In La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien, Christian Settipani discusses at
lenght, among many other topics, the Raymondine comital house and
allied families. There was not much scolarly written on Aquitaine,
Auvergne and Languedoc dynasties, especially recent, and I think
Settipani's contribution is important. Therefore, for the benefit of
those not reading French, I have summarized the conclusions, either
findings or proposals, concerning the agnatic ancestry of Raymond de
Saint-Gilles and the identification of the successive comtesses de
Toulouse. I only provide main VERY simplified arguments. For the
detailed discussions, I refer you to the book (more than 300 pages).
By the way, most of you will be surprised, as I was, to find multiple
normaly prohibited unions between first, second, third degree cousins.
It as been demonstrated that they were more frequent in Southern
France and Northern Spain (valid for IX-XI centuries), an almost
unthinkable situation in that period for Northern France and Germany
where rules were more strict. Please excuse my somewhat clumsy command
of the English language sometimes preventing me from being as precise
as I actually am in French. Jean Bunot
I
Foucaud/Fulcoald, comte de Rouergue et missus (804/37)
m. c. 815, Senegonde (poss. d/o comte Herbert/Heribert (+ after 843),
himself s/o saint Guillaume, comte et duc de Toulouse, thus explaining
the name of Herbert, abbe de Vabres (+ after 883), a younger son of
Raymond I de Toulouse, and providing an early genealogical link
between the two Toulouse houses
II
Raymond I, comte de Toulouse et de Rouergue (852/63)
m. c. 840, Bertheis (d/o Remi and Arsinde)
III
Eudes/Odon, comte de Toulouse (+ 918)
m. c. 860, Garsinde (d/o comte Ermengaud, probably of Albi)
IV
Raymond II, comte de Nîmes et d'Albi, puis de Toulouse (+ 924)
m. (1) c. 895, Ne..., an heiress from Auvergne introducing the Pons
name in Toulouse onomastics (+ before 924); m. (2) ? Gunidilde, poss.
from the house of Barcelone and poss. d/o Guifred II (+ after 926 no
post.)
V
Raymond-Pons or Pons I, comte de Toulouse et d'Auvergne, marquis de
Gothie (+ 940/44)
m. (1) c. 920, Ne... de Gascogne (d/o comte Garsia Sanche and Amuna
d'Agen); m (2) Garsinde de Rouergue (d/o Ermengaud, comte de Rouergue
et de Quercy, marquis de Gothie and Adelaide (poss. de Bourgogne),
therefore first cousins, no post.)
VI
Raymond III, comte de Toulouse (+ 944/72)
m. c. 945, Emilde/Emnilde de Quercy, the famous "comtesse Emnilde"
which Settipani identifies first as the wife of Raymond III and
secondly as the d/o Hugues de Quercy. She introduced the name Hugues
in the onomastics patrimony of the Toulouse branch of the Raymondins
with her son Hugues, bishop of Toulouse (d/o Hugues de Rouergue, comte
de Quercy, and Gunidilde de Barcelone, therefore second degree
cousins). Settipani notes that others researchers have reach
independently very similar conclusions : S. de Vajay (1980) and M.-M.
Costa (1991).
VII
Raymond IV, comte de Toulouse (+ 978/79)
m. c. 975, Adelaide dite Blanche d'Anjou (d/o Foulques II le Bon and
Gerberge), successively comtesse de Gevaudan, de Toulouse et de
Provence in the course of her extraodinary marital career
VIII
Guillaume III, comte de Toulouse (+ after 1037)
m. (1) Arsinde d'Arles (d/o Guillaume and Arsinde de Comminges), two
sons Henri and Raymond (both + young); m. (2) 1008/21, Emma de
Provence (+ 1029/30), an heiress, she also introduced the name
Bertrand inherited from the Gevaudan family (d/o Roubaud II and
Ermengarde, himself s/o Roubaud I and Emnilde de Gevaudan), two sons
Pons-Guillaume/Pons II and Bertrand apanaged in Provence
IX
Pons-Guillaume or Pons II, comte de Toulouse (+ 1060)
m. 1040, Almodis de La Marche (d/o comte Bernard and Amelie poss.
d'Angouleme)
X
Raymond V de Saint-Gilles (formaly Raymond IV), comte de Rouergue et
de Gevaudan, puis de Toulouse, marquis de Provence, duc de Narbonne,
comte de Tripoli et seigneur de Tortose en Terre-Sainte (+ 1105)
Toulouse according to Settipani
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: Toulouse according to Settipani
Your English is excellent and I thank you for your interesting post.
Best, Roger
Best, Roger
-
Diane Sheppard
Re: Toulouse according to Settipani
Jean,
Thanks for posting this.
Diane Sheppard
Thanks for posting this.
Diane Sheppard
-
JF Blanc
Re: Toulouse according to Settipani
There is a very good and quite recent study on the Toulouse
family genealogy cited on the http://www.foixstory.com wbesite,
which has very good trees and data, too.
The Toulouse page is at
http://www.foixstory.com/data/genealogi ... s/tlse.htm and
cites an article of Martin de Framond in the Annales du Midi,
1993, vol. 204.
Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
genealogia@jfblanc.pp.ru
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln
family genealogy cited on the http://www.foixstory.com wbesite,
which has very good trees and data, too.
The Toulouse page is at
http://www.foixstory.com/data/genealogi ... s/tlse.htm and
cites an article of Martin de Framond in the Annales du Midi,
1993, vol. 204.
Jean-François BLANC - Genealogia
genealogia@jfblanc.pp.ru
http://blanc.mfoudi.online.fr et
http://gw.geneanet.org/index.php3?b=bln
-
JBunot
Re: Re: Toulouse according to Settipani
Thank you for your interesting contribution to this tread. I was aware of
the existence of this website and as well the Martin de Framond article in
Annales du Midi (1993) from which it is directly inspired. It is visualy
striking and indeed very interesting in general, though I am afraid the
Toulouse chart in itself is the weekest presenting some major problems.
Among other, for instance, the author appears to support the long refuted
theory that Constance d’Arles, wife of king Robert II le Pieux was d/o
Guillaume Taillefer, comte deToulouse. In other to preserve the documented
link making her maternally a relation of the comte d’Anjou, it becomes
then necessery to assign an Anjou origin to Arsinde, Guillaume Taillefer
first spouse, chronologically the only possible mother. Her name alone
makes it highly improbable if not impossible for her to be a daughter of
the Ingelgerian house of Anjou or actually originate from any territorial
princely family of Northern France. All Arsinde (Arsindis, Herisindis,
etc) are descended from the couple Raymond I de Toulouse and Bertheis (d/o
Remi and the first Arsinde) and are to be found in Languedoc, Auvergne,
Provence and closeby Northern Spain, not in late Carolingian or early
Capetian Loire valley territorial principalities. Futher more, Guillaume
Taillefer cannot be married with an angevine princess that would be the
sister of his own fully documented mother Azalais d’Anjou (=Adelaide dite
Blanche), therefore his maternal aunt. Arsinde, whom by the way is not the
ancestress of the later comtes de Toulouse (descended from Guillaume
Taillefer’s second union with Emma de Provence), is more likely to be, as
proposed by Settipani, d/o Guillaume II le Liberateur, comte d’Arles et
marquis de Provence, by first wife Arsinde de Comminges, a union that fit
perfectly with the contemporary Toulouse matrimonial politic seeking to
gain influence and expend toward Provence apart from explaining perfectly
the name Arsinde. In accordance Guillaume Taillefer would then have
married consecutively two cousins, Provencal heiresses Arsinde d’Arles and
Emma de Provence.
Now, as far as the Framond theory is concerned (on which this website’s
Toulouse chart is entirely based), I am not convinced at all even if some
aspects of it could be appealing. In details, in order to explain the
evident chronological and genealogical difficulties and impossibilities
resulting in the traditional ancestry of Guillaume III Taillefer (i.e.
succession of the comtes de Toulouse of the second half of the 10th
century) as provided in Histoire generale du Languedoc by the Benedictins,
Monsieur de Framond attempts to affiliate this comte to the Rouergue
branch of the Raymondine family. Settipani rejects that theory for several
reasons that I will try to summarize for the benefit of our Anglo-Saxon
friends. Again for the detailed discussion, I refer you to the Settipani
book La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien (pp. 28-36 “La filiation de Guillem
III Taillefer”) :
1) It would provide comte Raymond I de Rouergue with a pair of sons both
named Raymond. This is not well supported by contemporary texts and
globally not likely (“somme toute peu vraisemblable”), while still not
putting foreward any evidence that this is the actual origin of the later
comtes de Toulouse.
2) Settipani rejects the main argument of Monsieur de Framond which is
that Garsinde, wife of comte Raymond Pons (=Pons I), died whitout (at
least) male posterity according to her (difficult to date) testament.
Settipani mentions several contemporary texts (mainly Roda codex) that
contradict directly this astute reconstruction and notes that Framond as
unsuccessefully explained them. The Roda codex (c. 992) explicitely
provides Raymond Pons with a son named Raymond, born to his unnamed
Gasconne wife, an two grandsons comte Raymond and bishop Hugues, the
object and purpose of the Roda codex being to describe the descent from
the gasconne princesse of the later house of Toulouse. Futher more, if
comtesse Garsinde (nee de Rouergue) did die without posterity it was
certainely not the case of her husband Raymond Pons who fathered a male
heir (comte Raymond with further descendants) from a first wife, logically
the unnamed d/o comte de Gascogne from Roda codex.
3)when Guillaume III Taillefer uses the word proavus or avus in several
charts to refer to Raymond Pons he evidently claims a direct agnatic
descent from him, that being the only natural interpretation of that
text.
4) so logically, if Guillaume Taillefer, s/o a comte Raymond and father of
a Pons, describes himself as a descendant of Raymond Pons and that himself
in turn is father of comte Raymond and grand-father of another comte
Raymond, then Guillaume Taillefer necessarily have to be a g-son or
g-g-son of Raymond Pons.
5) Among other comtemporary researchers, J.-P. Poly, J. Belmon and C.
Lauranson-Rosaz have all come up with very close or near identical
interpretation of the known historical and genealogical facts, also making
Guillaume Taillefer a direct descendant of Raymond Pons, either g-son or
g-g-son. Therefore, the de Framond Rouergue theory does not appear to have
been a widely accepted by regional specialists.
Avec mes compliments, cher Monsieur Blanc, meilleures et cordiales
salutations,
Jean Bunot
the existence of this website and as well the Martin de Framond article in
Annales du Midi (1993) from which it is directly inspired. It is visualy
striking and indeed very interesting in general, though I am afraid the
Toulouse chart in itself is the weekest presenting some major problems.
Among other, for instance, the author appears to support the long refuted
theory that Constance d’Arles, wife of king Robert II le Pieux was d/o
Guillaume Taillefer, comte deToulouse. In other to preserve the documented
link making her maternally a relation of the comte d’Anjou, it becomes
then necessery to assign an Anjou origin to Arsinde, Guillaume Taillefer
first spouse, chronologically the only possible mother. Her name alone
makes it highly improbable if not impossible for her to be a daughter of
the Ingelgerian house of Anjou or actually originate from any territorial
princely family of Northern France. All Arsinde (Arsindis, Herisindis,
etc) are descended from the couple Raymond I de Toulouse and Bertheis (d/o
Remi and the first Arsinde) and are to be found in Languedoc, Auvergne,
Provence and closeby Northern Spain, not in late Carolingian or early
Capetian Loire valley territorial principalities. Futher more, Guillaume
Taillefer cannot be married with an angevine princess that would be the
sister of his own fully documented mother Azalais d’Anjou (=Adelaide dite
Blanche), therefore his maternal aunt. Arsinde, whom by the way is not the
ancestress of the later comtes de Toulouse (descended from Guillaume
Taillefer’s second union with Emma de Provence), is more likely to be, as
proposed by Settipani, d/o Guillaume II le Liberateur, comte d’Arles et
marquis de Provence, by first wife Arsinde de Comminges, a union that fit
perfectly with the contemporary Toulouse matrimonial politic seeking to
gain influence and expend toward Provence apart from explaining perfectly
the name Arsinde. In accordance Guillaume Taillefer would then have
married consecutively two cousins, Provencal heiresses Arsinde d’Arles and
Emma de Provence.
Now, as far as the Framond theory is concerned (on which this website’s
Toulouse chart is entirely based), I am not convinced at all even if some
aspects of it could be appealing. In details, in order to explain the
evident chronological and genealogical difficulties and impossibilities
resulting in the traditional ancestry of Guillaume III Taillefer (i.e.
succession of the comtes de Toulouse of the second half of the 10th
century) as provided in Histoire generale du Languedoc by the Benedictins,
Monsieur de Framond attempts to affiliate this comte to the Rouergue
branch of the Raymondine family. Settipani rejects that theory for several
reasons that I will try to summarize for the benefit of our Anglo-Saxon
friends. Again for the detailed discussion, I refer you to the Settipani
book La Noblesse du Midi Carolingien (pp. 28-36 “La filiation de Guillem
III Taillefer”) :
1) It would provide comte Raymond I de Rouergue with a pair of sons both
named Raymond. This is not well supported by contemporary texts and
globally not likely (“somme toute peu vraisemblable”), while still not
putting foreward any evidence that this is the actual origin of the later
comtes de Toulouse.
2) Settipani rejects the main argument of Monsieur de Framond which is
that Garsinde, wife of comte Raymond Pons (=Pons I), died whitout (at
least) male posterity according to her (difficult to date) testament.
Settipani mentions several contemporary texts (mainly Roda codex) that
contradict directly this astute reconstruction and notes that Framond as
unsuccessefully explained them. The Roda codex (c. 992) explicitely
provides Raymond Pons with a son named Raymond, born to his unnamed
Gasconne wife, an two grandsons comte Raymond and bishop Hugues, the
object and purpose of the Roda codex being to describe the descent from
the gasconne princesse of the later house of Toulouse. Futher more, if
comtesse Garsinde (nee de Rouergue) did die without posterity it was
certainely not the case of her husband Raymond Pons who fathered a male
heir (comte Raymond with further descendants) from a first wife, logically
the unnamed d/o comte de Gascogne from Roda codex.
3)when Guillaume III Taillefer uses the word proavus or avus in several
charts to refer to Raymond Pons he evidently claims a direct agnatic
descent from him, that being the only natural interpretation of that
text.
4) so logically, if Guillaume Taillefer, s/o a comte Raymond and father of
a Pons, describes himself as a descendant of Raymond Pons and that himself
in turn is father of comte Raymond and grand-father of another comte
Raymond, then Guillaume Taillefer necessarily have to be a g-son or
g-g-son of Raymond Pons.
5) Among other comtemporary researchers, J.-P. Poly, J. Belmon and C.
Lauranson-Rosaz have all come up with very close or near identical
interpretation of the known historical and genealogical facts, also making
Guillaume Taillefer a direct descendant of Raymond Pons, either g-son or
g-g-son. Therefore, the de Framond Rouergue theory does not appear to have
been a widely accepted by regional specialists.
Avec mes compliments, cher Monsieur Blanc, meilleures et cordiales
salutations,
Jean Bunot