Judith of Flanders (NOT Normandy)
Stewart Baldwin
Judith (successively wife of Tostig of Northumbria and Welf of
Bavaria, and ancestor of many important figures of European history
through her second marriage) is that we did not know the underlying
reasons for the one theory that she was a daughter of Richard III of
Normandy. Following the trail of bibliographic citations had led us
back to the following two articles by Hansmartin Decker-Hauff:
Zur älteren Geschichte der Welfen, in Weingarten, Festschrift zur
900-Jahr-Feier des Klosters (1956), 31-48.
Judith von der Normandie, in Schwäbische Lebensbilder 6 (1957), 16-27.
Courtesy of James Hansen, FASG, I now have copies of both of these
articles by Decker-Hauff, and, as one might guess from the subject
line of this posting, I did not find the arguments convincing. Of
these two articles, the second is simply a biography of Judith, with
her parentage presented as proven from the previous article, and no
new evidence. Thus, the first of these articles is the only one which
is really relevant in discussing the evidence for Judith's parentage.
Before outlining Decker-Hauff's arguments, it will be useful to state
the three main theories regarding Judith's parentage:
The Baldwin IV Theory: Judith was a daughter of count Baldwin IV of
Flanders by his second wife, a daughter of Richard II of Normandy.
This would make her a half-sister to Baldwin V, and an aunt of Matilda
of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror. This is the theory that
was proposed by Freeman, and has generally been the most widely
accepted one. [Note: It is not reasonable to make Judith a daughter
of Baldwin IV by his first wife Otgiva of Luxemburg, because that
would make Judith a first cousin once removed of her second husband
Welf of Bavaria, who was a grandson of Imiza, Otgiva's sister.]
The Baldwin V Theory: Judith was a daughter of count Baldwin V of
Flanders by his wife Adele/Adelaide, daughter of Robert II of France.
This would make her a full sister of Matilda of Flanders.
The Richard III Theory (Decker-Hauff's Theory): Judith was a daughter
of duke Richard III of Normandy by Adele/Adelaide, daughter of Robert
II of France. This would make her a half-sister of Matilda of
Flanders through her mother. This theory has been accepted in some
(mainly German) sources (including ES, which has given it wider
circulation).
For a previous discussion of the question of Judith's parentage, along
with some bibliographic references and some quotes from the primary
sources, see my two part posting from 23 February of this year which
had the following subject lines (x=1,2):
"Judith (of Flanders?) m. (1) Tostig (2) Welf (part x of 2)"
Decker-Hauff's arguments
Despite the title of the article, most of the article is devoted to
the case of Judith's parentage. Decker-Hauff starts off by stating
the Baldwin IV and Baldwin V Theories and citing some of the previous
literature. For convenient reference, I will number some of
Decker-Hauff's main points, followed by my own comments.
1. He points out that the Baldwin V Theory has the problem that it
would make Welf and Judith second cousins (both great-grandchildren of
Frederick of Luxemburg).
Comment: A clear strike against the Baldwin V Theory (although not a
conclusive one), which I do not recall seeing mentioned before. The
problem does not affect either the Baldwin IV Theory or the Richard
III Theory, neither of which give Judith the Luxemburg descent.
2. He points out that the Flemish genealogical sources (Flandria
Generosa, etc.) do not mention Judith.
Comment: If this point would be a valid argument that Judith was not
a member of the Flemish dynasty, then the fact that eleventh century
Norman sources do not name Judith as a daughter of Richard III would
have to be considered an equally valid argument against the Richard
III Theory. (The fact that Decker-Hauff has not yet mentioned the
Richard III Theory at this point in the article provides him with a
convenient excuse for not mentioning this.)
3. (The onomastic argument) After mentioning Judith's description as
"regina Angliae" in some German sources (to which he later returns:
see point number 7 below), Decker-Hauff mentions the onomastic problem
of where Judith's name came from. It is at this point that he first
mentions the Richard III Theory, stating that the possibility that
Judith was only a stepdaughter of Baldwin V had been briefly brought
up by Ernst Klebel in 1955 [Ernst Klebel, Alemannischer Hochadel im
Investiturstreit, in Grundfragen der Alemannischen Geschichte,
Vorträge und Forschungen, hgg. v. Insitut f. gesch. Landesforschung
des Bodengebiets in Konstanz, gel. von Theodor Mayer, (Lindau und
Konstanz, 1955), 234ff.], but had then been abandoned by Klebel in
favor of the Baldwin V Theory. Decker-Hauff pointed out that this
theory would make our Judith a graddaughter of Judith of Brittany
(wife of Richard II), and would therefore explain her name as well as
the Baldwin IV Theory (which also makes our Judith a granddaughter of
Richard II and his wife Judith).
Comment: This onomastic argument is a plus for either the Baldwin IV
Theory or the Richard III Theory. However, it cannot be regarded as a
major minus for the Baldwin V Theory, because Baldwin V was a
descendant of the famous (but more remote) Judith of France, wife of
Baldwin I, which dilutes (but does not entirely eliminate) the
strength of this onomastic point.
4. Decker-Hauff then makes a statement challenging the second marriage
of Baldwin IV to a Norman princess, on which the Baldwin IV Theory
depends. The sentence in question is quoted here in full:
"Es muß allerdings zugegeben werden, daß die zweite Ehe zwischen Graf
Balduin IV. von Flandern und der normännischen Prinzessin, die allein
diese Namensableitung plausibel machen würde, nicht so unbedingt
feststeht, sondern erst im 19. Jahrhundert in England als
Arbeitshypothese in die Forschung eingeführt wurde, während sie
neuerdings von Marcel Prevost mit Stillschweigen übergangen wird."
[My rough translation: It must certainly be admitted, that the second
marriage between count Balduin IV of Flanders and the Norman princess,
which alone would make this name derivation plausible, is not so
unconditionally certain, but was first introduced in the nineteenth
century in England as a working hypothesis in the research, while it
has recently been passed over in silence by Marcel Prevost.] (A
footnote shows that the reference to Marcel Prevost refers to
Dictionnaire de Biographie Française.)
No other argument is given for rejecting this marriage, and from this
point on, the Baldwin IV Theory is evidently regarded by the author as
having been conclusively disproven! The remainder of the article
discusses the relative merits of the Baldwin V and Richard III
theories.
Comment: The problem is that the statement of the sentence is
completely false. It is simply not true that the marriage was first
introduced as a "working hypothesis" ("Arbeitshypothese") in the
nineteenth century. In fact, the marriage is given by Guillaume de
Jumièges, writing in the eleventh century only forty or so years after
the reported marriage, so even though there is no independent
confirmation of the marriage, it is based on a source written within
living memory. Gullaume's statement was certainly not overlooked by
others. Anselme would be a secondary source well before the
nineteenth century who followed Guillaume de Jumièges on this matter
(to give one example).
Obviously, this is a major blunder by Decker-Hauff (and it makes me
wonder if Decker-Hauff was confusing this marriage with the less well
documented marriage of point 5 when he made this statement). Such a
marriage reported in an early source should not be dismissed without
significant discussion. Since this casual dismissal of the marriage
resulted in the Baldwin IV Theory being removed from consideration
without reasonable cause, I will briefly comment on how each of
Decker-Hauff's remaining points affects the Baldwin IV Theory.
5. Decker-Hauff then states as apparently undisputed fact that
Adelaide of France, wife of Baldwin V of Flanders and mother of
Matilda of Flanders, had been previously married to Richard III of
Normandy. Only secondary sources are given for this statement.
Comments: This supposed marriage, which is absolutely crucial to the
Richard III Theory, is in fact poorly documented, and quite possibly
false. The only source for Richard's wife Adela is his marriage
contract with her (1026), which does not give her parentage. From the
wording of the document (she is called "Domina Adela" and "juxta
nobilitatis tuae lineam dotata"), it has been suggested that she was a
daughter of the king of France, and therefore the same person as the
later wife of Baldwin V, and that appears to be the entire case for
identifying Richard's wife with the wife of Baldwin V! [See Freeman's
History of the Norman Conquest of England vol. 3, 657-8, which
support's this interpretation.]
I have not investigated the history of the suggestion that Richard
III's wife was the same as the French princess who married Baldwin V,
but the problematic documentation for this crucial marriage (if there
was such a marriage) should have been discussed in detail by
Decker-Hauff, since his case disappears without it. (On the other
hand, if the marriage of point 5 is valid, it does not undermine
either the Baldwin IV Theory or the Baldwin V Theory.)
6. Decker-Hauff points out the chronological problem between the date
1051 for the marriage of Tostig and Judith, and the two (alleged) sons
of Tostig who were old enough to fight at Stamford Bridge in 1066,
suggesting that the marriage took place earlier, say about 1047.
Comment: Decker-Hauff does not cite a source for the two sons, but I
assume that he is referring to the ones appearing in some Norse
sources. If these Norse sources are correct in assigning Tostig these
two sons (and I would not regard that as certain), then there is no
guarantee that they were Judith's (as opposed to sons by an earlier
unkown wife).
7. Decker-Hauff then returned to a point which he had mentioned
earlier, that Judith is referred to as "regina Angliae" in some German
sources. He suggests that this is best explained by Judith being an
agnatic relative of William the Conqueror.
Comment: This seems rather absurd to me. Some of the German sources
call Judith a wife of king Harold II of England, thereby clearly
confusing Tostig with his brother Harold. It seems clear that this
confusion of Tostig and Harold is the underlying basis of the false
attribution of Judith as "regina Angliae", and not Decker-Hauff's
strange suggestion.
8. Decker-Hauff points out the passage in Annalista Saxo in which
Judith is referred to as "ex cognatione beati Ethmundi regis", and
points out that in the Richard III Theory, such a relationship could
be easily explained by the marriage of Emma of Normandy with Æthelred
the Unready, while it is difficult to find such an explanation in the
Baldwin V Theory.
Comment: The explanation also fits the Baldwin IV Theory just as well
as it does the Richard III Theory. Also, Annalista Saxo calls Judith
"amita" ("aunt", "father's sister" in classical Latin) of Robert "the
Frisian", thus directly supporting the Baldwin IV Theory if the usual
meaning of "amita" is used. (This point is buried by Decker-Hauff in
a footnote with the comment "»Amita« ist ungenau." "Ungenau" means
inexact or vague.)
These are the basic arguments given by Decker-Hauff. By summarily
dismissing the Baldwin IV Theory without reasonable cause, and then
undermining the weaker Baldwin V Theory, Decker-Hauff made the Richard
III Theory look stronger than it was. With the exception of his
attempt to set aside the second marriage of Baldwin IV to a Norman
princess (for which no reasonable argument was offered, and a
blatantly false statement was given in the attempt to undermine),
every piece of evidence offered in support of the Richard III Theory
is just as strong in favor of the Baldwin IV Theory (although some of
his arguments did successfully undermine the Baldwin V Theory).
The evidence against the Richard III Theory is considerable. Not only
does every early source which gives a statement about Judith's origin
make her a daughter of a count of Flanders (although disagreeing which
one), the earliest source (Edward the Confessor's biography) makes her
a sister of Baldwin V, directly supporting the Baldwin IV Theory.
Thus, in my opinion, Decker-Hauff does not give a reasonable case, and
the evidence that we do have clearly favors the argument of Freeman
(followed by many others who agreed with him) that Judith's parents
were Baldwin IV of Flanders and a daughter (name uncertain) of Richard
II of Normandy.
It should be mentioned that the questions about the two marriages
raised in points 4 and 5 are both of significant interest in their own
right in addition to being closely tied to the currect matter.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> 6. Decker-Hauff points out the chronological problem between the date
> 1051 for the marriage of Tostig and Judith, and the two (alleged) sons
> of Tostig who were old enough to fight at Stamford Bridge in 1066,
> suggesting that the marriage took place earlier, say about 1047.
>
> Comment: Decker-Hauff does not cite a source for the two sons, but I
> assume that he is referring to the ones appearing in some Norse
> sources. If these Norse sources are correct in assigning Tostig these
> two sons (and I would not regard that as certain), then there is no
> guarantee that they were Judith's (as opposed to sons by an earlier
> unkown wife).
I don't know that the Norse sources actually put them at Stamford
Bridge at all. Certainly Harald Haardrada's Saga does not say
this. Perhaps Decker-Hauff is confused. The young sons of
Thorfinn are noted as having gone on the invasion, but Skuli and
Ketil are only mentioned _after_ Olaf Haraldsson has departed
from England and landed in the Orkneys. They are then said to
have accompanied him back to Norway, but the implication is that,
like Queen Elizabeth, they joined the company in the Orkneys.
(Oddly, my Penguin edition of King Harald's Saga only states that
they were "men of rank and came of a noble family in England",
while my Dover edition of Heimskringla (of which King Harald's
Saga is a part) adds the phrase "Tosti the Jarl's son" in
describing Skuli.)
taf
Henry Soszynski
Baldwin) wrote:
>One of the problems in analyzing the evidence for the parentage of
>Judith (successively wife of Tostig of Northumbria and Welf of
>Bavaria, and ancestor of many important figures of European history
>through her second marriage) is that we did not know the underlying
>reasons for the one theory that she was a daughter of Richard III of
>Normandy. Following the trail of bibliographic citations had led us
>back to the following two articles by Hansmartin Decker-Hauff:
SNIP interesting discussion.
>
>
>Stewart Baldwin
I don't know if the chronology has been discussed before, but I would
think it would play a part in helping to decide the better theory.
Richard III died in August 1027 so his putative daughter would be born
no later than May 1028, so a marriage c1047 to Tostig would give a
couple of sons old enough to fight in 1066. However, my poor sources
indicate that Judith married Welf c1071 and had three (further)
children (1073,1074,?) that is when she would have been 45, 46 and 47+
years old, isn't this unusual enough to have been noticed at the time?
or any time for that matter? Or have I completely overlooked something
vital? Corrections welcome.
Cheers,
Henry
INDIAN PRINCELY STATES
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/
Phil Moody
> I don't know that the Norse sources actually put them at Stamford
> Bridge at all. Certainly Harald Haardrada's Saga does not say
> this. Perhaps Decker-Hauff is confused. The young sons of
> Thorfinn are noted as having gone on the invasion, but Skuli and
> Ketil are only mentioned _after_ Olaf Haraldsson has departed
> from England and landed in the Orkneys. They are then said to
> have accompanied him back to Norway, but the implication is that,
> like Queen Elizabeth, they joined the company in the Orkneys.
> (Oddly, my Penguin edition of King Harald's Saga only states that
> they were "men of rank and came of a noble family in England",
> while my Dover edition of Heimskringla (of which King Harald's
> Saga is a part) adds the phrase "Tosti the Jarl's son" in
> describing Skuli.)
PLM: True, they are not specifically stated to have been at the battle of
Stamford, but they were not yet Earls; so I see their omission as not
unusual. There were thousands slain, and many of them were already Norwegian
Nobility, and yet they are not all named. It is perfectly reasonable to
assume that they were there; especially if we accept that Tostig went to
Norway to form an alliance with Harald, his sons would have been with him,
and therefore Skuli and Ketil sailed with Tostig from Norway. There is no
basis for Skuli and Ketill, Tostig's sons to even be in Orkney, prior to
Tostig and Harald forming their alliance, and their subsequent journey to
Orkney, because their Scandinavian lineage was Danish, not Norwegian.
It is very significant that Harald enlisted Paul and Erlend to join him,
as they were the only heirs to Orkney at this time; which illustrates the
gravity of the situation. It is inconceivable that Harald would "leave
behind" the sons of Tostig, Skuli and Ketil, whilst taking his own son Olaf,
as well as Thorfinn's only sons. It is not implicit that Skuli and Ketil
were in Orkney, whilst their father Earl Tostig was valiantly fighting for
his honor and Harald at Stamford Bridge; when Skuli is undoubtedly older
than Prince/King Olaf, his foster son, who was with Harald. It is worth
mentioning, that fosterage was a form of alliance between families, and the
fact that Skuli was Olaf's foster father, would be indicative that this
"fosterage" took place in Norway at the time of Tostig's alliance with
Harald, because Tostig swore fealty to Harald. It is reasonable to suppose
that Olaf was given to Tostig/Skuli to foster, as an assurance that Harald
would honor his end of the bargain, and give Tostig great fiefs in England,
once Harald captured the throne of England.
Furthermore, it is completely illogical to suppose that Queen Elizabeth
is the wife that Harald took with him to Orkney. Morkinskinna names Thora as
the wife which Harald took to Orkney, with their daughter Maria. Thora
Thorberg's daughter was related to Ingibjorg Finn's daughter, Earl
Thorfinn's wife, and then wife of Malcolm III; so Thora was related to Paul
and Erlend. This was a valid reason for Thora going to Orkney, not to
mention the fact that she would have been an expedient tool for Harald to
gain as much support from the Earl/s of Orkney as he possibly could.
Elizabeth, on the other hand, had no relations in Orkney, and there is no
logical reason that she would have gone along; instead of Thora, the
daughter of Thorberg Arnason (brother of Finn), and the Arnason family was
unquestionably an important family in Orkney. The later texts are quite
obviously mistaken on this issue.
After reviewing the text in "Morkinskinna, The Earliest Icelandic Chronicle
of the Norwegian Kings (1030-1157)" translated by Theodore M. Anderson and
Kari Ellen Gade, 2000, Cornell University Press; I note that it diverges
from Snorri's account significantly enough to quote in full. Bear in mind
that Morkinskinna was written 20 or 30 years before the Heimskringla; so we
must consider why Snorri made changes, and a few years before Orkneyinga
Saga.
I am going to include the entire chapter 51, "Olafr Haraldson's return
to Norway"; to keep it all in context, and there are other interesting
details besides. However, I'm not going to include the accent marks, nor the
ON skaldic poetry; though I will include the prose translation of these
poems. I will also include the notes, for clarification, and there are 6; so
if 6 is not included in the e-mail, then the text is not complete. Harald's
wife Thora is mentioned on page 264, not quoted here.
Worth mentioning is the authors spell the name Ketill Krókr (Hook) in
their book, and the "Hook" is found in the index.
pages 274-276:
51. Olafr Haraldsson's return to Norway.
"After these great events King Haraldr's son Olafr became commander of the
remaining army and of those who were still alive. He prepared for departure,
and leaving England behind, they put out to sea. (FJ 282) In the autumn they
sailed north to Orkney, where Olafr spent the winter. It is told that on the
same day when King Haraldr fell, his daughter, Maria died to the west in
Orkney, and people said that they shared the same life. (1) She was the
wisest and fairest of woman, and most loyal to her friends. The following
summer Olafr brought the whole army to Norway, as is told by the skald
Steinn Herdisarson:
The lord went on the swift ships when autumn approached: The king set out to
sea at a place called Ravenseer. The plank steeds [ships] stepped on the
broad wave path [sea]; the raging sea poured over the sides of the
longships. Himself to be the foremost king.
Further:
The undaunted conqueror of the English, the king of the Raumar [people of
Romerike], steered with his army to the east; the heavy sea flow pressed
against the helm. All people received the awesome king warmly when the ring
wounder [generous king] arrived here from the west. Olafr born [beneath] the
sun.
That same summer Olafr succeeded to the throne of Norway with his brother
Magnus, and they ruled together for a time before Magnus fell fatally ill.
He was ill for some time before he died and was afflicted with what is
called ergotism. (2) He had a son (FJ 283) whose name was Hakon and who was
fostered in Gudbrandsdalir with Steigar-Thorir. Magnus had ruled over
northern Norway and Olafr over eastern Norway. After the death of king
Magnus, Olafr was sole king of Norway. In the words of Steinn:
The king holds the throne firmly since the fierce prince took possession of
the lofty land [Norway]; the family of the lord of the Egdir [people of
Agder: Haraldr] has prospered. The distinguished king defends the land of
Raumar [people of Romerike] with cold steel and shield. I recall the hero's
reputation. Proud-minded knows beneath [the sun].
Skuli, the son of Jarl Tostig Godwinson, and Ketill Krokr from Halogaland
came to Norway with King Olafr. King Olafr arranged a good marriage for
Ketill and appointed him a district chieftain in the north. Many
distinguished men are descended from Ketill. Skuli was a wise and
outstanding man, very handsome and well-spoken. He became a leader in the
King's retinue. addressed thingmeetings, and participated in the King's
councils. He was called the King's foster father.
The King offered to give Skuli the district in Norway that suited him
best, with all the revenues and land taxes that were in the King's name.
Skuli thanked the King warmly for his offer but said that he had other
requests: For, he said, if there is a new King, it may be that the grant
will be revoked. I would rather receive some property near the town in which
you reside, sire, and in which you celebrate Christmas. (3) The King granted
that and gave him lands to the east near Konungahella, (FJ 284) Oslo, and
Tunsberg, and to the north near Nidaross. These were very nearly the best
lands to be found in each of these locations, and they stayed in the
possession of his descendants. (4)
The son of Skuli, named King's Foster Father, was Asolfr, the father of
Guthormr at Rein, (5) the father of Bardr, the father of King Ingi and Skuli
Jarl. Not long after King Haraldr's fall, Skuli went west to England to ask
for the return of King Haraldr's body. It was readily granted to him, and he
returned to Norway, where he enjoyed great honor. He now lies buried at
Eltgisetr because it seemed fitting that he should lie in the church that he
himself had constructed. (6) Archbishop Eysteinn had him delivered there to
the care of the monks and made great donations. He increased the prosperity
of the place greatly with the properties that he himself had donated. During
the twelve months that King Haraldr and his son Olafr were in the west, his
son Magnus ruled Norway. He was a very handsome man."
Explanatory Notes for ch. 51, pages 445-446:
1. King Haraldr and his daughter Maria die at the same moment, "and the
people said that they shared the same life." The same idea is found in
Fagrskinna (IF 29, 290) and in Orkneyinga saga (IF 34, 87; also Magnuss saga
lengri, p. 339), but the shared life is omitted by Snorri (IF 28, 197).
2. The word for "ergotism" is reformr (FJ 282.30). Ingvald
Reichborn-Kjennerud 1942:118-21 argues that because this illness is fatal
for Magnus, it cannot be the benign skin condition called ringworm. He
equates it rather with ergotism, which begins as a rash around the affected
limb. See also his VGT, Pt. 3, 1940: 155-60.
3. The town in which Olafr resides is presumably Nidaross (Trondheim) since
it is mentioned in the next sentence, although we are told below in Ch. 53
(note 2) that a particularly fine trading center was established in Bjorgvin
(Bergen) during his reign. Snorri (IF 28, 204) makes this trading center
Olafr's personal creation.
4. The following genealogical information is filled out in greater detail by
Snorri (IF 28, 198). The fact that the author refers to Skuli as "Skuli
Jarl" is used as a dating index (see "Time and Place of Composition"). This
is the first mention of King Ingi Bardarson.
5. Rein is a farmstead located by Stadbygd in Rissa herred in Fosen,
Sortrondelag (see Elvind Kvalen 1925a:21).
6. Elgisetr (Elgeseter) was a monastery in the vicinity of Nidaross (see the
map in Heimskringla [1991], III, 232). Agrip (IF 29, 40) tells us that
Haraldr's body was first buried at St. Mary's Church and later moved to
Elgisetr.
End Quote
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Judith of Flanders (NOT Normandy)
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
>>I don't know that the Norse sources actually put them at Stamford
>>Bridge at all. Certainly Harald Haardrada's Saga does not say
>>this. Perhaps Decker-Hauff is confused. The young sons of
>>Thorfinn are noted as having gone on the invasion, but Skuli and
>>Ketil are only mentioned _after_ Olaf Haraldsson has departed
>>from England and landed in the Orkneys. They are then said to
>>have accompanied him back to Norway, but the implication is that,
>>like Queen Elizabeth, they joined the company in the Orkneys.
>>(Oddly, my Penguin edition of King Harald's Saga only states that
>>they were "men of rank and came of a noble family in England",
>>while my Dover edition of Heimskringla (of which King Harald's
>>Saga is a part) adds the phrase "Tosti the Jarl's son" in
>>describing Skuli.)
>>
>
> PLM: True, they are not specifically stated to have been at the battle of
> Stamford, but they were not yet Earls; so I see their omission as not
> unusual.
They were sons of one of the two leaders of the invasion. That
would seem to be rather important.
> It is perfectly reasonable to
> assume that they were there; especially if we accept that Tostig went to
> Norway to form an alliance with Harald, his sons would have been with him,
> and therefore Skuli and Ketil sailed with Tostig from Norway. There is no
> basis for Skuli and Ketill, Tostig's sons to even be in Orkney, prior to
> Tostig and Harald forming their alliance, and their subsequent journey to
> Orkney, because their Scandinavian lineage was Danish, not Norwegian.
Well, one basis would be that they were too young to fight and so
were left in the safe keeping of the Queen. After all, the fleet
stopped at the Orkneys on the way south, so if, as you have
hypothesized, they sailed with Tostig from Norway, that would put
them at the Orkneys, whether or not they went on south.
> It is inconceivable that Harald would "leave
> behind" the sons of Tostig, Skuli and Ketil, whilst taking his own son Olaf,
> as well as Thorfinn's only sons. It is not implicit that Skuli and Ketil
> were in Orkney, whilst their father Earl Tostig was valiantly fighting for
> his honor and Harald at Stamford Bridge;
Olaf was not at Stamford Bridge either, nor were Paul and Erland.
They were left behind with the boatsw. Is it then equally
inconceivable that they would have taken the sons of Tostig and
left behind Harald's own son and the sons of Thorfinn?
> when Skuli is undoubtedly older
> than Prince/King Olaf, his foster son, who was with Harald. It is worth
> mentioning, that fosterage was a form of alliance between families, and the
> fact that Skuli was Olaf's foster father, would be indicative that this
> "fosterage" took place in Norway at the time of Tostig's alliance with
> Harald, because Tostig swore fealty to Harald.
Skuli was called king's-fostri, but do we know it was this king
and not Olaf's infant son, for whom Skuli is said to have served
as regent? Snorri does not identify the king in question, and
the context may have led to an assumption.
> Furthermore, it is completely illogical to suppose that Queen Elizabeth
> is the wife that Harald took with him to Orkney. Morkinskinna names Thora as
> the wife which Harald took to Orkney, with their daughter Maria.
This is not a supposition, but a quote from Snorri. Take it up
with him.
taf
Stewart Baldwin
<farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>I don't know that the Norse sources actually put them at Stamford
>Bridge at all.
>...
You are right, that was my own error, as Tostig's two alleged sons are
only mentioned in the aftermath of the events of Stamford Bridge, and
not as actual participants in the battle.
>(Oddly, my Penguin edition of King Harald's Saga only states that
>they were "men of rank and came of a noble family in England",
>while my Dover edition of Heimskringla (of which King Harald's
>Saga is a part) adds the phrase "Tosti the Jarl's son" in
>describing Skuli.)
This is due to the fact that different translations of Heimskringla
have been based on different manuscripts. Hollander's translation is
based on the early "Kringla" manuscript that is generally considered
to be the closest to what Snorri actually wrote. Other translations
are sometimes based on later manuscripts that often added material
from other sources (including possibly Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna).
Hollander's translation states that "Skúli, who LATER was called the
king's foster father" (emphasis mine) was a brother of Ketil krók and
that they were both of noble English extraction (without naming their
father). It is not explicitly stated to which king Skúli was a foster
father, but the "later" might indicate that it was not Óláfr kyrri.
Morkinskinna states that Skúli was a son of jarl Tostig Godwinsson,
and mentions Ketill krókr in the same sentence, but without the
brother relationship. It also states that he was called the king's
foster father (without the word later).
[The slightly different spellings here are due to the fact that
Hollander did some slight Anglicization of the names, while Andersson
and Gade use the Old Norse forms of the names in their translation.]
Fagrskinna would be the other obvious place to look, but I do not have
access to it. (An English translation is in the works, but it has not
yet appeared to my knowledge.)
Thus, much depends on the king to whom Skúli was foster father. If it
was Óláfr kyrri, then Skúli would certainly be too old to be a son of
Judith, and probably also too old to be a son of Tostig. If he was
foster father to a later king, then there would be no problem making
him a son of Tostig. On the other hand, Skúli is said to have been
the person who went to England not along after Stamford Bridge to
retrieve the body of Haraldr harðráði (according to Morkinskinna).
Such a task is unlikely to have been assigned to a child, so it would
still be higly unlikely that Skúli was a son of Judith.
Stewart Baldwin
Phil Moody
> > PLM: True, they are not specifically stated to have been at the battle
of
> > Stamford, but they were not yet Earls; so I see their omission as not
> > unusual. >
> They were sons of one of the two leaders of the invasion. That
> would seem to be rather important.
PLM: From the English perspective certainly, but the contemporary accounts
were not written from the English perspectice, but from the
Norwegian/Icelandic, and the skaldic verse would glorify the Norwegians, and
not two youngmen who had no status yet in Norway, and therefore of little
interest to the Scandinavians. The exiled Earl Tostig was instrumental to
the events that followed, and not one man of Earl Tostig's retinue is
mentioned in the sources as being at Stamford Bridge either, but it is
inconceivable that Tostig fought alone; so Tostig's men and sons, are
inferred when Earl Tostig is mentioned. Tostig's host is of no small
account; otherwise Harald II of England would not have tried to coerce him
in abandoning his participation at Stamford Bridge.
> > It is perfectly reasonable to
> > assume that they were there; especially if we accept that Tostig went to
> > Norway to form an alliance with Harald, his sons would have been with
him,
> > and therefore Skuli and Ketil sailed with Tostig from Norway. There is
no
> > basis for Skuli and Ketill, Tostig's sons to even be in Orkney, prior to
> > Tostig and Harald forming their alliance, and their subsequent journey
to
> > Orkney, because their Scandinavian lineage was Danish, not Norwegian.>
> Well, one basis would be that they were too young to fight and so
> were left in the safe keeping of the Queen. After all, the fleet
> stopped at the Orkneys on the way south, so if, as you have
> hypothesized, they sailed with Tostig from Norway, that would put
> them at the Orkneys, whether or not they went on south
PLM: They were not to young to fight, and you will be hard pressed to prove
such an assertion.
> > It is inconceivable that Harald would "leave
> > behind" the sons of Tostig, Skuli and Ketil, whilst taking his own son
Olaf,
> > as well as Thorfinn's only sons. It is not implicit that Skuli and Ketil
> > were in Orkney, whilst their father Earl Tostig was valiantly fighting
for
> > his honor and Harald at Stamford Bridge; >
> Olaf was not at Stamford Bridge either, nor were Paul and Erland.
> They were left behind with the boatsw. Is it then equally
> inconceivable that they would have taken the sons of Tostig and
> left behind Harald's own son and the sons of Thorfinn?
PLM: I could accept that assertion; it being a far cry better than they were
left in Orkney, but this does not mean that they did not take part in the
Battle. If you will recall, a third of Harald's army were left behing,
because they were not expecting trouble, as yet unaware that they were going
to face Harold Godwinsson that day.
However, once they saw what lay before them, riders were sent back to
the ships to call up the reserves, who did arrive and do battle with
Harold's army, albeit to late to save King Harald and Tostig. These reserves
were under the command of Eysteinn Ori, the son of Thorberg Arnason, and
brother to Harald's wife Thora; which is another indication that Thora was
the wife who went with Harald, and not Elizabeth. Paul. Erland, Skuli, and
Ketil could easily have participated in the anticlimax of the battle of
Stamford Bridge; which is known as Orri's Battle, or charge, who had brought
the reserves left behind on the Ships.
> > when Skuli is undoubtedly older
> > than Prince/King Olaf, his foster son, who was with Harald. It is worth
> > mentioning, that fosterage was a form of alliance between families, and
the
> > fact that Skuli was Olaf's foster father, would be indicative that this
> > "fosterage" took place in Norway at the time of Tostig's alliance with
> > Harald, because Tostig swore fealty to Harald. >
> Skuli was called king's-fostri, but do we know it was this king
> and not Olaf's infant son, for whom Skuli is said to have served
> as regent? Snorri does not identify the king in question, and
> the context may have led to an assumption.
PLM: Hollander states in his introduction to the Heimskringla, that "It is
from these two collections [Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna] that Snorri has
lifted bodily some of the most telling pages of the sagas of Harald
Sigurtharson and the Kings succeeding him -- always improving and clarifying
their accounts."
Morkinskinna is quite clear as to which Olaf was Skuli's foster son; so
if their is any ambiguity on this issue, you can attribute it to Snorri, and
also see Hollander's assertion that Snorri was "always improving and
clarifying their accounts." is not wholly accurate. In some instances Snorri
altered or omitted events to suit himself; but we cannot assume his chnages
are the truth of the matter.
> > Furthermore, it is completely illogical to suppose that Queen
Elizabeth
> > is the wife that Harald took with him to Orkney. Morkinskinna names
Thora as
> > the wife which Harald took to Orkney, with their daughter Maria. >
> This is not a supposition, but a quote from Snorri. Take it up
> with him.
PLM: The fact that Harald took his wife Thora is not a supposition either.
From Morkinskinna, page 264, "King Haraldr sailed first west to Orkney and
recruited the aid of Jarl Thorfinn's sons Páll and Erlendr. There he left
his wife Þôra and his daughter Máría behind. (7)
ch. 49 explanatory notes, page 445:
"7. According to Morkinskinna, Haraldr leaves his wife Thora and his
daughter Maria behind in Orkney. Fagrskinna (p. 278) speaks of Ellisif and
Maria, while Heimskringla (p. 179) speaks of Ellisif, Maria and Ingigerdr
(Thora having been left in Norway)." E.Q.
Of the three sources cited above, Morkinskinna is the oldest, followed by
Fagrskinna, and then Heimskringla; so what is your basis for asserting that
Elizabeth is correct; which you imply by stating that it is not a
supposition, the obverse of a supposition would be a fact. As Snorri rejects
Morkinskinna, the earliest source; then the supposition is indeed Snorri's.
Morkinskinna being the older of the King's Sagas is detailed in an essay
by none other than Theodore M. Anderson, entitled "Kings' Sagas
(Konungasögur), found in "Old Norse-Icelandic Literature, a critical guide,
edited by Carol J. Glover and John Lindow, copyright 1985, by Cornell
University.
page 216-217:
"After the disparate beginnings of the period 1150-1200, the following
period down to about 1230 takes on a much clearer profile. It is the period
of the first great compendia of the Norwegian kings, Morkinskinna,
Fagrskinna, and Heimskringla. Morkinskinna covers the period from the death
of St. Olaf (1030) to the reign of Haraldr gilli's sons Sigurðr, Ingi, and
Eysteinn (until 1157), but it may originally have extended down to 1177.
Fagrskinna covers the period from Hálfdan svarti, in the middle of the ninth
century, to Magnús Erlingsson (1177), and Heimskringla covers the same
period with the addition of an introductory section of the quasi-historical
Yngling dynasty (Ynglinga saga). Morkinskina is the first in the series and
is customarily dated around 1220. Of all the Kings' sagas it is probably the
least thoroughly studied. Second in line is the Norwegian Fagrskinna, on
which Gustav Indrebø produced an admirable monograph in 1917. Indrebø
demonstrated in detail that the author of Fagrskinna made use of a series of
earlier texts, Morkinskinna, Ágrip, Hlaðajarla saga, Saemundr,
Hryggjarstykki, the oldest (lost) version of Jómsvíking saga, a redaction of
Oddr Snorrason's Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar closest to the Stockholm
manuscript, some version of Óláfs saga helga, whether Styrmir's redaction or
a version of the Oldest saga, and perhaps a Knúts saga. Indrebø believed
that Fagrskinna was written around 1225 and in the service of King Hákon
Hákonarson (pp. 273, 277). His main thesis was that Fagrskinna was composed
in a strictly literary tradition on the basis of written texts and was only
marginally indebted to oral tradition (p. 111). This thesis has not been
challenged.
Heimskringla, which Snorri seems to have composed in the period from
roughly 1225 to 1235, belongs to the same tradition and used most of the
same written sources, in addition to others. The source question was
clarified by Gustav Storm as early as 1873. Since then the debate has
centered chiefly on the question of whether Snorri used Fagrskinna. Indrebø
concluded that he came into possession of Fagrskinna only after he begun
work on Heimskringla and made use of it beginning with the saga of Haraldr
gráfeldr (1917:285-97). Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, though somewhat irresolute,
was also inclined to believe that Snorri used Fagrskinna (1936:197-98,
244-27, 235-36).
For the period 1030-1057 the later compendia Fagrskinna and Heimskringla
depend chiefly on Morkinskinna. But where did the author of Morkinskinna
find his narrative material? This question leads to one of the most
interesting, as yet unresolved, problems in kings' saga research....." EQ
PLM: I think that the fact Snorri follows Fagrskinna's assertion the Queen
Elizabeth went with Harald to Orkney, removes all doubt that Snorri did use
Fagrskinna in his Heimskringla, but does not answer why he chose to reject
Morkinskinna's assertion that Harald's wife Thora went with him. The answer
may be due to the fact that the Church viewed Elizabeth as Harald's only
legitimate spouse, and although Snorri is generally regarded as being
objective, I strongly believe Snorri slanted many incidents in favor of the
church's view, and the sagas of Olaf Tryggvasson and St. Olaf make up nearly
half of the entire book, which in my opion, shows a strong bias toward
christianity.
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Judith of Flanders (NOT Normandy)
Stewart Baldwin
Tostig and Judith produced at least two sons and one daughter (source
not cited). We know of the two alleged sons that appear in some Norse
sources (discussed elsewhere in this thread), so it is not difficult
to see where he came up with two sons, but where does the daughter
come from? The only other primary source I know of that mentions
children of Tostig is the infant children ("lactentibus liberis" -
number and gender not stated) mentioned very vaguely in the Life of
King Edward the Confessor. Does anybody know of sources attributing
any daughters to Tostig?
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
Soszynski) wrote:
>I don't know if the chronology has been discussed before, but I would
>think it would play a part in helping to decide the better theory.
>Richard III died in August 1027 so his putative daughter would be born
>no later than May 1028, so a marriage c1047 to Tostig would give a
>couple of sons old enough to fight in 1066. However, my poor sources
>indicate that Judith married Welf c1071 and had three (further)
>children (1073,1074,?) that is when she would have been 45, 46 and 47+
>years old, isn't this unusual enough to have been noticed at the time?
>or any time for that matter? Or have I completely overlooked something
>vital? Corrections welcome.
I only know of two children (Welf and Henry). Is there a third? The
marriage is placed by Decker-Hauff in 1070, so that two children could
have been born in 1071 and 1073. Although this would make the
chronology less tight (assuming the third child is a mistake), a later
birth certainly would be better (say about 1032 in the Baldwin IV
Theory that I believe is correct).
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
>
>>>PLM: True, they are not specifically stated to have been at the battle
>>>
> of
>
>>>Stamford, but they were not yet Earls; so I see their omission as not
>>>unusual. >
>>>
>>They were sons of one of the two leaders of the invasion. That
>>would seem to be rather important.
>>
>
> PLM: From the English perspective certainly, but the contemporary accounts
> were not written from the English perspectice, but from the
> Norwegian/Icelandic, and the skaldic verse would glorify the Norwegians, and
> not two youngmen who had no status yet in Norway, and therefore of little
> interest to the Scandinavians.
Considering that Skuli represented the paternal line
(g-g-grandfather) of King Inge, and that this King's brother Duke
Skuli was both royal regent and host to Snorri when he visited
Norway, I would think Snorri would have thought them relevant.
In fact, you are arguing that they are insignificant to the
Scandinavians, and yet the Scandinavians report them returning to
Norway with Olaf, their activities on behalf of Olaf thereafter,
the land grants made to them, and who they married. How could
they be insignificant in September, and yet so significant the
next summer to merit 2/3 of a chapter in King Harald's Saga?
>>Well, one basis would be that they were too young to fight and so
>>were left in the safe keeping of the Queen. After all, the fleet
>>stopped at the Orkneys on the way south, so if, as you have
>>hypothesized, they sailed with Tostig from Norway, that would put
>>them at the Orkneys, whether or not they went on south
>>
>
> PLM: They were not to young to fight,
What makes you so sure?
> and you will be hard pressed to prove
> such an assertion.
Let me get this straight. The only source cited so far for their
participation at Stamford Bridge was written in 1956, and you are
asking me to prove that they weren't there? when your only
argument for their participation is an argument from incredulity?
(I refuse to believe . . . ) There is no evidence that they
were there. The only sources that mention them are damning in
their silence. This is the Hastings argument all over again -
every Scandinavian alive at the time was at Stamford Bridge,
unless a source is found specifically stating that they were not
there, and even then (as below) an attempt will be made to place
them there in spite of the testimony to the contrary.
>>>It is inconceivable that Harald would "leave
>>>behind" the sons of Tostig, Skuli and Ketil, whilst taking his own son
>>>
> Olaf,
>
>>>as well as Thorfinn's only sons. It is not implicit that Skuli and Ketil
>>>were in Orkney, whilst their father Earl Tostig was valiantly fighting
>>>
> for
>
>>>his honor and Harald at Stamford Bridge; >
>>>
>>Olaf was not at Stamford Bridge either, nor were Paul and Erland.
>> They were left behind with the boatsw. Is it then equally
>>inconceivable that they would have taken the sons of Tostig and
>>left behind Harald's own son and the sons of Thorfinn?
>>
>
> PLM: I could accept that assertion; it being a far cry better than they were
> left in Orkney,
Argument from incredulity again.
> but this does not mean that they did not take part in the
> Battle.
Of course not, but the chronicler who attempted to report the
names of every Scandinavian not present at Stamford Bridge died
of carpal tunnel syndrome before he got done with the A's, so we
will never know.
> These reserves
> were under the command of Eysteinn Ori, the son of Thorberg Arnason, and
> brother to Harald's wife Thora; which is another indication that Thora was
> the wife who went with Harald, and not Elizabeth.
How so? He was to marry Maria, who was waiting in the Orkneys,
and Maria's mother was Elizabeth. His presence in no way sways
the issue one way or the other.
> Paul. Erland, Skuli, and
> Ketil could easily have participated in the anticlimax of the battle of
> Stamford Bridge;
They could have, but there is no evidence that they did.
Certainly Olaf didn't, (or was his presence also insignificant to
the Scandinavian historians?) and if he didn't, why would you
expect Paul and Erland (and Skuli and Ketil) to have
participated? or do I again have to prove the negative.
> which is known as Orri's Battle, or charge, who had brought
> the reserves left behind on the Ships.
He brought "all his men" according to Snorri. Is this the other
third of the Norwegians, or just Eystein's men? Most of them
were slaughtered anyhow, and the only person whose escape merited
mention was Styrkar.
>>Skuli was called king's-fostri, but do we know it was this king
>>and not Olaf's infant son, for whom Skuli is said to have served
>>as regent? Snorri does not identify the king in question, and
>>the context may have led to an assumption.
>
> Morkinskinna is quite clear as to which Olaf was Skuli's foster son;
No, it's not. Based on your earlier post, it says:
"Skuli, the son of Jarl Tostig Godwinson, and Ketill Krokr from
Halogaland came to Norway with King Olafr. King Olafr arranged a
good marriage for Ketill and appointed him a district chieftain
in the north. Many distinguished men are descended from Ketill.
Skuli was a wise and outstanding man, very handsome and
well-spoken. He became a leader in the King's retinue. addressed
thingmeetings, and participated in the King's councils. He was
called the King's foster father."
This simply concludes with the statement that he was known as
Skuli Kingsfostri. You cannot imply from this which King he
fostered. It even indicates that he _became_ a leader in the
king's retinue, an odd development for someone who supposedly was
Olaf's foster father, who should have been a leader of his
retinue and participated in the King's councils from the start.
(And again, this whole paragraph for two men so insignificant to
the Scandinavians that their participation at Stamford Bridge was
irrelevant.)
>
>>> Furthermore, it is completely illogical to suppose that Queen
>>> Elizabeth
>>> is the wife that Harald took with him to Orkney. Morkinskinna
>>> names Thora as
>>>the wife which Harald took to Orkney, with their daughter Maria. >
>>
>>This is not a supposition, but a quote from Snorri. Take it up
>>with him.
>
> PLM: The fact that Harald took his wife Thora is not a supposition either.
Never said it was, but as long as you mention it, how do you know
that it is not?
> "7. According to Morkinskinna, Haraldr leaves his wife Thora and his
> daughter Maria behind in Orkney. Fagrskinna (p. 278) speaks of Ellisif and
> Maria, while Heimskringla (p. 179) speaks of Ellisif, Maria and Ingigerdr
> (Thora having been left in Norway)." E.Q.
>
> Of the three sources cited above, Morkinskinna is the oldest, followed by
> Fagrskinna, and then Heimskringla; so what is your basis for asserting that
> Elizabeth is correct;
I am not asserting that Elizabeth is correct. I am simply
indicating that it is neither illogical, nor necessarily a
supposition.
> which you imply
I do nothing of the sort.
> by stating that it is not a
> supposition, the obverse of a supposition would be a fact.
False dichotomy. A lie is also not a supposition, nor is the
reporting of the only available testimony which happens to
actually be false. Supposition implies an active decision-making
process or assumption, and you cannot conclude that Snorri did
this. That the Queen was Elizabeth is the testimony of Snorri
and Fagrskinna, plain and simple. Any interpretation of this
fact (that Snorri and the author of Fagrskinna reported this) is
a supposition on your part.
> As Snorri rejects
> Morkinskinna, the earliest source; then the supposition is indeed Snorri's.
It is hardly that simple. You don't know that Snorri actively
opted for one version over the other. Likewise, you don't know
that the author of Morkinskinna did not do exactly what you are
doing, jumping to an unsupported conclusion based on his own
preconceptions. Likewise, when two sources are removed from the
events they are describing, it is unclear that the earliest is
necessarily the best. It has been argued in the Agatha question
that the latest of the chroniclers is the one who presented the
accurate information, because he had access to other sources now
lost, that were not available to his predecessors (a challenging
argument to make, but a valid option none the less).
> PLM: I think that the fact Snorri follows Fagrskinna's assertion the Queen
> Elizabeth went with Harald to Orkney, removes all doubt that Snorri did use
> Fagrskinna in his Heimskringla,
Flawed conclusion. They just as well could have used a common
source. A much more detailed comparison of the texts is
necessary to reach this conclusion, and more important, rather
than what details they share, is what is found in Fagrskinna but
absent from Snorri.
taf
penny edwards
As stated previously by Stewart Baldwin - "The Baldwin IV Theory: Judith was
a daughter of Count Baldwin IV of Flanders by his second wife, a daughter of
Richard II of Normandy. This would make her a half-sister to Baldwin V, and
an aunt of Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror."
The Royal Lineage in 'Burke's Peerage and Knighteage' states that:-
"Richard II "The Good" ................................
2. Eleanor, m. as his 2nd wife, Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders, and d.s.p.
He d. 30 May, 1036."
There are some interesting quotes in the Dictionary of National Biographies-
Under Tostig -
"In 1051 he married Judith, daughter of Baldwin IV, called the Bearded,
count of Flanders, by his second wife, a daughter of Richard II, duke of
Normandy, and sister of Baldwin V (FLORENCE, an. 1051, and ORDERIC, pp. 492,
638, make her a daughter of Baldwin V, but comp. Vita, u.s. pp.404, 428;
Norman Conquest, iii. 663)."
Could anyone look these references up?
Notice that Burke states that Baldwin IV d.s.p. with Eleanor, daughter of
Richard II.
Bye for now,
Penelope
Stewart Baldwin
brought to my attention by Henk Verdonk, who I would also like to
thank for providing me with a copy. The article is:
Hartwig Cleve & Eduard Hlawitschka, "Zur Herkunft der Herzogin Judith
von Bayern (†1094)", in Fried & Ziegler, eds., Festschrift für Andreas
Kraus (Münchener Historische Studien Abteilung Bayerische Geschichte
10, 1982), 15-32.
This article argued that Judith was a daughter of Baldwin IV of
Flanders by his second marriage with a daughter of Richard II of
Normandy. A good part of the article was an argument against the
earlier article by Decker-Hauff that claimed that Judith was a
daughter of Richard III of Normandy.
This 1982 article had come to basically the same conclusion that I did
when I first read the Decker-Hauff paper a little more than a month
ago, and had used basically the same arguments as what appeared in my
posting that started this thread. In addition to the points
previously made in the thread (which I don't think it is necessary to
repeat), a few additional points from the Cleve-Hlawitschka paper can
be outlined as follows.
1. Since any daughter of Baldwin IV by his Norman wife would have been
born at about the same time as the children of Baldwin V, the
confusion of the medieval authors who erroneously make Judith a
daughter of Baldwin V is more easily explained.
2. One of the rescensions of "Genealogiae Comitum Flandriae"
("Continuato Leidensis et Divionensis", MGH SS 9, 307) also mentions
the second marriage of Baldwin IV to an unnamed daughter of Richard II
of Normandy, so William of Jumièges is not the only early author to
mention this marriage. [It should be pointed out, however, that this
is not necessarily independent testimony, but could have been added by
someone using William of Jumièges as a source.]
3. The two claimed sons of Tostig, Skúli and Ketill, bear names that
are unknown among either Tostig's or Judith's relatives, another
reason (in addition to chronological reasons already mentioned) for
doubting that they were sons of Judith. An earlier Norwegian wife (or
mistress) of Tostig would be a better way of explaining these names
(if they were in fact sons of Tostig).
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
<pennye...@ktdinternet.com> wrote:
>As stated previously by Stewart Baldwin - "The Baldwin IV Theory: Judith was
>a daughter of Count Baldwin IV of Flanders by his second wife, a daughter of
>Richard II of Normandy. This would make her a half-sister to Baldwin V, and
>an aunt of Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror."
>
>The Royal Lineage in 'Burke's Peerage and Knighteage' states that:-
>
>"Richard II "The Good" ................................
>
>2. Eleanor, m. as his 2nd wife, Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders, and d.s.p.
>He d. 30 May, 1036."
>
>There are some interesting quotes in the Dictionary of National Biographies-
>
>Under Tostig -
>
>"In 1051 he married Judith, daughter of Baldwin IV, called the Bearded,
>count of Flanders, by his second wife, a daughter of Richard II, duke of
>Normandy, and sister of Baldwin V (FLORENCE, an. 1051, and ORDERIC, pp. 492,
>638, make her a daughter of Baldwin V, but comp. Vita, u.s. pp.404, 428;
>Norman Conquest, iii. 663)."
>
>Could anyone look these references up?
These are all sources which have already been discussed in the
previous discussions on Judith (see the s.g.m archives).
>Notice that Burke states that Baldwin IV d.s.p. with Eleanor, daughter of
>Richard II.
Burke is always a poor source to consult for early medieval genealogy.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
> As stated previously by Stewart Baldwin - "The Baldwin IV Theory: Judith was
> a daughter of Count Baldwin IV of Flanders by his second wife, a daughter of
> Richard II of Normandy. This would make her a half-sister to Baldwin V, and
> an aunt of Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror."
>
> The Royal Lineage in 'Burke's Peerage and Knighteage' states that:-
>
> "Richard II "The Good" ................................
>
> 2. Eleanor, m. as his 2nd wife, Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders, and d.s.p.
> He d. 30 May, 1036."
> Notice that Burke states that Baldwin IV d.s.p. with Eleanor, daughter of
> Richard II.
Burke has not cited this 'fact', and is not to be trusted over
Stewart's detailed analysis of the question, particularly since
no contemporary source names her as Eleanor, and the name is most
unlikely for a norman princess of this period.
taf