The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fernand

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson royala

The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fernand

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson royala » 09 mar 2005 17:59:39

Dear Newsgroup ~

In the raucous and often unprofessional discussion last week about the
dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de Dammartin,
one piece of evidence was overlooked. For King Fernando III to be
related in the 3rd degree to Jeanne de Dammartin, Jeanne would have to
be descended from a brother or sister (or half-sibling) of one of his
grandparents.

In my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), I showed that Jeanne Dammartin
was previously married by proxy in 1235 to King Henry III of England.
This marriage was annulled in 1236, on grounds they were related in the
4th degree of kindred. The common ancestry in this case was a descent
from King Louis VI of France for both parties.

This record proves that Jeanne Dammartin was not descended from a
brother or sister of Eleanor of England, King Fernando III's maternal
grandmother, otherwise Jeanne would have been related to King Henry III
of England in the 2nd degree on Henry's side, not 4th degree as stated
in the record.

Consequently, this record immediately rules out one of King Fernando
III of Castile's four grandparents as being the source of the common
kinship to his wife, Jeanne de Dammartin. That necessarily leaves us
with Fernando III's other three grandparents and their siblings to
study, all of whom are of the Iberian peninsula.

Hopefully one of the self proclaimed Iberian aficionados who populate
this newsgroup will inform us of the evidence of the siblings for each
of the three remaining grandparents and tell us the exact spot where
King Fernando III's ancestry touches that of Jeanne de Dammartin.

The noose tightens.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 09 mar 2005 23:01:49

Douglas Richardson wrote:

In the raucous and often unprofessional discussion last week
about the dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and
Jeanne de Dammartin, one piece of evidence was overlooked.
For King Fernando III to be related in the 3rd degree to Jeanne
de Dammartin, Jeanne would have to be descended from a
brother or sister (or half-sibling) of one of his grandparents.

This is yet more time-wasting, and brandishing a red herring as a means
of proof - scarcely "professional" conduct.

WE ALREADY KNOW how the Church authorities believed Jeanne and Fernando
to be related: this is set out in the history of Rodrigo el Toledano in
words self-evidently written shortly after their union had been
dispensed, using information that quite probably the author himself had
provided to Rome in the first place.

The question is WAS HE RIGHT? or did Pere Anselme find some other
evidence to throw doubt on the details believed by Rodrigo about the
relationship between Countess Alix and Queen Constance (aka Elizabeth)?

We may be quite justified in believing that these two were indeed
mother and daughter: the challenge for a trained historian &
professional genealogist who wishes to publish a correction of Anselme,
Delisle and Kerrebrouck on this point is to PROVE it, or at least to
examine the possibilities of evidence to the contrary, not just to
assume that many experts far greater than himself were all deluded,
merely confirming what we know was believed by some influential people
who left a paper trail from the century following the birth of Alix &
the death of Constance.

Peter Stewart

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 09 mar 2005 23:24:13

Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com wrote:

In the raucous and often unprofessional discussion last week about the

(. . . complaining about it while at the same time fanning the flames.)

dispensation of King Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne de Dammartin,
one piece of evidence was overlooked.

[details suggesting that Jeanne did not descend from Henry II of England
(as if there was any doubt) snipped]

Consequently, this record immediately rules out one of King Fernando
III of Castile's four grandparents as being the source of the common
kinship to his wife, Jeanne de Dammartin. That necessarily leaves us
with Fernando III's other three grandparents and their siblings to
study, all of whom are of the Iberian peninsula.

Or: e. none of the above.

Hopefully one of the self proclaimed Iberian aficionados who populate
this newsgroup will inform us of the evidence of the siblings for each
of the three remaining grandparents and tell us the exact spot where
King Fernando III's ancestry touches that of Jeanne de Dammartin.

You can look up the details of two of these easily enough yourself. The
siblings and children of Sancho III, the Desired, King of Castile can be
found in Szabolcs de Vajay's prosopographical account of the descendants
of Alfonso VI in _Studies in genealogy and family history in tribute to
Charles Evans on the occasion of his eightieth birthday_, FHL catalogue
number 929.1 G925. As to the children of Affonso I, I am unaware of a
detailed modern analysis, and don't trust anything old. Perhaps Chico
can suggest something. (again, as if it mattered)

The noose tightens.

I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that Jeanne descended from one of
the Iberian families. The intended relationship seems clear. Instead
the question raised was whether the dispensation you report was based on
actual genealogical fact, or instead on what in Spain at the time of the
marriage was erronsously thought to have been the case. Eliminating the
grandparents one by one, your noose thus tightens on the neck of a strawman.

taf

Chris Phillips

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 10 mar 2005 00:09:17

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that Jeanne descended from one of
the Iberian families. The intended relationship seems clear. Instead
the question raised was whether the dispensation you report was based on
actual genealogical fact, or instead on what in Spain at the time of the
marriage was erronsously thought to have been the case. Eliminating the
grandparents one by one, your noose thus tightens on the neck of a
strawman.



To be fair, Nat Taylor had, quite properly, responded to the details of the
dispensation posted by Douglas Richardson last week with two questions:

<<
1. Can it be demonstrated that the mother of Alix is the only link
through which consanguinity between the spouses could have existed--or
could have been believed to exist--in the degrees shown in the
dispensation?

2. If so, can one assume that those seeking the dispensation must have
been correctly informed as to that particular link, or might the seekers
of the dispensation simply have been guessing (or assuming, or believing
falsely) that Constance was the bride's ancestress?

So it's worth answering the first question about alternative explanations
for the stated relationship, even if the second question about the accuracy
of the claim remains.

Chris Phillips

Peter Stewart

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 mar 2005 01:27:12

Chris Phillips quoted Nat Taylor's question:

If so, can one assume that those seeking the dispensation
must have been correctly informed as to that particular link,
or might the seekers of the dispensation simply have been
guessing (or assuming, or believing falsely) that Constance
was the bride's ancestress?

An aspect of this that hasn't been discussed yet is, whose interests
were principally served by the dispensation & who is most likely to
have initiated the process?

I have remarked on the oddity that Jeanne's parents apparently thought
she was already married and queen of Castile in August, whereas the
dispensation was dated 31 August and there is other evidence that the
marriage most probably took place between 2 September & 31 October. The
count & countess of Ponthieu don't appear to have been closely involved
in the arrangements.

Roderic of Toledo's information about the family of Alfonso VII came
from the bishop of Tuy, who gave only the name "Helisabeth" for
Constance. In giving the descent of Jeanne, this name was not corrected
or glossed as one might expect if a French informant had provided the
details (Constance was never known by any other name in France, whether
or not she had been baptised as Elizabeth in Spain).

The saint-king Fernando's marriage was reportedly arranged to save him
from falling into sin with concubines after the death of his first
wife. He would most likely have wished also to save himself from any
possibility of an illicit or tainted union, by obtaining a dispensation
if there was a shadow of consanguinity, real or imaginary, over his
choice of a new queen. We know that well-placed Spanish sources told
him there was.

However, the closest we have come so far in this context to the event
of Constance's death in childbirth and the fate of her baby born in
October 1160 - who is acknowledged by Pere Anselme to have been named
Alix - is a continuation of the chronicle ascribed to Clarius, that was
written at Sens in the mid-1180s or slightly later.

This could be good evidence (certainly better than Spanish or English
echoes of the information), but it _might_ just be misleading.

The simple remedy is to conduct a systematic search of other sources
where a substantial contradiction might be have been found by Pere
Anselme, and/or to identify any such likely sources now lost that were
definitely known to him.

A start could have been made long ago by Richardson, but he is
characteristically reluctant to do his own work on this.

The extant charters of Alix herself, her daughter Marie and her
granddaughter Jeanne can easily be checked to see if any of them stated
a relationship to the immediate family of Constance, the Castilian
royal house, OR to that of her husband's next wife, the comital house
of Champagne. The obverse angle could be investigated from published
documents - did members of either of these families state a close
relationship to Alix, Marie or Jeanne before the last was married to
Fernando?

The proximate obituaries, burial records from Saint-Denis, or later
reports from inspection of Constance's tomb should be checked to see if
her baby of October 1160 died & was buried with her. If nothing can be
found or identified, including any source that might have been
misinterpreted by Pere Anselme, Leopold Delisle & others, this should
be useful to know. A mention of Countess Alix before she was sent to
England, or even establishing the absence of this, might also be
helpful.

All of this basic research & more could have been done a year ago, and
could readily be done in Salt Lake City today. It would be far more
practical than looking for an alternative explanation of the
consanguinity that was plainly stated in a contemporary Spanish source
of high - but not unquestionable - authority.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 mar 2005 02:00:57

I wrote:

The saint-king Fernando's marriage was reportedly arranged to
save him from falling into sin with concubines after the death of
his first wife. He would most likely have wished also to save
himself from any possibility of an illicit or tainted union, by
obtaining a dispensation if there was a shadow of consanguinity,
real or imaginary, over his choice of a new queen. We know that
well-placed Spanish sources told him there was.

I should have added to this another hint for Richardson: Fernando was
canonised in 1671, and so the cause for his sainthood was under final
investigation while Pere Anselme compiled his genealogical history
(first published in 1674). There is another possible source for his
revision of Rodrigo el Toledano's statement about the maternal ancestry
of Jeanne.

Peter Stewart

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: ... Dispensation of Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne d

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 10 mar 2005 02:46:13

In article <1110414432.569732.35490@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Chris Phillips quoted Nat Taylor's question:

If so, can one assume that those seeking the dispensation
must have been correctly informed as to that particular link,
or might the seekers of the dispensation simply have been
guessing (or assuming, or believing falsely) that Constance
was the bride's ancestress?

An aspect of this that hasn't been discussed yet is, whose interests
were principally served by the dispensation & who is most likely to
have initiated the process?

I have remarked on the oddity that Jeanne's parents apparently thought
she was already married and queen of Castile in August, whereas the
dispensation was dated 31 August and there is other evidence that the
marriage most probably took place between 2 September & 31 October. The
count & countess of Ponthieu don't appear to have been closely involved
in the arrangements.

This I find less troubling than it might be. Plenty of dispensations
are granted slightly after the fact or quite long after the fact, and
the wording of the dispensation (that it was to have been before the
fact) may not always have been appropriate to the date it actually came
into effect. That said, I'm interested in Peter's scenario, below, of
the cautious Fernan III--if this were the real scenario, it is unlikely
that he would have jumped the gun before having the sealed document in
hand.

The saint-king Fernando's marriage was reportedly arranged to save him
from falling into sin with concubines after the death of his first
wife. He would most likely have wished also to save himself from any
possibility of an illicit or tainted union, by obtaining a dispensation
if there was a shadow of consanguinity, real or imaginary, over his
choice of a new queen. We know that well-placed Spanish sources told
him there was.

I am intrigued by this C-Y-A scenario as a possibility, but I would also
expect, as a general rule, that parties looking to cement a marriage
would get all their evidentiary ducks in a row (possibly, as I have
speculated before, by polling related informants) before going to the
trouble & expense of tugging on the papal earlobe.

Which leads me back to my original position: I suspect that the
dispensation tells it like it is, though I regard the question as open,
subject to due diligence as previously sketched out.

Nat Taylor

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

Steve Barnhoorn

Re: ... Dispensation of Fernando III of Castile and Jeanne d

Legg inn av Steve Barnhoorn » 10 mar 2005 15:09:56

Since this thread has generated a lot of interest, I'd like to ask
what is a good "contemporaneous" source for Fernando III of
Castile's death?

Gjest

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Gjest » 13 mar 2005 03:14:44

Why is it imagined that Fernando cared that much about his relationship
with his prospective wife?

His own parents were consanguineous and were married without
dispensation, their marriage later being dissolved by divorce.

Jean Coeur de Lapin

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 13 mar 2005 03:28:17

atsarisborn@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is it imagined that Fernando cared that much about his relationship
with his prospective wife?

His own parents were consanguineous and were married without
dispensation, their marriage later being dissolved by divorce.

Well, his saintly status comes in to play in this argument, but
one does wonder whether these medieval royals who were later
sainted were quite as conscientious as their posthumous status
would seem to imply (St. Vladimir comes to mind).

taf

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: The noose tightens: More on the Dispensation of King Fer

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 13 mar 2005 05:16:41

In article <4233A541.2010301@interfold.com>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:

atsarisborn@hotmail.com wrote:
Why is it imagined that Fernando cared that much about his relationship
with his prospective wife?

His own parents were consanguineous and were married without
dispensation, their marriage later being dissolved by divorce.

Well, his saintly status comes in to play in this argument, but
one does wonder whether these medieval royals who were later
sainted were quite as conscientious as their posthumous status
would seem to imply (St. Vladimir comes to mind).

Of course there are saints, medieval and modern, who might not fulfil
all our criteria of moral scruple, etc. But I like to think that some
of the difference between the presence and absence of dispensations
reflects differing levels of personal scruple for the principals or
their handlers. Of course the problem of spotty survival of texts has
to be reckoned in, too. The presence of a dispensation cannot be an
unquestioned litmus of consanguinity, or of morality--but in both ways
it may suggest much.

Nat Taylor

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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»