent v., b. 985? Flanders
m. BOULOGNE, Baudoin 2 ct.,b.976, d.1033 [Gui]
|
3. BOULOGNE, Eustache 1 ct.de, b. 1004, d. 1049
m. LOUVAIN, Mathilde de, b. 1000?
| [Lambert 1 ct./m./Gerberge de LORRAINE]
|
2. BOULOGNE, Eustache 2 ct.de, b. 1030?, d. 1093
m. ARDENNES-LORRAINE, St.Ide de Bouillon,
| b. 1032?, d. 13 Aug 1113 [Godfroy 2 Barbatus
| /m./Beatrix/Dode de BAR-U.LORRAINE]
|
1. JERUSALEM,KING, Godefroy de Bouillon,
b. 1060?, d.18 Jul 1100
m. MANDEVILLE, Beatrix de, b. 1070? []
Are there any descendants of Godefroy de Bouillon?
[] = [dad/mom of person to the left]
? = date is unreliable or a guess for
research purposes, only.
hg.=herzog, ct.=comte/count, gf.=graf
v.=von/van, b.=born, d.=died, m.=married
Hope this helps both of us.
Best wishes,
Mike Talbot
Leo van de Pas
>This is one of the lines of descent that I have to Godefroy,
>any corrections will be appreciated.
>
>12. EMP.of the West, Charlemagne, b.2 Apr 742 Ingolheim,
> d.28 Jan 814 Aachen[Pepin/m./Bertrada GrandPied deLAON]
> m. SWABIA, Hildegarde v.Vinzgau,b.758, d.30 Apr 783
> | [Gerold 1 hg./m./Emma v. ALLEMANIA]
> |
>11. FRANCE,KING, H.R.EMP., Louis 1 lePieux,
> b.Aug 778 Garonne, d.20 Jun 840 Mainz
> m. BAVARIA, Judith d'Altorf,b.800?, d.19 Apr 843
> | [Guelf 2 gf.Andech hg./m./Edith/Hedwige v.SAXE]
> |
>10. FRANCE,KING, Charles 2 theBald,
> b. 13 Jun 823 Paris, d.6 Oct 877 Brides les Bains
> m. ORLEANS, Ermentrude d', b. 27 Sep 830,
> | d.6 Oct 869 [Otone/Eudes/m./Ingeltrude dePARIS]
> |
>9. FRANCE, Judith de, b. 843, d. Apr 870
> m. FLANDERS, Baudoin 1 Bras-de-Fer ct.de,
> | b. Aug 840, d. 879 [Odoacer ct.]
> |
>8. FLANDERS, Baudoin 2 leChauve ct., b.865? Fland., d.918
> m. ENGLAND, Elfride of, b. 877, d. 7 Jun 929
> | [Alfred the Great/m./Aelhswith of MERCIA]
> |
>7. FLANDERS, Arnoul 1 leGrand ct.,b.900? Fland.,d.27 Mar 964
> m. VERMANDOIS, Adele de, b. 915?, d. 960
> | [Herbert 2/m./Hildebrand/Lieutgarde deFRANCE]
.....Dear Mike a while ago this link was discussed and the findings were
that Arnoul's firs wife NN is the mother of this Hildegard. His son is by
Adele de Vermandois. However, this changes nothing in this lineage. But!
see further below.
> |
>6. FLANDERS, Hildegarde de, b. 930?Flanders, d.10 Apr 990
> m. W.FRIESLAND, Dietrich 2 gf.v., b. 920?,
> | d. 5 Jun 988 [Dietrich/m./Geva cts.FRIESLAND]
> |
>5. W.FRIESLAND, Arnulf 1 ct.Ghent,
> b.950?, d. 18 Sep 993
> m. LUXEMBOURG, Luitgarde de Cleves, b. 960?
> | [Siegfried ct.d'Ardennes/m./Hedwige v. SAXE]
> |
>4. HOLLAND, Adele de Ghent v., b. 985? Flanders
> m. BOULOGNE, Baudoin 2 ct.,b.976, d.1033 [Gui]
According to Genealogie der Graven van Holland, by Dr. AWE Dek, page 12.
Arnulf 'may' have had a daughter named Aleida,and this Aleida was married
to Engelram I Count of Pontieu who died circa 1045. As footnote this books
refers to: For this family see C. Brunel, Recueil des Actes des comtes de
Ponthieu, Paris 1930.
Now comes the interesting bit, Schwennicke Volume III/4 page 635.
Enguerrand I de Ponthieu married Adeliva, widow of Baudouin Comte de
Boulogne, and Adeliva is POSSIBLY daughter of Arnulf van Friesland. That
sounds positive until you get hold of page 621 of the same book, the page
covering the Counts of Boulogne. There is no mention of a Baudouin/Balduin
who married an Adeliva.........but if you look on this page you find that
Godfrey of Bouillon's father Eustache is the son of "Mathilde von Loewen"
(Louvain/Leuven) who in turn is a daughter of Gerberga von Lothringen
(Karolingerin) and we are back into line to Charlemagne. See your
generation 3 below.
> |
>3. BOULOGNE, Eustache 1 ct.de, b. 1004, d. 1049
> m. LOUVAIN, Mathilde de, b. 1000?
> | [Lambert 1 ct./m./Gerberge de LORRAINE]
> |
>2. BOULOGNE, Eustache 2 ct.de, b. 1030?, d. 1093
> m. ARDENNES-LORRAINE, St.Ide de Bouillon,
> | b. 1032?, d. 13 Aug 1113 [Godfroy 2 Barbatus
> | /m./Beatrix/Dode de BAR-U.LORRAINE]
> |
>1. JERUSALEM,KING, Godefroy de Bouillon,
> b. 1060?, d.18 Jul 1100
> m. MANDEVILLE, Beatrix de, b. 1070? []
>
>Are there any descendants of Godefroy de Bouillon?
Godfrey did not marry, nor have I heard of illegitimate children, but
perhaps others have?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
ED MANN
>
> Are there any descendants of Godefroy de Bouillon?
Well, I'm one as is:
Direct Descendants of Godfrey de Boulogne
1 Godfrey de Boulogne aka: King of Jerusalem b: Bef. 1061 d: 18 Jul
1100 ref #: Ä158A-23
2 William de Boulogne b: Bef. 1081 d: Abt. 1159 ref #: Ä158A-24
3 Pharamus de Boulogne aka: Faramus de Boulogne b: Bef. 1110 d: Abt.
1184 ref #: Ä158A-25
4 Sibyl de Boulogne b: Abt. 1132 ref #: Ä158A-26
5 William de Fiennes d: 1241 ref #: Ä158A-27
6 Ingelram de Fiennes aka: Enguerrand III de Coucy b: Abt. 1202 ref
#: Ä152-28
7 Maud de Fiennes ref #: Ä152A-29
8 Sir Humphrey de Bohun VIII aka: 4th Earl of Hereford & Essex b:
Abt. 1276 d: 16 Mar 1321/22 ref #: W18-5
9 Sir William de Bohun aka: 1st Earl of Northampton b: Abt. 1312 d:
16 Sep 1360 ref #: F24:11
10 Sir Humphrey de Bohun aka: 2d Earl of Northampton b: 25 Mar 1342
d: 16 Jan 1372/73 ref #: F25:10
11 Mary de Bohun b: Abt. 1370 d: 4 Jul 1394 ref #: F25:10ii
12 King Henry V of England b: 9 Aug 1387 d: 31 Aug 1422 ref #:
F157:9
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
Leo van de Pas
Dear Ed,
I have bad news and bad news--- I have never seen a remark that Godfrey
of Bouillon was married, and that was the reason that his brother took over
in Jerusalem.
In your line, number 6 Ingelram de Fiennes and Enguerrand III de Coucy are
definitely two separate persons.
The only Enguerrand III that fits the period (Schwennicke Volume VII page
80) was Seigneur de Coucy de Marle de la fere et de Crecy, Comte de Roucy,
Comte de Perche, married
(1) Beatrix de Vignory (2) Mathilde of Saxony (3) Marie de Montmirail. He
had only children by his third wife, the daughters : Marie married (1) to
Alexander II King of Scots and Alix wife of Arnould III de Guines
Ingelram de Fiennes, in his own right, is mentioned by Turton (page 167)
and the Complete Peerage Volume VI page 465:
Humphrey de Bohun married in 1275 Maud de Fiennes, she was daughter of
Enguerrand de Fiennes, Seigneur de Fiennes in Guisnes by NN daughter of
Jacques, Seigneur de Conde, Bailleul and Moriammez in Hainault, and
granddaughter of Guillaume de Fiennes by Agnes de Dammartin, daughter of
Alberic II Count de Dammartin.
From here we get into more interesting and revealing information :
Schwennicke III/4 page 621 again.
Guillaume de Fiennes (husband of Agnes de Fammartin) is son of Enguerrand
de Fiennes and Sibyl de Tingry (de Boulogne).
Sibyl is daughter of Faramus de Boulogne or de Tingry.
Faramus is son of William (Guillaume ?) de Boulgone
Guillaume is son of Godefroy de Boulogne, Lord of Carshalton, and Beatrix
de Mandeville.
Godefroy, Lord of Carshalton, is an illegitimate son of Eustache II de
Boulogne and HALF-brother of THE Godfrey de
Bouillon...............Ancestor? No, ancestral uncle yes.
Let me know what you think,
G . EDWARD ALLEN
This one's for you: Weis & Sheppard AR 6th ed., line 158A, note:
-
"Note: Although the Lotharingian name, Godofred, borne by the famous
leader of the First Crusade, has been transcribed into English as
'Godfrey', this is etymologically incorrect. The name is, instead, the
equivalent of the name which normally appears in cintemporary French or
Anglo-Norman documents in such forms as "Goisfrid' and "Gauzfrid', the
prototypes of modern "Geoffrey'. ...J. Horace Round (1895, p.256[no
citation given]), citing Domesday references to property held by
Goisfrid, son of Count Eustace in right of his wife, daughter of
Geoffrey de Mandeville, says that 'Dr. Liebermann asks whether
Geoffrey's daughter was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the
future King of jerusalem'.' The reference is presumably to the
linguistically sophisticated Anglo-Saxonist, Felix Liebermann, who would
have made the equation. However, in an article published a year later,
on Faramus, grandson of "Goisfrid', Round makes no mention of this
identification. He had come to recognize that "Goisfrid' was the
equivalent of later Geoffrey and had been informed by his friend, M.V.J.
Vaillant, of Boulogne 'that the sons of Eustace are known and that
Geoffrey is not among them'. What M. Vaillant should have written was
that there was no Godfrey among them. However, Round accepted the
testimony of his linguistically naive friend against that of Liebermann
and therefore invented a non-existent bastard son, Geoffrey, of Eustace
of Boulogne. The truth was later recognized by Joseph Armitage Robinson
in his study of the Crispins, and by H.W.C. Davis (1913) who drew
attention to the fact that ''Godfrey' of Jerusalem married Beatrice,
daughter of Geoffrey de mandeville and aunt of the first Earl of Essex.
While the holdings of Geoffrey de mandeville were not nearly as great as
those of Eustace of Boulogne, he was a very substantial landholder in 11
counties and his daughter a suitable match "Godfrey' who had already
inherited a great deal from his maternal uncle. That De Mandeville would
have alienated property in order to give his daughter in marriage to a
bastard son of Count Eustace, lacking any substantial prospects, is
highly unlikely.
More recently, Johnson and Cronne, good historians but poor linguists,
have used Round's article to 'correct' Davis. The true identity of
Geoffrey/Godfrey was recognized again by Miss Catherine Morton, who has
been in touch with DHK [David H. Kelley] and with Sir Anthony Wagner on
this matter. Wagner(1975, p. 253, with an unfortunate misprint) mentions
the 'confusion' between 'Godfrey'and 'Geoffrey'. It was there assumed
that the confusi9on was ancient and that Eustace's son Godofred, was
genuinely a Godfrey. It should be emphasized that actually the confusion
is entirely modern due to the use of 'Godfrey' to transcribe a name
which is etymologically 'Geoffrey' (the Germans use 'Gottfried' both for
the leader of the first crusade and for Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of
Anjou--onew may regard this either as desirable consisttency or double
error).
Wagner cites the views of Stephen Runciman, a historian of the crusades,
pointing out that crusader sources make no suggestion of a wife for
"Godfrey' and emphasizing his chastity. However, a wife and child left
in England would not necessarily have been known to such sources, nor
was there anything notable in a Crusader leaving s wife behind, though
certainly noteworthy if he brought a wife with him. Runciman's further
suggestion that 'Godfrey' might have made some sort og 'morganatic
alliance must be rejected. The concept is completely foreign to the
period, save, perhaps, among the Welsh and would, in any case, hardly
apply to a marriage of 'Godfrey/Geoffrey' with Beatrice de Mandeville,
of a family whose status was fully comparable to his own. It is
extremely unlikely that 'maritagium', the term used for Goisfrid's
marriage, would be applied to a union which was in any way irregular.
Runciman is looking back from the days of 'Godfrey's' greatness, rather
than realistically appraising the situation at the time of his marriage.
..." David Humiston Kelley was the author of this line.
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Nathaniel Taylor
> 1 Godfrey de Boulogne [i.e. de Bouillon]
> 2 William de Boulogne
> 3 Pharamus de Boulogne
> 4 Sibyl de Boulogne
> 5 William de Fiennes ...
(citing Weiss' _Ancestral Roots_, 7th ed., Line 158a).
Whereupon leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas) wrote:
>I have never seen a remark that Godfrey of Bouillon was married, and that
>was the reason that his brother took over in Jerusalem.
Leo cites Schwennicke's ES NF 3:621, to show that this Guillaume de
Boulogne is actually son of a Godefroy, illegitimate half-brother to the
Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre (not King of Jerusalem) Godefroy de
Bouillon.
A "Goisfrid", son of Count Eustace [of Boulogne] is mentioned in Domesday
Book as an English landholder, married to Beatrice de Mandeville (aunt of
the first earl of Essex). Round (whom Schwennicke cites) and later Sir
Anthony R. Wagner (in _Pedigree and Progress_, pp. 159 & 253) were
convinced that this man was a separate person from the Crusader Godfrey
(and was thus necessarily illegitimate, because Count Eustace's
[legitimate] sons were known and did not include a "Goisfrid/Geoffrey").
However, The brief by David H. Kelley inserted in Weiss' _Ancestral
Roots_, 7th ed., presents compelling arguments to show that the two men
may have been the same. He points out that Goisfrid was onomastically
equivalent to Godfrey (something Round ignored as the modern derivations,
Geoffrey and Godfrey, are distinct but not their medieval equivalents),
and that there is no evidence that the known data on the English
landholder with a wife and heir in England and the leader of the first
crusade cannot apply to one and the same person. This identity has indeed
been on the table, as a query, since Round's day: Kelley mentions the work
of Felix Liebermann, Joseph Armitage Robinson, and H. W. C. Davis as
"pro".
One significant counterargument, raised by Wagner, is that none of the
sources for the First Crusade ever allude to a marriage for Godfrey:
rather they tout his chastity. This is less compelling when it is
understood that contemporary writings of the first crusade don't talk much
about the crusaders' home lives, and many of them left families behind.
Thereafter much of the surviving historiography of the Crusades (from the
twelfth century onward) is tainted with the themes of moral fitness for
possession of the Holy Land. Godfrey succeeded in an enterprise which
others, later, could not sustain: therefore in retrospect his virtue must
have been beyond theirs. Think of Tasso's oberblown moral epic
_Gierusalemme liberata_.
While this is not a proven descent (as Mr. Mann's database dump suggests),
nor is it a fruitless and closed case as Mr. van de Pas thought. It is an
intriguing hypothesis which deserves more complete scrutiny, and in a
different forum, than it has yet had. Kelley, at least, suggests that
determined digging may turn up more English records which will help tip
the scales one way or the other. Any takers?
Nat Taylor
MTaHT
Mea culpa,
Mike Talbot
Leo van de Pas
Dear Kay,
What you sent sounded very much like 'legalese' and is not very clear in
what it actually said. In the first place Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon
would not leave a wife and child behind in England as that is not where he
came from.
I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
One illegitimate he calls Godefroy who married Beatrix de Mandeville, one
legitimate son is called Gottfried the person who is our subject. This
Gottfried de Bouillon is marked off as Herzog von Niederlothringen, leader
of the first crusade and Advocatus Sancti Sepulchre. born, died, and buried
in Jerusalem but no wife is mentioned, nor children.
You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply have
copied this without checking. Of course, if the illegitimate Godfrey held
land in England, then Beatrix de Mandeville would have been left in
England. However I doubt that the Duke of Lower-Lorraine would have left
his wife in England.
Another point is that heirs were very important and their rights were often
held against indredible odds. Read the life of Emperor Friedrich II. Robert
the Devil in Normandy had perfectly legal brothers, but he made his
illegitimate son his heir and one of the legal brothers protected William
the Conqueror, insuring him his heritage.
What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
a long time after the other mentioned sources, on page 116 he records what
happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the papal
legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE OVER HIS
RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN. The brother was next of kin, because
Godfrey did not have children. If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of
Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate son,
surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
Lower-Lorraine, and not the holder of a small property in England. How can
Dr. Liebermann speculate whether Beatrix de Mandeville is "the first wife,
else unknown of the future King of Jerusalem" when there was no second
wife---nor was Godfrey/Gottfried King of Jerusalem.
I still think that our Godfrey is an 'ancestral uncle' and not an ancestor.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Alex Polenov
William and Pharamus - counts de Boullion or dukes of Lower Lorrain?
Who was the counts(or dukes) of Boullion after Godfrey, William and Pharamus
and when counts bacame dukes de Boullion?
Who was de Bohun and how it pronounce? Like Rohan? Or Rogun?
Is Engerran III de Coucy a famouse constable of France?
sincerely,
Alex.
Nathaniel Taylor
>I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
>sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
>You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
>illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply have
>copied this without checking.
In fact, that's exactly what Schwennicke did. This article by Round
(1895, repr. 1971) is the only relevant source among his bibliographical
references for that table.
>What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
>Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
>a long time after the other mentioned sources,
Kelley and Wagner were discussing this question in the late '70s and early
'80s, I think. Bridge may have been totally unaware of this question, so
simple posteriority argues nothing.
> on page 116 he records what
>happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the papal
>legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
>Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE OVER HIS
>RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN.
If that is exactly what the message said, and not a historian's assumption
(or the testimony of a non-contemporary like William of Tyre) based on the
assumption that that's the argument that would have been used, than it's
significant, otherwise not so. The issue of succession to the lordship of
Jerusalem, as with other crusader property overseas, may have been settled
without dealing with the niceties of kin--even close kin--left behind in
Western Europe. Runciman 1:315-26 tells of the frantic scramble for
control of the lordship after Godfrey's death. Godfrey had actually
willed Jerusalem to the patriarch, but the Lorraine party, whose interest
were opposed to the Norman and Italian faction (which would assume
leadership through the patriarch) sent the bishop of Ramleh and others to
fetch Baldwin "for they would only obey one of his [i.e. Godfrey's] kin"
(315). So in Runciman's language, this point is slightly different.
>If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate son,
>surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
>Lower-Lorraine, and not the holder of a small property in England.
Kelley notes that the Mandevilles were significant landholders in 11
counties in England after the Conquest; they became Earls soon
thereafter. He claims the Mandevilles would not have been a necessarily
improper match for the second son of a Picard count who had participated
in the Norman Conquest. The title to Lower Lorraine came to Godfrey only
collaterally in 1084, through an in-law connection: and just as quickly
passed on to others. Easy come.
But why these English "Boulognes" had no connection or honors on the
continent if they were legitimate and knew themselves to be would need to
be explained.
Nevertheless the possibility that the two Godfreys are the same person
needs to be explored more. The onomastic argument for it is correct: the
name is the same, so it is possible that the individual is the same
(though of course there could have been two half-brothers with the same
name). While the burden of proof would be on identity (partly because the
Crusader seems to have had no heir), I'd like to see a full documentary
chronology for both Godfreys before saying the father of William de
Boulogne definitely wasn't the Advocatus sancti sepulcri.
I note that "Godefroy Lord of Carshalton" is noted by Schwennicke
(following Round, I assume) to have been in the Holy Land in 1100. What's
the source for this? Does anyone have the Round article on this handy?
By the way, the "A" text of the Genealogia comitum boloniensium, created
around 1096 (which survives in a 12th-century copy), doesn't mention any
of these Carshalton Boulognes.
I don't descend from this line. I've no vested interest either way, but
would like to see this problem, as one frequent poster puts it, "run to
ground."
Nat Taylor
G . EDWARD ALLEN
I'm sorry that you found it hard to understand. Nat Taylor did a very
good job of reducing it.
However, I must disagree with you. Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon would
leave a wife and child in England, since the wife had lands there, her
maritagium. Why would she stay in France, even if her husband haled from
there? I sure as ned wouldn't suffer exile in a strange country when I
could stay at home on familiar turf with familar serf. Doesn't compute.
You quote Schwennicke, but who is Schwennicke quoting and citing? That
would be more to the point? I find that when Schwennicke deals with
English or possible English lines, he stinks because he does not seem to
have access to the latest English and American research.
Sorry, it is not I who quotes those two sources, it is David H. Kelley
PhD.
The Lotharingians might not have accepted an Anglo-Norman heir. Also
you may notice when there are fiefdoms in England and other fiefdoms in
France, that the legacy might be split into two parts, the English and
the French. Just because the lotharingians accepted Baldwin as the
rightful heir, doesn't ipso facto mean that Gadfrey/Geoffrey didn't
leave heirs of his own body, i.e. children. We must also consider what
the age of Godfrey/Geoffrey's and Beatrix's heir was on the death of his
father. Was he in his minority or his majority? Would he have had
support for a run at his father's French lands? Possibly not. He would
have had English knights, but would they support him in a fight for
French lands? His French knights and tenants might not have been
acquainted with him, so I doubt whether they would be very enthusiastic
to support him. With all due respect, it wasn't a puny estate in
England, either.
I do not think that the case for ancestral uncle is that strong either.
As Nat said, "Any takers (for researching this problem)?"
Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
Leo van de Pas wrote:
>
> Dear Kay,
> What you sent sounded very much like 'legalese' and is not very clear in
> what it actually said. In the first place Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon
> would not leave a wife and child behind in England as that is not where he
> came from.
>
> I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
> sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
> One illegitimate he calls Godefroy who married Beatrix de Mandeville, one
> legitimate son is called Gottfried the person who is our subject. This
> Gottfried de Bouillon is marked off as Herzog von Niederlothringen, leader
> of the first crusade and Advocatus Sancti Sepulchre. born, died, and buried
> in Jerusalem but no wife is mentioned, nor children.
>
> You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
> illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply have
> copied this without checking. Of course, if the illegitimate Godfrey held
> land in England, then Beatrix de Mandeville would have been left in
> England. However I doubt that the Duke of Lower-Lorraine would have left
> his wife in England.
>
> Another point is that heirs were very important and their rights were often
> held against indredible odds. Read the life of Emperor Friedrich II. Robert
> the Devil in Normandy had perfectly legal brothers, but he made his
> illegitimate son his heir and one of the legal brothers protected William
> the Conqueror, insuring him his heritage.
>
> What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
> Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
> a long time after the other mentioned sources, on page 116 he records what
> happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the papal
> legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
> Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE OVER HIS
> RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN. The brother was next of kin, because
> Godfrey did not have children. If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of
> Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate son,
> surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Having taught in a university history department
for more than 36 years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on
the street before asking an academic colleague in history." Norman
Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside in
The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
Nathaniel Taylor wrote in message ...
>Leo van de Pas wrote:
>
>>I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne
five
>>sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
>
>>You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
>>illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply
have
>>copied this without checking.
>
>In fact, that's exactly what Schwennicke did. This article by Round
>(1895, repr. 1971) is the only relevant source among his
bibliographical
>references for that table.
Nat, could you please give us the complete citation for the Round
article. Thank you.
Point taken, Schwennicke is certainly not infallible and he does
appear less than sure-footed when writing about matters affecting
England.
>
>>What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
>>Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
>>a long time after the other mentioned sources,
>
>Kelley and Wagner were discussing this question in the late '70s and
early
>'80s, I think. Bridge may have been totally unaware of this
question, so
>simple posteriority argues nothing.
That bears repeating. It is often honored in the breach. Later is
not necessarily better, as some would have it.
>
>> on page 116 he records what
>>happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the
papal
>>legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
>>Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE
OVER HIS
>>RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN.
>
>If that is exactly what the message said, and not a historian's
assumption
>(or the testimony of a non-contemporary like William of Tyre) based
on the
>assumption that that's the argument that would have been used, than
it's
>significant, otherwise not so.
Yes, there are some complex logical and historiographical wickets to
navigate through in making such an assumption concerning Baldwin as
the "only conceivable heir".
>The issue of succession to the lordship of
>Jerusalem, as with other crusader property overseas, may have been
settled
>without dealing with the niceties of kin--even close kin--left behind
in
>Western Europe. Runciman 1:315-26 tells of the frantic scramble for
>control of the lordship after Godfrey's death.
He seems to have died at about 40. Do we have any clear evidence as
to what did him in? Also, why was he so much more trusting of the
patriarch, if that be the case, than his comrades in arms, who
reportedly despised him? Was Godfrey naive --- 'the parfait Christian
knight'?
>Godfrey had actually
>willed Jerusalem to the patriarch, but the Lorraine party, whose
interest
>were opposed to the Norman and Italian faction (which would assume
>leadership through the patriarch) sent the bishop of Ramleh and
others to
>fetch Baldwin "for they would only obey one of his [i.e. Godfrey's]
kin"
>(315). So in Runciman's language, this point is slightly different.
>
>>If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate
son,
>>surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
>>Lower-Lorraine, and not the holder of a small property in England.
>
D'accord.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
ED MANN
> Thanks, Ed. Would it be an imposition to ask for the spouses (spice?) of
> those in your line of descent from Godfrey? Is the ID of Godfrey's mate
> known?
Direct Descendants of Godfrey de Boulogne
1 Godfrey de Boulogne aka: King of Jerusalem b: Bef. 1061 d: 18 Jul
1100 ref #: Ä158A-23
+Beatrice de Mandeville ref #: (Ä158A-23)
2 William de Boulogne b: Bef. 1081 d: Abt. 1159 ref #: Ä158A-24
3 Pharamus de Boulogne aka: Faramus de Boulogne b: Bef. 1110 d: Abt.
1184 ref #: Ä158A-25
+Matilda ref #: (Ä158A-25)
4 Sibyl de Boulogne b: Abt. 1132 ref #: Ä158A-26
+Ingelram de Fiennes aka: Enguerrand de Fiennes b: Abt. 1134 d:
1189 ref #: (Ä158A-26)
5 [1] William de Fiennes d: 1241 ref #: Ä158A-27
*2nd Wife of [1] William de Fiennes:
+Agnes de Dammartin ref #: Ä152-27
6 [2] Ingelram de Fiennes aka: Enguerrand III de Coucy b: Abt. 1202
ref #: Ä152-28
*2nd Wife of [2] Ingelram de Fiennes:
+Isabel de Conde b: Abt. 1210 ref #: (Ä152-28)
7 Maud de Fiennes ref #: Ä152A-29
+Sir Humphrey de Bohun VII aka: Earl of Hereford & Essex b: Abt.
1249 d: 31 Dec 1298 ref #: W18-4
8 Sir Humphrey de Bohun VIII aka: 4th Earl of Hereford & Essex b:
Abt. 1276 d: 16 Mar 1321/22 ref #: W18-5
+Elizabeth Plantagenet b: 7 Aug 1282 d: 5 May 1316 ref #: F24:12
9 Sir William de Bohun aka: 1st Earl of Northampton b: Abt. 1312 d:
16 Sep 1360 ref #: F24:11
+Elizabeth de Badlesmere b: 1313 d: 8 Jun 1356 ref #: W36-7
10 Sir Humphrey de Bohun aka: 2d Earl of Northampton b: 25 Mar 1342
d: 16 Jan 1372/73 ref #: F25:10
+Joan FitzAlan d: 7 Apr 1419 ref #: F105:13iii
11 Mary de Bohun b: Abt. 1370 d: 4 Jul 1394 ref #: F25:10ii
+King Henry IV of England b: Apr 1366 d: 20 Mar 1412/13 ref #:
F156:10
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Having taught in a university history department
for more than 36 years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on
the street before asking an academic colleague in history." Norman
Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside in
The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <364F42...@pacbell.net>...
<snip>
>I do not think that the case for ancestral uncle is that strong
either.
<snip>
>Kay Allen AG all...@pacbell.net
You might care to trace it yourself in AR7. Start with Line 158A
[from which you have previously quoted] and trace through Line 158,
Line 148, Line 155 and Line 140, for good measure.
With five choices from the menu, supra, you get egg roll and an almond
cookie FREE, dear.
Weis, Sheppard and Faris report that anyone who is descended from
Edward I 'Longshanks' [the "Bad King" in Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart']
and his second wife, Marguerite de France [she's the golden girl] is
also an x times Great Grand-Niece or Great Grand-Nephew of Godfrey de
Bouillon [the 'ancestral Uncle'], "Good, Pure, Christian Knight and
Crusader].
I think God just does it this way so that things even out at the Last
Judgment, don't you Kay, dear?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
Illegitimis Non Carborundum [N.B. Not talking about you dear.]
G . EDWARD ALLEN
What I was saying was not that the Godfrey/Geoffrey who married Beatrice
de Mandeville wasn't somebody's ancestral uncle, but that I thought that
the case for him being identical with deBouillon was as strong, if not
stronger, as the case for Godfrey/Geoffrey, the crusader, being the
ancestral uncle.
I apologize for obviously confusing you.
K
D. Spencer Hines
hundreds of millions?
And if they were different fellows they could also EACH be someone's
ancestral uncle as well --- in fact for hundreds of millions of
grateful folks --- N'est-ce pas?
I think she's got it. "The Rain in Spain Lies Mainly in the
Plain...." I think she's got it.
DSH
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Having taught in a university history department
for more than 36 years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on
the street before asking an academic colleague in history." Norman
Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside in
The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
G . EDWARD ALLEN wrote in message <364F5F...@pacbell.net>...
D. Spencer Hines
"The Rain in Spain 'Lays' Mainly in the Plain.
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Having taught in a university history department
for more than 36 years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on
the street before asking an academic colleague in history." Norman
Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside in
The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
<72nnlc$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
D. Spencer Hines
It is entirely fitting, appropriate and obviously part of God's Grand
Design for the Human Race that Godfrey de Bouillon be an Ancestor of
Henry V.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
ED MANN wrote in message <364F5AD2...@mail2.lcia.com>...
jflanguy
As Leo rightly points out, there's also a link through Godfrey's father,
Eustache de Boulogne, as follows:
1. Godefroi de Bouillon
2. Count Eustace II of Boulogne
5. Maud of Louvain
11. Gerberge of Lower Lorraine
22. Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine
44. Louis IV, King of France
88. Charles III, King of France
176. Louis II, King of France
352. Charles II ‘The Bald’, King of France
704. Louis I, King of France
1408. Charlemagne
--
Jean-François à Tournai, Belgique
jfla...@infonie.be
*---------------------------------
|http://perso.infonie.be/jflanguy
|membre de Wallonia n°104, http://users.skynet.be/wallonia/
|données sur Geneanet, http://www.mygale.org/05/daumoinx/geneanet.fr/
|membres de l'Annuaire Généalogique Internet
http://www.chez.com/agi/intro.htm
*---------------------------------
rwje...@hctc.net a écrit dans le message
<36491be1....@News.sig.net>...
Alex Polenov
>
> As Leo rightly points out, there's also a link through Godfrey's father,
> Eustache de Boulogne, as follows:
>
> 1. Godefroi de Bouillon
> 2. Count Eustace II of Boulogne
What is correct spelling of Boullion?
Alex
D. Spencer Hines
trusted the patriarch --- and his men didn't --- do we?
We do, however, now know that he appears to have been the 9th
Great-Grandfather of Henry V --- if the Mandeville connection is
validated.
DSH
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Having taught in a university history department
for more than 36 years now, I would seek objectivity from anyone on
the street before asking an academic colleague in history." Norman
Ravitch, Professor of History, University of California, Riverside in
The Wall Street Journal, 5 Nov 1998, p. A23.
jflanguy wrote in message <911202715.764557@eole>...
>Robert,
>
>As Leo rightly points out, there's also a link through Godfrey's
father,
>Eustache de Boulogne, as follows:
>
>1. Godefroi de Bouillon
>2. Count Eustace II of Boulogne
>5. Maud of Louvain
>11. Gerberge of Lower Lorraine
>22. Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine
>44. Louis IV, King of France
>88. Charles III, King of France
>176. Louis II, King of France
>352. Charles II ‘The Bald’, King of France
>704. Louis I, King of France
>1408. Charlemagne
>
>
>--
>Jean-François à Tournai, Belgique
>jfla...@infonie.be
William Addams Reitwiesner
>Dear Leo,
>
>I'm sorry that you found it hard to understand. Nat Taylor did a very
>good job of reducing it.
>
>However, I must disagree with you. Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon would
>leave a wife and child in England, since the wife had lands there, her
>maritagium. Why would she stay in France, even if her husband haled from
>there? I sure as ned wouldn't suffer exile in a strange country when I
>could stay at home on familiar turf with familar serf. Doesn't compute.
>
>You quote Schwennicke, but who is Schwennicke quoting and citing? That
>would be more to the point? I find that when Schwennicke deals with
>English or possible English lines, he stinks because he does not seem to
>have access to the latest English and American research.
Or old American research, for that matter.
In Band III, Teilband 4, Tafel 629, Schwennicke repeats the standard claim
that Renaud de Courtenay (d. 1190), founder of the English Courtenay
family, was the same person as Renaud de Courtenay, Sire de Courtenay,
whose daughter Elisabeth married Pierre, son of King Louis VI of France.
Herbert Furman Seversmith, in *Colonial Families of Long Island, New York,
and Connecticut* [1958], pp. 2419-2424, shows that this connection is, at
best, unlikely.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Sorry but Faramus or Pharamus? Or there are no difference? And who was
> William and Pharamus - counts de Boullion or dukes of Lower Lorrain?
> Who was the counts(or dukes) of Boullion after Godfrey, William and Pharamus
> and when counts bacame dukes de Boullion?
William and Pharamus/Faramus (it appears both ways) used the toponymic
(derived from a place name) surname de Boulogne. They were never Counts
of Dukes of anything.
> Who was de Bohun and how it pronounce? Like Rohan? Or Rogun?
The de Bohun were an Anglo-Norman family that existed in two lines.
From the founder who was said to be a contemporary and kinsman of
William the Conqueror, the family split into two lines. The more
prominant line used primarily the name Humphrey and became Earls of
Essex and Northampton. The male line ended in the early 15th century.
The other branch ended in an heiress in the second generation, but her
descendants by the Viscount of Maine adopter the Bohun surname, and
outlived the other branch (if I recall correctly).
The original pronounciation is (as expected) somewhat obscure, but it
came to be pronounced Boon.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> > Robert,
> >
> > As Leo rightly points out, there's also a link through Godfrey's father,
> > Eustache de Boulogne, as follows:
> >
> > 1. Godefroi de Bouillon
> > 2. Count Eustace II of Boulogne
No. Boulogne is the paternal County. Bouillon was a small holding of
Godfrey's. They are distinct.
taf
Alex Polenov
> trusted the patriarch --- and his men didn't --- do we?
>
> We do, however, now know that he appears to have been the 9th
> Great-Grandfather of Henry V --- if the Mandeville connection is
> validated.
How many 9th Great-Grandfarthers have Henry V? More than 12!
What are you trying to clear? Was Henry V descendant and herit of
Boullion? No he wasn't because Boullion somewhere between France
and Germany. Was he 9th great-grandson of Godfrey? Who this bother?
We maybe a grand-grandson of all powerful kings in this time. But I'm still
stand for the only male rights for heritage (womens only with exstra
situation and only if this women mother - but not grandmother).
jflanguy
No. Boulogne and Bouillon are completely different.
Boulogne is an old earldom (9th century) in the North-West of France (the
city is now Boulogne-sur-Mer; the region is called "Boulonnais" - added to
Artois, it roughly corresponds to the modern Pas-de-Calais). Mahaut (Maud),
Godfrey's niece, brought it to the crown of England by her marriage with
Etienne de Blois (King Stephen of England).
Bouillon is a small city in the South-East of Belgium. It was made an
earldom for Godfrey.
Jean-François in Tournai, Belgium
Alex Polenov
a famouse name in 17 century is Boulogne. And a famouse forest
is near Boulogne (not Buillion).
> Alex Polenov wrote:
> >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > As Leo rightly points out, there's also a link through Godfrey's father,
> > > Eustache de Boulogne, as follows:
> > >
> > > 1. Godefroi de Bouillon
> > > 2. Count Eustace II of Boulogne
> > What is Boulogne? Bouillion with other spelling?
>
Nathaniel Taylor
(Reedpcgen) wrote:
>I can think of one particularly interesting line of descent in Southern France
>where the lands passed down ONLY through female descent through lay abbesses
>for centuries. Even though males were born, this was a case where the females
>and their husbands were given priority of descent.
Paul,
What case do you have in mind?
Nat Taylor
Reedpcgen
exstra situation and only if this women mother - but not grandmother).
>
Alex, it is rare that anyone can trace direct male ancestors very far. How far
can you trace yours? You have a right to your opinion, but it is certainly not
the prevailing view here.
I can think of one particularly interesting line of descent in Southern France
where the lands passed down ONLY through female descent through lay abbesses
for centuries. Even though males were born, this was a case where the females
and their husbands were given priority of descent.
Please allow us to also have our opinion.
Thanks,
Paul
Reedpcgen
>>I can think of one particularly interesting line of descent in Southern
France where the lands passed down ONLY through female descent through lay
abbesses for centuries. Even though males were born, this was a case where the
females and their husbands were given priority of descent.
>>
>Paul,
>What case do you have in mind?
>
>Nat Taylor
>
I'll try to remember. It's been a number of years. I have a negative-positive
copy of a pedigree and account somewhere in deep storage, taken from a
microfilm copy somewhere at the FHL.
I think Neil D. Thompson may have originally given it to me, so I'll ask him.
It is ancestral to the Empress Josephine or her first husband. The details
seemed very odd and peculiar, so it would be interesting to find out more about
the line, should I be able to dig it up.
Paul
Reedpcgen
clearly from a French source, which should be easy enough to find by checking
the Repertoire de Genealogies Francaises Imprimes (by Etienne Arnaud).
It is actually ancestral to Jean Baptiste Jules de Bernadotte, King Carl XIV of
Sweden and Norway (not Josephine or Alexandre). I don't remember if it was
originally forwarded from David Kelley or Milton Rubincam. The chart is
difficult to read, as it is a copy in negative-positive exposure and slightly
blurred. Most appear to have died or be buried at Sireix. What I can make out
is as follows:
1. Pey de BADIA ou d'ABBADIE, Abbe Lay en 1429. Children:
i. Marie [see next].
ii. Guilhem [?]
iii. Petrou, m. Gaillardina de GARASSUS
iv. Stophania, m. Jean de BERIE-DESSUS, d'Arrens
2. Marie d'ABBADIE, Abesse Laye, m. Doadet dit d'ABBADIE. Children:
i. Catalina [see next]
ii. Marioutina
iii. Peyeza [?]
3. Catalina d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye m. 1448 Guilhem de CARASSUS. Children:
i. Jean [see below]
ii. Antoni
iii. Arnout
4. Jean d'ABBADIE, Abbe Lay. Children:
i. Coundourina [see next]
ii. Catalina, m. Jean de SERES ,d'Arrens
iii. Pey
iv. Guilhem, m. Sibille de CARASSUS, de Prechae [?]
v. Mat[-?-], m. Jean FOURCADE, d'Arcizas-Dessus
5. Coundourina d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. 1490, Peyrot de HOURCAS dit
d'ABBADIE, d'Arras. Children:
i. Marie [see next]
6. Marie d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. Assibat [?] de COUNTRERAS,
d'Arcizas-Dessus. Children:
i. Catalina [see next]
ii. Annaoutet
iii. Guilhem
7. Catalina d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. Jean dit Jean II d'ABBADIE. Children:
i. Coudourina [see next]
ii. Bernat, m. --- de SOUBIRAN
iii. Marie, m. Fortane d'ABBADIE, d'Uz
iv. Marie, m. --- de LOUSTALET
[other children cut off of my chart]
8. Coudourine II d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. (1) Doumenje, dit Doumenge I
d'ABBADIE; m. (2) Arnout de CAZALIS, dit d'ABBADIE. Chidden:
i. Doumenje [see next]
ii. Marie, m. Pelet de COMET, de Marsus
iii. Agneta, m. Aouge de Sacaze
9. Doumenje II d'ABBADIE, Abbe Lay, m. (1) Antonia de TOUTDRET; m. (2) Marie de
FOURCADE. Children:
i. Marie [see next]
ii. Marie, m. Doumenje FRECHOU
iii. Doumenja, m. Pey de LABORDE, dit COUMET
iv. Thoumaza
v. Jeannete
[others cut off of my chart]
10. Marie III d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. Doumenje de MAIGNAC, de Gaillagos,
dit Doumenje III d'ABBADIE. Children:
i. Marie [see next]
ii. Doumenja, m. Pierre FOURCADE
iii. Jean, m. Marie de BORDES
iv. Doumenja, m. Gabriel FOURCADE
[others cut off of my chart]
11. Marie IV d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. Doumenje d'ENTREHOSSES, dit Doumenje
IV d'ABBADIE. Children:
i. Marie [see next]
ii. Mathou [?]
iii. Toumaza [?]
iv. Mathou [Mateou ?], m. Anne de LOMNE
v. Doumenje
12. Marie V d'ABBADIE, Abbesse Laye, m. Doumenje HABAS, dit Doumenje V
d'ABBADIE. Children:
i. Francois d'ABBADIE, Abbe Lay, m. Doumenja de LOMNE (parents of Bernat or
Bernard d'ABBADIE [who married Marie LAFONT and had 8 children] and seven other
children).
ii. Doumenja
iii. Jean
iv. Bernard, m. Jane [sic] HABAS
v. Anne, m. Jean Bourtoumeou BIGNALOUNCA or Barthelemy VIGNELONGUE
vi. Mare d'ABBADIE [see next]
13. Marie d'ABBADIE, m. Jean de SAINT JEAN, de Boeil. Children:
i. Jean
ii. Marguerite
iii. Claire
iv. Jeanne [see next]
v. Jean
vi. Jeanne, m. Jean DARTHEZ
14. Jeanne de SAINT JEAN, m. Henri de BERNADOTTE, de Pau
15. Jean Baptiste Jules de BERNADOTTE, Prince of Pontecorvo, King CARL XIV of
Sweden and Norway (1763-1844), m. 1798 Bernhardine Eugenie Desiree Clary.
16. Joseph Francois OSCAR I of Sweden and Norway (1799-1859), m. Josephine
BEAUHARNAIS (1801-1876), daughter of Prince Eugene, Viceroy of Italy, by his
wife Auguste von Bayern (daughter of Maximillian I). Eugene was of course son
of Marie JOSEPHINE Rose Tascher de la Pagerie, who m. (1) Alexandre Francois
Marie, Viscomte de Beauharnais, and (2) Napoleon I BONAPARTE.
I do not have a detailed gazetteer of France, so I'm not certain if the Abbey
was in southern or central France. It looks like on more than one occasion
there was a male succession, but as it was explained to me, it was through the
female heirs that it was generally meant to pass. If nothing else, it shows a
remarkable descent through female heirs. I apologize for general inaccuracies
I may have posted about this before as it's been over ten years since I've
seen the chart.
I would clearly be interested in knowing more details about this family, as
some things stated about them almost seemed to be out of the occult, or at
least suspicious. I must also admit I'm not terribly familiar with names like
Doumenje. It's not one of the typical French names I'm used to.
pcr
Randy Jones
William de Tingry. Below shows Sibyl as the dau of Pharamus de Boulogne.
Which is correct?
- Randy Jones
MTaHT
They are the same person. Some refs. show Sibyl's father's name as:
Guillaume Pharamus de Boulogne sire de Tingry.
Best wishes,
Mike Talbot
ED MANN
I have nothing on what you suggest.
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
Π= Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].