Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 feb 2005 04:57:00

I can remember seeing the year 1081 given for the marriage of Adela to
Stephen Henry, count of Blois, though I can't recollect where.

Kimberly LoPrete in 'Adela of Blois: Familial Alliances and Female
Lordship', _Aristocratic Women in Medieval France_, edited by Theodore
Evergates (Philadelphia, 1999) pp. 14-15 stated that her wedding took place
"most likely sometime between January 1083 and her mother's death in
November of that year, shortly after her fifteenth birthday". Further to
this (in note 22 on p. 183) she adds that Adela "was certainly married by
1085", citing a charter of that year, but that she "does not appear to have
been married by January 1083", citing (apparently a document printed in)
Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville's _Histoire des ducs et des comtes de
Champagne_, vol. 1 pp. 497-99 no. 59. I haven't seen this.

However, the foundation charter of Saint-Julien de Sézanne priory (_Gallia
Christiana_, vol. XII, Instrumenta col. 254, Troyes no. 11), dated 1081,
makes it clear that Stephen Henry was already married at that time,
mentioning a ceremony "astante comitissa uxore Stephani Henrici comitis" (in
the presence of Count Stephen Henry's wife). No name is given for the
countess, who joined in her husband's donations, but Stephen Henry was
married only once as far as we know.

Can anyone check what is in the document that LoPrete cited for Adela being
still unmarried in January 1083?

Peter Stewart

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 feb 2005 09:34:02

It seems highly unlikely to me that the Count of Blois would have got
to the age of 55 without having married. Continuing the dynasty was a
political imperative in those days. If his first wife had no children,
it is not, perhaps, so surprising that we do not know her name, but it
is much more likely that there was an earlier wife than that there was
not.

Peter Stewart

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 feb 2005 09:56:37

"Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107678842.764417.84840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
It seems highly unlikely to me that the Count of Blois would have got
to the age of 55 without having married. Continuing the dynasty was a
political imperative in those days. If his first wife had no children,
it is not, perhaps, so surprising that we do not know her name, but it
is much more likely that there was an earlier wife than that there was
not.

I think you have a different count of Blois in mind, Alex - Stephen Henry
was son of the Count Theobald who died in September 1089 (ruling Blois as
count in his father's lifetime) by his first wife Gersent, daughter of Count
Heribert Wake-Dog of Maine. Their marriage took place between 1045 & 1047,
so that Stephen Henry was born at the earliest ca 1046/1048, perhaps
somewhat later, and he was consequently not more than 35 at the time of the
founding of Saint-Julien priory. It was by no means unusual for counts to
marry for the first time at this age - Stephen Henry had three younger
half-brothers to inherit his father's honours if necessary.

Peter Stewart

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 feb 2005 10:07:48

Maths was never my strong suit. Sorry for that.

Peter Stewart

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 feb 2005 10:28:24

"Alex Maxwell Findlater" <maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107680868.845751.286560@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Maths was never my strong suit. Sorry for that.

You made a good point nevertheless - the possibility of a previous marriage
of Stephen Henry must exist if the document printed by Henri d'Arbois de
Jubainville holds water about Adela being unmarried in January 1083.

Peter Stewart

John Ravilious

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av John Ravilious » 06 feb 2005 13:45:53

Dear Peter (and Alex),

The possibility that Stephen Henry [Etienne-Henri] was married
prior to his marriage to Adela of Normandy seems now more a
probability.

An interesting possibility that might arise from this research is
the discovery of the complete parentage of Emma, identified as the
illegitimate daughter of Stephen Henry. She was the wife of Herbert
fitz Alberic, chamberlain [camerarius] of the King at Winchester
['Herbertus filius Alberici' in Keats-Rohan's Domesday People], by
whom she was the mother of Herbert fitz Herbert the chamberlain (d.
aft 1139) and William, Archbishop of York 1143-1153 ['St. William of
York'].

If a marriage partner for Stephen Henry (prior to Adela) is
identified, perhaps this was the mother of Emma. A remote possibility
perhaps, but this is of interest to those descended from Herbert fitz
Alberic and Emma (many list members included) as well as those
watching the ancestry of Prince William & c.

Cheers,

John



"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message news:<gAgNd.149266$K7.97619@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
I can remember seeing the year 1081 given for the marriage of Adela to
Stephen Henry, count of Blois, though I can't recollect where.

Kimberly LoPrete in 'Adela of Blois: Familial Alliances and Female
Lordship', _Aristocratic Women in Medieval France_, edited by Theodore
Evergates (Philadelphia, 1999) pp. 14-15 stated that her wedding took place
"most likely sometime between January 1083 and her mother's death in
November of that year, shortly after her fifteenth birthday". Further to
this (in note 22 on p. 183) she adds that Adela "was certainly married by
1085", citing a charter of that year, but that she "does not appear to have
been married by January 1083", citing (apparently a document printed in)
Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville's _Histoire des ducs et des comtes de
Champagne_, vol. 1 pp. 497-99 no. 59. I haven't seen this.

However, the foundation charter of Saint-Julien de Sézanne priory (_Gallia
Christiana_, vol. XII, Instrumenta col. 254, Troyes no. 11), dated 1081,
makes it clear that Stephen Henry was already married at that time,
mentioning a ceremony "astante comitissa uxore Stephani Henrici comitis" (in
the presence of Count Stephen Henry's wife). No name is given for the
countess, who joined in her husband's donations, but Stephen Henry was
married only once as far as we know.

Can anyone check what is in the document that LoPrete cited for Adela being
still unmarried in January 1083?

Peter Stewart

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 feb 2005 15:00:21

I am afraid that I have to disagree. Clay's EYC series clearly shows
that the brother of William, Archbishop of York, d 1154, was Herbert
FitzHerbert, Chamberlain to the King of Scots. The reference to Emma
is from a chronicler, name not remembered, who said that she was
William's mother. Their father was Herbert FitzAlberic, of Tourp, in
the Cotentin, so-called because he gave some land in Tourp to the
Monastery of Montebourg. Albericus, or Aubrey, was the Chamberlain to
Mathilda of Scotland, Queen of King Henry. Herbert FitzHerbert
Chamberlain to King Henry was the son of Herbert of Winchester, but
they were not of the same family. Herbert FitzHerbert the Chamberlain
of King Henry married Sybil Corbet and had issue another Herbert
FitzHerbert who married Lucy of Hereford and had Piers FitzHerbert.

Herbert FitzHerbert, Chamberlain to the King of Scots was married to
Millisent daughter of Maud and neptis of Osbert the Sheriff of Yorks
and later Lincs. A(nother) chronicler tells us this. He was Lord of
Kinneil and Yester in Scotland and had a number of sons, the elder of
whom was probably Stephen. For full details see EYC, the Archbishop's
Fee and the Treasurer's Fee. His descendants also retained the land
which they held in Lindsay (Lincs) at (probably) Rigsby and Freiston.
The tenant of Freiston in (I think) 1266 was Henry le Chamberlain. My
sources are EYC and Keats-Rohan.

Albericus
|
Herbert m Emma "of Blois" fil nat
|
Herbert m Millisent, hss of Osbert the Sherriff & William, Archbishop
|
Stephen & William, Robert Treasurer York, Herbert Trsr York, Gilbert(?)
|
Ralph le Chamberlain m Matilda d&h Robert de Caux & Eustace le Chmbrln
|
Ralph le Chamberlain
|
Henry le Chamberlain

Herbert the Treasurer was possibly the ancestor of the Maxwells
It is possible that this family were a branch of the de Morvilles

Compare

Herbert of Winchester
|
Herbert FitzHebert m Sybil Corbet
|
Herbert FitzHerbert m Lucy of Hereford
|
Piers FitzHebert m Alice de Warkworth
|
Reginald FitzPiers
|
two heiresses

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 06 feb 2005 16:01:26

In message of 6 Feb, "Alex Maxwell Findlater"
<maxwellfindlater@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip on interesting account of Herbert the Scottish Chamberlain>

Compare

Herbert of Winchester
|
Herbert FitzHebert m Sybil Corbet
|
Herbert FitzHerbert m Lucy of Hereford
|
Piers FitzHebert m Alice de Warkworth
|
Reginald FitzPiers
|
two heiresses

My reading of CP 4V, 465-471 says that the two heiresses were the
daughter of Reginald's grandson Herbert and I can't see any corrections
in either Vol XIV or Chris Phillips' site.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Marriage date of William the Conqueror's daughter Adela

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 06 feb 2005 17:13:18

Sorry no good at Maths and bad for using a telescope when I shouldn't.
What's more, I'm probably too old to improve.

Ginny Wagner

Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 08 feb 2005 06:31:01

Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

Ginny Wagner

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 08 feb 2005 08:25:23

Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur
"fought against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons,
but he himself was leader of the battles." An indication that
another man "was no Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly
late interpolations, the first describing him carrying a cross at
the Battle of Badon, the second that Arthur and Medraut died in
"the strife at Camlann." (This last is particularly suspect, as
a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 08 feb 2005 12:30:02

At 03:25 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur "fought
against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons, but he himself
was leader of the battles." An indication that another man "was no
Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly late interpolations, the
first describing him carrying a cross at the Battle of Badon, the second
that Arthur and Medraut died in "the strife at Camlann." (This last is
particularly suspect, as a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf


As a supplement Todd is referring to 1) Nennius' 9th century Historia
Brittonum
2) some versions of the poem Y Gododdin and 3) the 10th century chronicle
called the Annales Cambriae. There was also a reference to an Arthur in
the "Elegy for Geraint" which is also given as evidence for his existence.
Later sources are tainted with myth.

The major problem with the movie is that the Romans left Britain about
410 A.D.while the battle of Badon is placed at the end of the 5th century.
One has to concede that there was a British hero known as Arthur. He
was more akin to a 5th-6th century William Wallace fighting the Germanic
invaders. Other than that the movie, like other stories throughout history,
is just that; a story.

Best wishes!

Peter

Ginny Wagner

RE: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 08 feb 2005 19:31:02

Perfect, thank you. Was so impressed by the use of the Picts, the Celtic
King Arthur appearing as the kings back then would have, the situation with
the Romans as occupiers who were fixing to withdraw and leave them to the
Saxons just as they did -- the sword being a part of the burial ceremony and
Guinevere being a fighter, the monks and Lord of the Manor being drunk with
power. Thought Buckheimer did a great job on it and that it reflected the
historical times accurately -- just had wondered if there was ever any proof
he had existed.

Ginny Wagner



-----Original Message-----
From: taf2@dialup-64-58-10-132.mho.net
[mailto:taf2@dialup-64-58-10-132.mho.net]On Behalf Of Todd A. Farmerie
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:25 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latest King Arthur Movie


Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in
one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur
"fought against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons,
but he himself was leader of the battles." An indication that
another man "was no Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly
late interpolations, the first describing him carrying a cross at
the Battle of Badon, the second that Arthur and Medraut died in
"the strife at Camlann." (This last is particularly suspect, as
a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf

Peter A. Kincaid

Re: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 08 feb 2005 20:41:03

At 07:27 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
At 03:25 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur "fought
against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons, but he himself
was leader of the battles." An indication that another man "was no
Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly late interpolations, the
first describing him carrying a cross at the Battle of Badon, the second
that Arthur and Medraut died in "the strife at Camlann." (This last is
particularly suspect, as a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf


As a supplement Todd is referring to 1) Nennius' 9th century Historia
Brittonum
2) some versions of the poem Y Gododdin and 3) the 10th century chronicle
called the Annales Cambriae. There was also a reference to an Arthur in
the "Elegy for Geraint" which is also given as evidence for his existence.
Later sources are tainted with myth.

The major problem with the movie is that the Romans left Britain about
410 A.D.while the battle of Badon is placed at the end of the 5th century.
One has to concede that there was a British hero known as Arthur. He
was more akin to a 5th-6th century William Wallace fighting the Germanic
invaders. Other than that the movie, like other stories throughout history,
is just that; a story.

Best wishes!

Peter

As a supplement to my supplement, I should have added that
the Germanic invaders were the only people he may have
fought. A number of the battles cited by Nennius were in what
we now call Scotland. I also believe that he was from that neck of
the woods.

Best wishes!

Peter

Ginny Wagner

RE: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 09 feb 2005 00:51:02

Thank you Peter, et al. It's been quite illuminating and I appreciate all
who generously spent their time, sharing their knowledge.

'Fili, sapientia thesaurus est et cor tuum archa'
'Child, knowledge is a treasure and your heart is its strongbox'
Hugh St. Victor


At 07:27 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
At 03:25 AM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in
one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur "fought
against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons, but he himself
was leader of the battles." An indication that another man "was no
Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly late interpolations, the
first describing him carrying a cross at the Battle of Badon, the second
that Arthur and Medraut died in "the strife at Camlann." (This last is
particularly suspect, as a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf


As a supplement Todd is referring to 1) Nennius' 9th century Historia
Brittonum
2) some versions of the poem Y Gododdin and 3) the 10th century chronicle
called the Annales Cambriae. There was also a reference to an Arthur in
the "Elegy for Geraint" which is also given as evidence for his existence.
Later sources are tainted with myth.

The major problem with the movie is that the Romans left Britain about
410 A.D.while the battle of Badon is placed at the end of the 5th century.
One has to concede that there was a British hero known as Arthur. He
was more akin to a 5th-6th century William Wallace fighting the Germanic
invaders. Other than that the movie, like other stories throughout
history,
is just that; a story.

Best wishes!

Peter

As a supplement to my supplement, I should have added that
the Germanic invaders were the only people he may have
fought. A number of the battles cited by Nennius were in what
we now call Scotland. I also believe that he was from that neck of
the woods.

Best wishes!

Peter

Peter A. Kincaid

RE: Latest King Arthur Movie

Legg inn av Peter A. Kincaid » 09 feb 2005 02:11:02

The intended locale of the movie was in the vicinity of Hadrian's
Wall. Given that, and the use of the fictional name Merlin as leader
of the Woads, they must have been trying to make the Woads native
Brits and not Picts. Native Brits had painted themselves with blue dye
made from woad. It is a matter of debate as to how the Picts displayed
themselves; whether by pigment, tattoo, or even remotely nothing.

Guinevere, Lancelot et al are fiction. I don't think I would refer to
monks as drunk with power. Manors were in England and not in
Scotland proper. However, at least one can be consoled by the fact
that this version of Arthur was at least "moving towards" what the real
Arthur and his times was like.


Best wishes!

Peter


At 02:27 PM 08/02/2005, you wrote:
Perfect, thank you. Was so impressed by the use of the Picts, the Celtic
King Arthur appearing as the kings back then would have, the situation with
the Romans as occupiers who were fixing to withdraw and leave them to the
Saxons just as they did -- the sword being a part of the burial ceremony and
Guinevere being a fighter, the monks and Lord of the Manor being drunk with
power. Thought Buckheimer did a great job on it and that it reflected the
historical times accurately -- just had wondered if there was ever any proof
he had existed.

Ginny Wagner



-----Original Message-----
From: taf2@dialup-64-58-10-132.mho.net
[mailto:taf2@dialup-64-58-10-132.mho.net]On Behalf Of Todd A. Farmerie
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:25 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Latest King Arthur Movie


Ginny Wagner wrote:
Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in
one
instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur
"fought against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons,
but he himself was leader of the battles." An indication that
another man "was no Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly
late interpolations, the first describing him carrying a cross at
the Battle of Badon, the second that Arthur and Medraut died in
"the strife at Camlann." (This last is particularly suspect, as
a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .

taf

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»