Melisende of Rethel
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Roger LeBlanc
Melisende of Rethel
Some observations following up on the discussion that arose from Stewart
Baldwin's new page for the Henry Project concerning Fulk V of Anjou.
I was wondering if there would have been an earlier marriage for
Melisende. From the biographical notes in Leo van de Pas' Genealogics
database, it appears she was the eldest daughter, yet her sister Alice
apparently married before her (to Bohemond II). Is it likely that as
'heiress' to Jerusalem, a marriage for Melisende wouldn't have been the
priority for her father?
It's just something that struck me as odd, so possibly worthy of discussion.
Roger LeBlanc
Baldwin's new page for the Henry Project concerning Fulk V of Anjou.
I was wondering if there would have been an earlier marriage for
Melisende. From the biographical notes in Leo van de Pas' Genealogics
database, it appears she was the eldest daughter, yet her sister Alice
apparently married before her (to Bohemond II). Is it likely that as
'heiress' to Jerusalem, a marriage for Melisende wouldn't have been the
priority for her father?
It's just something that struck me as odd, so possibly worthy of discussion.
Roger LeBlanc
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:42DFDE04.6070802@mts.net...
It was more important to ensure her marriage to the right person rather than
to get her married off before her younger sisters, only one of whom beat her
to the altar anyway. That one, Alix, was more than a handful for the men who
worked with her later on in governing Jerusalem, and might have been so for
her father before her marriage. For all I know it could have been the
highest possible priority to get her out of the royal palace.
Melisende was formally the sole heir to the kingdom from 1128, soon after
the death of her mother when she was clearly not going to be displaced by a
brother. At around the same time an embassy was sent to France to obtain the
most important husband who could be induced to leave home for Palestine.
Fulk of Anjou was chosen, and became heir to Jerusalem from 1130/31 when the
title "heir to the kingdom" was dropped for Melisende herself.
There is no possibility that the sources could have overlooked an earlier
marriage in these circumstances.
Peter Stewart
news:42DFDE04.6070802@mts.net...
Some observations following up on the discussion that arose from Stewart
Baldwin's new page for the Henry Project concerning Fulk V of Anjou.
I was wondering if there would have been an earlier marriage for
Melisende. From the biographical notes in Leo van de Pas' Genealogics
database, it appears she was the eldest daughter, yet her sister Alice
apparently married before her (to Bohemond II). Is it likely that as
'heiress' to Jerusalem, a marriage for Melisende wouldn't have been the
priority for her father?
It was more important to ensure her marriage to the right person rather than
to get her married off before her younger sisters, only one of whom beat her
to the altar anyway. That one, Alix, was more than a handful for the men who
worked with her later on in governing Jerusalem, and might have been so for
her father before her marriage. For all I know it could have been the
highest possible priority to get her out of the royal palace.
Melisende was formally the sole heir to the kingdom from 1128, soon after
the death of her mother when she was clearly not going to be displaced by a
brother. At around the same time an embassy was sent to France to obtain the
most important husband who could be induced to leave home for Palestine.
Fulk of Anjou was chosen, and became heir to Jerusalem from 1130/31 when the
title "heir to the kingdom" was dropped for Melisende herself.
There is no possibility that the sources could have overlooked an earlier
marriage in these circumstances.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/21/05 8:47:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< At around the same time an embassy was sent to France to obtain the
most important husband who could be induced to leave home for Palestine.
Fulk of Anjou was chosen, and became heir to Jerusalem from 1130/31 when the
title "heir to the kingdom" was dropped for Melisende herself. >>
I wonder if you might share your source for this information on the "embassy
sent to France" ? I'd be interested in reading that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< At around the same time an embassy was sent to France to obtain the
most important husband who could be induced to leave home for Palestine.
Fulk of Anjou was chosen, and became heir to Jerusalem from 1130/31 when the
title "heir to the kingdom" was dropped for Melisende herself. >>
I wonder if you might share your source for this information on the "embassy
sent to France" ? I'd be interested in reading that.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:12f.61a40d91.30129b66@aol.com...
William of Tyre provides the fullest narrative of events at this time and
usually covers what we know even when there are more detailed sources -
without checking, I assume he was cited on the Henry Project page that
started this discussion.
The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession ("vir illustris
et magnificus dominus Fulco Andegavensium comes, pro quo rex de communi
omnium tam ecclesiasticorum quam secularium principum consilio miserat ad
hoc, ut ei dominam Milissendem, primogenitam suam, uxorem daret...infra
quinquaginta dies ei primogenita regis filia cum spe regni post regis obitum
traderetur").
It goes without saying that the mission would not have been sent from
Palestine to France without a back-up list of candidates, in case the first
choice declined or changed his mind in the cooling-off period allowed after
his arrival.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/21/05 8:47:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
At around the same time an embassy was sent to France to obtain the
most important husband who could be induced to leave home for Palestine.
Fulk of Anjou was chosen, and became heir to Jerusalem from 1130/31 when
the
title "heir to the kingdom" was dropped for Melisende herself.
I wonder if you might share your source for this information on the
"embassy
sent to France" ? I'd be interested in reading that.
William of Tyre provides the fullest narrative of events at this time and
usually covers what we know even when there are more detailed sources -
without checking, I assume he was cited on the Henry Project page that
started this discussion.
The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession ("vir illustris
et magnificus dominus Fulco Andegavensium comes, pro quo rex de communi
omnium tam ecclesiasticorum quam secularium principum consilio miserat ad
hoc, ut ei dominam Milissendem, primogenitam suam, uxorem daret...infra
quinquaginta dies ei primogenita regis filia cum spe regni post regis obitum
traderetur").
It goes without saying that the mission would not have been sent from
Palestine to France without a back-up list of candidates, in case the first
choice declined or changed his mind in the cooling-off period allowed after
his arrival.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:203.62a084c.3012f75b@aol.com...
Clearly a toddler wouldn't remember such events - William of Tyre was an
historian, not a diarist. He was capable of checking his information and
wrote for people who knew the important details already, so was hardly
likely to invent a unanimous decision of the king, clergy and magnates, or
its consequences.
Of course he made mistakes in his huge chronicle, and judgement must be
exercised when anything stated in any source conflicts with another or lacks
verisimilitude in itself. This is not the case with his account of the
marriage of Fulco to Melisendis.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/22/05 4:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept
the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days
of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession
Bearing in mind that William of Tyre was a toddler when this marriage
actually took place. We have to rely on the concept of his sharp memory
for such
details fifty years after they occurred
Clearly a toddler wouldn't remember such events - William of Tyre was an
historian, not a diarist. He was capable of checking his information and
wrote for people who knew the important details already, so was hardly
likely to invent a unanimous decision of the king, clergy and magnates, or
its consequences.
Of course he made mistakes in his huge chronicle, and judgement must be
exercised when anything stated in any source conflicts with another or lacks
verisimilitude in itself. This is not the case with his account of the
marriage of Fulco to Melisendis.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:20a.58c9064.3012fc45@aol.com...
Just stop to think a moment - if you asked a randomly-chosen British person
in the 1990s who was interested in history to relate the general
circumstances of Queen Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Edinburgh in the
1940s, or even Princess Margaret's to Lord Snowdon in the 1960s, they would
have little trouble giving a reasonably accurate account. They might have
the advantage of having read about these things rather than reyling on
hearsay, but then we can't know what documentary sources were available to
William of Tyre, who was well-placed to use whatever he required.
And of course the marriage of Melisendis to Fulco was rather more
consequential to the kingdom of Jerusalem than were those royal marriages to
British public life.
You can't make an arbitrary cut-off point and suppose that the circumstances
of events 30, 40 or 50 years before any record was compiled must be hazy or
speculative to the writer.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/22/05 6:47:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Of course he made mistakes in his huge chronicle, and judgement must be
exercised when anything stated in any source conflicts with another or
lacks
verisimilitude in itself. This is not the case with his account of the
marriage of Fulco to Melisendis.
Not the fact that they were married, but rather the situation in which
they
were married. Not sure I'm willing to put my full faith in that, since
all the
principal actors were dead long before William started to write. We have
to
put faith in the idea that at least one of them left notes, that he used.
Just stop to think a moment - if you asked a randomly-chosen British person
in the 1990s who was interested in history to relate the general
circumstances of Queen Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Edinburgh in the
1940s, or even Princess Margaret's to Lord Snowdon in the 1960s, they would
have little trouble giving a reasonably accurate account. They might have
the advantage of having read about these things rather than reyling on
hearsay, but then we can't know what documentary sources were available to
William of Tyre, who was well-placed to use whatever he required.
And of course the marriage of Melisendis to Fulco was rather more
consequential to the kingdom of Jerusalem than were those royal marriages to
British public life.
You can't make an arbitrary cut-off point and suppose that the circumstances
of events 30, 40 or 50 years before any record was compiled must be hazy or
speculative to the writer.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
""Leo"" <leo@home.netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
There seems to have been an assumption that William of Tyre was the only
source for this, but I did not state or mean to imply that.
Another account, along the lines I have given already and that Leo mentions
in addition, is given in 'Chronica de gestis consulum Andegavorum'
[_Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise_ (Paris, 1913),
p. 69] as follows:
"Dum Fulco Andegavensem, Turonicum Cenomannicumque consulatum in
prosperitate regeret, rex Jerusalem Bauduinus secundus nuntios in Franciam
misit, qui, prudentium consilio, virum idoneum qui filiam cum Jerosolimitano
regno duceret uxorem secum adducerent. Eligerunt itaque, consilio Ludovici
regis et episcoporum et multorum peritorum, Fulconem Andevagensem, qui uxore
carebat. Ipse vero cum maximis copiis mare transiens, filie regis matrimonio
copulatus, rex Jerusalem effectus est."
There are others too, equally independent of William of Tyre.
Peter Stewart
news:000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Dear Wil,
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived
in France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry
his daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8,
60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most
tempestuous family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard
Lionheart and his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are
mentioned "Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars
of the Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and
see what sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
There seems to have been an assumption that William of Tyre was the only
source for this, but I did not state or mean to imply that.
Another account, along the lines I have given already and that Leo mentions
in addition, is given in 'Chronica de gestis consulum Andegavorum'
[_Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des seigneurs d'Amboise_ (Paris, 1913),
p. 69] as follows:
"Dum Fulco Andegavensem, Turonicum Cenomannicumque consulatum in
prosperitate regeret, rex Jerusalem Bauduinus secundus nuntios in Franciam
misit, qui, prudentium consilio, virum idoneum qui filiam cum Jerosolimitano
regno duceret uxorem secum adducerent. Eligerunt itaque, consilio Ludovici
regis et episcoporum et multorum peritorum, Fulconem Andevagensem, qui uxore
carebat. Ipse vero cum maximis copiis mare transiens, filie regis matrimonio
copulatus, rex Jerusalem effectus est."
There are others too, equally independent of William of Tyre.
Peter Stewart
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
Leo,
I don't have it on the shelf but all these books you cite (plus another,
_Chronicles of the Crusades_) are similar coffee-table books edited by
Hallam (alone or with others), consisting of excerpts of translations of
chronicles and various illustrations and connective blurbs. They were
all available quite cheaply over the past few years ($10 each as
remainders, I think). They are informative and readable, but not
scholarly; and they have interesting pictures. Isn't the _Plantagenet
Encyclopedia_ essentially a digest of these other volsumes?
I would expect that what you describe from _The Plantagenet Chronicles_
comes from a translated excerpt from William of Tyre (passage cited by
Peter). Runciman's account of the embassy & marriage (_History of the
Crusades_ 2:177-8) is based entirely on William, suggesting not so much
that he is the only chronicler to mention it, but that European sources
(or later ones from Outremer) do not contradict his version of the story
in any significant way.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
Dear Wil,
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most tempestuous
family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart and
his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are mentioned
"Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and see what
sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
Leo,
I don't have it on the shelf but all these books you cite (plus another,
_Chronicles of the Crusades_) are similar coffee-table books edited by
Hallam (alone or with others), consisting of excerpts of translations of
chronicles and various illustrations and connective blurbs. They were
all available quite cheaply over the past few years ($10 each as
remainders, I think). They are informative and readable, but not
scholarly; and they have interesting pictures. Isn't the _Plantagenet
Encyclopedia_ essentially a digest of these other volsumes?
I would expect that what you describe from _The Plantagenet Chronicles_
comes from a translated excerpt from William of Tyre (passage cited by
Peter). Runciman's account of the embassy & marriage (_History of the
Crusades_ 2:177-8) is based entirely on William, suggesting not so much
that he is the only chronicler to mention it, but that European sources
(or later ones from Outremer) do not contradict his version of the story
in any significant way.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
I wrote:
Oops, Peter caught me out: Runciman also cites the _Deeds of the counts
of Anjou_ (the text Peter provided) and the _Deeds of the Lords of
Amboise_, as sources for his paragraph including the embassy & marriage.
If the Amboise chronicle (which I don't have) tells the same story,
that's at least two independent European sources corroborating William.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
I would expect that what you describe from _The Plantagenet Chronicles_
comes from a translated excerpt from William of Tyre (passage cited by
Peter). Runciman's account of the embassy & marriage (_History of the
Crusades_ 2:177-8) is based entirely on William, suggesting not so much
that he is the only chronicler to mention it, but that European sources
(or later ones from Outremer) do not contradict his version of the story
in any significant way.
Oops, Peter caught me out: Runciman also cites the _Deeds of the counts
of Anjou_ (the text Peter provided) and the _Deeds of the Lords of
Amboise_, as sources for his paragraph including the embassy & marriage.
If the Amboise chronicle (which I don't have) tells the same story,
that's at least two independent European sources corroborating William.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 4:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession >>
Bearing in mind that William of Tyre was a toddler when this marriage
actually took place. We have to rely on the concept of his sharp memory for such
details fifty years after they occurred
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession >>
Bearing in mind that William of Tyre was a toddler when this marriage
actually took place. We have to rely on the concept of his sharp memory for such
details fifty years after they occurred
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:1a7.3b84c666.301303d0@aol.com...
I just posted one of these.
The account by William of Tyre did not say that a delegation chose Fulco,
but that the king sent to invite him after the choice had been advised by
the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem.
If you are going to criticise sources, you must first understand exactly
what they have to say.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:15:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
You can't make an arbitrary cut-off point and suppose that the
circumstances
of events 30, 40 or 50 years before any record was compiled must be hazy
or
speculative to the writer.
Peter Stewart
Well as you see, Leo has quoted a source who states that it was Louis who
actually was asked to choose the groom. I think your source stated it was
a
delegation. So having the actual text upon which these statements are
based would
be helpful.
It would be interesting to know what additional source was used, if it
wasn't
William to account for the story that it was Louis who made the choice.
I just posted one of these.
The account by William of Tyre did not say that a delegation chose Fulco,
but that the king sent to invite him after the choice had been advised by
the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem.
If you are going to criticise sources, you must first understand exactly
what they have to say.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 6:47:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< Of course he made mistakes in his huge chronicle, and judgement must be
exercised when anything stated in any source conflicts with another or lacks
verisimilitude in itself. This is not the case with his account of the
marriage of Fulco to Melisendis. >>
Not the fact that they were married, but rather the situation in which they
were married. Not sure I'm willing to put my full faith in that, since all the
principal actors were dead long before William started to write. We have to
put faith in the idea that at least one of them left notes, that he used.
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< Of course he made mistakes in his huge chronicle, and judgement must be
exercised when anything stated in any source conflicts with another or lacks
verisimilitude in itself. This is not the case with his account of the
marriage of Fulco to Melisendis. >>
Not the fact that they were married, but rather the situation in which they
were married. Not sure I'm willing to put my full faith in that, since all the
principal actors were dead long before William started to write. We have to
put faith in the idea that at least one of them left notes, that he used.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-F6AFBF.22323222072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
It does - in the edition by Halphen & Poupardin, 'Gesta Ambaziensum
dominorum' p. 115: "Eo autem tempore legati regis Jerusalem Balduini secundi
in Franciam ex improviso venerunt querentes virum qui filiam regis cum regno
Jerosolimitano uxorem duceret; qui, consilio regis Francorum, Fulconem
consulem Andevagorum, virum bellicosum, magni nominis et summe ingenuitatis,
elegerunt".
If all of these accounts are true they can be easily reconciled by supposing
that Balduin II sent an embassy first to King Louis, then heard his advice
before it was endorsed by his advisers, then sent his invitation to Fulco.
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-F6AFBF.22323222072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
I wrote:
I would expect that what you describe from _The Plantagenet Chronicles_
comes from a translated excerpt from William of Tyre (passage cited by
Peter). Runciman's account of the embassy & marriage (_History of the
Crusades_ 2:177-8) is based entirely on William, suggesting not so much
that he is the only chronicler to mention it, but that European sources
(or later ones from Outremer) do not contradict his version of the story
in any significant way.
Oops, Peter caught me out: Runciman also cites the _Deeds of the counts
of Anjou_ (the text Peter provided) and the _Deeds of the Lords of
Amboise_, as sources for his paragraph including the embassy & marriage.
If the Amboise chronicle (which I don't have) tells the same story,
that's at least two independent European sources corroborating William.
It does - in the edition by Halphen & Poupardin, 'Gesta Ambaziensum
dominorum' p. 115: "Eo autem tempore legati regis Jerusalem Balduini secundi
in Franciam ex improviso venerunt querentes virum qui filiam regis cum regno
Jerosolimitano uxorem duceret; qui, consilio regis Francorum, Fulconem
consulem Andevagorum, virum bellicosum, magni nominis et summe ingenuitatis,
elegerunt".
If all of these accounts are true they can be easily reconciled by supposing
that Balduin II sent an embassy first to King Louis, then heard his advice
before it was endorsed by his advisers, then sent his invitation to Fulco.
Peter Stewart
-
Leo
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Dear Wil,
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
.........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most tempestuous
family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart and
his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are mentioned
"Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and see what
sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
.........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most tempestuous
family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart and
his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are mentioned
"Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and see what
sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 4:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept
the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days
of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession
Bearing in mind that William of Tyre was a toddler when this marriage
actually took place. We have to rely on the concept of his sharp memory
for such
details fifty years after they occurred
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 6:55:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
Evidently a shameless self-promotional source, since both books are by the
same person
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... -6288915?v
=glance
The Plantagenet Chronicles (Hardcover) by Elizabeth Hallam (Editor) ISBN:
1555840183
Will Johnson
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
Evidently a shameless self-promotional source, since both books are by the
same person
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... -6288915?v
=glance
The Plantagenet Chronicles (Hardcover) by Elizabeth Hallam (Editor) ISBN:
1555840183
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <81.2c309729.30130975@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Oh, sorry. You're right about that apparent conflict. Peter has posted
both the Wm. of Tyre passage, which suggests that the king [i.e. of
Jerusalem] sent to Fulk (with the offer) "with the counsel of all the
lords, both clerical and secular." The Angevin account says that it was
the embassy who chose Fulk: "so they chose, with the counsel of King
Louis and the bishops and many wise people, Fulk of Anjou who lacked a
wife". The Amboise chronicle says the ambassadors "came [to France]
seeking a husband who would take the king's daughter to wife and rule
the country" [the verb 'duco' used here both in the sense of taking a
wife and leading a country--good construction] "[the embassy], with the
counsel of the king of the Franks, chose Fulk count of Anjou, a warlike
man, of great reputation and the highest character."
I think it amounts to the same thing: various people got in on the
choice, and of course current knowledge in Outremer of the available
appropriate bachelors in France might not be current when the embassy
reached there, so certainly the embassy had some power to choose and act
for Baldwin in making the offer. But it's understandable that William
of Tyre would place the agency with his own king & men of Outremer,
while the French chroniclers would see this as influenced by their own
king & court.
If the choice was actively engineered by Louis, one could imagine clear
ulterior motives for ushering a powerful count such as Fulk out of the
kingdom.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
I think you're missing the point
I am not: 1) doubting the marriage occurred, nor 2) doubting that an embassy
was sent to Fulk.
Rather, it's the situation of how he, in particular was chosen, and by whom
he was chosen. That is the apparent conflict.
Oh, sorry. You're right about that apparent conflict. Peter has posted
both the Wm. of Tyre passage, which suggests that the king [i.e. of
Jerusalem] sent to Fulk (with the offer) "with the counsel of all the
lords, both clerical and secular." The Angevin account says that it was
the embassy who chose Fulk: "so they chose, with the counsel of King
Louis and the bishops and many wise people, Fulk of Anjou who lacked a
wife". The Amboise chronicle says the ambassadors "came [to France]
seeking a husband who would take the king's daughter to wife and rule
the country" [the verb 'duco' used here both in the sense of taking a
wife and leading a country--good construction] "[the embassy], with the
counsel of the king of the Franks, chose Fulk count of Anjou, a warlike
man, of great reputation and the highest character."
I think it amounts to the same thing: various people got in on the
choice, and of course current knowledge in Outremer of the available
appropriate bachelors in France might not be current when the embassy
reached there, so certainly the embassy had some power to choose and act
for Baldwin in making the offer. But it's understandable that William
of Tyre would place the agency with his own king & men of Outremer,
while the French chroniclers would see this as influenced by their own
king & court.
If the choice was actively engineered by Louis, one could imagine clear
ulterior motives for ushering a powerful count such as Fulk out of the
kingdom.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Leo
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Nothing shameless about it, I am glad to hear about it. The crux of my
question is, does the Plantagenet Chronicle give a source, as in the
Encyclopedia it gives several references. And that is what we are after.
Do you know the Plantagenet Encyclopedia? I think it is a very hand book to
have.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
question is, does the Plantagenet Chronicle give a source, as in the
Encyclopedia it gives several references. And that is what we are after.
Do you know the Plantagenet Encyclopedia? I think it is a very hand book to
have.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <leo@home.netspeed.com.au>; <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 6:55:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam,
ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived
in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8,
60-1
Evidently a shameless self-promotional source, since both books are by the
same person
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... -6288915?v
=glance
The Plantagenet Chronicles (Hardcover) by Elizabeth Hallam (Editor) ISBN:
1555840183
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:15:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< You can't make an arbitrary cut-off point and suppose that the
circumstances
of events 30, 40 or 50 years before any record was compiled must be hazy or
speculative to the writer.
Peter Stewart >>
Well as you see, Leo has quoted a source who states that it was Louis who
actually was asked to choose the groom. I think your source stated it was a
delegation. So having the actual text upon which these statements are based would
be helpful.
It would be interesting to know what additional source was used, if it wasn't
William to account for the story that it was Louis who made the choice.
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< You can't make an arbitrary cut-off point and suppose that the
circumstances
of events 30, 40 or 50 years before any record was compiled must be hazy or
speculative to the writer.
Peter Stewart >>
Well as you see, Leo has quoted a source who states that it was Louis who
actually was asked to choose the groom. I think your source stated it was a
delegation. So having the actual text upon which these statements are based would
be helpful.
It would be interesting to know what additional source was used, if it wasn't
William to account for the story that it was Louis who made the choice.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:20:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Nothing shameless about it, I am glad to hear about it. The crux of my
question is, does the Plantagenet Chronicle give a source, as in the
Encyclopedia it gives several references. And that is what we are after. >>
There probably is no hope for it, except someone goes to the library and
checks both these books to see if these facts are itemized with sources or not.
Will
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Nothing shameless about it, I am glad to hear about it. The crux of my
question is, does the Plantagenet Chronicle give a source, as in the
Encyclopedia it gives several references. And that is what we are after. >>
There probably is no hope for it, except someone goes to the library and
checks both these books to see if these facts are itemized with sources or not.
Will
-
Leo
Re: Melisende of Rethel
I don't know. I have the Encyclopedia at home, someone might have the
Chronicles.
I wish I had heard about them before, then I would have tried to buy it.
Sounds a worthwhile book.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
Chronicles.
I wish I had heard about them before, then I would have tried to buy it.
Sounds a worthwhile book.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:20:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au writes:
Nothing shameless about it, I am glad to hear about it. The crux of my
question is, does the Plantagenet Chronicle give a source, as in the
Encyclopedia it gives several references. And that is what we are after.
There probably is no hope for it, except someone goes to the library and
checks both these books to see if these facts are itemized with sources or
not.
Will
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-5CE17F.23195422072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
A very good point, Nat - although Suger doesn't mention this at all, and I
would expect at least some inference if a stroke of politics by Louis had
removed a great nuisance from his kingdom. We do hear about that aspect of
his dealings with Fulco.
By the way, thanks for your clarifications of the passages I posted. For
understanding of the Latin texts I was relying on the parphrases given by
Leo and myself in the discussion: naturally I would not presume to offer my
own translations when our resident, fully-credentialled expert in medieval
Latin might favour us with his....
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-5CE17F.23195422072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
If the choice was actively engineered by Louis, one could imagine clear
ulterior motives for ushering a powerful count such as Fulk out of the
kingdom.
A very good point, Nat - although Suger doesn't mention this at all, and I
would expect at least some inference if a stroke of politics by Louis had
removed a great nuisance from his kingdom. We do hear about that aspect of
his dealings with Fulco.
By the way, thanks for your clarifications of the passages I posted. For
understanding of the Latin texts I was relying on the parphrases given by
Leo and myself in the discussion: naturally I would not presume to offer my
own translations when our resident, fully-credentialled expert in medieval
Latin might favour us with his....
Peter Stewart
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Dear Nat,
I love coffee table books, especially for their pictures and hope to find
references in them to scholarly sources. It describes Plantagenet
Encyclopedia perfectly.
To visualise past times we need words but also pictures and medieval
European pictures are not easy to come by in Australia
As you may be aware I collect portraits, I love portraits and those, too,
are hard to come by. Still I think, with the help of several people
(especially Brant Gibbard) I have succeeded in making at least a good start.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
I love coffee table books, especially for their pictures and hope to find
references in them to scholarly sources. It describes Plantagenet
Encyclopedia perfectly.
To visualise past times we need words but also pictures and medieval
European pictures are not easy to come by in Australia
As you may be aware I collect portraits, I love portraits and those, too,
are hard to come by. Still I think, with the help of several people
(especially Brant Gibbard) I have succeeded in making at least a good start.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>,
leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote:
Dear Wil,
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN
0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived
in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry
his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8,
60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover
is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most
tempestuous
family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart and
his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are
mentioned
"Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and see
what
sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
Leo,
I don't have it on the shelf but all these books you cite (plus another,
_Chronicles of the Crusades_) are similar coffee-table books edited by
Hallam (alone or with others), consisting of excerpts of translations of
chronicles and various illustrations and connective blurbs. They were
all available quite cheaply over the past few years ($10 each as
remainders, I think). They are informative and readable, but not
scholarly; and they have interesting pictures. Isn't the _Plantagenet
Encyclopedia_ essentially a digest of these other volsumes?
I would expect that what you describe from _The Plantagenet Chronicles_
comes from a translated excerpt from William of Tyre (passage cited by
Peter). Runciman's account of the embassy & marriage (_History of the
Crusades_ 2:177-8) is based entirely on William, suggesting not so much
that he is the only chronicler to mention it, but that European sources
(or later ones from Outremer) do not contradict his version of the story
in any significant way.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:32:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< The account by William of Tyre did not say that a delegation chose Fulco,
but that the king sent to invite him after the choice had been advised by
the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem. >>
But Leo's source stated specifically that it was Louis, King of France who
chose him. Not the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem. Unless you're saying
that Louis was present in Jerusalem and this includes him?
Thanks
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< The account by William of Tyre did not say that a delegation chose Fulco,
but that the king sent to invite him after the choice had been advised by
the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem. >>
But Leo's source stated specifically that it was Louis, King of France who
chose him. Not the hierarchy and magnates in Jerusalem. Unless you're saying
that Louis was present in Jerusalem and this includes him?
Thanks
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 7:32:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
<< Oops, Peter caught me out: Runciman also cites the _Deeds of the counts
of Anjou_ (the text Peter provided) and the _Deeds of the Lords of
Amboise_, as sources for his paragraph including the embassy & marriage.
If the Amboise chronicle (which I don't have) tells the same story,
that's at least two independent European sources corroborating William. >>
I think you're missing the point
I am not: 1) doubting the marriage occurred, nor 2) doubting that an embassy
was sent to Fulk.
Rather, it's the situation of how he, in particular was chosen, and by whom
he was chosen. That is the apparent conflict. Perhaps its not a real one, but
only because I'm a poor Latin translator.
Will Johnson
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net writes:
<< Oops, Peter caught me out: Runciman also cites the _Deeds of the counts
of Anjou_ (the text Peter provided) and the _Deeds of the Lords of
Amboise_, as sources for his paragraph including the embassy & marriage.
If the Amboise chronicle (which I don't have) tells the same story,
that's at least two independent European sources corroborating William. >>
I think you're missing the point
I am not: 1) doubting the marriage occurred, nor 2) doubting that an embassy
was sent to Fulk.
Rather, it's the situation of how he, in particular was chosen, and by whom
he was chosen. That is the apparent conflict. Perhaps its not a real one, but
only because I'm a poor Latin translator.
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <c4.2be915cf.30131462@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That's the relationship given in the table at the back of Runciman, vol.
2. Runciman at at 2:362 gives an account of Amalric's accession to the
throne in 1162, and his repudiation of Agnes, forced by the electors (he
cites Wm. of Tyre and Robert of Torigny for his account).
He suggests that the electors (the magnates of Jerusalem) forced the
repudiation both for the acknowledged consanguinity, as well as for
Agnes' questionable record of chastity in the eight years between the
death of her first husband and her marriage to Amalric. He also implies
that they may simply have forced the issue to flex their influence as
electors.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
In a message dated 7/22/05 8:11:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson writes:
Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com which
has actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
OK using Leo's excellent website http://www.genealogics.org, is the answer that
their grandmothers were sisters?
It seems that Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem and co-ruler with her son
Baldwin, had a grandmother Melisende of Monthlery; and that Joscelin, Count
of Edessa
1131- had a grandmother Elizabeth of Monthlery and both are shown as
daughters of Guy, Seigneur of Monthlery.
Is that the reason the marriage of Amalric and Agnes was opposed?
That's the relationship given in the table at the back of Runciman, vol.
2. Runciman at at 2:362 gives an account of Amalric's accession to the
throne in 1162, and his repudiation of Agnes, forced by the electors (he
cites Wm. of Tyre and Robert of Torigny for his account).
He suggests that the electors (the magnates of Jerusalem) forced the
repudiation both for the acknowledged consanguinity, as well as for
Agnes' questionable record of chastity in the eight years between the
death of her first husband and her marriage to Amalric. He also implies
that they may simply have forced the issue to flex their influence as
electors.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com which has
actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 8:11:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson writes:
<< Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com which
has actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson >>
OK using Leo's excellent website http://www.genealogics.org, is the answer that
their grandmothers were sisters?
It seems that Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem and co-ruler with her son
Baldwin, had a grandmother Melisende of Monthlery; and that Joscelin, Count of Edessa
1131- had a grandmother Elizabeth of Monthlery and both are shown as
daughters of Guy, Seigneur of Monthlery.
Is that the reason the marriage of Amalric and Agnes was opposed?
Thanks
Will Johnson
<< Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com which
has actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson >>
OK using Leo's excellent website http://www.genealogics.org, is the answer that
their grandmothers were sisters?
It seems that Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem and co-ruler with her son
Baldwin, had a grandmother Melisende of Monthlery; and that Joscelin, Count of Edessa
1131- had a grandmother Elizabeth of Monthlery and both are shown as
daughters of Guy, Seigneur of Monthlery.
Is that the reason the marriage of Amalric and Agnes was opposed?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
fairthorne
Re: Melisende of Rethel
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
Hi Peter
I'm not too happy about that view - go back a bit further and it certainly
wouldn't hold for the abdication crisis. The average British person had been
fed an official sanitised version and had no idea of what was actually
happening.
It is only since Lord Gnome started in 1961 that a little of the secrecy on
current events has been lifted but for every event there is still much that
will not be revealed for 30 or so years
Best wishes (despite Warne)
Simon
Just stop to think a moment - if you asked a randomly-chosen British
person > in the 1990s who was interested in history to relate the general
circumstances of Queen Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Edinburgh in
the
1940s, or even Princess Margaret's to Lord Snowdon in the 1960s, they
would
have little trouble giving a reasonably accurate account. They might have
the advantage of having read about these things rather than reyling on
hearsay,
Hi Peter
I'm not too happy about that view - go back a bit further and it certainly
wouldn't hold for the abdication crisis. The average British person had been
fed an official sanitised version and had no idea of what was actually
happening.
It is only since Lord Gnome started in 1961 that a little of the secrecy on
current events has been lifted but for every event there is still much that
will not be revealed for 30 or so years
Best wishes (despite Warne)
Simon
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
""fairthorne"" <fairthorne@breathe.com> wrote in message
news:02c101c58fa5$4dfe1480$0600000a@oemcomputer...
I only meant the general circumstances that are comparable to the brief
account given by William of Tyre - for instance, that Philip was a
princeling of Greek background serving in the Royal Navy, who had been lined
up for Princess Elizabeth by his ambitious uncle Mountbatten; or that after
denying herself the possibility of marrying a divorced courtier Princess
Margaret had eventually hitched herself to a trendy photographer.
When has the press ever withheld information of the kind given by William,
that from the ruling elite's point of view reveals nothing untoward or even
unexpected?
Peter Stewart (with best wishes despite Flintoff....no wait, was that 0?)
news:02c101c58fa5$4dfe1480$0600000a@oemcomputer...
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com
Just stop to think a moment - if you asked a randomly-chosen British
person > in the 1990s who was interested in history to relate the general
circumstances of Queen Elizabeth's marriage to the duke of Edinburgh in
the
1940s, or even Princess Margaret's to Lord Snowdon in the 1960s, they
would
have little trouble giving a reasonably accurate account. They might have
the advantage of having read about these things rather than reyling on
hearsay,
Hi Peter
I'm not too happy about that view - go back a bit further and it certainly
wouldn't hold for the abdication crisis. The average British person had
been
fed an official sanitised version and had no idea of what was actually
happening.
It is only since Lord Gnome started in 1961 that a little of the secrecy
on
current events has been lifted but for every event there is still much
that
will not be revealed for 30 or so years
I only meant the general circumstances that are comparable to the brief
account given by William of Tyre - for instance, that Philip was a
princeling of Greek background serving in the Royal Navy, who had been lined
up for Princess Elizabeth by his ambitious uncle Mountbatten; or that after
denying herself the possibility of marrying a divorced courtier Princess
Margaret had eventually hitched herself to a trendy photographer.
When has the press ever withheld information of the kind given by William,
that from the ruling elite's point of view reveals nothing untoward or even
unexpected?
Peter Stewart (with best wishes despite Flintoff....no wait, was that 0?)
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
The parents of King Amaury I of Jerusalem were Fulk V of Anjou, and
Melisende of Jerusalem. Melisende was the daughter of Baldwin II of
Jerusalem and Morphia of Melitene, an Armenian princess.
Agnes' father was Joscelin II of Edessa, the son of Joscelin I of
Edessa. I don't have many details on this family, but Amin Maalouf's
"Crusades through Arab Eyes" (1984) states:
"The last Western ruler of this majority-Armenian city [Edessa] was
Joscelin II, a short, bearded man with a prominant nose, protruding
eyes, and a malformed body, a man who had never been known for his
courage or wisdom. But he was not detested by his subjects, primarily
because his mother was Armenian, and conditions in his realm did not
seem at all critical." (p. 133)
This book was not written as a genealogical resource, but it is
nevertheless scholarly, and the author bases his data off of numerous
Arab chronicles of the Crusading period.
Vahan Kurkjian's "History of Armenia" (1958) likewise assigns an
Armenian wife to Joscelin I of Edessa:
"Josselin, Count of Edessa, married the daughter of Constantine [I of
Armenia]. Baudoin (Baldwin), brother of Godfrey, married the niece of
the Armenian Baron, daughter of his brother Thoros. The mutual
interests were thus consecrated by those marriages, and these
Christians of the East entered into a vast feudal organization of the
Crusades." (p. 218)
Could the consanguinity between Amaury and Agnes have come from their
Armenian heritage?
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Melisende of Jerusalem. Melisende was the daughter of Baldwin II of
Jerusalem and Morphia of Melitene, an Armenian princess.
Agnes' father was Joscelin II of Edessa, the son of Joscelin I of
Edessa. I don't have many details on this family, but Amin Maalouf's
"Crusades through Arab Eyes" (1984) states:
"The last Western ruler of this majority-Armenian city [Edessa] was
Joscelin II, a short, bearded man with a prominant nose, protruding
eyes, and a malformed body, a man who had never been known for his
courage or wisdom. But he was not detested by his subjects, primarily
because his mother was Armenian, and conditions in his realm did not
seem at all critical." (p. 133)
This book was not written as a genealogical resource, but it is
nevertheless scholarly, and the author bases his data off of numerous
Arab chronicles of the Crusading period.
Vahan Kurkjian's "History of Armenia" (1958) likewise assigns an
Armenian wife to Joscelin I of Edessa:
"Josselin, Count of Edessa, married the daughter of Constantine [I of
Armenia]. Baudoin (Baldwin), brother of Godfrey, married the niece of
the Armenian Baron, daughter of his brother Thoros. The mutual
interests were thus consecrated by those marriages, and these
Christians of the East entered into a vast feudal organization of the
Crusades." (p. 218)
Could the consanguinity between Amaury and Agnes have come from their
Armenian heritage?
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com which has
actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
It's interesting that Hugh de Payens, head of the templars, returned to
Palestine with his 300 "French" knights in the same year that Melisende got married
(1129).
Palestine with his 300 "French" knights in the same year that Melisende got married
(1129).
-
Hans Vogels
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Leo,
I've got the book on the shelf. At the time it was one of the reasons
to keep on being a member of the English Bookclub, though I must have
left before The Plantagenet Encyclopedia came out.
The cited pages show no sources.
Page 19,22, 24 relate to the year 960 and the story of count Geoffrey
of Anjou.
Pages 37-40 relate to the years 1107-1131 from the cronicles and an
essay on Fulk V, king of Jerusalem.
Page 46-48 mention Geoffrey of Anjou and king Henry I in the year 1128
from the cronicles, and contains an essay on Geoffrey and Mathilda.
Page 60-61 tells of the years 1128-1135 and has an essay on Princes of
Antioch.
The bibliography can be found on the pages 327-336. "This is not
intended as a comprehensive bibliography of all relevant works, but is
a selection of books relating to the topics discussed in the notes and
the chronicles. Articles have not been included because they are more
difficult for the general reader to obtain; most of the works cited
here contain bibliographies which are a good starting point for more
detailed reading on individual subjects."
Regarding the cronicles it seems that the period relating to part I.
Origins of the Angevin dynasty uses: John of Marmoutier, The
Chronicles of the counts of Anjou, ed. L.Halphen & R. Poupardin in
Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des signeurs d'Amboise, Collection
des Textes, Paris 1913; pp 29-31, 37-44, 143-151, 161-162. Extracts.
Part II. Geoffrey Plantagenet 1128-1154 uses:
John of Marmoutier, The History of Duke Geoffrey, in The Chronicles of
the counts of Anjou, ibid.; pp 176-231. Extracts.
Henry of Huntingdon, The History of the English, ed. T. Arnold in
Rolls Series 1879; pp 259-292. Extracts.
The Deeds of Stephen, (anon.), trans. and ed. Thomas Forester in Henry
of Huntingdon, Henry G. Bohn, London 1853. Extracts.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Hans Vogels
leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote in message news:<000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>...
I've got the book on the shelf. At the time it was one of the reasons
to keep on being a member of the English Bookclub, though I must have
left before The Plantagenet Encyclopedia came out.
The cited pages show no sources.
Page 19,22, 24 relate to the year 960 and the story of count Geoffrey
of Anjou.
Pages 37-40 relate to the years 1107-1131 from the cronicles and an
essay on Fulk V, king of Jerusalem.
Page 46-48 mention Geoffrey of Anjou and king Henry I in the year 1128
from the cronicles, and contains an essay on Geoffrey and Mathilda.
Page 60-61 tells of the years 1128-1135 and has an essay on Princes of
Antioch.
The bibliography can be found on the pages 327-336. "This is not
intended as a comprehensive bibliography of all relevant works, but is
a selection of books relating to the topics discussed in the notes and
the chronicles. Articles have not been included because they are more
difficult for the general reader to obtain; most of the works cited
here contain bibliographies which are a good starting point for more
detailed reading on individual subjects."
Regarding the cronicles it seems that the period relating to part I.
Origins of the Angevin dynasty uses: John of Marmoutier, The
Chronicles of the counts of Anjou, ed. L.Halphen & R. Poupardin in
Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des signeurs d'Amboise, Collection
des Textes, Paris 1913; pp 29-31, 37-44, 143-151, 161-162. Extracts.
Part II. Geoffrey Plantagenet 1128-1154 uses:
John of Marmoutier, The History of Duke Geoffrey, in The Chronicles of
the counts of Anjou, ibid.; pp 176-231. Extracts.
Henry of Huntingdon, The History of the English, ed. T. Arnold in
Rolls Series 1879; pp 259-292. Extracts.
The Deeds of Stephen, (anon.), trans. and ed. Thomas Forester in Henry
of Huntingdon, Henry G. Bohn, London 1853. Extracts.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Hans Vogels
leo@home.netspeed.com.au ("Leo") wrote in message news:<000301c58f29$9bb2e1f0$0300a8c0@Toshiba>...
Dear Wil,
I would like to learn something and perhaps you can steer me in the right
direction.
Do you know "The Plantagenet Encyclopedia" editor Elizabeth Hallam, ISBN 0
297 83003 1 ?
On page 81
Fulk V King of Jerusalem
........In 1128 a delegation from Baldwin II, king of Jerusalem, arrived in
France, asking Louis VII to choose one of the French nobility to marry his
daughter Melisande and become heir to the throne of Jerusalem. etc.
At the bottom is a source "The Plantagenet Chronicles" 19, 37-9, 46-8, 60-1
I had hoped to find a detailed description somewhere as to what these
Chronicles are and when they were written etc. On the flap of the cover is
recorded
"The Plantagenet Chronicles" The story of medieval Europe's most tempestuous
family, Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. Richard Lionheart and
his brother King John.
From this I can only assume this is another book also as there are mentioned
"Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry" and "Chronicles of the Wars of the
Roses". Maybe someone has access to the Plantagenet Chronicles and see what
sources are given about Fulk V and his second marriage.
With best wishes.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/22/05 4:32:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
The marriage of Fulco of Anjou to Melisendis is recounted in XIII 24
(Huygens edition vol. I p. 618), stating that the king, with the unanimous
counsel of ecclesiatics and feudatories, had sent to ask Fulco to accept
the
hand of his eldest daughter Melisendis. On marrying her within fifty days
of
arrival in the kingdom he would be promised the succession
Bearing in mind that William of Tyre was a toddler when this marriage
actually took place. We have to rely on the concept of his sharp memory
for such
details fifty years after they occurred
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Dear Leo,
It was actually rather closer to getting rid of a pesty
little brother, at least according to Roderick Stuart`s book, " Royalty for
Commoners" according to which King Philip I of France and Bertha of Holland had
the future King Louis VI in 1081, then Count Foulques IV le Rechin, Count of
Anjou was breifly married between 1089 and 1092 to Bertrada de Montfort . She
was his 5th wife and in 1092 She divorced him, had Count Foulques V and as
Bertha of Holland had got a divorce from Philip I in 1091, then married him.
Philip I died in 1108, Foulques IV in 1109 and Bertrada in 1117. Foulques V
married Eremburge of Maine in 1110, Geoffrey IV was born in 1113 and his mother
died before June 2, 1129 when his father married Melisende of Rethel. Geoffrey
IV married Empress Maud on June 17, 1128 before his father 2nd marriage. In the
meantime, King Louis VI married 1114, Adelaide of Maurienne
Sources RFC (2nd edition) lines 53 (Anjou), 134 (France) 311 (Holland), 313
(Baugency- Maine)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
It was actually rather closer to getting rid of a pesty
little brother, at least according to Roderick Stuart`s book, " Royalty for
Commoners" according to which King Philip I of France and Bertha of Holland had
the future King Louis VI in 1081, then Count Foulques IV le Rechin, Count of
Anjou was breifly married between 1089 and 1092 to Bertrada de Montfort . She
was his 5th wife and in 1092 She divorced him, had Count Foulques V and as
Bertha of Holland had got a divorce from Philip I in 1091, then married him.
Philip I died in 1108, Foulques IV in 1109 and Bertrada in 1117. Foulques V
married Eremburge of Maine in 1110, Geoffrey IV was born in 1113 and his mother
died before June 2, 1129 when his father married Melisende of Rethel. Geoffrey
IV married Empress Maud on June 17, 1128 before his father 2nd marriage. In the
meantime, King Louis VI married 1114, Adelaide of Maurienne
Sources RFC (2nd edition) lines 53 (Anjou), 134 (France) 311 (Holland), 313
(Baugency- Maine)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:d2.2d899c24.3016c8c3@aol.com...
William of Tyre doesn't mention Louis in this context - as I posted before
(with translation), he put the choice down entirely to the unanimous counsel
of prelates and magnates in the kingdom of Jerusalem to Balduin II.
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/25/05 3:52:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in
1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin
III,
What I'm saying is, I still find Fulk V an odd choice for Louis to pick in
order to get rid of him. I don't follow that logic. I need to get myself
a
copy of William of Tyre and see what he actually says. There doesn't seem
to be
a transcription online that I can find.
William of Tyre doesn't mention Louis in this context - as I posted before
(with translation), he put the choice down entirely to the unanimous counsel
of prelates and magnates in the kingdom of Jerusalem to Balduin II.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 2:37:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< It was actually rather closer to getting rid of a pesty little brother, >>
Seems a little odd to "get rid" of someone by making them King of the Holy
Land. Or perhaps this title did not carry the weight it seems to impart merely
from it's name.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< It was actually rather closer to getting rid of a pesty little brother, >>
Seems a little odd to "get rid" of someone by making them King of the Holy
Land. Or perhaps this title did not carry the weight it seems to impart merely
from it's name.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 2:37:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Foulques V
married Eremburge of Maine in 1110, Geoffrey IV was born in 1113 and his
mother
died before June 2, 1129 when his father married Melisende of Rethel.
Geoffrey
IV married Empress Maud on June 17, 1128 before his father 2nd marriage >>
So in 1129, Fulk as a Count of Anjou and Maine, has a son who is married to
the Empress and future heir to the throne of England, through Henry I's
required oath to uphold this succession. He has a daughter who is Duchess of
Normandy, and his son is to be Count of Maine shortly.
So Louis in his infinite wisdom wants to choose this man to invest with
another kingdom, and perhaps one to which other kings might feel the need to bow
the knee?
It just seems odd to me. Get rid of someone by making them stronger, but a
bit further away.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Foulques V
married Eremburge of Maine in 1110, Geoffrey IV was born in 1113 and his
mother
died before June 2, 1129 when his father married Melisende of Rethel.
Geoffrey
IV married Empress Maud on June 17, 1128 before his father 2nd marriage >>
So in 1129, Fulk as a Count of Anjou and Maine, has a son who is married to
the Empress and future heir to the throne of England, through Henry I's
required oath to uphold this succession. He has a daughter who is Duchess of
Normandy, and his son is to be Count of Maine shortly.
So Louis in his infinite wisdom wants to choose this man to invest with
another kingdom, and perhaps one to which other kings might feel the need to bow
the knee?
It just seems odd to me. Get rid of someone by making them stronger, but a
bit further away.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Dear Will,
Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in 1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin III,
Emperor Conrad III of the Holy Roman Empire and King Louis VII of France, Louis
VI`s raised an army for the 2nd Crusade in the spring of 1147, his Queen Eleanor
of Aquitaine accompanying him, which though She may well have been as fierce a
fighter as her husband led to trouble. Eleanor`s Uncle, Raymond of Poitiers,
Prince of Antioch and She were too close and rightly or not Louis suspected
that Eleanor had an affair with him and He decided to return to France and have
their marriage annulled.
Source Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1969) Volume 6 Cocker-Dais
Article on the Crusades pp 830-31 contributer H. S. F.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in 1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin III,
Emperor Conrad III of the Holy Roman Empire and King Louis VII of France, Louis
VI`s raised an army for the 2nd Crusade in the spring of 1147, his Queen Eleanor
of Aquitaine accompanying him, which though She may well have been as fierce a
fighter as her husband led to trouble. Eleanor`s Uncle, Raymond of Poitiers,
Prince of Antioch and She were too close and rightly or not Louis suspected
that Eleanor had an affair with him and He decided to return to France and have
their marriage annulled.
Source Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1969) Volume 6 Cocker-Dais
Article on the Crusades pp 830-31 contributer H. S. F.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 3:52:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
<< Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in
1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin
III, >>
What I'm saying is, I still find Fulk V an odd choice for Louis to pick in
order to get rid of him. I don't follow that logic. I need to get myself a
copy of William of Tyre and see what he actually says. There doesn't seem to be
a transcription online that I can find.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in
1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin
III, >>
What I'm saying is, I still find Fulk V an odd choice for Louis to pick in
order to get rid of him. I don't follow that logic. I need to get myself a
copy of William of Tyre and see what he actually says. There doesn't seem to be
a transcription online that I can find.
Will Johnson
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In the vain of your thinking
was there a shortlist? Who else was
considered?
Don't forget once a choice was made it would take some time to finalise it
all. Also the chosen one needed to be a proven soldier, a young
inexperienced soldier would not do in those circumstances.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
considered?
Don't forget once a choice was made it would take some time to finalise it
all. Also the chosen one needed to be a proven soldier, a young
inexperienced soldier would not do in those circumstances.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 3:52:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:
Of course it amounted to quite a bit yet at the same time was
one of the most precarious postions One could find Themselves in and
obviously there was little ill will as following the fall of Edessa in
1144,
Foulques of Anjou having died and been succeeded by his son King Baldwin
III,
What I'm saying is, I still find Fulk V an odd choice for Louis to pick in
order to get rid of him. I don't follow that logic. I need to get myself
a
copy of William of Tyre and see what he actually says. There doesn't seem
to be
a transcription online that I can find.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 4:30:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< William of Tyre doesn't mention Louis in this context - as I posted before
(with translation), he put the choice down entirely to the unanimous counsel
of prelates and magnates in the kingdom of Jerusalem to Balduin II.
Peter Stewart >>
I did not mean to imply that I wished to consult William on why Louis chose
Fulk. Only on why Fulk was chosen period. It's possible William has something
more to say on why they chose Fulk, rather than just that he was chosen with
the consulation of the other ranking persons of the kingdom .
Will
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< William of Tyre doesn't mention Louis in this context - as I posted before
(with translation), he put the choice down entirely to the unanimous counsel
of prelates and magnates in the kingdom of Jerusalem to Balduin II.
Peter Stewart >>
I did not mean to imply that I wished to consult William on why Louis chose
Fulk. Only on why Fulk was chosen period. It's possible William has something
more to say on why they chose Fulk, rather than just that he was chosen with
the consulation of the other ranking persons of the kingdom .
Will
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/24/05 5:14:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nichol_storm@yahoo.com writes:
<< Vahan Kurkjian's "History of Armenia" (1958) likewise assigns an
Armenian wife to Joscelin I of Edessa:
"Josselin, Count of Edessa, married the daughter of Constantine [I of
Armenia]. Baudoin (Baldwin), brother of Godfrey, married the niece of
the Armenian Baron, daughter of his brother Thoros. The mutual
interests were thus consecrated by those marriages, and these
Christians of the East entered into a vast feudal organization of the
Crusades." (p. 218) >>
Which Josselin does this refer to? Joscelin I who d 1131 or Joscelin II who
d 1159 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Nichol_storm@yahoo.com writes:
<< Vahan Kurkjian's "History of Armenia" (1958) likewise assigns an
Armenian wife to Joscelin I of Edessa:
"Josselin, Count of Edessa, married the daughter of Constantine [I of
Armenia]. Baudoin (Baldwin), brother of Godfrey, married the niece of
the Armenian Baron, daughter of his brother Thoros. The mutual
interests were thus consecrated by those marriages, and these
Christians of the East entered into a vast feudal organization of the
Crusades." (p. 218) >>
Which Josselin does this refer to? Joscelin I who d 1131 or Joscelin II who
d 1159 ?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 4:23:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Also the chosen one needed to be a proven soldier, a young
inexperienced soldier would not do in those circumstances.
Leo >>
I'm not sure. I've read that Baldwin II wanted his daughter Melisende to
reign and the husband to be her consort. It was Fulk's crafty negotiations that
eventually got him named by Baldwin as a co-heir, and after Baldwin's death,
Fulk schemed to exclude Melisende from any real power.
Of course she outlived him by almost 18 years, so she got her power anyway.
Will Johnson
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
<< Also the chosen one needed to be a proven soldier, a young
inexperienced soldier would not do in those circumstances.
Leo >>
I'm not sure. I've read that Baldwin II wanted his daughter Melisende to
reign and the husband to be her consort. It was Fulk's crafty negotiations that
eventually got him named by Baldwin as a co-heir, and after Baldwin's death,
Fulk schemed to exclude Melisende from any real power.
Of course she outlived him by almost 18 years, so she got her power anyway.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
It refers to Joscelin I. I have no details on Joscelin II's wife, but
if his mother was Armenian that makes his daughter Agnes one-fourth
Armenian, just like her husband, King Amaury I.
if his mother was Armenian that makes his daughter Agnes one-fourth
Armenian, just like her husband, King Amaury I.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Ginny quoted from Piers Paul Reid:
The first part of this is not fully accurate - Balduin II and his wife
Moraphia had a fourth daughter, who was named Ivetta after his paternal
grandmother. She became abbess of Saint-Lazare at Bethany, dying some
time after 1178.
Peter Stewart
"With three daughters but no son, it was clearly vital for the long-term
stability of the kingdom that Baldwin's eldest daughter Melisende
should be married to a man of some standing."
The first part of this is not fully accurate - Balduin II and his wife
Moraphia had a fourth daughter, who was named Ivetta after his paternal
grandmother. She became abbess of Saint-Lazare at Bethany, dying some
time after 1178.
Peter Stewart
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
<It's interesting that Hugh de Payens, head of the templars, returned to
Palestine with his 300 "French" knights in the same year that Melisende got
married
(1129).>
From The Templars, Page 98 & 99, by Piers Paul Reid:
"In 1127 Hugh of Payns was sent by King Baldwin II with William of Bures on
a diplomatic mission to western Europe. Its purpose was to persuade Fulk of
Anjou to marry King Baldwin's daughter Melisende and become heir to the
throne of Jerusalem; and to raise forces for a projected attack on Damascus.
Hugh had a third objective: to gain recruits and papal sanction for his
Order, the Knights of the Temple. The size of the Order at this point is
unclear: chroniclers mention only the nine founders, gut the very fact that
the mast should have been chosen by King Baldwin for this important mission,
and that he felt able to bring a number of knights in his entourage,
suggests that the Order had already achieved a certain standing in Outremer.
"King Baldwin II no doubt felt that his offer to Fulk and the European
nobility was attractive: five years earlier, his position had been
desperate but now he could make his appeal from a position of strength.
With Tyre in the hands of the Latins, he could contemplate an assault on the
Muslim heartland. In 1124 he had besieged Aleppo; in 1125 he had defeated a
Saracen army at A'zaz, and had raided the territory of Damascus. In early
1126, with the full complement of his kingdom's military strength, he had
penetrated even deeper into Damascene territory with considerable success.
Damascus itself must have seemed within his grasp: with reinforcements and
one last push, it could fall, removing a threat from the Muslim hinterland,
creating a new principality for the Latins and providing fabulous amounts of
booty.
"With three daughters but no son, it was clearly vital for the e long-term
stability of the kingdom that Baldwin's eldest daughter Melisende should be
married to a man of some standing. Whatever popes might say about the
validity of a marriage depending upon the free consent of the pair, it was
essential to the security of Outremer that ever fief should have a strong
leader. As a concession tot the greater probability of dying young, it had
been agreed that a fief could be inherited by a man's wife and children.
However, neither a woman nor a child could lead knights into battle. It was
therefore imperative that, on the death of a baron, his wife should
immediately marry someone who could. There is no evidence that the wives
themselves questioned this necessity although, as we shall see their
feelings sometimes affected the choice.
"Hugh's trip to Europe was a great success. In April 1128 we find him in
Anjou visiting Fulk in Le Mans. In June, Fulk's son Geoffrey was married to
Matilda, the heiress of Henry I of England, leaving Fulk free to move to
Jerusalem and marry Melisende. King Henry I responded generously to Hugh's
fund-raising, giving him 'great treasures, consisting of gold and silver',
which no doubt paved the way for Hugh's successful tour of England,
Scotland, France and Flanders, picking up small donations of armour and
horses, and more significant endowments from the counts of Blois and
Flanders; and from William II, Castellan of Saint-Omer in Picardy, the
father of Godfrley of Saint-Omer who had been the co-founder with Hugh de
Payns of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ."
Ginny
Palestine with his 300 "French" knights in the same year that Melisende got
married
(1129).>
From The Templars, Page 98 & 99, by Piers Paul Reid:
"In 1127 Hugh of Payns was sent by King Baldwin II with William of Bures on
a diplomatic mission to western Europe. Its purpose was to persuade Fulk of
Anjou to marry King Baldwin's daughter Melisende and become heir to the
throne of Jerusalem; and to raise forces for a projected attack on Damascus.
Hugh had a third objective: to gain recruits and papal sanction for his
Order, the Knights of the Temple. The size of the Order at this point is
unclear: chroniclers mention only the nine founders, gut the very fact that
the mast should have been chosen by King Baldwin for this important mission,
and that he felt able to bring a number of knights in his entourage,
suggests that the Order had already achieved a certain standing in Outremer.
"King Baldwin II no doubt felt that his offer to Fulk and the European
nobility was attractive: five years earlier, his position had been
desperate but now he could make his appeal from a position of strength.
With Tyre in the hands of the Latins, he could contemplate an assault on the
Muslim heartland. In 1124 he had besieged Aleppo; in 1125 he had defeated a
Saracen army at A'zaz, and had raided the territory of Damascus. In early
1126, with the full complement of his kingdom's military strength, he had
penetrated even deeper into Damascene territory with considerable success.
Damascus itself must have seemed within his grasp: with reinforcements and
one last push, it could fall, removing a threat from the Muslim hinterland,
creating a new principality for the Latins and providing fabulous amounts of
booty.
"With three daughters but no son, it was clearly vital for the e long-term
stability of the kingdom that Baldwin's eldest daughter Melisende should be
married to a man of some standing. Whatever popes might say about the
validity of a marriage depending upon the free consent of the pair, it was
essential to the security of Outremer that ever fief should have a strong
leader. As a concession tot the greater probability of dying young, it had
been agreed that a fief could be inherited by a man's wife and children.
However, neither a woman nor a child could lead knights into battle. It was
therefore imperative that, on the death of a baron, his wife should
immediately marry someone who could. There is no evidence that the wives
themselves questioned this necessity although, as we shall see their
feelings sometimes affected the choice.
"Hugh's trip to Europe was a great success. In April 1128 we find him in
Anjou visiting Fulk in Le Mans. In June, Fulk's son Geoffrey was married to
Matilda, the heiress of Henry I of England, leaving Fulk free to move to
Jerusalem and marry Melisende. King Henry I responded generously to Hugh's
fund-raising, giving him 'great treasures, consisting of gold and silver',
which no doubt paved the way for Hugh's successful tour of England,
Scotland, France and Flanders, picking up small donations of armour and
horses, and more significant endowments from the counts of Blois and
Flanders; and from William II, Castellan of Saint-Omer in Picardy, the
father of Godfrley of Saint-Omer who had been the co-founder with Hugh de
Payns of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ."
Ginny
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/05 7:40:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< From The Templars, Page 98 & 99, by Piers Paul Reid:
"In 1127 Hugh of Payns was sent by King Baldwin II with William of Bures on
a diplomatic mission to western Europe. >>
Thank you Ginny for that long explanation that does link Hugh de Payens,
master of the Knights Templar to this thread on the marriage of Fulk and Melisende.
It pushes the date of the choice of Fulk back *prior* to when his son
Geoffrey was made joint-heir to the throne of England along with the Empress Matilda.
Which somewhat dismantles my previous argument
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< From The Templars, Page 98 & 99, by Piers Paul Reid:
"In 1127 Hugh of Payns was sent by King Baldwin II with William of Bures on
a diplomatic mission to western Europe. >>
Thank you Ginny for that long explanation that does link Hugh de Payens,
master of the Knights Templar to this thread on the marriage of Fulk and Melisende.
It pushes the date of the choice of Fulk back *prior* to when his son
Geoffrey was made joint-heir to the throne of England along with the Empress Matilda.
Which somewhat dismantles my previous argument
Will Johnson
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
It read to me like the decision was part and parcel of a more aggressive
agenda which tallies with your email -- that 300 knights had been sent about
the same time as the marriage (1129). Ginny
agenda which tallies with your email -- that 300 knights had been sent about
the same time as the marriage (1129). Ginny
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/25/2005 9:21:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
There is something more.
I thought I'd remembered something unusual specifically about Fulk and the
Templars. And yes.
I have a reprint of the "History of the Knights Templar" by Charles G Addison
My reprint is 1997, but the original was published in 1842 in London.
In this work Charles says this (p 11 of my edition)
"The name and reputation of the Knights Templars speedily spread throughout
Europe, and various illustrious pilgrims from the far west aspired to become
members of the holy fraternity. Among these was Fulk, Count of Anjou, who
joined the society as a married brother, (A.D. 1120), and annually remitted the
order thirty pounds of silver."
Note how Fulk joined in 1120, a full 7 to 8 years PRIOR to the Master of the
Templars being sent on a mission to enjoin him to come marry Melisende.
Interesting aye?
Addison goes on to say that it was Baldwin himself who wrote the letter to
Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, asking Bernard to intercede with the Pope in order
to create an order for the Knights. And that a convocation for this purpose
was commenced at Troyes in 1128 "which Hugh de Payens and his brethren were
invited to attend."
He doesn't say anything more that touches on this point here, but the
knowledge that Fulk was a member of the Knights is interesting.
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
It read to me like the decision was part and parcel of a more aggressive
agenda which tallies with your email -- that 300 knights had been sent about
the same time as the marriage (1129). Ginny
There is something more.
I thought I'd remembered something unusual specifically about Fulk and the
Templars. And yes.
I have a reprint of the "History of the Knights Templar" by Charles G Addison
My reprint is 1997, but the original was published in 1842 in London.
In this work Charles says this (p 11 of my edition)
"The name and reputation of the Knights Templars speedily spread throughout
Europe, and various illustrious pilgrims from the far west aspired to become
members of the holy fraternity. Among these was Fulk, Count of Anjou, who
joined the society as a married brother, (A.D. 1120), and annually remitted the
order thirty pounds of silver."
Note how Fulk joined in 1120, a full 7 to 8 years PRIOR to the Master of the
Templars being sent on a mission to enjoin him to come marry Melisende.
Interesting aye?
Addison goes on to say that it was Baldwin himself who wrote the letter to
Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, asking Bernard to intercede with the Pope in order
to create an order for the Knights. And that a convocation for this purpose
was commenced at Troyes in 1128 "which Hugh de Payens and his brethren were
invited to attend."
He doesn't say anything more that touches on this point here, but the
knowledge that Fulk was a member of the Knights is interesting.
Will Johnson
-
Arnold Zuiderent
Re: Melisende of Rethel
The marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem to Agnes of Courtenay.
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow Amalric on
the throne of Jerusalem.
Schwennicke (ES III.4-629) also mentions the marrige of Agnes with Hugues of
Ibelin in 1157, which marriage was reactivated in 1163 after the annulation
of her marriage with Amalric.
Regards,
Arnold Zuiderent
http://www.zuiderent.ch
Reaction on the following message:
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:53:28 GMT
References: <c4.2be915cf.30131462@aol.com>
In article <c4.2be915cf.30131462@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That's the relationship given in the table at the back of Runciman, vol.
2. Runciman at at 2:362 gives an account of Amalric's accession to the
throne in 1162, and his repudiation of Agnes, forced by the electors (he
cites Wm. of Tyre and Robert of Torigny for his account).
He suggests that the electors (the magnates of Jerusalem) forced the
repudiation both for the acknowledged consanguinity, as well as for
Agnes' questionable record of chastity in the eight years between the
death of her first husband and her marriage to Amalric. He also implies
that they may simply have forced the issue to flex their influence as
electors.
Nat Taylor
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow Amalric on
the throne of Jerusalem.
Schwennicke (ES III.4-629) also mentions the marrige of Agnes with Hugues of
Ibelin in 1157, which marriage was reactivated in 1163 after the annulation
of her marriage with Amalric.
Regards,
Arnold Zuiderent
http://www.zuiderent.ch
Reaction on the following message:
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:53:28 GMT
References: <c4.2be915cf.30131462@aol.com>
In article <c4.2be915cf.30131462@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/05 8:11:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson
writes:
Further on this family, I was browsing around in http://www.wikipedia.com
which
has actually quite a nice workup on them, evidently furnished by someone
with
adequate access to sources.
However there, is made a statement, without further qualification, that
the
marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem, to Agnes of Courtenay (or Edessa) which
marriage occurred in 1157 was opposed on grounds of consanguinity.
Her father is stated there to be Joscelin, Count of Edessa d 1159, no
mother
is stated. Amalric's mother is called Melisende of Edessa.
What is the relationship between Melisende and Joscelin?
Thanks.
Will Johnson
OK using Leo's excellent website http://www.genealogics.org, is the answer that
their grandmothers were sisters?
It seems that Melisende, Queen of Jerusalem and co-ruler with her son
Baldwin, had a grandmother Melisende of Monthlery; and that Joscelin,
Count
of Edessa
1131- had a grandmother Elizabeth of Monthlery and both are shown as
daughters of Guy, Seigneur of Monthlery.
Is that the reason the marriage of Amalric and Agnes was opposed?
That's the relationship given in the table at the back of Runciman, vol.
2. Runciman at at 2:362 gives an account of Amalric's accession to the
throne in 1162, and his repudiation of Agnes, forced by the electors (he
cites Wm. of Tyre and Robert of Torigny for his account).
He suggests that the electors (the magnates of Jerusalem) forced the
repudiation both for the acknowledged consanguinity, as well as for
Agnes' questionable record of chastity in the eight years between the
death of her first husband and her marriage to Amalric. He also implies
that they may simply have forced the issue to flex their influence as
electors.
Nat Taylor
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/26/05 9:01:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
<< In this work Charles says this (p 11 of my edition)
"The name and reputation of the Knights Templars speedily spread throughout
Europe, and various illustrious pilgrims from the far west aspired to become
members of the holy fraternity. Among these was Fulk, Count of Anjou, who
joined the society as a married brother, (A.D. 1120), and annually remitted
the
order thirty pounds of silver." >>
Fulk's first wife was Ermengarde of Maine, through whom, upon the death of
her father Helias (or Elias), he succeeded to the Countship of Maine.
One of their children Geoffrey has an exact birthdate of 24 Aug 1113. Two
other children Mathilde and Elias I have with earlier birthdates, while two
others Isabel and Sybilla I have no idea when they were born except between 1110
and 1126.
Now the quote above claims that Fulk joined the Knights in 1120 as a "married
brother". Before this I had no firm idea of when Ermengarde died except that
she had to have died prior to Fulk's next marriage, which was to Melisende.
Now however, it appears that Ermengarde had to die between 1120 and 1128, the
latter year being when the embassy of the Master of the Temple is supposed to
have arrived to ask Fulk to marry Melisende.
Comments?
Will Johnson
writes:
<< In this work Charles says this (p 11 of my edition)
"The name and reputation of the Knights Templars speedily spread throughout
Europe, and various illustrious pilgrims from the far west aspired to become
members of the holy fraternity. Among these was Fulk, Count of Anjou, who
joined the society as a married brother, (A.D. 1120), and annually remitted
the
order thirty pounds of silver." >>
Fulk's first wife was Ermengarde of Maine, through whom, upon the death of
her father Helias (or Elias), he succeeded to the Countship of Maine.
One of their children Geoffrey has an exact birthdate of 24 Aug 1113. Two
other children Mathilde and Elias I have with earlier birthdates, while two
others Isabel and Sybilla I have no idea when they were born except between 1110
and 1126.
Now the quote above claims that Fulk joined the Knights in 1120 as a "married
brother". Before this I had no firm idea of when Ermengarde died except that
she had to have died prior to Fulk's next marriage, which was to Melisende.
Now however, it appears that Ermengarde had to die between 1120 and 1128, the
latter year being when the embassy of the Master of the Temple is supposed to
have arrived to ask Fulk to marry Melisende.
Comments?
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <010001c59211$fc8b15c0$058da73e@oemcomputer>,
arnold@zuiderent.ch ("Arnold Zuiderent") wrote:
Arnold,
This is very interesting; thank you. Runciman took no notice of an
earlier marriage of Agnes to Hugues d'Ibelin (he only lists him as her
third husband); this is surprising if the earlier marriage is narrated
in William of Tyre. Bigamy should have trumped consanguinity as an
issue for the barons to use to flex their electoral voice against
Amalric.
I don't have Mayer handy, but it is widely available since there is an
English translation, so I would be surprised if this discrepancy hadn't
been noted.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
arnold@zuiderent.ch ("Arnold Zuiderent") wrote:
The marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem to Agnes of Courtenay.
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow Amalric on
the throne of Jerusalem.
Schwennicke (ES III.4-629) also mentions the marrige of Agnes with Hugues of
Ibelin in 1157, which marriage was reactivated in 1163 after the annulation
of her marriage with Amalric.
Regards,
Arnold Zuiderent
http://www.zuiderent.ch
Arnold,
This is very interesting; thank you. Runciman took no notice of an
earlier marriage of Agnes to Hugues d'Ibelin (he only lists him as her
third husband); this is surprising if the earlier marriage is narrated
in William of Tyre. Bigamy should have trumped consanguinity as an
issue for the barons to use to flex their electoral voice against
Amalric.
I don't have Mayer handy, but it is widely available since there is an
English translation, so I would be surprised if this discrepancy hadn't
been noted.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
Fulk's autobiography is ca. 1096 so too early to help. A website called
http://www.mathematical.com/anjoufoulques5.html has Ermengarde dying 1126 which
would work very nicely since they headed out to ask him to marry Melisende
in 1127 and you have the remittance by a married Fulk ca. 1120. My Lines by
Robert Brian Stewart http://homepages.rootsweb.com lists first marriage 1110
Ermengarde de La Fleche with issue Sibyl 1112, Geoffroi 1113, and Isabella
1114 then Melisende married 1129 and issue Baudouin III 1130 and Amaury
1136. A table I downloaded from FMG has The Seize Quarters of Henry II,
King of England of which (C2) is Aremburge (called also Hermentrude,
Guiburge and Sibylla) hss. of Maine only child; m. 1110; d. 1126 [fn31]; 1st
wife. [fn31] is Chron. S. Albini Andegav." Ginny
http://www.mathematical.com/anjoufoulques5.html has Ermengarde dying 1126 which
would work very nicely since they headed out to ask him to marry Melisende
in 1127 and you have the remittance by a married Fulk ca. 1120. My Lines by
Robert Brian Stewart http://homepages.rootsweb.com lists first marriage 1110
Ermengarde de La Fleche with issue Sibyl 1112, Geoffroi 1113, and Isabella
1114 then Melisende married 1129 and issue Baudouin III 1130 and Amaury
1136. A table I downloaded from FMG has The Seize Quarters of Henry II,
King of England of which (C2) is Aremburge (called also Hermentrude,
Guiburge and Sibylla) hss. of Maine only child; m. 1110; d. 1126 [fn31]; 1st
wife. [fn31] is Chron. S. Albini Andegav." Ginny
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/26/05 5:56:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< A table I downloaded from FMG has The Seize Quarters of Henry II,
King of England of which (C2) is Aremburge (called also Hermentrude,
Guiburge and Sibylla) hss. of Maine only child; m. 1110; d. 1126 [fn31]; 1st
wife. [fn31] is Chron. S. Albini Andegav." Ginny >>
Could you explain a bit more about these abbreviations, I don't understand
them. I would like to look behind these dates to see if the purported
underlying sources actually state or insinuate when she died, or if these dates are
just guesses.
Thanks
Will Johnson
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
<< A table I downloaded from FMG has The Seize Quarters of Henry II,
King of England of which (C2) is Aremburge (called also Hermentrude,
Guiburge and Sibylla) hss. of Maine only child; m. 1110; d. 1126 [fn31]; 1st
wife. [fn31] is Chron. S. Albini Andegav." Ginny >>
Could you explain a bit more about these abbreviations, I don't understand
them. I would like to look behind these dates to see if the purported
underlying sources actually state or insinuate when she died, or if these dates are
just guesses.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Roger LeBlanc
Re: Melisende of Rethel
For Eremburge, you might want to check the Henry Project for her
individual page. As well, note there are only two daughters listed,
Mathilde and Sybil. The Isabelle mentioned earlier in this thread is
presumably the same as Sybil.
Roger LeBlanc
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
individual page. As well, note there are only two daughters listed,
Mathilde and Sybil. The Isabelle mentioned earlier in this thread is
presumably the same as Sybil.
Roger LeBlanc
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/26/05 5:56:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com writes:
A table I downloaded from FMG has The Seize Quarters of Henry II,
King of England of which (C2) is Aremburge (called also Hermentrude,
Guiburge and Sibylla) hss. of Maine only child; m. 1110; d. 1126 [fn31]; 1st
wife. [fn31] is Chron. S. Albini Andegav." Ginny
Could you explain a bit more about these abbreviations, I don't understand
them. I would like to look behind these dates to see if the purported
underlying sources actually state or insinuate when she died, or if these dates are
just guesses.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/26/05 7:11:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, leblancr@mts.net
writes:
<< For Eremburge, you might want to check the Henry Project for her
individual page. As well, note there are only two daughters listed,
Mathilde and Sybil. The Isabelle mentioned earlier in this thread is
presumably the same as Sybil. >>
Thanks Roger that makes sense. I-Sybil = Sybil
I'm going to combine these two in my database.
Thanks
Will Johnson
writes:
<< For Eremburge, you might want to check the Henry Project for her
individual page. As well, note there are only two daughters listed,
Mathilde and Sybil. The Isabelle mentioned earlier in this thread is
presumably the same as Sybil. >>
Thanks Roger that makes sense. I-Sybil = Sybil
I'm going to combine these two in my database.
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
""Arnold Zuiderent"" <arnold@zuiderent.ch> wrote in message
news:010001c59211$fc8b15c0$058da73e@oemcomputer...
ES is probably following Mayer's 1965 book here, but his views on this have
not been accepted by many other historians.
The only source for Agnes de Courtenay's purported betrothal to Hugo of
Ibelin before she married Amalric is in 'Lignages d'Outremer', compiled late
in 13th century. This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed. It is scarcely credible that a bigamous
union would not have mattered more to the hierarchy & would not be recorded
until well over 100 years after the fact.
Agnes had been widowed for the first time in 1149, and Mayer presumably
thought the 'Lignages' version accounted for her not marrying Amalric until
eight years afterwards. However, this overlooks the likelihood that she was
seen as practically unmarriageable in the interval: her father was
imprisoned in Aleppo, her mother had sold the family's rights to Edessa for
a pension from the Eastern emperor, the nobility of the principality had
been dispossessed and Agnes herself had lost her first husband's lands soon
after she was widowed. She was still very young, perhaps barely a teenager
at the time this happened.
It is possible that her mother died in or shortly before 1157, when she and
her brother went to live in Jerusalem. Her connections must have made her a
suitable wife for Amalric despite the consanguinity. The displaced nobility
of Edessa were becoming a nuisance by that time, and Jean Richard has
suggested that her later bad reputation stemmed from being associated with
them. However, she was related to important people in France and was not,
apparently, the creature of any faction so that she was an unexceptionable
choice for the king's brother, apart from the relationship between them that
influential people were ready to ignore.
Peter Stewart
news:010001c59211$fc8b15c0$058da73e@oemcomputer...
The marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem to Agnes of Courtenay.
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the
Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow Amalric
on
the throne of Jerusalem.
Schwennicke (ES III.4-629) also mentions the marrige of Agnes with Hugues
of
Ibelin in 1157, which marriage was reactivated in 1163 after the
annulation
of her marriage with Amalric.
ES is probably following Mayer's 1965 book here, but his views on this have
not been accepted by many other historians.
The only source for Agnes de Courtenay's purported betrothal to Hugo of
Ibelin before she married Amalric is in 'Lignages d'Outremer', compiled late
in 13th century. This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed. It is scarcely credible that a bigamous
union would not have mattered more to the hierarchy & would not be recorded
until well over 100 years after the fact.
Agnes had been widowed for the first time in 1149, and Mayer presumably
thought the 'Lignages' version accounted for her not marrying Amalric until
eight years afterwards. However, this overlooks the likelihood that she was
seen as practically unmarriageable in the interval: her father was
imprisoned in Aleppo, her mother had sold the family's rights to Edessa for
a pension from the Eastern emperor, the nobility of the principality had
been dispossessed and Agnes herself had lost her first husband's lands soon
after she was widowed. She was still very young, perhaps barely a teenager
at the time this happened.
It is possible that her mother died in or shortly before 1157, when she and
her brother went to live in Jerusalem. Her connections must have made her a
suitable wife for Amalric despite the consanguinity. The displaced nobility
of Edessa were becoming a nuisance by that time, and Jean Richard has
suggested that her later bad reputation stemmed from being associated with
them. However, she was related to important people in France and was not,
apparently, the creature of any faction so that she was an unexceptionable
choice for the king's brother, apart from the relationship between them that
influential people were ready to ignore.
Peter Stewart
-
Arnold Zuiderent
Re: Melisende of Rethel
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
Schwennicke gives in ES NF II-82 1126 as the year that Ermengarde died.
I used this as input for my pedigree http://www.zuiderent.ch (sorry in Dutch),
where Fulco appears with his both wives.
Arnold Zuiderent
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/26/05 9:01:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
WJhonson@aol.com
writes:
In this work Charles says this (p 11 of my edition)
"The name and reputation of the Knights Templars speedily spread
throughout
Europe, and various illustrious pilgrims from the far west aspired to
become
members of the holy fraternity. Among these was Fulk, Count of Anjou,
who
joined the society as a married brother, (A.D. 1120), and annually
remitted
the
order thirty pounds of silver."
Fulk's first wife was Ermengarde of Maine, through whom, upon the death of
her father Helias (or Elias), he succeeded to the Countship of Maine.
One of their children Geoffrey has an exact birthdate of 24 Aug 1113. Two
other children Mathilde and Elias I have with earlier birthdates, while
two
others Isabel and Sybilla I have no idea when they were born except
between 1110
and 1126.
Now the quote above claims that Fulk joined the Knights in 1120 as a
"married
brother". Before this I had no firm idea of when Ermengarde died except
that
she had to have died prior to Fulk's next marriage, which was to
Melisende.
Now however, it appears that Ermengarde had to die between 1120 and 1128,
the
latter year being when the embassy of the Master of the Temple is supposed
to
have arrived to ask Fulk to marry Melisende.
Comments?
Will Johnson
Schwennicke gives in ES NF II-82 1126 as the year that Ermengarde died.
I used this as input for my pedigree http://www.zuiderent.ch (sorry in Dutch),
where Fulco appears with his both wives.
Arnold Zuiderent
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In article <WIHFe.64101$oJ.9426@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I agree that if William did not mention the bigamy, it is suspicious,
since it would hardly NOT have been raised as an objection.
Peter, what can you say about the 'Lignages d'Outremer'? I knew nothing
about it, though it's discussed in a 1974 EHR article by Peter Edbury,
and I see it's now available in a critical edition (2003). There also
was an edition & study in a Belgian thesis, listed in the FMG
bibliographical database--have you looked at either of these full texts?
Edbury says the general wisdom is that it is not to be trusted at all
for anything before 1250 (the earliest recension seems to be 1271/75).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
""Arnold Zuiderent"" <arnold@zuiderent.ch> wrote in message
news:010001c59211$fc8b15c0$058da73e@oemcomputer...
[...The marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem to Agnes of Courtenay...]
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow Amalric
on the throne of Jerusalem.
The only source for Agnes de Courtenay's purported betrothal to Hugo of
Ibelin before she married Amalric is in 'Lignages d'Outremer', compiled late
in 13th century. This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed. It is scarcely credible that a bigamous
union would not have mattered more to the hierarchy & would not be recorded
until well over 100 years after the fact.
I agree that if William did not mention the bigamy, it is suspicious,
since it would hardly NOT have been raised as an objection.
Peter, what can you say about the 'Lignages d'Outremer'? I knew nothing
about it, though it's discussed in a 1974 EHR article by Peter Edbury,
and I see it's now available in a critical edition (2003). There also
was an edition & study in a Belgian thesis, listed in the FMG
bibliographical database--have you looked at either of these full texts?
Edbury says the general wisdom is that it is not to be trusted at all
for anything before 1250 (the earliest recension seems to be 1271/75).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Arnold Zuiderent
Re: Melisende of Rethel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
Peter,
Thanks for this interesting commentary. Mayer speaks about bigamy as a well
known problem in the Jerusalem Kingdom, because also Baldwin I was
officially still married with his first Armenian wife, when he married
Adalasia in 1113. But I can accept your input about the more reliable source
of William of Tyre, which I did not read upto now.
Arnold Zuiderent
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Melisende of Rethel
""Arnold Zuiderent"" <arnold@zuiderent.ch> wrote in message
news:010001c59211$fc8b15c0$058da73e@oemcomputer...
The marriage of Amalric of Jerusalem to Agnes of Courtenay.
In "Geschichte der Kreuzzüge" Hans Eberard Mayer points out that the
real
reason of opposition against this marrage was the fact that Agnes of
Courtenay, when she married Amalric in 1158, was still married with
Hugues
of Ibelin, her second husband, who married her in 1157. This situation
of
bigamy in the royal family was not accepted by the church and the
Jerusalem
barons. As a compromise the marriage was annulated on the pretext of
consanguinity (although dispensation should not have been a big
problem).
Because of this construction the children of Amalric and Agnes could be
considered as legitimate. So Baldwin IV (the Leper) and his sister
Sibylle
(remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven) were legitimated to follow
Amalric
on
the throne of Jerusalem.
Schwennicke (ES III.4-629) also mentions the marrige of Agnes with
Hugues
of
Ibelin in 1157, which marriage was reactivated in 1163 after the
annulation
of her marriage with Amalric.
ES is probably following Mayer's 1965 book here, but his views on this
have
not been accepted by many other historians.
The only source for Agnes de Courtenay's purported betrothal to Hugo of
Ibelin before she married Amalric is in 'Lignages d'Outremer', compiled
late
in 13th century. This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed. It is scarcely credible that a bigamous
union would not have mattered more to the hierarchy & would not be
recorded
until well over 100 years after the fact.
Agnes had been widowed for the first time in 1149, and Mayer presumably
thought the 'Lignages' version accounted for her not marrying Amalric
until
eight years afterwards. However, this overlooks the likelihood that she
was
seen as practically unmarriageable in the interval: her father was
imprisoned in Aleppo, her mother had sold the family's rights to Edessa
for
a pension from the Eastern emperor, the nobility of the principality had
been dispossessed and Agnes herself had lost her first husband's lands
soon
after she was widowed. She was still very young, perhaps barely a teenager
at the time this happened.
It is possible that her mother died in or shortly before 1157, when she
and
her brother went to live in Jerusalem. Her connections must have made her
a
suitable wife for Amalric despite the consanguinity. The displaced
nobility
of Edessa were becoming a nuisance by that time, and Jean Richard has
suggested that her later bad reputation stemmed from being associated with
them. However, she was related to important people in France and was not,
apparently, the creature of any faction so that she was an unexceptionable
choice for the king's brother, apart from the relationship between them
that
influential people were ready to ignore.
Peter Stewart
____________
Peter,
Thanks for this interesting commentary. Mayer speaks about bigamy as a well
known problem in the Jerusalem Kingdom, because also Baldwin I was
officially still married with his first Armenian wife, when he married
Adalasia in 1113. But I can accept your input about the more reliable source
of William of Tyre, which I did not read upto now.
Arnold Zuiderent
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
In The Bretons by Galliou (Reader at the Universite de Bretagne Occidentale
and teacher at Universite de Haute Bretagne) and Jones (Professor of
Medieval French History at the University of Nottingham) on page 173-4:
"Chroniclers like the Burgandian Raoul Glaber or William of Poitiers write
in amazement about its inhabitants' strange ways, a sure sign that the
Bretons possessed a corporate cultural identity in addition to their fragile
political structures. The latter, for instance, echoing Sallust, speaks of
each Breton knight fathering fifty children by the ten wives he shared more
barbaro."
From the same book, paraphrased: Peter Abelard (1070-1142) spoke of the
uncouth Breton monks and Baudry of Bourgueil, archbishop of Dol (1107-30)
condemned the barbaric conditions, 'I dwell among scorpions, surrounded by a
double wall of bestiality and perfidy', he lamented.
It is quite possible that, although not written about openly, the Bretons
did continue to have more than one wife. Perhaps that is why Henry I had so
many liaisons. The idea of monogamy isn't necessarily in the Bible --
Mormons practiced polygamy here in the states and probably still do --
without advertising it. The sacrament of marriage and society's definition
of it has been and still is an evolving concept.
My point being that the church wouldn't necessarily speak up about bigamous
marriages because of tolerance for all the religions that Christianity, in
the first thousand years or so, had to show in order to grow. They
assimilated the pagan rites, roman gods, Celtic rituals, Jewish laws, etc.
Ginny
and teacher at Universite de Haute Bretagne) and Jones (Professor of
Medieval French History at the University of Nottingham) on page 173-4:
"Chroniclers like the Burgandian Raoul Glaber or William of Poitiers write
in amazement about its inhabitants' strange ways, a sure sign that the
Bretons possessed a corporate cultural identity in addition to their fragile
political structures. The latter, for instance, echoing Sallust, speaks of
each Breton knight fathering fifty children by the ten wives he shared more
barbaro."
From the same book, paraphrased: Peter Abelard (1070-1142) spoke of the
uncouth Breton monks and Baudry of Bourgueil, archbishop of Dol (1107-30)
condemned the barbaric conditions, 'I dwell among scorpions, surrounded by a
double wall of bestiality and perfidy', he lamented.
It is quite possible that, although not written about openly, the Bretons
did continue to have more than one wife. Perhaps that is why Henry I had so
many liaisons. The idea of monogamy isn't necessarily in the Bible --
Mormons practiced polygamy here in the states and probably still do --
without advertising it. The sacrament of marriage and society's definition
of it has been and still is an evolving concept.
My point being that the church wouldn't necessarily speak up about bigamous
marriages because of tolerance for all the religions that Christianity, in
the first thousand years or so, had to show in order to grow. They
assimilated the pagan rites, roman gods, Celtic rituals, Jewish laws, etc.
Ginny
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-BD0B9C.10545527072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
I haven't made a study of the 'Lignages', Nat, and would certainly defer to
Peter Edbury who has - although I'm puzzled by the title of his EHR paper
("...a Previously Unknown Passage...") as I don't recall hearing of a newly
discovered manuscript or extract and it seems a large claim to assume that
Du Cange and others didn't know it all thoroughly. I must check this, and
thanks for mentioning it.
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-BD0B9C.10545527072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
<snip>
Peter, what can you say about the 'Lignages d'Outremer'? I knew nothing
about it, though it's discussed in a 1974 EHR article by Peter Edbury,
and I see it's now available in a critical edition (2003). There also
was an edition & study in a Belgian thesis, listed in the FMG
bibliographical database--have you looked at either of these full texts?
Edbury says the general wisdom is that it is not to be trusted at all
for anything before 1250 (the earliest recension seems to be 1271/75).
I haven't made a study of the 'Lignages', Nat, and would certainly defer to
Peter Edbury who has - although I'm puzzled by the title of his EHR paper
("...a Previously Unknown Passage...") as I don't recall hearing of a newly
discovered manuscript or extract and it seems a large claim to assume that
Du Cange and others didn't know it all thoroughly. I must check this, and
thanks for mentioning it.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:XWTFe.64584$oJ.33717@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
On reading it I see that Edbury did not mean "newly discovered" information,
but only a passage that was "unknown" to most modern researchers because
this had been left out of the edition by Beugnot in _Receuil des historiens
des croisades'.
So "previously unknown" was not justified in the title - as obviously it
must have been wrong from a strictly logic perspective anyway, since the
passage had been written & then copied "previously" by people who must have
known of it.
That's what editors are for, pace Brandon, but someone at EHR was nodding.
Peter Stewart
news:XWTFe.64584$oJ.33717@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-BD0B9C.10545527072005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
snip
Peter, what can you say about the 'Lignages d'Outremer'? I knew nothing
about it, though it's discussed in a 1974 EHR article by Peter Edbury,
and I see it's now available in a critical edition (2003). There also
was an edition & study in a Belgian thesis, listed in the FMG
bibliographical database--have you looked at either of these full texts?
Edbury says the general wisdom is that it is not to be trusted at all
for anything before 1250 (the earliest recension seems to be 1271/75).
I haven't made a study of the 'Lignages', Nat, and would certainly defer
to Peter Edbury who has - although I'm puzzled by the title of his EHR
paper ("...a Previously Unknown Passage...") as I don't recall hearing of
a newly discovered manuscript or extract and it seems a large claim to
assume that Du Cange and others didn't know it all thoroughly. I must
check this, and thanks for mentioning it.
On reading it I see that Edbury did not mean "newly discovered" information,
but only a passage that was "unknown" to most modern researchers because
this had been left out of the edition by Beugnot in _Receuil des historiens
des croisades'.
So "previously unknown" was not justified in the title - as obviously it
must have been wrong from a strictly logic perspective anyway, since the
passage had been written & then copied "previously" by people who must have
known of it.
That's what editors are for, pace Brandon, but someone at EHR was nodding.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Arnold Zuiderent wrote:
<snip>
The Armenian Arda was Balduin I's second wife, and the circumstances of
their separation were well-known, not overlooked or forgotten only to
surface 100 years later. The Catholic church was beholden to the laity
for its safety and local ascendancy over other Christian rites and
other religions without corresponding numbers on the ground, so that
disregarding a patriarch over distant consanguinity was one thing -
over bigamy, however, not so easy.
But the general point is probably valid that some women (perhaps
especially from Edessa at this time) might have been caught out in
accidental bigamy: if a husband vanished in battle, the need for his
presumed widow to remarry quickly could have led to mistakes.
Still, the enemies of Crusader barons were not backward in demanding
ransom, so there would have to be complicating factors for a prisoner's
identity to be undiscovered by them, or for his survival not to be made
known to a wife.
Amalric, the king's brother, would hardly wish to embroil himself with
a woman betrothed to the son of his parvenu constable in Jaffa. And
even if he did wish such a thing, by 1157 Hugo of Ibelin was also
step-son to the constable of Jerusalem, so that Amalric would hardly
have got away with the offense unscathed and unremarked.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
Mayer speaks about bigamy as a well known problem in the
Jerusalem Kingdom, because also Baldwin I was officially still
married with his first Armenian wife, when he married Adalasia
in 1113.
The Armenian Arda was Balduin I's second wife, and the circumstances of
their separation were well-known, not overlooked or forgotten only to
surface 100 years later. The Catholic church was beholden to the laity
for its safety and local ascendancy over other Christian rites and
other religions without corresponding numbers on the ground, so that
disregarding a patriarch over distant consanguinity was one thing -
over bigamy, however, not so easy.
But the general point is probably valid that some women (perhaps
especially from Edessa at this time) might have been caught out in
accidental bigamy: if a husband vanished in battle, the need for his
presumed widow to remarry quickly could have led to mistakes.
Still, the enemies of Crusader barons were not backward in demanding
ransom, so there would have to be complicating factors for a prisoner's
identity to be undiscovered by them, or for his survival not to be made
known to a wife.
Amalric, the king's brother, would hardly wish to embroil himself with
a woman betrothed to the son of his parvenu constable in Jaffa. And
even if he did wish such a thing, by 1157 Hugo of Ibelin was also
step-son to the constable of Jerusalem, so that Amalric would hardly
have got away with the offense unscathed and unremarked.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Ginny Wagner wrote:
<snip>
I don't agree with this. By the mid-12th century the Church was loud &
persistent in utterly condemning irregular marriage practices.
In any case, the bigamous union that Mayer persuaded himself about for
Agnes de Courtenay involved two husbands of one woman, and polyandry
was not tolerated by Europeans anywhere in the medieval period.
Peter Stewart
<snip>
It is quite possible that, although not written about openly, the Bretons
did continue to have more than one wife. Perhaps that is why Henry I
had so many liaisons. The idea of monogamy isn't necessarily in the
Bible -- Mormons practiced polygamy here in the states and probably
still do -- without advertising it. The sacrament of marriage and
society's definition of it has been and still is an evolving concept.
My point being that the church wouldn't necessarily speak up about
bigamous marriages because of tolerance for all the religions that
Christianity, in the first thousand years or so, had to show in order to
grow. They assimilated the pagan rites, roman gods, Celtic rituals,
Jewish laws, etc.
I don't agree with this. By the mid-12th century the Church was loud &
persistent in utterly condemning irregular marriage practices.
In any case, the bigamous union that Mayer persuaded himself about for
Agnes de Courtenay involved two husbands of one woman, and polyandry
was not tolerated by Europeans anywhere in the medieval period.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
""Ginny Wagner"" <ginnywagner@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOIEOEFMAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...
One thing I would suggest about knowledge is that it is never "superior", in
the sense that one person's may be "better" than another's - there is
nothing more to it than bits of information, whether these are picked up
systematically or at haphazard.
People can have all knowable facts at their command and still make wrong or
silly conclusions, especially when the subject is other people. Commonsense
and intuition count for a great deal in studying history, & genealogy.
Peter Stewart
news:GCEILMENLHOGHNKOOPOOIEOEFMAA.ginnywagner@austin.rr.com...
Peter,
I bow to your superior knowledge. 'Twas just a hypothesis built on
cobbling
together some isolated facts.Ginny
One thing I would suggest about knowledge is that it is never "superior", in
the sense that one person's may be "better" than another's - there is
nothing more to it than bits of information, whether these are picked up
systematically or at haphazard.
People can have all knowable facts at their command and still make wrong or
silly conclusions, especially when the subject is other people. Commonsense
and intuition count for a great deal in studying history, & genealogy.
Peter Stewart
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
Peter,
I bow to your superior knowledge. 'Twas just a hypothesis built on cobbling
together some isolated facts.
Ginny
I bow to your superior knowledge. 'Twas just a hypothesis built on cobbling
together some isolated facts.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Ginny wrote:
I don't recall that post or I might have corrected it - I have been
studying medieval history & genealogy for a fair while longer than five
years (more like 25, on & off), but only as an amateur: I am not in the
arena in the sense of any professional involvement.
Let me assure you I forget much more than I retain. The most I could
claim to know, that is to remember, is where to start looking for
whatever I want to find out.
And if I forget even that, I now have so many books cluttering up my
home that I am likely to stub my toe on it before too long anyway.
"Britannic disorder", as the French call it, accounts for quite a lot
of my time & effort in the field.
Peter Stewart
...you have been in the genealogy arena for at least five years
(if another person's post to that effect is true)
I don't recall that post or I might have corrected it - I have been
studying medieval history & genealogy for a fair while longer than five
years (more like 25, on & off), but only as an amateur: I am not in the
arena in the sense of any professional involvement.
Let me assure you I forget much more than I retain. The most I could
claim to know, that is to remember, is where to start looking for
whatever I want to find out.
And if I forget even that, I now have so many books cluttering up my
home that I am likely to stub my toe on it before too long anyway.
"Britannic disorder", as the French call it, accounts for quite a lot
of my time & effort in the field.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Melisende of Rethel
In a message dated 7/27/05 1:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed >>
On the marriage of Amalric to Agnes, were they not third cousins?
I have that their great-grandmothers (de Monthlery) were sisters. Does
William/Fulcher actually say "third" or just "cousins within the prohibited degree"
?
Thanks
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed >>
On the marriage of Amalric to Agnes, were they not third cousins?
I have that their great-grandmothers (de Monthlery) were sisters. Does
William/Fulcher actually say "third" or just "cousins within the prohibited degree"
?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
Peter said:
<One thing I would suggest about knowledge is that it is never "superior",
in
the sense that one person's may be "better" than another's >
and Ginny replied:
Ah ... but knowledge (1.the psychological result of perception and learning
and reasoning) is the system (1.a group of independent but interrelated
elements comprising a unified whole) within which data (1.a collection of
facts from which conclusions can be drawn) reside after being fashioned into
some kind of information (1.a message received and understood that reduces
the recipients uncertainty, 3. knowledge acquired through study, experience
or instruction).
Therefore, your knowledge will 'generally' be superior to mine by virtue of
the fact that you have been in the genealogy arena for at least five years
(if another person's post to that effect is true) and I've only been bashing
about in the last year or two. As well, I've seen your posts with cites
that are specific references, have read your posts where you come to
common-sense conclusions that take into account details that are often
missed by others and your peers obviously respect your opinions. In fact, I
would wager that you have forgotten more genealogy than I'll ever learn.
Therefore, I must, without definite proof, cites or examples to buttress my
hypothesis, no matter how accurate or farfetched my hypothesis may
eventually turn out to be; accede to your superior knowledge in this arena
(which is not to say that if I continue to study and learn, particularly if
I stay within a particular area and time period, I can't become more
knowledgeable about some particular aspect of genealogy than you or anyone
else -- after all, knowledge is acquired on the shoulders of giants -- or
something to that effect -- Lol).
Ginny
<One thing I would suggest about knowledge is that it is never "superior",
in
the sense that one person's may be "better" than another's >
and Ginny replied:
Ah ... but knowledge (1.the psychological result of perception and learning
and reasoning) is the system (1.a group of independent but interrelated
elements comprising a unified whole) within which data (1.a collection of
facts from which conclusions can be drawn) reside after being fashioned into
some kind of information (1.a message received and understood that reduces
the recipients uncertainty, 3. knowledge acquired through study, experience
or instruction).
Therefore, your knowledge will 'generally' be superior to mine by virtue of
the fact that you have been in the genealogy arena for at least five years
(if another person's post to that effect is true) and I've only been bashing
about in the last year or two. As well, I've seen your posts with cites
that are specific references, have read your posts where you come to
common-sense conclusions that take into account details that are often
missed by others and your peers obviously respect your opinions. In fact, I
would wager that you have forgotten more genealogy than I'll ever learn.
Therefore, I must, without definite proof, cites or examples to buttress my
hypothesis, no matter how accurate or farfetched my hypothesis may
eventually turn out to be; accede to your superior knowledge in this arena
(which is not to say that if I continue to study and learn, particularly if
I stay within a particular area and time period, I can't become more
knowledgeable about some particular aspect of genealogy than you or anyone
else -- after all, knowledge is acquired on the shoulders of giants -- or
something to that effect -- Lol).
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Melisende of Rethel
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:158.557d6fc1.3019b70d@aol.com...
Sorry, Will - this was just carelessness on my part, as you had already
posted that they were third cousins.
William of Tyre says (book 19 chapter 4, Huygens edition II 868-869) that
Amalric was forced to put aside his uncanonical wife, Agnes, so that he
could be crowned as king of Jerusalem (rubric: "Quod antequam coronaretur
coactus est ab uxore sua, quam contra sacros duxerat canones, discedere").
He explained below that the marriage had been against the admonition of
Patriarch Fulcher ("Nam et initio, dum eam duxisset, invito domino
patriarcha Fulchero, bone memorie, et contradicente sibi eam matrimonio
copulavit") because they were declared to be related in the fourth degree
("eo quod quarto consanguinitatis gradu se dicebantur contingere").
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/27/05 1:45:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
This is not a convincing basis to contradict William of
Tyre, a 12th-century contemporary, who specifically recounted that the
problem with her marriage to Amalric was consanguinity - they were fourth
cousins, and Fulcher, the partiarch of Jerusalem, reportedly objected on
these grounds but was not obeyed
On the marriage of Amalric to Agnes, were they not third cousins?
I have that their great-grandmothers (de Monthlery) were sisters. Does
William/Fulcher actually say "third" or just "cousins within the
prohibited degree"
Sorry, Will - this was just carelessness on my part, as you had already
posted that they were third cousins.
William of Tyre says (book 19 chapter 4, Huygens edition II 868-869) that
Amalric was forced to put aside his uncanonical wife, Agnes, so that he
could be crowned as king of Jerusalem (rubric: "Quod antequam coronaretur
coactus est ab uxore sua, quam contra sacros duxerat canones, discedere").
He explained below that the marriage had been against the admonition of
Patriarch Fulcher ("Nam et initio, dum eam duxisset, invito domino
patriarcha Fulchero, bone memorie, et contradicente sibi eam matrimonio
copulavit") because they were declared to be related in the fourth degree
("eo quod quarto consanguinitatis gradu se dicebantur contingere").
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Melisende of Rethel
Peter's brain is always in a high state of "Britannic disorder."
Although-- I've noticed that his formerly erratic spelling has gotten
markedly better in recent weeks. Maybe he's on a different dosage.
But it might be simply that someone new has taken over the writing of
"Peter's" responses ... Hmmm ...
Although-- I've noticed that his formerly erratic spelling has gotten
markedly better in recent weeks. Maybe he's on a different dosage.
But it might be simply that someone new has taken over the writing of
"Peter's" responses ... Hmmm ...
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Melisende of Rethel
<"Britannic disorder", as the French call it> I like that term ... can
Americans have it?
Ginny
Americans have it?
-
Peter Stewart
Remarriage of presumed widows [was: Re: Melisende of Rethel]
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1122509018.655758.288010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
I wondered about the Church's teaching on this problem and whether the
experience of the crusades had made a difference. A useful paper on the
subject is 'The Crusader's Wife Revisited' by James Brundage, _Studia
Gratiana_ 14, Collectanea Stephan Kuttner 4 (1967) 243-251, from which the
following information is taken.
Apparently the loss & undertermined fate of many captives did bring the
matter into sharper focus. The position to the time of the great canonist St
Ivo of Chartres, who wrote his 'Panormia' [_Patrologia latina_ vol. 161] at
the time of the First Crusade, had been that if a woman had proof of her
hsuband's death she could marry again a year after his demise [col. 1255]; a
woman learning of her husband's survival as a captive could choose to wait
at home for his release or go and join him in prison [col. 1264].
It was apparently not until Gratian's 'Decretum', written in the 1140s, that
the question of mistaken remarriage was formally broached. He set the
hypothetical circumstance of a man taken captive whose wife heard that he
was dead and married someone else; later the first husband reappeared and
claimed his wife, but out of love for the new spouse she denied his conjugal
rights [Causa 34]. The answer given was that the woman would be obliged to
return to her canonical husband, and that in case of the slightest
uncertainty about his fate a woman could not remarry in the first place.
A view that developed after this was based on ancient Roman law, where the
qualifying period from a soldier's disappearance varied between four and ten
years. However, this was evidently too stringent for some medieval
canonists, and they settled on one year provided that the man's commander
was willing to swear an oath that he was dead. Apparently there has been no
uniformity in approach, then or even into modern times. A few popes insisted
on a seven-year wait, with proof of death still demanded at the end of this
interval, while one authroity insisted that 100 years were necessary to be
absolutely sure of widowhood - by which time there would, I suppose, tend be
a shortage of suitors anyway.
Peter Stewart
news:1122509018.655758.288010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
But the general point is probably valid that some women (perhaps
especially from Edessa at this time) might have been caught out in
accidental bigamy: if a husband vanished in battle, the need for his
presumed widow to remarry quickly could have led to mistakes.
Still, the enemies of Crusader barons were not backward in demanding
ransom, so there would have to be complicating factors for a prisoner's
identity to be undiscovered by them, or for his survival not to be made
known to a wife.
I wondered about the Church's teaching on this problem and whether the
experience of the crusades had made a difference. A useful paper on the
subject is 'The Crusader's Wife Revisited' by James Brundage, _Studia
Gratiana_ 14, Collectanea Stephan Kuttner 4 (1967) 243-251, from which the
following information is taken.
Apparently the loss & undertermined fate of many captives did bring the
matter into sharper focus. The position to the time of the great canonist St
Ivo of Chartres, who wrote his 'Panormia' [_Patrologia latina_ vol. 161] at
the time of the First Crusade, had been that if a woman had proof of her
hsuband's death she could marry again a year after his demise [col. 1255]; a
woman learning of her husband's survival as a captive could choose to wait
at home for his release or go and join him in prison [col. 1264].
It was apparently not until Gratian's 'Decretum', written in the 1140s, that
the question of mistaken remarriage was formally broached. He set the
hypothetical circumstance of a man taken captive whose wife heard that he
was dead and married someone else; later the first husband reappeared and
claimed his wife, but out of love for the new spouse she denied his conjugal
rights [Causa 34]. The answer given was that the woman would be obliged to
return to her canonical husband, and that in case of the slightest
uncertainty about his fate a woman could not remarry in the first place.
A view that developed after this was based on ancient Roman law, where the
qualifying period from a soldier's disappearance varied between four and ten
years. However, this was evidently too stringent for some medieval
canonists, and they settled on one year provided that the man's commander
was willing to swear an oath that he was dead. Apparently there has been no
uniformity in approach, then or even into modern times. A few popes insisted
on a seven-year wait, with proof of death still demanded at the end of this
interval, while one authroity insisted that 100 years were necessary to be
absolutely sure of widowhood - by which time there would, I suppose, tend be
a shortage of suitors anyway.
Peter Stewart