Sculpture of Constance of Castile, mother of Alice of France

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

Sculpture of Constance of Castile, mother of Alice of France

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 05 mar 2005 10:45:28

Dear Newsgroup ~

Interested parties may view a beautiful sculpture of Constance of
Castile (died 1160), wife of King Louis VII of France, at the following
website:

http://www.insecula.com/contact/A001330.html

Enjoy!

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Nathaniel Taylor

genealogists, historians & proof (was ... Constance of Casti

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 05 mar 2005 16:24:25

In article <1110015928.250835.191450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:

[in a message titled "Sculpture of Constance of Castile, mother of Alice
of France"]

Interested parties may view a beautiful sculpture of Constance of
Castile (died 1160), wife of King Louis VII of France, at the following
website:

http://www.insecula.com/contact/A001330.html

Enjoy!

It's telling that Douglas abandons a discussion of interpretation of
evidence, instead posting a separate message that implies the parentage
is proved: he is avoiding the interpretive leaps necessary to turn the
dispensation into proof of maternity. Have there been any other cases
here in which yesterday's assertion has been wordlessly morphed into
today's proof? This is the venerable style of, for example, the book
_Holy Blood, Holy Grail_. The evidence of the dispensation, in this
case, cannot by itself simply be taken as proof of the relationship.
Even though I am inclined to accept (as does, I suspect, Peter Stewart,
and as have various others going back decades) that Constance was likely
the mother of the surviving Alix--and even though this dispensation has
made my acceptance firmer--it still can't be considered as proved until
questions on the table are addressed.

In this particular case, I have said that a case must be made (and, I
believe, can fairly convincingly be done) to show why we should place
more faith in the dispensation's evidentiary value than if it were
simply a chronicler's assertion of the same vintage (nearly 80 years
after the birth in question). I think this sort of discussion would
have some value to the use of dispensations generally, not just for this
particular case.

Peter Stewart's caveat is, on the other hand, essentially
historiographical: he knows that since earlier experts (e.g. Leopold
Delisle) took an opposing view based (apparently) on review of similar
evidence (and perhaps other primary sources which are no longer readily
identifiable), it is important to be able to explain these dissenting
interpretations in order to support favoring a different conclusion.

This latter point is an essential tool for a serious historical
discussion but is largely ignored in genealogy, where the modern context
of positivistic reliance on 'vital records' preconditions most
people--even those who subsequently immerse themselves in pre-modern
genealogy--to assume that citing a single piece of 'primary' evidence is
sufficient to begin and end a genealogical argument.

This signals a fundamental distinction between those educated as
historians and those trained (or self-taught) as genealogists.
Especially where primary (i.e. near-contemporary) sources contradict one
another, or where previous experts may be assumed (at least in some
cases) to have built conclusions on uncited primary sources which are
not now readily identified (e.g. Delisle, who lived and breathed among
all the great manuscript and charter treasures of France), then it is
vital to assess the historiographical context of a genealogical question
(who said what about a relationship, and based on what
evidence--excluding compilers who only propagated the theories of
primary-source scholars), and to contextualize each primary source as to
its likely veracity and independence of witness. Historians are
conditioned to preface any focused study (journal article or book) on
such historiographical due diligence. This is not done out of some
silly reverence for the pronouncements of dead white male forbears in
the historical profession, but through the admission that only after
understanding the bases of the conclusions of other scholars (at least
ones who appear to have given the matter some thought) can one truly
master the facets of a problem. In this case, it is interesting that
Douglas misinterpreted Peter's insistence that one needs to investigate
why Delisle came to an opposing conclusion, as a defense of that
conclusion--when in fact Peter suspected Delisle of being wrong.

Historiographical due diligence, and thorough cross-examination of
primary sources, lie at the heart of some of the recent, provocative
writing on, for example, the Agatha question, or the Konradiner question
(has anyone slogged through Hlawitschka's book devoted entirely to the
historiography of the Kuno-Richlind question?). It is understandable
that this sort of interpretive work would hold little attraction for
someone whose primary interest is compiling a large volume of medieval
lines for the delectation of non-specialists (and it is of course also
difficult if the essential historiography and sources to be criticized
are in foreign languages), but to ignore these steps is to misrepresent
an unfinished discussion as complete.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Douglas Richardson royala

A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 05 mar 2005 18:04:43

My comments are interspersed below. DR

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

It's telling that Douglas abandons a discussion of interpretation of
evidence, instead posting a separate message that implies the
parentage
is proved: he is avoiding the interpretive leaps necessary to turn
the
dispensation into proof of maternity.

Yes, the evidence is conclusive that Alice of France is the daughter of
Constance of Castile.

The evidence of the dispensation, in this case, cannot by itself
simply be
taken as proof of the relationship.

As Chris Phillips pointed out so elegantly yesterday, it is highly
unlikely that any other conceivable connection between the two parties
can be found, given their high birth, and especially since the ancestry
and near kindred of King Fernando III are so well known. The
dispensation specifically states that Fernando's wife, Jeanne de
Dammartin, is descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling) of
one of his grandparents. This leaves you no room to maneuver or
wiggle. I know you and Peter Stewart are trying to wiggle, but this
dispensation has you bound in a straight jacket. How does it feel?
Let me guess - not good.

Even though I am inclined to accept (as does, I suspect, Peter
Stewart,
and as have various others going back decades) that Constance was
likely
the mother of the surviving Alix--and even though this dispensation
has
made my acceptance firmer--it still can't be considered as proved
until
questions on the table are addressed.

Since you've searched the archives, then you know there are two records
created in Alice of France's own lifetime BOTH of which name Constance
of Castile as her mother. It doesn't get any better than that. There
are many other records created close to Alice's lifetime that also say
the same thing. In sharp contrast, there are no contemporary or near
contemporary records whatsoever which name Adela/Ala of Champagne/Blois
as the mother of Alice of France. If you fail to grasp something so
basic as this, then I truly feel sorry for you, Nat.

In the future, please spare the personal attacks. It diminishes your
reputation on the newsgroup to induldge in such pettiness. Also,
please be more succinct. You ramble in your posts and loose your
message.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Doug McDonald

Re: genealogists, historians & proof (was ... Constance of C

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 05 mar 2005 18:50:49

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

This signals a fundamental distinction between those educated as
historians and those trained (or self-taught) as genealogists.
Especially where primary (i.e. near-contemporary) sources contradict one
another, or where previous experts may be assumed (at least in some
cases) to have built conclusions on uncited primary sources which are
not now readily identified

There is however a fundamental difference between genealogy and
a very large fraction of what today is the fodder of the professional
historian. In genealogy each and every true genealogical question
has one and only one correct answer. There is no quibble possible
about that. Every human has one and only one father and one and only
one mother. So far, no clones. The genealogist must argue about
evidence, and evidence only.

In "history" there are indeed facts ... such as what day or what
hour such and such a battle took place. But the main fodder is WHY
the battle took place ... and that has no such absolute answer.

This means that differences in approach are expected and indeed
required. Of course, there is overlap, involving such cases
as "did such and such a war going on cause King Doe to claim falsely he
fathered a child by Queen Doe when in fact his chamber pot emptier
was the real father?"

Doug McDonald

R. Battle

Re: A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av R. Battle » 05 mar 2005 22:15:13

Comments below.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
<snip>
[Nathaniel Taylor:] The evidence of the dispensation, in this case,
cannot by itself simply be taken as proof of the relationship.

As Chris Phillips pointed out so elegantly yesterday, it is highly
unlikely that any other conceivable connection between the two parties
can be found, given their high birth, and especially since the ancestry
and near kindred of King Fernando III are so well known. The
dispensation specifically states that Fernando's wife, Jeanne de
Dammartin, is descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling) of
one of his grandparents. This leaves you no room to maneuver or
wiggle. I know you and Peter Stewart are trying to wiggle, but this
dispensation has you bound in a straight jacket. How does it feel?
Let me guess - not good.

Chris Phillips' note bears on the *claim* of the dispensation, not its
veracity. It is unlikely that the relationship referred to in the
dispensation was something other than the connection under discussion.
Nat's point (or quibble, if you prefer) was that even if we know for
certain that the dispensation referred to this connection, there remains
the possibility that whoever compiled the document was misinformed. Would
an account explicitly naming Constance as mother of Alix/Alice and bearing
the same date as this dispensation be taken as conclusive proof of the
relationship?

<snip>
If you fail to grasp something so basic as this, then I truly feel sorry
for you, Nat.

In the future, please spare the personal attacks. It diminishes your
reputation on the newsgroup to induldge in such pettiness. Also,
please be more succinct. You ramble in your posts and loose your
message.
snip


Your entreaty to cease personal attacks and pettiness would go over better
if you did not engage in them yourself, as witness the above and your
comment at the end of the first paragraph cited above.

-Robert Battle

Renia

Re: genealogists, historians & proof (was ... Constance of C

Legg inn av Renia » 05 mar 2005 23:07:58

Doug McDonald wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

This signals a fundamental distinction between those educated as
historians and those trained (or self-taught) as genealogists.
Especially where primary (i.e. near-contemporary) sources contradict
one another, or where previous experts may be assumed (at least in
some cases) to have built conclusions on uncited primary sources which
are not now readily identified


There is however a fundamental difference between genealogy and
a very large fraction of what today is the fodder of the professional
historian. In genealogy each and every true genealogical question
has one and only one correct answer.

Not necessarily. Sometimes in genealogy, there is no answer at all. That
is to say, the correct answer has been lost, never to be re-discovered.
Sometimes, believe it or not, there are multiple answers: a marriage
date changed to better co-ordinate with the birth of a first child; the
celebration of a marriage which never took place; the changing of a
brithday to better coincide with a marriage where there were multiple
witnesses. I have come across cases like these, though not necessarily
in medieval genealogy. During that period, not all the desired dates (or
even "correct" names) were actually recorded.


There is no quibble possible
about that. Every human has one and only one father and one and only
one mother.

Again, not so. Biologically, yes. Socially, no. Surrogacy is not new.
But we will never know how much "surrogacy" has ever taken place.

So far, no clones. The genealogist must argue about
evidence, and evidence only.

True enough, but this does not follow on from what you said, above.

In "history" there are indeed facts ... such as what day or what
hour such and such a battle took place.

Sometimes, often, even these are bones of contention, with historians
ever burrowing around, trying to find new sources to give more accurate
answers to some questions.

But the main fodder is WHY
the battle took place ... and that has no such absolute answer.

The main "fodder" as you put it, is not the data, but the interpretation
of the data. Different historians will look at the same data from
different perspectives. The economic historian will look for material
for a different interpretation than a social historian, though often,
the two will overlap.


This means that differences in approach are expected and indeed
required. Of course, there is overlap, involving such cases
as "did such and such a war going on cause King Doe to claim falsely he
fathered a child by Queen Doe when in fact his chamber pot emptier
was the real father?"

Sometimes, we will simply never find the truth, because sometimes, we
will be unaware that the truth is not what we thought, because we were
not there. Genealogists, like other historians, are eternally on a quest
to find the answers to their questions, to seek out other contemporary
or near contemporary sources which could add to the story, or even to
look sideways, at other branches of history itself (such as social or
demographic history), to better find an answer. Sometimes that is
possible, but not always.

Renia

Leo van de Pas

Re: genealogists, historians & proof (was ... Constance of C

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 05 mar 2005 23:31:03

Cover ups have occurred for all kinds of reasons. I was tracing the
ancestors of a George Carter who died in 1906. I had the names of his
parents and his mother had a rather unusual name and at the time how many
Mary Ann Cripps would there have been in Western Australia? Mary Ann was
born about 1834 and only since 1829 had there been a settlement in Western
Australia. I could find a marriage certificate for Mary Ann Cripps but she
married a Edward Reynolds, not Mr. Carter and the marriage date was several
years before she started having Carter children.. The only Edward Reynolds
in the state died around that time aged 17. This was a brick wall.

Several years later I was told what really went on. Mr. Carter was not a
very nice person and had been sent to Western Australia as a convict. Until
they had been given a 'ticket of leave' they were not allowed to get
married, and so Mr. Carter under the name of Edward Reynolds married Mary
Ann Cripps. Why the delay of several years before having children? Most of
those early wedded years he spent in prison. I was lucky to find the answer.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: genealogists, historians & proof (was ... Constance of Castile,
mother of Alice of France)


Doug McDonald wrote:

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

This signals a fundamental distinction between those educated as
historians and those trained (or self-taught) as genealogists.
Especially where primary (i.e. near-contemporary) sources contradict
one another, or where previous experts may be assumed (at least in
some cases) to have built conclusions on uncited primary sources which
are not now readily identified


There is however a fundamental difference between genealogy and
a very large fraction of what today is the fodder of the professional
historian. In genealogy each and every true genealogical question
has one and only one correct answer.

Not necessarily. Sometimes in genealogy, there is no answer at all. That
is to say, the correct answer has been lost, never to be re-discovered.
Sometimes, believe it or not, there are multiple answers: a marriage
date changed to better co-ordinate with the birth of a first child; the
celebration of a marriage which never took place; the changing of a
brithday to better coincide with a marriage where there were multiple
witnesses. I have come across cases like these, though not necessarily
in medieval genealogy. During that period, not all the desired dates (or
even "correct" names) were actually recorded.


There is no quibble possible
about that. Every human has one and only one father and one and only
one mother.

Again, not so. Biologically, yes. Socially, no. Surrogacy is not new.
But we will never know how much "surrogacy" has ever taken place.

So far, no clones. The genealogist must argue about
evidence, and evidence only.

True enough, but this does not follow on from what you said, above.

In "history" there are indeed facts ... such as what day or what
hour such and such a battle took place.

Sometimes, often, even these are bones of contention, with historians
ever burrowing around, trying to find new sources to give more accurate
answers to some questions.

But the main fodder is WHY
the battle took place ... and that has no such absolute answer.

The main "fodder" as you put it, is not the data, but the interpretation
of the data. Different historians will look at the same data from
different perspectives. The economic historian will look for material
for a different interpretation than a social historian, though often,
the two will overlap.


This means that differences in approach are expected and indeed
required. Of course, there is overlap, involving such cases
as "did such and such a war going on cause King Doe to claim falsely he
fathered a child by Queen Doe when in fact his chamber pot emptier
was the real father?"

Sometimes, we will simply never find the truth, because sometimes, we
will be unaware that the truth is not what we thought, because we were
not there. Genealogists, like other historians, are eternally on a quest
to find the answers to their questions, to seek out other contemporary
or near contemporary sources which could add to the story, or even to
look sideways, at other branches of history itself (such as social or
demographic history), to better find an answer. Sometimes that is
possible, but not always.

Renia


Peter Stewart

Re: A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 mar 2005 00:33:05

Douglas Richardson wrote:

<snip>

The dispensation specifically states that Fernando's wife, Jeanne
de Dammartin, is descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling)
of one of his grandparents. This leaves you no room to maneuver or
wiggle. I know you and Peter Stewart are trying to wiggle, but this
dispensation has you bound in a straight jacket. How does it feel?
Let me guess - not good.

Tripe - the dispensation was framed in the thirteenth century, and we
know that an archbishop of Toledo had previously followed another
Spanish chronicler in giving Alix, countess of Ponthieu as the second
daughter of Constance of Castile. The question is not "Was this
believed by her descendants and/or Church authorities later?", but
rather "Was this correct, or did Pere Anselme and/or Leopold Delisle
(who both knew of the same sources as the archbishop) find some better
or at least equally plausible evidence to the contrary?"

<snip>

In sharp contrast, there are no contemporary or near contemporary
records whatsoever which name Adela/Ala of Champagne/Blois
as the mother of Alice of France. If you fail to grasp something so
basic as this, then I truly feel sorry for you, Nat.

But how can you know? An arbitrary statement without back-up won't cut
any ice. You have not undertaken research that could possibly establish
this absence of evidence - you appear to be relying on the fact that
you haven't come across a citation that serves up such proof without
any effort on your part to seek it out, or to confirm that at least it
is not to be found with any provenience worthy of credit against the
other sources.

This is the simple work that needs to be done. I know of several people
who have done it, but none is about to offer you the results. You have
come across a point that hasn't been specifically addressed in the
literature, so you have it all to do. A trained & competent
professional would not be floundering and trying to tease out help - it
isn't difficult, there are no secrets or booby-traps in the offing,
just some work to do.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 06 mar 2005 04:24:05

R. Battle wrote:
Comments below.

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
snip
[Nathaniel Taylor:] The evidence of the dispensation, in this
case,
cannot by itself simply be taken as proof of the relationship.

As Chris Phillips pointed out so elegantly yesterday, it is highly
unlikely that any other conceivable connection between the two
parties
can be found, given their high birth, and especially since the
ancestry
and near kindred of King Fernando III are so well known. The
dispensation specifically states that Fernando's wife, Jeanne de
Dammartin, is descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling)
of
one of his grandparents. This leaves you no room to maneuver or
wiggle. I know you and Peter Stewart are trying to wiggle, but
this
dispensation has you bound in a straight jacket. How does it feel?
Let me guess - not good.

Chris Phillips' note bears on the *claim* of the dispensation, not
its
veracity. It is unlikely that the relationship referred to in the
dispensation was something other than the connection under
discussion.
Nat's point (or quibble, if you prefer) was that even if we know for
certain that the dispensation referred to this connection, there
remains
the possibility that whoever compiled the document was misinformed.
Would
an account explicitly naming Constance as mother of Alix/Alice and
bearing
the same date as this dispensation be taken as conclusive proof of
the
relationship?

snip
If you fail to grasp something so basic as this, then I truly feel
sorry
for you, Nat.

In the future, please spare the personal attacks. It diminishes
your
reputation on the newsgroup to induldge in such pettiness. Also,
please be more succinct. You ramble in your posts and loose your
message.
snip

Your entreaty to cease personal attacks and pettiness would go over
better
if you did not engage in them yourself, as witness the above and your

comment at the end of the first paragraph cited above.

-Robert Battle

Dear Robert ~

There are many records which testify that Alice of France is the
daughter of Constance of Castile. The dispensation of Fernando III and
Jeanne de Dammartin is just another piece of evidence. That's all.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

R. Battle

Re: A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av R. Battle » 06 mar 2005 04:49:28

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:
<snip>
There are many records which testify that Alice of France is the
daughter of Constance of Castile. The dispensation of Fernando III and
Jeanne de Dammartin is just another piece of evidence. That's all.

On that, I think all of the interested parties would agree--that it is
almost* certainly another piece of supporting evidence, but not the final,
conclusive piece (if there ever is any such thing).

Thanks,

Robert Battle

* - The "almost" part due to the off chance that we are missing an
important ancestral connection that might have been thought to exist other
than this one.

Nathaniel Taylor

dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 06 mar 2005 06:15:26

In article <1110042283.051853.88280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com>
wrote:

Yes, the evidence is conclusive that Alice of France is the daughter of
Constance of Castile.

As I said before, I am glad Douglas found the dispensation. I suspect
that Douglas (and others who have put forward the theory) is right that
Alix was daughter of Constance. However the dispensation cannot be
considered probative without some interpretation.

Now, for some interpretation (and, following the other horn of this
thread, those who prefer genealogy with no 'interpretation'--perhaps the
majority of you--can ignore this, I suppose). Whatever some might say,
I am both interested in arriving at a convincing proof of this
genealogical revision, and willing to contribute to that end (and I'm
sorry that, in contrast, there are some people who have looked into the
parallel question of Anselme's sources for his contradictory view, but
who have declined to share their findings with the group). So here goes:

I believe that one should generally be confident of the veracity of the
genealogy implied or stated in a consanguinity dispensation for two
reasons:

1. The process of researching and requesting it would likely have been
the subject of considerable care and due diligence on the part of
interested parties, who since they were dealing with their own
parentelae would therefore have had more reliable access to
knowledgeable informants than the average chronicler. However, what if
the principals involved relied on expert testimony from outside their
own family for information on their own ancestry? And what if that
testimony was erroneous? Would they have noticed? This is an important
and difficult question: it is essentially a variation on the old,
general question, "how much did medieval people know about their own
ancestry?", which is very difficult to pin down.

Based on some research I did on genealogical testimony in marriage
litigation for a Haskins Society conference last year, my hunch is that
persons seeking dispensations would be more likely to rely on oral
testimony of witnesses within their extended parentelae for genealogical
data, than on outside testimony from clergy. But I was focusing on
litigation which involved direct testimony by witnesses in lawsuits,
rather than the compilation of material accompanying a request for a
dispensation. Famously, Ivo of Chartres solicited genealogies to be
sent to him by parties to be married to daughters of Henry I, rather
than seeking the information from independent sources. Based on these
inexact analogies I would tend to presume that we can expect isuch
information to be compiled by witness testimony rather than culled from
chronicle texts.

2. Consanguinity allegations in dispensations by their very nature would
be unlikely to be deliberately forged: if two parties want to be
married, why invent an impediment and then seek to surmount it? There
is no easy presumptive motive for prevarication. (I would be interested
to hear of any real or hypothetical case to the contrary.)

So, if we assume that the parties seeking a dispensation (generally the
spouses or their families) were acting in good faith on information they
believed correct, and probably customarily relied on sources most likely
to be correct, then I conclude that one should privilege the witness of
a dispensation, even though its testimony is indirect (i.e., the
document doesn't usually explicitly name the common ancestor and descent
path) and even though the date of the document might be 100 years after
the floruit of the apparent common ancestor.

And if the dispensation can be shown to refer to only one possible
relationship path (and this is often not determinable), then it should
be considered as a very strong component of a proof of any and all of
the filiations in that path. So in this particular case I would
conclude that the dispensation offers strong support for Constance ->
Alix, following my assumption that it would be based on family testimony
and likely reliable.

Contrary to what another poster has implied, I have sustained this
discussion (1) to help build a consensual and sound argument for the
genealogical revision suggested by the dispensation; (2) to float my
ideas on the nature and value of genealogical evidence presented in
dispensations, in which I have a particular interest; and (3) to replace
a bald and oversimplifying assertion of the form "document X proves that
A is the mother of B" with something more accurate, even if less
headline-worthy.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Leo van de Pas

Relationship Ingeborg and Philippe of France Re: dispensatio

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 06 mar 2005 06:50:02

Dear Nat,
On my website I have the story of Philippe II of France who had arranged his
marriage to Ingeborg of Denmark but when she arrived he did not like her and
had people swear they were related within the forbidden degree basing his
annulment on that.

And then there was this French brother and his sister who hoodwinked the
pope who then gave them permission to marry..........................

Ferdinand of Aragon's father had forged a papal approval to fool Isabella so
she would marry Ferdinand.

Can you trust the paper dispensations were written on?

Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2005 4:15 PM
Subject: dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France


In article <1110042283.051853.88280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com" <royalancestry@msn.com
wrote:

Yes, the evidence is conclusive that Alice of France is the daughter of
Constance of Castile.

As I said before, I am glad Douglas found the dispensation. I suspect
that Douglas (and others who have put forward the theory) is right that
Alix was daughter of Constance. However the dispensation cannot be
considered probative without some interpretation.

Now, for some interpretation (and, following the other horn of this
thread, those who prefer genealogy with no 'interpretation'--perhaps the
majority of you--can ignore this, I suppose). Whatever some might say,
I am both interested in arriving at a convincing proof of this
genealogical revision, and willing to contribute to that end (and I'm
sorry that, in contrast, there are some people who have looked into the
parallel question of Anselme's sources for his contradictory view, but
who have declined to share their findings with the group). So here goes:

I believe that one should generally be confident of the veracity of the
genealogy implied or stated in a consanguinity dispensation for two
reasons:

1. The process of researching and requesting it would likely have been
the subject of considerable care and due diligence on the part of
interested parties, who since they were dealing with their own
parentelae would therefore have had more reliable access to
knowledgeable informants than the average chronicler. However, what if
the principals involved relied on expert testimony from outside their
own family for information on their own ancestry? And what if that
testimony was erroneous? Would they have noticed? This is an important
and difficult question: it is essentially a variation on the old,
general question, "how much did medieval people know about their own
ancestry?", which is very difficult to pin down.

Based on some research I did on genealogical testimony in marriage
litigation for a Haskins Society conference last year, my hunch is that
persons seeking dispensations would be more likely to rely on oral
testimony of witnesses within their extended parentelae for genealogical
data, than on outside testimony from clergy. But I was focusing on
litigation which involved direct testimony by witnesses in lawsuits,
rather than the compilation of material accompanying a request for a
dispensation. Famously, Ivo of Chartres solicited genealogies to be
sent to him by parties to be married to daughters of Henry I, rather
than seeking the information from independent sources. Based on these
inexact analogies I would tend to presume that we can expect isuch
information to be compiled by witness testimony rather than culled from
chronicle texts.

2. Consanguinity allegations in dispensations by their very nature would
be unlikely to be deliberately forged: if two parties want to be
married, why invent an impediment and then seek to surmount it? There
is no easy presumptive motive for prevarication. (I would be interested

to hear of any real or hypothetical case to the contrary.)

So, if we assume that the parties seeking a dispensation (generally the
spouses or their families) were acting in good faith on information they
believed correct, and probably customarily relied on sources most likely
to be correct, then I conclude that one should privilege the witness of
a dispensation, even though its testimony is indirect (i.e., the
document doesn't usually explicitly name the common ancestor and descent
path) and even though the date of the document might be 100 years after
the floruit of the apparent common ancestor.

And if the dispensation can be shown to refer to only one possible
relationship path (and this is often not determinable), then it should
be considered as a very strong component of a proof of any and all of
the filiations in that path. So in this particular case I would
conclude that the dispensation offers strong support for Constance -
Alix, following my assumption that it would be based on family testimony
and likely reliable.

Contrary to what another poster has implied, I have sustained this
discussion (1) to help build a consensual and sound argument for the
genealogical revision suggested by the dispensation; (2) to float my
ideas on the nature and value of genealogical evidence presented in
dispensations, in which I have a particular interest; and (3) to replace
a bald and oversimplifying assertion of the form "document X proves that
A is the mother of B" with something more accurate, even if less
headline-worthy.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/


Kelly Graham

Re: A straight jacket of evidence

Legg inn av Kelly Graham » 06 mar 2005 07:11:02

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: A straight jacket of evidence


Douglas Richardson wrote:

snip

The dispensation specifically states that Fernando's wife, Jeanne
de Dammartin, is descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling)
of one of his grandparents. This leaves you no room to maneuver or
wiggle. I know you and Peter Stewart are trying to wiggle, but this
dispensation has you bound in a straight jacket. How does it feel?
Let me guess - not good.

Tripe - the dispensation was framed in the thirteenth century, and we
know that an archbishop of Toledo had previously followed another
Spanish chronicler in giving Alix, countess of Ponthieu as the second
daughter of Constance of Castile. The question is not "Was this
believed by her descendants and/or Church authorities later?", but
rather "Was this correct, or did Pere Anselme and/or Leopold Delisle
(who both knew of the same sources as the archbishop) find some better
or at least equally plausible evidence to the contrary?"

snip

In sharp contrast, there are no contemporary or near contemporary
records whatsoever which name Adela/Ala of Champagne/Blois
as the mother of Alice of France. If you fail to grasp something so
basic as this, then I truly feel sorry for you, Nat.

But how can you know? An arbitrary statement without back-up won't cut
any ice. You have not undertaken research that could possibly establish
this absence of evidence - you appear to be relying on the fact that
you haven't come across a citation that serves up such proof without
any effort on your part to seek it out, or to confirm that at least it
is not to be found with any provenience worthy of credit against the
other sources.

This is the simple work that needs to be done. I know of several people
who have done it, but none is about to offer you the results. You have
come across a point that hasn't been specifically addressed in the
literature, so you have it all to do. A trained & competent
professional would not be floundering and trying to tease out help - it
isn't difficult, there are no secrets or booby-traps in the offing,
just some work to do.

Peter Stewart

______________________________


Sounds, now, like the Dispensation was relying on maybe-faulty
primary evidence? How reliable is the mareial it is based on ?

Kelly Paul Graham

Peter Stewart

Re: dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 mar 2005 07:15:35

Nat Taylor wrote:

<chomp>

So in this particular case I would conclude that the
dispensation offers strong support for Constance -
Alix, following my assumption that it would be based
on family testimony and likely reliable.

But whose family gave the evidence? This may well have come only from
Fernando's side, and we already know that in Spain Alix was believed to
have been the daughter whose birth had killed Constance. The parents of
Jeanne, in Ponthieu, apparently didn't even realise that there was no
dispensation granted until 31 August, as they had described their
daughter as Queen of Castile before then.

It may be that the need for a dispensation wasn't understood until
Jeanne and her attendants reached the court in Spain, or it may have
been thoroughly prepared further in advance - either way, we can't know
that it was necessarily right in detail, or that it was referring to a
particular relationship, without some corroboraton (and by the way
Fernando, Constance and Alix (or Adela) of Champagne all shared a more
distant consanguinity through the counts of Burgundy, that had
apparently been overlooked: these matters were not so delicately
considered in Spain - Fernando's own parents were first cousins once
removed).

The problem of an alternative filiation given by Anselme and Delisle
can be easily settled, insofar as this is now possible, by a systematic
search of those sources which might contain relevant information from
closer to the events than an archbishop of Toledo using another Spanish
source, some other scattered reports no more proximate to the French
court, and one (probably the best we have although rejected by Anselme)
from nearby but a while later & written in very rough Latin.

You are assuming that a source is being withheld - but all I have said,
repeatedly, is that a directed search must be undertaken before
Richardson can have confidence in the opinion that he and I both hold,
in my case grounded in checking but on his part in blind faith that if
someone else hasn't dished up what he wants then it can't exist. He
blandly assumes, without any way of knowing, that if Pere Anselme and
Delisle had a source in common for their opinion then this is not
available today.

The range of possible sources is limited, and not too onerous for him
to consult in full before making a further fool of himself. The comital
charters of Ponthieu are published in two editions, the later a
splendid work of Clovis Brunel; and several obituary records for
Constance are extant. Whether or not she died or was buried together
with her baby named Alix could also be ascertained. It must be
perfectly obvious what the answwer will be - but if Richardson proposes
to go into print or otherwise take credit for establishing this as
fact, then he needs to do his own leg-work. I am weary of coaching him
in the basics of his "profession".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson royala

Re: dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 06 mar 2005 07:59:25

Peter Stewart wrote:
But whose family gave the evidence? This may well have come only from
Fernando's side, and we already know that in Spain Alix was believed
to
have been the daughter whose birth had killed Constance. The parents
of
Jeanne, in Ponthieu, apparently didn't even realise that there was no
dispensation granted until 31 August, as they had described their
daughter as Queen of Castile before then.

Peter Stewart

You may have your facts wrong, Peter. As I recall, Jeanne de
Dammartin's daughter, Eleanor of Castile, was married to King Edward I
of England before the Papal dispensation for their marriage was
officially granted. Their marriage proceeded by permission of a Papal
legate who was in England at the time. Similar circumstances may well
have surrounded the marriage of Jeanne de Dammartin and King Fernando
III of Castile. This could explain why Jeanne's parents referred to
her as Queen immediately prior to the date of the Papal dispensation
for Jeanne's marriage.

But then, you knew this already, of course.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: dispensations as proof -- maternity of Alix of France

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 06 mar 2005 08:26:25

Douglas Richardson wrote:

You may have your facts wrong, Peter. As I recall, Jeanne de
Dammartin's daughter, Eleanor of Castile, was married to King
Edward I of England before the Papal dispensation for their
marriage was officially granted. Their marriage proceeded by
permission of a Papal legate who was in England at the time.
Similar circumstances may well have surrounded the marriage
of Jeanne de Dammartin and King Fernando III of Castile. This
could explain why Jeanne's parents referred to her as Queen
immediately prior to the date of the Papal dispensation for
Jeanne's marriage.

But then, you knew this already, of course.

Yes, and if you were doing your work properly you would also know the
other evidence that Jeanne and Fernando had NOT married by 31 August -
I posted a summary of this before and don't intend to repeat myself now
for your remedial needs.

Peter Stewart

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Relationship Ingeborg and Philippe of France Re: dispens

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 10 mar 2005 02:38:28

In article <006c01c52210$49c38a60$c3b4fea9@email>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

[I had written:]

....

Consanguinity allegations in dispensations by their very nature would
be unlikely to be deliberately forged: if two parties want to be
married, why invent an impediment and then seek to surmount it? There
is no easy presumptive motive for prevarication. (I would be interested
to hear of any real or hypothetical case to the contrary.) ...

Dear Nat,
On my website I have the story of Philippe II of France who had arranged his
marriage to Ingeborg of Denmark but when she arrived he did not like her and
had people swear they were related within the forbidden degree basing his
annulment on that.

And then there was this French brother and his sister who hoodwinked the
pope who then gave them permission to marry..........................

Ferdinand of Aragon's father had forged a papal approval to fool Isabella so
she would marry Ferdinand.

Can you trust the paper dispensations were written on?

Leo,

Thanks for understanding and engaging the question. Sorry I've been
offline since your post.

Your two cases present interesting converses but do not directly fill
the request: Philip Augustus was presenting forged genealogical data to
clerical authorities, but not to seek a dispensation--rather the
opposite: he sought the dissolution of his marriage, which would be the
standard clerical response to a prohibited marriage.

In the case of Fernan & Isabel, on the other hand, it was the
dispensation itself which is a forgery, not the genealogical information
laid or or implicit in it (and I have not seen the text of this
dispensation itself, if it survives).

Again, if two parties are seeking a dispensation for a marriage, that
means they want to be (or stay) married, and they would have no reason
to invent bogus relationships that might imperil that outcome.

BTW, I'm not familiar with the brother & sister hoodwinking the pope.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»