HP - New Henry Project Pages
Stewart Baldwin
URL to the index page is:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm
The 23 new pages are:
Agnes of Évreux, wife of Simon I de Montfort
Amaury I de Montfort
Bertrade de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV and Philip I
Elizabeth, wife of Robert de Château-du-Loir
Éremburge, wife of Gervaise II de Château-du-Loir
Éremburge de la Fleche, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou
Fulk V of Anjou
Gervaise II de Château-du-Loir
Godehilde, wife of Yves de Bellême
Godehilde, wife of Roger de Tosny and Richard of Évreux
Hamon/Hamelin de Château-du-Loir
Helias de la Fleche, count of Maine
Herleve, wife of Robert, archbishop of Rouen
Henry I of England
Hildeburge de Bellême. wife of Hamon/Hamelin
Mathilde, mother of Éremburge, wife of Gervaise II
Richard, count of Évreux
Robert, archbishop of Rouen (and count of Évreux)
Robert "Brochard" de Château-du-Loir
Rorans, grandmother of Hamo/Hamelin
Simon I de Montfort
William the Conqueror
Yves I de Bellême
These page are in various states of completeness. I imagine that my
list of bastards of Henry I could still use some further revision.
As usual, comments are welcome
Stewart Baldwin
Stewart Baldwin
<sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I have now uploaded some new pages to the Henry Project, of which the
>URL to the index page is:
>
>http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm
>
I forgot to add that I have still not gone over to the old pages to
add links to the new pages.
Stewart Baldwin
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Nathaniel Taylor
>I have now uploaded some new pages to the Henry Project
>
Stewart, it's great to see the Henry Project grow.
Re: Henry I's second marriage, you give only the year, 1121, but cite
Roger of Hovedon noting that he says "at the Purification of St.
Mary". Does this not date the marriage precisely to 2 Feb 1121
(feast of the Purification), or is there reason to doubt the precise
date?
Nat
Nathaniel Taylor
Stewart Baldwin <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I have now uploaded some new pages to the Henry Project
>
<...>
>
> Henry I of England
Stewart, it's great to see the Henry Project grow.
Re: Henry I's second marriage, you give only the year, 1121, but cite
Roger of Hovedon noting that he says "at the Purification of St. Mary".
Does this not date the marriage more precisely to 2 Feb 1121 (feast of
the Purification), or is there reason to doubt the precise date?
[I sent this to GEN-Medieval on Thursday, not having access to my
newsreader, but see it did not pass the NG gate. Don noted that there
were problems with the listserver at that time; apologies for a double
post to list.]
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
WJho...@aol.com
nathani...@earthlink.net writes:
<< Re: Henry I's second marriage, you give only the year, 1121, but cite
Roger of Hovedon noting that he says "at the Purification of St. Mary".
Does this not date the marriage more precisely to 2 Feb 1121 (feast of
the Purification), or is there reason to doubt the precise date? >>
Should this be 2 Feb 1121/2 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Gordon Banks
There is an article on DNA evidence of the descent of the Ashkenazim.
The URL is http://www.jogg.info
WJho...@aol.com
g...@gordonbanks.com writes:
It's interesting that the author uses a sort of logic like this:
Because a certain marker appears in Ashkenazic people but not in Sephardic
people and because they had a common ancestor, that marker must have come from
outside that original group.
That at least is how I would characterize the first half of the paper.
But an alternate theory would be that they did NOT have a common ancestor.
That's not really mentioned, perhaps it's not considered polite to think that
maybe the Tanakh is wrong.
Will Johnson
David Teague
>From: WJho...@aol.com
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: HP - New Henry Project Pages
>Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:41 EDT
Or should it be 2 Feb. 1120/1?
David Teague
Nathaniel Taylor
The reference is from a period before Incarnation dating (beginning the
year on 25 March) came into general use in Britain, so a 'split date' is
not really appropriate. If he was using a Christmas year-change (as
ASC & other Norman chroniclers did), then it's unambiguous and best left
as simply 1121. Another way to put it is that the marriage was
concluded only weeks after the loss of Henry's only legitimate male heir
in the wreck of the White Ship (November 1120).
Peter Stewart
""David Teague"" <davt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BAY101-F676A19458...@phx.gbl...
It should 1121, on 29 January and before the Purification according to
William Farrer in 'An Outline Itinerary of Kinf Henry the First', _Englsih
Historical Review_ 34 (1919) no. 408 on p. 515, citing Symeon of Durham. The
wedding ceremony was performed by the bishop of Winchester. On the following
day the new queen was consecrated and crowned by the archbishop of
Canterbury (who had been sick on the previous day), citing Eadmer and John
of Worcester.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Stewart Baldwin" <sba...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qekqc11iqp7ap4knr...@4ax.com...
>I have now uploaded some new pages to the Henry Project, of which the
> URL to the index page is:
>
> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm
>
> The 23 new pages are:
>
> Agnes of Évreux, wife of Simon I de Montfort
> Amaury I de Montfort
> Bertrade de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV and Philip I
> Elizabeth, wife of Robert de Château-du-Loir
> Éremburge, wife of Gervaise II de Château-du-Loir
> Éremburge de la Fleche, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou
> Fulk V of Anjou
The index and head of the page for Henry II's grandfather Fulk V state that
he died in, or was king of Jerusalem until, 1144, yet this is contradicted
in the text & his year of death is stated there as 1143.
The whole question is vexed in the sources & literature. William of Tyre is
cited for the date given of 13 November, without mentioning that in the
second reference he actually gave 10 November instead. It's difficult to
tell which was meant, that is whether a word was omitted once or added the
other time: the first statement is "quarta demum die, Idibus videlicet
Novembris" (at last on the fourth day, that is 13th November) while the
second is "Defuncto...quarto Idus Novembris" (dead on the 10th November).
Either way, William of Tyre placed the event in November 1142 but stated
that this occurred in the 11th year of Fulk's reign as king of Jerusalem
that ended before then, on 13 September 1142.
For the date, 10 November seems more probable since the parallel date (IV
Ides) is given in obituaries of Saint-Serge at Angers, Fontevrault and
Saint-Germain des Prés abbeys - however, the last places it in October
instead of November.
For the year, we have conflicting evidence. A charter of Fulk's son Geoffrey
ostensibly dated February 1141 refers to his father "of blessed memory". The
last monastic chronicle cited on the page is confused, as set out by
Stewart, but there is some further consistency in reporting the death two
years early as the same is done for Innocent II, as noted, and also for
Celestin II (1142 instead of 1144) and for Lucius II (1143 for 1145).
1144 as in ES is very probably wrong. Pope Lucius II referred to Fulk as
deceased in a document dated 14 September 1144; Pope Celestin II however had
thought that he was still alive on 10 January of the same year. This might
only indicate very slow progress of the news to Rome, taking over two months
from 10 November 1143, or is possibly an error. The last reference to his
reign in Jerusalem is a dating "regnante rege Fulcone" on 4 October 1143.
In view of this evidence, there can't be absolute certianty but 10 November
1143 seems the most likely to be correct.
I wonder what is said about Fulk's death date in Richardson's sacred tome.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
p_m_s...@msn.com writes:
<< The index and head of the page for Henry II's grandfather Fulk V state
that
he died in, or was king of Jerusalem until, 1144, yet this is contradicted
in the text & his year of death is stated there as 1143. >>
Why did Baldwin II choose Fulk as his successor? I thought in my naivete
that it was because Fulk had married Baldwin's daughter, but the biography at
wikipedia says that Baldwin offered his daughter alongwith Jerusalem at the same
time to Fulk. So why Fulk?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Jwc...@aol.com
Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem offered the hand of his
daughter, (?) Melisinde to Fulk V, Count of Anjou. When He accepted the heiress`
hand in marriage, He accepted Jerusalem`s throne. had He declined and She married
someone else it follows that that person would have succeeded instead of Fulk.
Peter, RPA mentions Foulques V and Eremburge of Maine as Geoffrey
Plantagenet`s parents but gives no details of their lives, just as it doesn`t King
Henry I of England and Eadgyth / Maud of the Scots.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Leo
He asked the King of France to selec t a husband for his daughter who then
would become his heir.
Best wishtes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: HP - New Henry Project Pages
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem offered the hand of his
daughter, (?) Melisinde to Fulk V, Count of Anjou. When He accepted the
heiress`
hand in marriage, He accepted Jerusalem`s throne. >>
But like I stated in my email. It is said that Fulk offered his daughter
along WITH the kingdom. Not one first, but both together. So your solution
doesn't work with that statement. The other possibility is that the statement
itself is incorrect.
I'm just not sure.
Will
Dora Smith
interest in tracing actual genes nor genealogical history. It's not the
first time the entire notion has been poo-pooed on this list.
Now, if one group has a gene the other doesn't, the meaning of this would
depend on whether the group shares other genes in such a way that they must
have had common ancestry, or the total genetic picture makes it clear that
if they had no recent common ancestry.
If one group has some genes the other does not, and the total evidence
supports recent common ancestry, then either the group with the unique gene
mixed with another group that had that gene, or a mutation occurred. More
work would be necessary to know which. And a geneticist might know how
likely the mutation in question was to occur.
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
vill...@austin.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
lostc...@yahoo.com
Jewish tradition is matrilineal and so it would make sense for
mitochondrial DNA to show a possible relationship between the two
groups whereas the Y-chromosome may not.
Bronwen Edwards
WJho...@aol.com
lostc...@yahoo.com writes:
> Ancient
> Jewish tradition is matrilineal
So ... you're saying that King David was not a Jew ? His matrilineal line is
not strictly Hebrew (Jewish).
Will Johnson
lostc...@yahoo.com
is a fact. I have no idea whether or not it was in use during King
David's time. Are you suggesting that there is no such matrilineal
tradition?
WJho...@aol.com
lostc...@yahoo.com writes:
If it's a *fact* then you should have no problem finding a credible source
who will state that. Is it also a *fact* that you have no idea that David in
his matrilineal line is not Hebrew? I'm sure you've heard of the Book of Ruth.
Did you not know that Ruth is not a Hebrew? So that makes David some sort of
usurper I suppose.
Will Johnson
R. Battle
<snip>
> Is it also a *fact* that you have no idea that David in
> his matrilineal line is not Hebrew? I'm sure you've heard of the Book
> of Ruth. Did you not know that Ruth is not a Hebrew? So that makes
> David some sort of usurper I suppose.
<snip>
Not that this is on topic here, but in point of fact according to the book
of Ruth the titular lady was not David's matrilineal ancestor but rather
the mother of Obed, David's paternal grandfather. That being said, at
least through Bible times the paternal line was the most important, that
determining one's tribe (as well as who could lawfully be priests, etc.).
I'm not sure when the maternal line became so important in Jewish
tradition, though I would be interested to learn (I'm guessing it
coincided with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the beginnings of
rabbinic rather than priestly leadership).
-Robert Battle
Jwc...@aol.com
If the ancient Jewish tradition were about matrilineal
(mother-daughter) descents being Jews then why do the Old Testament genealogies
all focus on patrlineal (father- son) descents as the Old Testament appears
to have Jewish in origin?
Ann Sharp
> . . . why do the Old Testament genealogies
> all focus on patrlineal (father- son) descents ....
Ann:
Book of Genesis ... Abraham, "First Patriarch" [which tends to suggest
that Abraham came from a non-patriarchal society, otherwise why is he titled
the "First Patriarch"?].
Point I actually wish to make, though, is that Jewishness is inherited
by the descendants of Sarah only, not by other descendants of Abraham.
L.P.H.,
Ann
WJho...@aol.com
ax...@sbcglobal.net writes:
> Book of Genesis ... Abraham, "First Patriarch" [which tends to suggest
> that Abraham came from a non-patriarchal society, otherwise why is he titled
> the "First Patriarch"?].
>
> Point I actually wish to make, though, is that Jewishness is inherited
> by the descendants of Sarah only, not by other descendants of Abraham.
A rule is not made by a single exception.
You prove the obverse of your point by this kind of reasoning.
Anyone who has actually read the Bible is well-aware that almost to
exclusion, male-lines are presented.
Someone apparently has an axe to grind here. But this kind of
mis-information does not impress the vigilant. Try harder.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
Jwc...@aol.com writes:
> They were of the City of Ur and Haran died before their father,
> Nahor marrying his brother`s daughter Milcah. Abram married Sarai whose
> parentage is not stated in the Bible.
Actually that is not correct. It is, in fact stated, that Sarah is Abraham's
half-sister.
I find that odd, but hey.
Will Johnson
WmAd...@gmail.com
>On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 WJho...@aol.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Is it also a *fact* that you have no idea that David in
>> his matrilineal line is not Hebrew? I'm sure you've heard of the Book
>> of Ruth. Did you not know that Ruth is not a Hebrew? So that makes
>> David some sort of usurper I suppose.
><snip>
>
>Not that this is on topic here, but in point of fact according to the book
>of Ruth the titular lady was not David's matrilineal ancestor but rather
>the mother of Obed, David's paternal grandfather.
Correct. David's mother is neither named nor described.
> That being said, at
>least through Bible times the paternal line was the most important, that
>determining one's tribe (as well as who could lawfully be priests, etc.).
It still is very important, at least among the Orthodox. Only a Kohain can
deliver a certain benediction at a certain point in the services (and a Levi
must wash the hands of the Kohain beforehand), at another point (reading from
the Torah), it has to be a Kohain, followed by a Levi, followed by men who are
neither Kohain nor Levi. For women, their tribal status (i.e., whether their
father was a Kohain, a Levi, or other) is relevant in only one circumstance, in
the "pidyon ha-ben" ceremony.
>I'm not sure when the maternal line became so important in Jewish
>tradition, though I would be interested to learn (I'm guessing it
>coincided with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the beginnings of
>rabbinic rather than priestly leadership).
It's earlier than that. At first I though it was part of the standardization
undertaken by the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah (the "Men of the Great Assembly")
founded by Ezra during the Babylonian Exile, but it turns out to have been much
older (Mishnah tractate Kiddushin 3:12).
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/matrilineal may be useful here.