NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini, but

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Alias Undercover

NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini, but

Legg inn av Alias Undercover » 22 jul 2005 00:00:02

ON topic, just barely!
I am wondering whence the theory that Sigebeorht, (Sigbert), King of East
Anglia, was a stepson of Redwald. Is it just because he is described as
Eorpwald's brother? I see no other basis for this conjecture. The Wuffings
were not an unstable dynasty, (at this time, whatever may have been the case
later, [or earlier]). Yes, there was contention among the kinfolk, (worse,
if you can believe it, than Peter S., Douglas R., and R. Spencer); but the
dynasty, itself was fairly stable. While our sources, (as they are), paint
an interesting picture of the heathen, (gentile), honour-bound wife of Red,
they do NOT indicate another marriage, (which, unless to another Wuffing,
would not have given Sige a claim to the crown & throne). Nor, be it noted,
do they tell her name. But, it beseemeth me, a name is not important for
the moral of the story, (and that is what these early annals, chronicles and
histories were attempting - morality narratives), the fact of another,
earlier marriage would have had import, especially considering the
ramifications of the dynastic zigzag that ensued.
It seems that some attempt to support the duogamy by the difference of
Sige's name. BUT, that may have come from HER family, (such occurrences are
not unknown). Some claim that she was clearly foreign. In the parlance of
Obvious Man, 'No duh!' Judging by her son's name, she should be East Saxon.
Do any on this list known of hard evidence that she was married afore Red,
and that it was her first husband that begot Sige? Is there any reason to
exclude the conclusion that she was, herself, East Saxon, and bore Sige to
Red?
Respectfully, cordially and civilly,
Ford Mommaerts-Browne

'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of
in your philosophy.'
-- William Shakespeare
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark_, Act I, Scene V, Line 166

Peter Stewart

Re: NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini,

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jul 2005 00:00:03

""Alias Undercover"" <FordMommaerts@Cox.net> wrote in message
news:026501c58e53$83e0ba60$24aee544@om.cox.net...

Careful, Ford - Mr Gifford/starbuck/Brandon may call you tacky and
dishonest, or start addressing you in inverted commas, if he thinks your
e-mail address may not match your real name, as of course his own does not.
He likes to think his peculiarities are exclusive, like his quirky morals.

<snip>

Yes, there was contention among the kinfolk, (worse,
if you can believe it, than Peter S., Douglas R., and R. Spencer); but the
dynasty, itself was fairly stable.

The difference is that medieval contentions could usually be resolved with a
sturdy weapon: on SGM we have a number of would-be warriors like the
bumptious knight in the Monty Python movie, who kept on hopping, flailing
and jeering at his enemies as his limbs were lopped off one by one....

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini,

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 jul 2005 01:00:02

Dear Ford,
Could the Explanation of Sigebert being called Eorpwald`s
brother been due to a possible marriage between Sigebert and a daughter of
Raedwulf, else between Eorpwald and a sister of Sigebert ? Then again, in the
twelveth century and probably sooner and later, Kings generally called each
other "brother King " even if it weren`t a biological fact.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Ford Mommaerts_browne

Re: NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini,

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts_browne » 22 jul 2005 02:04:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: NOT wreck & ruin, fought ENTIRE time, NOR Sueva Orsini, but
civil


Dear Ford,
Could the Explanation of Sigebert being called
Eorpwald`s
brother been due to a possible marriage between Sigebert and a daughter
of
Raedwulf, else between Eorpwald and a sister of Sigebert ? Then again, in
the
twelveth century and probably sooner and later, Kings generally called
each
other "brother King " even if it weren`t a biological fact.

Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA


Well, Sigebeorht/Sigbert claimed to be, (or had claimed for him), that he
was Wuffing. If your in-law hypothesis is correct, he would have been
Wuffing up the wrong tree. So, if he were Wuffing, his mother's first
husband would have had to have been a relative of Red's.
The question is, stated differently, why is he regarded as Red's stepson,
rather than son? Is it only because he is referred to as Eorpwald's
brother, in succeeding Eorpwald, (after the elimination of Eorpwald's
murderer), and not as Red's, (an earlier king's), son? And, as pointed out,
the 'Wuffing-hold' on the throne was not, (from the sparse information which
we have), so loose that an interloper, (even by marriage), is expected.
And, surely, if his claim was by marriage, SOME mention of said heiress
would have been made.
Sigbert retired to a monastery, (the 1st AS king so to do); and came out a
year later to lead, (unarmed), an Anglian army against the Mercians,
(whereat he was, as was to be expected, slaughtered). He was revered as a
saint. The king who succeeded him, Ecgric, had been his Vice King, or
Lieutenant King, or Assistant Vice Under Associate Rear King, (or whatever
title one chooses). Both were done in, (one assumes that Ecgric's demise
was somewhat more valiant), and succeeded by Anna, a nephew of Red's. No
dynastic crisis. No disorderly disputes.
Sige seems to have been the natural, assumed successor to Eorpwald, despite
the obviously recognized existence and standing of Red's nephews, the sons
of Eni/Ine. He had returned from Francia, where he had been converted, (or
strengthened in his faith), to take the throne from Ricgbeorht, who may, or
may not have been a son of Red, (we just don't know - again). No question.
Apparently.
The only other thing which I can find to cast doubt upon Red's paternity is
that Sige had been on the continent because Red had driven him from the
kingdom, in anger. Argued by some that he didn't like his wife's son by a
previous marriage, (you know, the old 'wicked stepmother' syndrome). But
how often a father and son have a falling-out. Look to Henry II of England,
and his sons. All of them! HM Elizabeth II has had occasion to have
difficulties with all of her offspring. Remember the 'Annus horibilis'?
Expulsion or exile wasn't really an option for her, but it may well have
crossed Her Majesty's occasionally outspoken mind.
Cheers,
Ford

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»