Paternity of Judith, wife of Earl Waltheof (was re: Adelaide...)
Nathaniel Taylor
"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> quoted an earlier message from Peter
Stewart:
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:11:23 +1000
>From: "Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au>
>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>Subject: RE: Guy I de Ponthieu
>
>By the way, a later edition of the *Carmen de Hastingae Proelio* by Frank
>Barlow (Oxford, 1999) ... reverts to the earlier general opinion that Judith,
>the wife of Earl Waltheof, was her daughter by a second marriage to Lambert
>of Lens rather than a posthumous daughter of her first husband Enguerrand of
>Ponthieu, as argued by Morton & Muntz [p 127, note 2]...
Just to follow this up, I looked at Barlow. This is briefly covered at
p. xlv of his introduction, note 128 (and in the chart opposite, on p.
xliv). He notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert
count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly
identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as
Lambert's daughter. While admittedly not quite contemporary, this
account certainly drew on a fund of familial knowledge of Earl Waltheof
and his family, and should not be rejected out of hand if there does not
seem to have been any reason to funge the parentage of Judith, or if
there are no aspersions cast on the Vita's general veracity.
The apparent chronological difficulty with Lambert is that Adelaide's
first husband, Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu, died 25 October 1053,
while Lambert of Lens died in the following summer of 1054. I can't
remember in detail, but wasn't this tight chronology the basis for
Morton & Muntz's doubt that Adelaide could have married Lambert and had
Judith by him in this period? I don't remember if Morton & Muntz even
discussed the _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_. The remaining problem
that Morton & Muntz dwell on is that there doesn't seem to be any
independent confirmation that Adelaide ever was actually married to
Lambert, and Barlow still begins his note with "Adelaide... *may* have
married ... Lambert."
Barlow illuminates us on one apparent solution to the tight chronology:
Adelaide's and Enguerrand's marriage had been condemned in October 1049
at the Council of Rheims, so she could have been married to Lambert
before Enguerrand's death (i.e. anytime from the end of 1049 onward),
which gives a larger window of opportunity. Barlow also seems to be
suggesting that Adelaide and Lambert need not have been *married* for
her to have had a child by Lambert. If her marriage to Enguerrand had
been dissolved in such a high-profile council, there would have been
less stigma attached to this than one would otherwise expect:
fornication was little commented on, while adultery would be beyond the
pale (though in 11th-century aristocratic France, we see it all).
Either way, Lambert's paternity seems perfectly plausible.
BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as
the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid
narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti
Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the
Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd
like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow
for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.
And finally, if someone has Morton & Muntz's _Carmen_ handy and I have
misrepresented their arguments against Lambert's paternity, by all means
speak up.
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
"late and untrustworthy".
They hold that both Adelaide and Judith are daughters of Enguerrand II, who
died in 1053, and Adelaide of Normandy.
They present stronger arguments than Nat Taylor gives them credit for, infra.
Vide Morton & Muntz p. 127, note 2.
One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,
Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an heiress
normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property, (as Adelaide
the younger [child ---- DSH] did, if not the whole (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu
and Matilda of Boulogne did)."
But if Judith was "illegitimate"...
Vide infra.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
| In article <KmW8a.190132$K71....@news1.central.cox.net>,
| "Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> quoted an earlier message from Peter
| Stewart:
|
| >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:11:23 +1000
| >From: "Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au>
| >To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
| >Subject: RE: Guy I de Ponthieu
| >
| >By the way, a later edition of the *Carmen de Hastingae Proelio* by Frank
| >Barlow (Oxford, 1999) ... reverts to the earlier general opinion that
| >Judith, the wife of Earl Waltheof, was her daughter by a second marriage
| >to Lambert of Lens rather than a posthumous daughter of her first
| >husband Enguerrand of Ponthieu, as argued by Morton & Muntz
| >[p 127, note 2]...
|
| Just to follow this up, I looked at Barlow. This is briefly covered at
| p. xlv of his introduction, note 128 (and in the chart opposite, on p.
| xliv). He notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert
| count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly
| identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as
| Lambert's daughter. While admittedly not quite contemporary, this
| account certainly drew on a fund of familial knowledge of Earl Waltheof
| and his family, and should not be rejected out of hand if there does not
| seem to have been any reason to funge [? sic ---- DSH]
| the parentage of Judith, or if there are no aspersions cast on the Vita's
| general veracity.
Morton & Muntz DO cast aspersions on its veracity. Vide supra. _Fudge_?
You were thinking _Munge_ and so typed _Funge_?
Creative....
Douglas Richardson
In addition to the source you've cited, Vita et passio Waldevi
comitis, Countess Judith's father is also named as Lambert of Lens in
an ancient pedigree of the Scottish royal family which I believe was
recorded at Melrose Abbey. I've also located a contemporary charter
which Lambert witnessed with his brother, Eustache of Boulogne. So,
Lambert of Lens was a definitely a real person. This evidence was
evidently overlooked, ignored, or suppressed by Morton and Muntz.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net>...
Douglas Richardson
> Catherine Morton & Hope Muntz find the _Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis_ to be
> "late and untrustworthy".
>
> They hold that both Adelaide and Judith are daughters of Enguerrand II, who
> died in 1053, and Adelaide of Normandy.
>
> They present stronger arguments than Nat Taylor gives them credit for, infra.
>
> Vide Morton & Muntz p. 127, note 2.
>
> One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,
> Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an heiress
> normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property, (as Adelaide
> the younger [child ---- DSH] did, if not the whole (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu
> and Matilda of Boulogne did)."
>
> But if Judith was "illegitimate"...
>
> All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
It appears Morton and Muntz never heard of King Henry I's daughter,
Empress Maud, who was deprived of both England and Normandy by her
male cousin, King Stephen. Morton and Muntz withstanding, female
heiresses could be and were excluded from succession in this time
period. Do your homework, Spencer.
D. Spencer Hines
Richardson proves yet again that his knowledge of English Mediaeval History is
non-existent.
Matilda, daughter of King Henry I of England, *was* her father's heiress.
Henry had 22-24 bastards and a legitimate son, William The Aetheling, who was
drowned in the Wreck of the White Ship on 25 November 1125 ---- ten years
before Henry's death.
So, Henry I had no surviving legitimate son to succeed to the throne.
Matilda, his legitimate daughter, had married Henry V, The Holy Roman Emperor
and was styled as The Empress Matilda in English, as she preferred. Her
husband, Henry V died in 1125 of cancer. The couple had no issue.
Matilda returned to England after the death of her husband and Henry I began
to groom her for succession to the throne. She was widowed and childless as
well as pretty well Germanised [read arrogant and pretentious, in English
eyes], having first gone to the Continent when she was eight years old and
having married Henry V when she was 11.
The British nobles and bishops did not particularly cotton to this
Jennie-foreigner as their future queen ---- but Henry I did his best to secure
their oaths of support that they would loyally defend her claims if she
outlived her father and he left no legitimate son.
Matilda married Geoffrey 'le Bel' comte d'Anjou, Touraine et Maine in 1127.
Now she was Brunhilde with a frog husband in the minds of many of the stalwart
British nobles and bishops.
Henry I died in 1135 without fathering a legitimate son. His death led to a
disputed succession just as had the deaths of the two previous Norman kings of
England, William I 'The Conqueror' and William II 'Rufus'.
When Henry I died on 1 Dec 1135, of a surfeit of lampreys as some say, Matilda
was out of pocket on the Continent.
Stephen, a grandson of William The Conqueror, quickly seized the initiative
and crossed to England to seize the crown where he was accepted as King by the
worthies of London, whose trading connections with Stephen's lands in Boulogne
helped to win them to his side.
Stephen pressed on to Winchester, where his brother, Bishop Henry of
Winchester, persuaded an initially reluctant Archbishop of Canterbury to crown
Stephen as King, the custodian of the treasure to hand over the keys, and the
magnates who were present to accept him as monarch.
Some of the nobles and clerics seem to have abandoned Matilda because they
construed their oath to Henry I to have held only if Henry did not give his
daughter Matilda in marriage to anyone outside the Kingdom without consulting
them.
A Great Civil War ensued when Matilda tried to fight back and reclaim the
throne in 1139. This Civil War lasted until 1153 when Stephen finally agreed
to allow Matilda's son Henry to succeed him on the throne as Henry II
'Curtmantle'. Yes, the one who was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine,
Richardson. Henry II also inherited his father Geoffrey's lands and titles.
Geoffrey was quite a dashing figure, the Antonio Banderas of his day.
So, once again, we see that Richardson is simply grossly ignorant of the
historical and biographical facts and is no more fit to write this book that
he is attempting, PA3, than would be an eager pimply-faced, ignorant, naïve
adolescent boy ---- presented with the excellent Faris manuscript for PA2.
Most Amusing....
Richardson does not know even the most BASIC facts about the period ---- and
consistently falls into error and pratfall:
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
FURTHER, Richardson makes three ADDITIONAL outrageous gaffes:
1. Matilda DID inherit some of Henry I's lands. Richardson demonstrates he
does NOT even know what they were.
2. Stephen never had firm control as Duke of Normandy. He completely lost
control in 1144 when Geoffrey captured Rouen.
3. Richardson has ignorantly misread the passage I quoted from Morton &
Muntz.
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:5cf47a19.03030...@posting.google.com...
| "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:<m45aa.804$l5.1...@eagle.america.net>...
| > Catherine Morton & Hope Muntz find the _Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis_ to
| > be "late and untrustworthy".
| >
| > They hold that both Adelaide and Judith are daughters of Enguerrand II,
| > who died in 1053, and Adelaide of Normandy.
| >
| > They present stronger arguments than Nat Taylor gives them credit for,
| > infra.
| >
| > Vide Morton & Muntz p. 127, note 2.
| >
| > One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,
| > Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an
| > heiress normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property,
| > (as Adelaide the younger [child ---- DSH] did, if not the whole
| > (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu and Matilda of Boulogne did)."
| >
|
| > But if Judith was "illegitimate"...
| >
| > All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
|
| It appears Morton and Muntz never heard of King Henry I's daughter,
| Empress Maud, who was deprived of both England and Normandy by her
| male cousin, King Stephen. Morton and Muntz withstanding, [sic ---- DSH]
Douglas Richardson
to say you agree with me. In all the bobbing and weaving in your
post, though, it's hard to see what your point is, besides a personal
attack on Douglas Richardson. Could you possibly be a little more
succinct in future posts and delete the drama?
The major complaint I hear about Spencer Hines is all talk, no beef.
Your continued lackluster performance here on the newsgroup is very
disappointing. We expect better of you.
DR
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<Gvraa.30$un2....@eagle.america.net>...
> he is attempting, PA3, than would be an eager pimply-faced, ignorant, naīve
Nathaniel Taylor
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:
>"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
>news:ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
>
>| Just to follow this up, I looked at Barlow. This is briefly covered at
>| p. xlv of his introduction, note 128 (and in the chart opposite, on p.
>| xliv). He notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert
>| count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly
>| identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as
>| Lambert's daughter. While admittedly not quite contemporary, this
>| account certainly drew on a fund of familial knowledge of Earl Waltheof
>| and his family, and should not be rejected out of hand if there does not
>| seem to have been any reason to funge the parentage of Judith, or if there
>| are no aspersions cast on the Vita's general veracity.
>| ... I don't remember if Morton & Muntz even
>| discussed the _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_. ...
>| ... [i]f someone has Morton & Muntz's _Carmen_ handy and I have
>| misrepresented their arguments against Lambert's paternity, by all means
>| speak up.
>Catherine Morton & Hope Muntz find the _Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis_ to be
>"late and untrustworthy". ... They present stronger arguments than Nat
>Taylor gives them credit for.
This on-topic and useful contribution (!) corrects my recollection of
Morton and Muntz; and I will pull Morton & Muntz off the shelf this week
to look it over again. Since they do discuss the _Vita_ and claim it to
be untrustworthy, it is disappointing that Barlow simply cites the text,
without any defense of it or refutation of Morton & Muntz: this is the
lazy historian indulging in bad genealogy.
> One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,
> Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an heiress
> normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property, (as Adelaide
> the younger did, if not the whole (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu and Matilda of
> Boulogne did)."
I am not sure how strongly to weigh this point. If the 'assignment' is
made prescriptively (in some sort of testament, for example), then that
makes it considerably less likely that Judith is Lambert's legitimate
daughter. If this statement of M&M is based only on the known
reabsorbtion of the Lens appanage by Eustace II, and not by some
prescriptive assignment, then it is certainly possible that we are
dealing with an uncle usurping his niece's rights.
The bottom line is that the question appears still unresolved. Barlow
neglected to defend the text he offers as evidence but which had
previously been impugned; nor does he respond to this negative argument
about the descent of property. I would like to know more about the
_Vita Waldevi_ and about the documentation of Eustace II being successor
to his brother (and about that Melrose pedigree, though I doubt it has
independent probative value here). I am inclined to applaud Dave
Greene's caution in only following maternal ancestry for Judith when
presenting the most proximal royal descent for her in the TG piece.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>> [Barlow] notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert
>> count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly
>> identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as
>> Lambert's daughter. ...
>> The apparent chronological difficulty with Lambert is that Adelaide's
>> first husband, Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu, died 25 October 1053,
>> while Lambert of Lens died in the following summer of 1054. I can't
>> remember in detail, but wasn't this tight chronology the basis for
>> Morton & Muntz's doubt that Adelaide could have married Lambert and had
>> Judith by him in this period? I don't remember if Morton & Muntz even
>> discussed the _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_. The remaining problem
>> that Morton & Muntz dwell on is that there doesn't seem to be any
>> independent confirmation that Adelaide ever was actually married to
>> Lambert, and Barlow still begins his note with "Adelaide... *may* have
>> married ... Lambert." ...
>In addition to the source you've cited, Vita et passio Waldevi
>comitis, Countess Judith's father is also named as Lambert of Lens in
>an ancient pedigree of the Scottish royal family which I believe was
>recorded at Melrose Abbey.
Can you give a reference for this pedigree? I imagine it is later than,
and possibly derivative of, the _Vita et passio_, or at least represents
the same family tradition. Do Morton and Muntz discuss this text?
>I've also located a contemporary charter
>which Lambert witnessed with his brother, Eustache of Boulogne. So,
>Lambert of Lens was a definitely a real person. This evidence was
>evidently overlooked, ignored, or suppressed by Morton and Muntz.
As I stated above, my recollection was that Morton & Muntz noted that
there doesn't seem to be any independent confirmation that Adelaide ever
was actually married to Lambert, not that Lambert's actual existence was
in doubt. A charter simply witnessed by Lambert doesn't help the
paternity question at all; and their neglect to cite every such document
should not be attributed to ignorance or suppression of (irrelevant)
evidence. Or does this charter also name Adelaide as Lambert's wife?
Nat Taylor
D. Spencer Hines
Thank you.
I look forward to your next post on this matter.
Deus Vult.
"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm
ground of Result and Fact."
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field
Force [1898]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Fortuna et Gloria
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-2A8D20...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
Reedpcgen
Just shut up about Spencer.
You have more important things to do.
So do them.
p
Stewart Baldwin
<nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>In article <5cf47a19.03030...@posting.google.com>,
> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>>In addition to the source you've cited, Vita et passio Waldevi
>>comitis, Countess Judith's father is also named as Lambert of Lens in
>>an ancient pedigree of the Scottish royal family which I believe was
>>recorded at Melrose Abbey.
>
>Can you give a reference for this pedigree? I imagine it is later than,
>and possibly derivative of, the _Vita et passio_, or at least represents
>the same family tradition. Do Morton and Muntz discuss this text?
I don't know whether or not this is the pedigree that Doug was
thinking of, but the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon makes
Judith a daughter of Lambert [see Anderson's "Early Sources of
Scottish History" vol. 2, p. 28]. The only other reference to Lambert
mentioned by Anderson was the item from the Life of Waltheof already
mentioned, which also made Judith a daughter of Lambert. The index to
Anderson's work (not compiled by the author) states that Judith was a
daughter of Odo of Champagne, but I do not find this stated anywhere
in the body of the book, so it is an apparent slip by the indexer.
Enguerrand does not even appear in the index.
Stewart Baldwin
Nathaniel Taylor
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Mar 2003 04:54:02 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
><nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>>In article <5cf47a19.03030...@posting.google.com>,
>> royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>
>>>In addition to the source you've cited, Vita et passio Waldevi
>>>comitis, Countess Judith's father is also named as Lambert of Lens in
>>>an ancient pedigree of the Scottish royal family which I believe was
>>>recorded at Melrose Abbey.
>>
>>Can you give a reference for this pedigree? I imagine it is later than,
>>and possibly derivative of, the _Vita et passio_, or at least represents
>>the same family tradition. Do Morton and Muntz discuss this text?
>
>I don't know whether or not this is the pedigree that Doug was
>thinking of, but the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon makes
>Judith a daughter of Lambert [see Anderson's "Early Sources of
>Scottish History" vol. 2, p. 28].
Thanks; I was wondering whether I'd find this pedigree--or anything
relevant--there. What do you think of the arguments for Lambert vs.
Enguerrand, Stewart?
Nat Taylor
Phil Moody
> BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as
> the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid
> narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti
> Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the
> Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd
> like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow
> for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.
PLM: Thank you for this information from Barlow, Nat; although you did
neglect to discuss his opinion of Adelaide's mother:-) I find it
fascinating, yet perplexing that the Church would condemn this marriage at
the Council of Rheims c. 1049; so I will be anxious to learn what
justification the church had in interfering in this marriage.
This is about the time that the church interjected itself between King Swein
Estridsson and his first spouse Gunnhild Sweinsdotter, presumably on the
basis of consanguinity, but I see no problem of consanguinity between
Ponthieu and the Dukes of Normandy, as we can safely rule out Adelaide's
maternal ancestry from the equation. If someone more knowledgeable can
illustrate a consanguineous relationship between the Dukes of Normandy, and
the Counts of Ponthieu, I would appreciate the clarification.
I think you are judging Barlow to harshly, when you compare his effort to
other genealogical works. I have never seen a copy of CP, but I do have the
entry for AUMALE from the condensed edition; so lets see what a genealogist
has to say about the matter at hand, shall we:-)
"1. Adelaide (a) or Adeliz, sister of William the Conqueror,(b) being
illegit. da. of Robert, Duke of the Normans, by Herleve or Harlotte, da. of
Fulbert or Robert, a pelliparius of Falaise, is mentioned in Domesday as
Comitissa de Albamarla, and as holding some manors in Essex and Suffolk. In
1082, William, King of the English, and Maud, his wife, gave to the Abbey of
La Trinité at Caen the bourg of Le Homme (de Hulmo) in the Côtentin, "sed et
Comitissa A. de Albamarla concedente eo videlicet pacto ut ipsa teneret in
vita sua."(c) Adelaide m., 1stly, Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, who d.
s.p.m., being slain in 1053.(d)
(a) For some discussion on mediæval English names, see vol. iii, Appendix C.
V.G.
(b) The pedigree of the earlier possessors of Aumale has been investigated
by T. Stapleton in _Archaeologia_, vol. xxvi, pp. 349-360. There he supposed
he had proved that Orderic was wrong in stating that the wife of Count Eudes
of Champagne was da. Of Duke Robert, and, that she was really the Duke's
grand-daughter. Later on, he discovered his own error. His amended
conclusions are in _Coll. Top. et Gen._, vol. Vi, p. 265, and, at greater
length, in _Rot. Scacc. Norm._, vol. ii, pp. xxix-xxxi. He had, however, in
the mean time misled Poulson (_Holderness_, vol. i, p. 24 sqq.).
(c) _Gallia Christ._, vol. xi, instr., c. 68-72. Stapleton always misdates
this charter.
(d) A charter of the Church of St. Martin, at Auchy (now Aumale), narrates
its foundation "a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum
quod Albamarla nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod
Augus dicitur," this charter being drawn up "jussu Enguerrani consulis qui
filius fuit Berte supradicti Guerinfridi filie et Adelidis comitisse uxoris
sue sororis scilicet Willelmi Regis Anglorum," and mentioning "Addelidis
comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis filia que post obitum
illorum in imperio successit," and also "Judita comitissa domine supradicte
filia." (Archaeologia, ibid., pp. 358-360). As to Judith, in the _Vita et
passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie_ (an MS.
of the 13th century in the Douai library), printed by F. Michel, _Chron.
Anglo-Normandes_, vol. ii. It is stated, p. 112, that King William gave to
Waltheof "in uxorem neptem suam Ivettam, filliam comitis Lamberti de Lens,
sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia." EQ
The passeo is the sole reference CP uses to assert that Judith is the
daughter of Lambert of Lens. I would be very interested in reading Thomas
Stapleton's (1805-1849) article in Archaeologia, but I have had no luck
searching the web sources. Perhaps someone with CP can provide a fuller
citation?
I have located the _Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ_
opera T. Stapleton, published London 1840, 1844, but it will do little good
without the fuller Archaeologia piece.
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
Nathaniel Taylor
"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> wrote:
>"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:
>
>> BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as
>> the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid
>> narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti
>> Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the
>> Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd
>> like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow
>> for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.
>
>PLM: Thank you for this information from Barlow, Nat; although you did
>neglect to discuss his opinion of Adelaide's mother:-) I find it
>fascinating, yet perplexing that the Church would condemn this marriage at
>the Council of Rheims c. 1049; so I will be anxious to learn what
>justification the church had in interfering in this marriage.
>
>This is about the time that the church interjected itself between King Swein
>Estridsson and his first spouse Gunnhild Sweinsdotter, presumably on the
>basis of consanguinity, but I see no problem of consanguinity between
>Ponthieu and the Dukes of Normandy, as we can safely rule out Adelaide's
>maternal ancestry from the equation. If someone more knowledgeable can
>illustrate a consanguineous relationship between the Dukes of Normandy, and
>the Counts of Ponthieu, I would appreciate the clarification.
The conflict was apparently over a prior affinity, not consanguinity:
Barlow states that it was because Enguerrand's sister (whose name is not
known) was married to Adelaide's uncle, William of Talou. This affinity
would apparently be sufficient to preclude a marriage, though I've
always found the rules of affinity confusing, as we don't think that
way, in a society where we assume some sort of genetic, not spiritual,
basis for incest prohibitions.
>I think you are judging Barlow to harshly, when you compare his effort to
>other genealogical works.
Well, in this specific instance, Barlow published a text edition to
supersede a previous edition and study of the same text. In this
particular detail he contradicted the previous edition, and the onus lay
on him to explain himself--his explanations do not counter the
discussion in Morton & Muntz. He apparently didn't think the Judith
question worth going over carefully, which is an unfortunate lapse from
a genealogical point of view.
>I have never seen a copy of CP, but I do have the
>entry for AUMALE from the condensed edition; so lets see what a genealogist
>has to say about the matter at hand, shall we:-)
I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?
If you mean the microprint reprint of the 2d ed., this does not differ
from the folio edition at all in the text. Or are you referring to the
first, rather than the second, edition?
<snip>
>The passeo is the sole reference CP uses to assert that Judith is the
>daughter of Lambert of Lens. I would be very interested in reading Thomas
>Stapleton's (1805-1849) article in Archaeologia, but I have had no luck
>searching the web sources. Perhaps someone with CP can provide a fuller
>citation?
This is doubtless the journal _Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous tracts
relating to antiquity_, published by the Society of Antiquaries (London)
since 1770. I don't know what year vol. 26 would be.
Nat Taylor
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody wrote:
> (d) A charter of the Church of St. Martin, at Auchy (now Aumale), narrates
> its foundation "a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum
> quod Albamarla nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod
> Augus dicitur," this charter being drawn up "jussu Enguerrani consulis qui
> filius fuit Berte supradicti Guerinfridi filie et Adelidis comitisse
uxoris
> sue sororis scilicet Willelmi Regis Anglorum," and mentioning "Addelidis
> comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis filia que post
obitum
> illorum in imperio successit," and also "Judita comitissa domine
supradicte
> filia." (Archaeologia, ibid., pp. 358-360). As to Judith, in the _Vita et
> passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie_ (an
MS.
> of the 13th century in the Douai library), printed by F. Michel, _Chron.
> Anglo-Normandes_, vol. ii. It is stated, p. 112, that King William gave to
> Waltheof "in uxorem neptem suam Ivettam, filliam comitis Lamberti de Lens,
> sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia." EQ
There is a bit more on the following page (p. 352), note d:
"It is here assumed that it was the sister of the Conqueror, and not her da.
of the same name, who is mentioned in Domesday. Stapleton says of the former
that "she did not long survive her br., King William", but there is nothing
definite
known beyond that she was living in 1082 and dead in 1090. There seems to be
no charter in which the younger Adelaide is called Countess. The charter of
her
half-brother, Stephen, dated 14 July 1096, is "consensu simul et
corroboratione
sororis mee Adelidis," showing that she had some rights on Aumale. It is not
very clear
what they were, though she is said in the charter quoted above to have
succeeded
"in imperio." Nothing further seems to be known about her, but Count Stephen
had eventually the whole inheritance."
From what's said there, it does seem to be the younger Adelaide who had
inherited rights of some sort to Aumale, not Judith. It seems odd to
question - as apparently Morton and Muntz did - whether Judith was Lambert's
daughter on the basis that she inherited nothing from him, and to suggest
that she was Enguerrand's daughter instead - in which case the same
difficulty would apply.
I was surprised to find an online paper (in French) by Elisabeth van Houts
which includes an extended discussion of the succession to the county of
Aumale about this time, in which she suggests - on the basis of the St
martin of Auchy charters - that the younger Adelaide not only claimed the
county as her father's heir, but may actually have made her claim good
during her half-brother Stephen's absence on the first crusade:
http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/crahm/revue/tabularia/vanhoutst2.html#pgfId-70013
6
(Incidentally, this is on the website of "Tabularia", an online journal
focusing on medieval written sources of Normandy. It looks as though there
may be a lot more useful information there, but I haven't cracked the
navigation system yet.)
Van Houts points out that the younger Adelaide is called countess in the
charter quoted by CP - "Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et
supradicte Adelidis filia, que post obitum illorum in inperio successit"
(despite the odd statement by CP, quoted above, that there is no charter in
which she is called countess).
All this does seem to suggest that Judith was not Enguerrand's daughter,
although van Houts acknowledges that the only evidence for the identity of
the elder Adelaide's second husband is the Vita Waldevi.
Incidentally, van Houts also believes that the elder Adelaide was a paternal
half-sister of William I, quoting the evidence that's already been discussed
here, but oddly interpreting Robert de Torigny's description of her as his
"uterine sister" to mean "paternal half-sister" - "Elle a été identifiée
comme sour utérine ( soror uterina ) - dans le sens de demi-sour
paternelle - par Robert de Torigni ( GND , II, p. 272). "
(She backs this up, if I've understood correctly, by reference to a use of
the same phrase by the same author to describe William of Eu - "Cf. aussi
Robert de Torigni sur Guillaume d'Eu, frère utérin de Richard II par leur
père, Richard I ( GND , II, p. 128)." But I'm confused by that - am I wrong
in thinking that William was a full brother of Richard II?)
Chris Phillips
Nathaniel Taylor
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote:
I suppose the idea is that a younger daughter being passed over in favor
of an older daughter is OK (if Judith were Adelaide's younger full
sister), while an only child (of Lambert) as no heiress seems more
alarming. But we are to remembe that Stephen, who inherited his
mother's first husband's mother's county Aumale, was not related by
blood to its previous heiress, so he essentially came into it over the
rights of his elder half-sister Adelaide.
>I was surprised to find an online paper (in French) by Elisabeth van Houts
>which includes an extended discussion of the succession to the county of
>Aumale about this time, in which she suggests - on the basis of the St
>martin of Auchy charters - that the younger Adelaide not only claimed the
>county as her father's heir, but may actually have made her claim good
>during her half-brother Stephen's absence on the first crusade:
>http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/crahm/revue/tabularia/vanhoutst2.html#pgfId-70013
>6
>
>Van Houts points out that the younger Adelaide is called countess in the
>charter quoted by CP - "Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et
>supradicte Adelidis filia, que post obitum illorum in inperio successit"
>(despite the odd statement by CP, quoted above, that there is no charter in
>which she is called countess).
Did the CP editor have access only to a portion of this text? Odd.
>All this does seem to suggest that Judith was not Enguerrand's daughter,
>although van Houts acknowledges that the only evidence for the identity of
>the elder Adelaide's second husband is the Vita Waldevi.
The Aumale situation could be read both ways: if the eldest sister had a
shaky enough hold on Aumale, it might be small wonder that her younger
sister is never mentioned in relation to the county. On the other hand,
one could also read Adelaide Junior's non-tenure of the county as a good
precedent for why her half-sister, heiress to the county of Lens, might
never have come into it.
Still a head-scratcher. Thanks for the ref. to _Tabularia_. This is a
very beautifully designed, clean website. The 'journal' is not arranged
in regular issues and numbers, but as an irregular, with the two themes
"Guillaume de Volpiano: Fécamp et l'histoire normande" (a
mini-conference) and "Jumièges, foyer de production documentaire", with
only three stand-alone articles in the "Documents en ligne" section.
Perhaps as it grows it will look more like a periodical. Unfortunately
the individual articles aren't formally dated or paginated except in the
pdf versions, which are also beautifully e-typset.
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
Yes, it is correct that Adelaide, daughter of Enguerrand, Count of
Ponthieu, and Adelaide of Normandy, is styled "countess" in a record
["Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis
filia"]. However, the assumption that Adelaide the younger had some
tenure as countess in Aumale is just that, an assumption. Adelaide
might well have been a countess by marriage, rather than by
inheritance. Both possibilities must be considered.
King Henry I of England did have a French kinswoman named "A" who was
charged with adultery (see Orderic). This kinswoman could well have
been King Henry's cousin, Countess Adelaide the younger. There is in
fact a French countess is this period who might fit to be Adelaide the
younger. She was Adelais, Countess of Beaumont-sur-Oise. As I
recall, Beaumont-sur-Oise is in the same diocese in which King Henry
I's kinswoman "A." was charged with adultery. This matter needs
further study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
Nathaniel Taylor <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message news:<ntaylor-C48DE2...@nnrp04.earthlink.net>...
Chris Phillips
I wrote:
> >Van Houts points out that the younger Adelaide is called countess in the
> >charter quoted by CP - "Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et
> >supradicte Adelidis filia, que post obitum illorum in inperio successit"
> >(despite the odd statement by CP, quoted above, that there is no charter
in
> >which she is called countess).
Nat Taylor wrote:
> Did the CP editor have access only to a portion of this text? Odd.
The author of the CP account - apparently G.W. Watson - did know of the
clause in which the younger Adelaide is styled as countess, as it is quoted
on the page before the comment about her not being styled countess, citing
Stapleton (the same source cited by van Houts).
Odd indeed!
Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Yes, it is correct that Adelaide, daughter of Enguerrand, Count of
> Ponthieu, and Adelaide of Normandy, is styled "countess" in a record
> ["Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis
> filia"]. However, the assumption that Adelaide the younger had some
> tenure as countess in Aumale is just that, an assumption. Adelaide
> might well have been a countess by marriage, rather than by
> inheritance. Both possibilities must be considered.
I do think that's a fair point. Van Houts thinks that the younger Adelaide
was unmarried - "Sans mari et sans enfants" - but I'm not clear what the
evidence is for this. So little seems to be known about her, and how common
would it have been in the 11th century?
I think there is an implication in the narrative that she succeeded to
something - "que post obitum illorum in imperio successit" - but the
assumption that she was unmarried seems to rest on the eventual succession
of her half-brother Stephen. Is that a safe deduction?
Chris Phillips
Phil Moody
> The conflict was apparently over a prior affinity, not consanguinity:
> Barlow states that it was because Enguerrand's sister (whose name is not
> known) was married to Adelaide's uncle, William of Talou. This affinity
> would apparently be sufficient to preclude a marriage, though I've
> always found the rules of affinity confusing, as we don't think that
> way, in a society where we assume some sort of genetic, not spiritual,
> basis for incest prohibitions.
PLM: I was unaware of this "affinity" loophole devised by the Church. Would
this condemnation for affinity have the same force as an annulment, and
would Enguerrand and Adelaide be obliged to seperate? What effect would this
have on the legitamacy of their daughter Adelaide? I feel certain that all
parties knew this affinity was present prior to the marriage; so why would a
priest complete a marriage ceremony, that he knew was not going to be
sanctioned by the church.
It is curious you mention William of Talou, because until two days ago, I
did not know William I and Adelaide had an Uncle named William:-) In C. T.
Clay's _The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families_, while refreshing my
reading of Aumale, I came across the entry for Arques. Knowing Enguerrand
died at the battle of Arques, I read the entry and was instructed not to
confuse the English Arques family with that of William, Count of Arques, the
Uncle of William the Conqueror. This left me perplexed, but it seems you
have solved that problem for me. So, did the Uncle of William the Conqueror
also die at the battle of Arques, along with his brother-in-law Enguerrand?
Aumale was on the northern boundary of Normandy, and Mr. Clay asserts that
part of the Comte lay outside the territory of Normandy, and therefore it
may not have been a comte of Normandy, strictly speaking. Ponthieu being the
territory on the north, Hugh II's marriage to Bertha de Aumale gave Ponthieu
a legitimate claim to territory within Normandy itself, and this potential
threat to Normandy appears to have been nullified with mariage alliances.
Note (d) has this quote, which I sent yesterday; which I'm curious about:
"a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum quod Albamarla
nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod Augus dicitur,"
i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that part
of Aumale was in Norman territory?
ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference to
Arques?
> Well, in this specific instance, Barlow published a text edition to
> supersede a previous edition and study of the same text. In this
> particular detail he contradicted the previous edition, and the onus lay
> on him to explain himself--his explanations do not counter the
> discussion in Morton & Muntz. He apparently didn't think the Judith
> question worth going over carefully, which is an unfortunate lapse from
> a genealogical point of view.
PLM: From that perspective, your comment was fair enough:-)
> I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?
> If you mean the microprint reprint of the 2d ed., this does not differ
> from the folio edition at all in the text. Or are you referring to the
> first, rather than the second, edition?
PLM: The mate who sent it to me from London did not include the title page;
so I had to e-mail him and request these particulars, that my pedantic
nature demanded. Two pages are on one, and I had to have them enlarged on a
photocopier; so I could read them witthout becoming totally blind:-) I was
pressed for time when writting the last e-mail; so I put of digging of the
full citation for the edition of CP, but will include it now (I had actually
typed the entire Aumale entry prior to wirk, and just as I was closing my
Outlook Express locked up, and I lost the entire post; so I spent my free
time at work doing it again)
"The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the
United Kingdom Extant Extinct or Dormant, by G. E C.
This Microprint (R) edition first published in 1982 by
Alan Sutton Publishing Limited, Gloucester
Reprinted in 2000 by
Sutton Publishing Limited - Phoenix Mill
Thrupp - Stroud - Gloucestershire - GL5 2BU
(C) Pitman Periodicals Limited
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0-904387-82-8"
> This is doubtless the journal _Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous tracts
> relating to antiquity_, published by the Society of Antiquaries (London)
> since 1770. I don't know what year vol. 26 would be.
PLM: I suspected as much, but I could not discern which would contain volume
26 either. I use Oxford's OLIS search engine for English authors. When I
actually created a Word.doc of all 61 entries for "The Society of
antiquaries of London", because many looked quite fascinating, and valuable
resources.
C. T. Clay actually cites Stapleton in the previously mention reference, and
it to is in Archaeologia:
"Stapleton, T., _Observations upon the succession to the barony of William
of Arques_ (Archaeologia, xxxi, 1846)"
Here we have volume 31 published in 1846; so when do you suppose volume 26
was published? Does Van Houts give anymore detail in her reference to
Stapleton's work?
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-B54AAE...@nnrp06.earthlink.net...
Nathaniel Taylor
"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> wrote:
Affinity is not a loophole; it is merely the other way of calculating
close 'kinship', which to us is entirely distinct from blood kinship,
but in the Middle Ages was seen as just as close and non-transgressible.
The question 'why did they do it if they knew it was going to jeopardize
the marriage' is a general one about medieval marriages within
prohibited degrees, and it can never be answered definitively. I this
case, we are dealing with a time (1049) in which church authorities
(indeed the papacy itself, in the person of Leo IX) were just beginning
to launch an unprecedented campaign of enforcement of various
traditional rules among both the clergy and laity. Some people may have
been caught genuinely unawares at this time (cf. the famous case of the
archbishop of Narbonne at this time, who was busted at the same time
because his parents had bought the office of archbishop for him at age
10). Others, certainly in later generations, left open the possibility
of using a precondition to attempt to dissolve the union. We've
discussed this before.
>So, did the Uncle of William the Conqueror also die at the battle of
>Arques, along with his brother-in-law Enguerrand?
Barlow and ES don't assign death date for him.
>Note (d) has this quote, which I sent yesterday; which I'm curious about:
>
>"a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum quod Albamarla
>nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod Augus dicitur,"
>
>i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that part
>of Aumale was in Norman territory?
I think so. Literally, 'in parts (in a place) external to Normandy
(externis partibus ablative, Normanni[a]e dative).
>ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference to
>Arques?
Well, it says it's what the river that Albemarle (Aumale) is on is
called. I don't know about the geographic names in use then in that
neighborhood. Aumale lies on what's now called the Bresle. The Arques,
in my atlas, is distinct: a little river flowing out through Dieppe, a
ways down the coast. But some Normanist can tell you more about the
places than I can.
>> I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?
>
>This Microprint (R) edition first published in 1982...
Yes, this is the full (2d) edition, in the 6-volume microprint format
(still on my wish list). There is no 'extended' discussion of this in
any other version.
Nat Taylor
Phil Moody
> There is a bit more on the following page (p. 352), note d:
PLM: Of course, but I was primarily concerned with the references used at
the time, and not the additional conjecture:-)
> "It is here assumed that it was the sister of the Conqueror, and not her
da. of the same name, who is mentioned in Domesday. Stapleton says of the
former that "she did not long survive her br., King William", but there is
nothing definite known beyond that she was living in 1082 and dead in 1090.
There seems to be no charter in which the younger Adelaide is called
Countess. The charter of her half-brother, Stephen, dated 14 July 1096, is
"consensu simul et corroboratione sororis mee Adelidis," showing that she
had some rights on Aumale. It is not very clear what they were, though she
is said in the charter quoted above to have succeeded "in imperio." Nothing
further seems to be known about her, but Count Stephen
> had eventually the whole inheritance."
PLM: Well, I believe it is firmly established that the contributor of the
Aumale is in error when he asserts that Adelaide the younger is never called
Comtissa in anf charter, since the "Foundation Charter" of St. Martin
contradicts that statement. So, what of this assumption the the Countess of
Albamarla was William's sister; instead of his niece? How long can one
reasonably assert that the mother held Aumale, before surrendering to her
daughter, her patrimony. Surely the younger Adelaide was of legal age at the
time of Domesday; Wouldn't the daughters claim to Aumale supercede her
mother's, who only held by right of her former Husband?
> From what's said there, it does seem to be the younger Adelaide who had
> inherited rights of some sort to Aumale, not Judith. It seems odd to
> question - as apparently Morton and Muntz did - whether Judith was
Lambert's
> daughter on the basis that she inherited nothing from him, and to suggest
> that she was Enguerrand's daughter instead - in which case the same
> difficulty would apply.
PLM: I see no chronological difficulty with Judith being Lambert's daughter
either. It should also be noted that Judith did not need to push her claim
to Lens after her marriage to Waltheof; and she did not Lackland even after
his death. Does anyone one know where Lambert's lands were, and who did
acquire them?
> I was surprised to find an online paper (in French) by Elisabeth van Houts
> which includes an extended discussion of the succession to the county of
> Aumale about this time, in which she suggests - on the basis of the St
> martin of Auchy charters - that the younger Adelaide not only claimed the
> county as her father's heir, but may actually have made her claim good
> during her half-brother Stephen's absence on the first crusade:
>
http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/crahm/revue/tabularia/vanhoutst2.html#pgfId-70013
> 6
PLM: This sounds fascinating, but my translation software is not good enough
for an accurate translation. Is there any reference there to an English copy
of this essay by Ms. Van Houts in print?
> Incidentally, van Houts also believes that the elder Adelaide was a
paternal
> half-sister of William I, quoting the evidence that's already been
discussed
> here, but oddly interpreting Robert de Torigny's description of her as his
> "uterine sister" to mean "paternal half-sister" - "Elle a été identifiée
> comme sour utérine ( soror uterina ) - dans le sens de demi-sour
> paternelle - par Robert de Torigni ( GND , II, p. 272). "
PLM: I believe she is being to literal in her interpretaton. When it is
understood, or common knowledge that a brother and sister have the same
father, the addition of them being uterine siblings merely illustrates the
fact that they shared the same parents. It has been suggested that Barlow
believes they were full brother and sister, but I have yet to hear how he
adduces this conclusion. CP supports this as well citing Stapleton, but not
merely his flawed Archaeologia piece, but also his amended conclusion in
Rot. Scacc. Norm., previously cited.
Since you and Nat are fluent in French, perhaps this will be of use.
Stapleton's Rot. Scacc. Norm. is also available in French, and it would be
interesting to see if they add anything substantial to Stapleton's work, or
it is altogether different.
Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ [ed. Léchaudé D' Anisy]
(Paris 1846). (This is part of vol. xv of the _mémoires_ of the Soc. Antiq.
Norm.)
Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ; pars secunda, ed.
Léchaudé D' Anisy and A. Charma (Caen 1852). (This is part of vol. xvi of
the _mémoires_ of the Soc. Antiq. Norm.)
Both French editions post date Stapleton's 1840, 1844 publications; which is
why I suspect they are following his work, but they may have a different
perspective on the St. Martin records found in vol. ii/pars secunda?
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:b4hst0$jou$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Todd A. Farmerie
> Does anyone one know where Lambert's lands were, and who did
> acquire them?
They were subsumed back into the Boulogne family inheritance,
held by Eustace I, II, III.
taf
Phil Moody
> They were subsumed back into the Boulogne family inheritance,
> held by Eustace I, II, III.
PLM: Thanks for this, Todd. So, Lens is in Artois, and this was originally
Boulogne territory? Perhaps you can help answer this question, Todd. I am
reading in a few late sources that Eustace I of Boulogne married Godgifu, a
daughter of Athelred II and Emma. Is there any truth to this?
Best wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3E6E0889...@interfold.com...
Phil Moody
> Affinity is not a loophole; it is merely the other way of calculating
> close 'kinship', which to us is entirely distinct from blood kinship,
> but in the Middle Ages was seen as just as close and non-transgressible.
> The question 'why did they do it if they knew it was going to jeopardize
> the marriage' is a general one about medieval marriages within
> prohibited degrees, and it can never be answered definitively. I this
> case, we are dealing with a time (1049) in which church authorities
> (indeed the papacy itself, in the person of Leo IX) were just beginning
> to launch an unprecedented campaign of enforcement of various
> traditional rules among both the clergy and laity. Some people may have
> been caught genuinely unawares at this time (cf. the famous case of the
> archbishop of Narbonne at this time, who was busted at the same time
> because his parents had bought the office of archbishop for him at age
> 10). Others, certainly in later generations, left open the possibility
> of using a precondition to attempt to dissolve the union. We've
> discussed this before.
PLM: Thanks for the clarification, Nat. You did leave the question of
legitimacy untouched, but no matter. I see no indication that Adelaide the
younger was seen as being illegitimate; so I will infer that the
condemnation of Rheims had no bearing on her legitimacy.
> >i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that
part
> >of Aumale was in Norman territory?
>
> I think so. Literally, 'in parts (in a place) external to Normandy
> (externis partibus ablative, Normanni[a]e dative).
PLM: Thanks again. It seems the Comté of Aumale was not wholly in one
territory or the other, and that is what I wanted to establish with
certainty. I must be picking up some Latin through osmosis:-)
> >ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference
to
> >Arques?
>
> Well, it says it's what the river that Albemarle (Aumale) is on is
> called. I don't know about the geographic names in use then in that
> neighborhood. Aumale lies on what's now called the Bresle. The Arques,
> in my atlas, is distinct: a little river flowing out through Dieppe, a
> ways down the coast. But some Normanist can tell you more about the
> places than I can.
PLM: I suppose Augus could be how CP asserts that Aumale was called Auchy at
one time.
> Yes, this is the full (2d) edition, in the 6-volume microprint format
> (still on my wish list). There is no 'extended' discussion of this in
> any other version.
PLM: A local University does have a first edition of CP, but I have not
bothered to reference it yet. I prefer to have the most accurate information
available. The friend who sent the Aumale entry from his edition, mentioned
that he nearly broke the spine trying to obtain good photo-copies; so I will
not risk damaging his prized possession again:-)
I wonder if there are any "corrections" to the Aumale entry anyone?
Best wishes,
Phil
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:ntaylor-54A7F1...@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
Todd A. Farmerie
> "Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
>
>>They were subsumed back into the Boulogne family inheritance,
>>held by Eustace I, II, III.
>
> PLM: Thanks for this, Todd. So, Lens is in Artois, and this was originally
> Boulogne territory?
Not original. Tanner had it probably coming into the clan in the
generation of the grandfather of Lambert and Eustace.
> Perhaps you can help answer this question, Todd. I am
> reading in a few late sources that Eustace I of Boulogne married Godgifu, a
> daughter of Athelred II and Emma. Is there any truth to this?
No. It was Eustace II. The marriage took place after the death
of her first husband, Drogo in 1035. It is uncertain if she was
the same wife as Eustace had in 1049. In that year, Pope Leo IX
excommunicated Counts Eustace and Engelrand for incest
("Excommunicavit etiam Comites Angelrai et Eustacium proptrer
incestum"), and these are usually taken to be Eustace II of
Boulogne and Engelrand II of Ponthieu. Now, curiously, if this
was Godgifu, then the wives of both would be descended from
Richard I of Normandy (Godgifu granddaughter, Adelaide
great-granddaughter), and if (and I know this has just been
questioned) Engelrand and Eustace are half first cousins through
their paternal grandmother, then perhaps that woman was kin to
the Norman house, to Gunnora, or to Sprota's Ivry descendants.
Murray even suggests the possibility that the divorce that
certainly followed may have rendered illegitimate a possible son
of the couple, Geoffrey, the Domesday tennant.
taf
Phil Moody
> > PLM: Thanks for this, Todd. So, Lens is in Artois, and this was
originally
> > Boulogne territory?
>
> Not original. Tanner had it probably coming into the clan in the
generation of the grandfather of Lambert and Eustace.
PLM: Thanks for this. After a trawl of the archives, I suppose you are
referring to Heather J. Tanner, The Expansion of the Power and Influence of
the Counts of Boulogne under Eustace II, in Anglo Norman Studies XIV (1992)
pp. 251-86.?
> > Perhaps you can help answer this question, Todd. I am reading in a few
late sources that Eustace I of Boulogne married Godgifu, a daughter of
Athelred II and Emma. Is there any truth to this?
>
> No. It was Eustace II. The marriage took place after the death of her
first husband, Drogo in 1035. It is uncertain if she was the same wife as
Eustace had in 1049. In that year, Pope Leo IX excommunicated Counts
Eustace and Engelrand for incest ("Excommunicavit etiam Comites Angelrai et
Eustacium proptrer incestum"), and these are usually taken to be Eustace II
of Boulogne and Engelrand II of Ponthieu. Now, curiously, if this was
Godgifu, then the wives of both would be descended from Richard I of
Normandy (Godgifu granddaughter, Adelaide great-granddaughter), and if (and
I know this has just been
> questioned) Engelrand and Eustace are half first cousins through their
paternal grandmother, then perhaps that woman was kin to the Norman house,
to Gunnora, or to Sprota's Ivry descendants.Murray even suggests the
possibility that the divorce that certainly followed may have rendered
illegitimate a possible son of the couple, Geoffrey, the Domesday tennant.
PLM: Mike Ashley had written that it was Eustace II that married Godgifu,
but he also had Eustace dead in 1093, and due to the chronology, I assumed
Ashley had confused Eustace I with his son:-) He adds that Eustace II may of
had a daughter by Godgifu, for what it's worth. However, there may be a
blood relationship between them all.
After trawling the archives, I noted Hines was curious ES had to say about
Hugh I's wife Gisela's descent from Hugh Capet; so I went to Paul Theroff's
site, because I know he relies heavily on ES, and I downloaded his zip file
on the Capetians and printed it out. Big mistake here, as I was not
expecting it to be 144 pages in length! Duke Hugh, father of Hugh Capet has
his own section, but to show his parentage, I will re-number the data
Theroff has supplied. After displaying all the dat, I will the edit the
material to eliminate the nonessential offspring, and flesh this out from my
gleanings of the archived material, with a few comments.
King Robert I of France (866-k.a.nr Soissons 15 Jun 923); m.1st Aelis ___;
m.2d ca 890 Beatrix (d.after Mar 931) dau.of Cte Heribert de Vermandois
1.) [by 1st m.] Hildebrante=Liegarde, d. after 931; m.before 907 Cte
Heribert II de Vermandois
2.).[by 1st m.] Emma, d.935; m.910 Raoul of Burgundy, King of France (d.936)
3.) [by 2d m.] Duke Hugues I of France, Cte de Paris (d.956; see Part 1);
m.1st 922 Judith ___ (d.925); m.2d 926/7 Edhild (d.937) dau.of King Edward I
of England; m.3d 938 Hedwig (d.after 965) dau.of Duke Heinrich I of Saxony.
He had issue by his 3d wife:
3.1.) Hugues Capet, King of France (Winter 941-Les Juifs, nr Chartres 24 Oct
996, bur St.Denis); m.Summer 968 Alice (950-15 Jun 1006) probably dau.of
Duke William of Aquitaine by Adele of Normandy)
3.1.1) .King Robert II (Orléans 27 Mar 972-Melun 20 Jul 1031, bur St.Denis);
m.1st 988 (div 992) Rozela=Susana (d.1003, bur Ghent) dau.of King Berengar
of Italy; m.2d 997 (div 1003/5) Bertha (d.after 1017) dau.of King Conrad III
of Burgundy; m.3d Constance (ca 986-Melun 25 Jul 1032, bur St.Denis) dau. of
William II of Provence
3.1.1.1) Adelaide (ca 1009-Messines 8 Jan 1079); m.1st Jan 1027 Duke Richard
III of Normandy (d.1027); m.2d Paris 1028 Ct Baldwin V of Flanders (d.1067)
3.1.1.2.) (6 other children omitted here -- PLM).
3.1.2.) Hedwig, b.ca 969, d.after 1013; m.ca 996 Ct Reginar IV of Hainaut
(d.1013)
3.1.3.) Gisela, b.ca 970; m.before 987 Hugues de Montreuil, Cte de Ponthieu
(d.ca 1000)
3.1.4.) Adelaide, b.ca 973
3.1.5.) [illegitimate] Gauzlin, Archbp of Bourges, d.1030.
3.2.) Eudes, Duke of Lower Burgundy (ca 944-22/23 Feb 965); m.955 Luitgard,
dau.of Cte Gilbert d'Autun by Ermengarde, heiress of Lower Burgundy
3.3.) Henri, Cte de Nevers, Duke of Lower Burgundy (ca 946-Château
Pouilly-sur-Saone 15 Oct 1002, bur St-Germain-d'Auxerre); m.1st ca 972
Gerberga (d.986/91) dau.of Othon de Macon; m.2d before Jun 992 (div 996)
Gersende, dau.of Duke Guillaume of Gascony; m.3d 998 Matilda, dau.of Cte
Lambert de Chalon
3.4.) Beatrix, d.after 987; m.954/5 Duke Frederick I of Upper Lorraine
(d.978)
3.5.) Emma, b.ca 943, d.after 19 Mar 968; m.Duke Richard I of Normandy
(d.996)
3.6.) [illegitimate]Heribert, Bp of Auxerre, d.964
EDIT
King Robert I of France (866-k.a.nr Soissons 15 Jun 923); m.2d ca 890
Beatrix (d.after Mar 931) dau.of Cte Heribert de Vermandois
1.) Duke Hugues I of France, Cte de Paris (d.956); m.3d 938 Hedwig (d.after
965) dau.of Duke Heinrich I of Saxony. He had issue by his 3d wife:
1.1.) Hugues Capet, King of France (Winter 941-Les Juifs, nr Chartres 24 Oct
996, bur St.Denis); m. Summer 968 Alice (950-15 Jun 1006) probably dau.of
Duke William of Aquitaine by Adele of Normandy) [If Adele of Normandy was
the mother of Hugh's wife, then this would provide a blood relationship
between Normandy and Ponthieu.}
1.2.) Emma, b.ca 943, d.after 19 Mar 968; m.Duke Richard I of Normandy
(d.996) [As we saw in the fuller genealogy by Theroff, Duke Hugh did have a
sister named Emma (Queen of France), and it would be logical that he named
one of his children after his sister. Furthermore, Richard I did have a
daughter named Emma, and this is consistent with the onamastics and the
chronology. Additionally , if this relationship is reasonable, then Richard
II of Normandy and Robert II of France would have been 1st cousins, and this
could very well be why Richard II named a son Robert, the 1st Norman Duke to
bear this name].
1.1.1) King Robert II (Orléans 27 Mar 972-Melun 20 Jul 1031, bur St.Denis);
m.3d Constance (ca 986-Melun 25 Jul 1032, bur St.Denis) dau. of William II
of Provence.
1.1.1.1) Adelaide (ca 1009-Messines 8 Jan 1079); m.1st Jan 1027 Duke Richard
III of Normandy (d.1027); m.2d Paris 1028 Ct Baldwin V of Flanders (d.1067).
1.1.2.) Gisela, b.ca 970; m.before 987 Hugues de Montreuil, Cte de Ponthieu
(d.ca 1000).
1.1.2.1.) Enguerrand I, Ct. of Ponthieu, (b. c.987- d.1046). He may have
married Adelvie (Adelaide) of Guines (The mother of Eustace I of Boulogne d.
1047).
1.1.2.1.1.) Hugh II (c.1013-1052), Ct. of Ponthieu, m. Bertha, dau of
Geurenfroi of Aumale.
1.1.2.1.1.1.) Enguerrand II (c. 1033-1053), Ct. of Ponthieu. He married
Adelaide, the daughter of Robert I of Normandy. She married 2ndly, Lambert
of Lens, and this marriage should have been prohibited if Lambert and
Enguerrand II share a common descent from Adelvie of Guines.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.) Adelaide, Countess of Aumale, and perhaps Judith.
1.1.2.1.2.) Gui, Bishop of Amiens, ( c. 1014 - 1074/5) and presumably Ct. of
Ponthieu after the death of Enguerrand II in 1053, and believed author of
the ( _The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens_, Frank
Barlow, Oxford, 1999). He may have married Ade d'Amiens. [I am finding
conflicting information on the identity of Guy, some name him son of Hugh
II, and others Enguerrand I. The chronology of Guy, the Bishop of Amiens
supports Enguerrand I being his father; so if Hugh II had a son named Guy,
Count of Ponthieu, then I believe we have two distinct Guy's of Ponthieu (no
pun intended).]
1.1.2.1.3.) ?Beatrix married William of Arques, son of Richard II of
Normandy. [This may be the daughter of Hugh II; instead of sister. I have
placed her here because I am following one of your old posts Todd from 2001
[Message-ID: <3AADEB16...@interfold.com>].
I would chart these lines out, but I'm afraid it would not get through as
written; so I will leave it to your power to visualize these possible common
lines.
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Paternity of Judith, wife of Earl Waltheof (was re:
Adelaide...)
Todd A. Farmerie
> 1.1.2.1.2.) Gui, Bishop of Amiens, ( c. 1014 - 1074/5) and presumably Ct. of
> Ponthieu after the death of Enguerrand II in 1053, and believed author of
> the ( _The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens_, Frank
> Barlow, Oxford, 1999). He may have married Ade d'Amiens. [I am finding
> conflicting information on the identity of Guy, some name him son of Hugh
> II, and others Enguerrand I. The chronology of Guy, the Bishop of Amiens
> supports Enguerrand I being his father; so if Hugh II had a son named Guy,
> Count of Ponthieu, then I believe we have two distinct Guy's of Ponthieu (no
> pun intended).]
There were two Guys, uncle and nephew. The uncle was the Bishop,
and usually placed as brother of Hugh II, while Count Guy, who
took Harold Godwinson captive and deliviered him to William of
Normandy in 1055 (or thereabouts) and was ancestor of the later
counts, was brother of Engerrand II.
taf
Phil Moody
> There were two Guys, uncle and nephew. The uncle was the Bishop,
> and usually placed as brother of Hugh II, while Count Guy, who
> took Harold Godwinson captive and deliviered him to William of
> Normandy in 1055 (or thereabouts) and was ancestor of the later
> counts, was brother of Engerrand II.
PLM: Thanks for clearing this up, Todd! Alexander Polenov supplied the name
of Guy's spouse; so that should be removed and placed under Hugh II: "Guy I
(brother of Enguerrand II) 1035-1100 & Ade d'Amiens 1050. He also supplied
the name "Beatrix", which I prefaced with a question mark, as the spouse of
William of Arques: "Beatrix ca 1045 & Guillaume d'Arques ca 1025-1087." Now,
Alex does not cite his source for this information, but if the chronology is
accurate; then William must have married the sister of Enguerrand II.
Message-ID: <02cb01c0c381$65b174e0$84e8dcc2@alex>
Best Wishes,
Phil
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:3E77B330...@interfold.com...