Guillem de Gellone
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Guillem de Gellone
After the recent thread which connected Hughes de Payens with the marriage of
Melisende and Fulk V of Anjou and Maine (later King of Jerusalem), I harkened
back to earlier reading I had done.
There was a theory put forward twenty or so years back, that Godfroi and
Baldwin I his brother, were descendents of Guillem de Gellone. My first question
is, is this sound? And my second is, Baldwin II, said to be their cousin,
does he also descend in this same way somehow?
Then finally, Godfroi is said to be part of the "Grail family" and was
mentioned in several romances thus, and supposedly this explains in some part why he
was chosen to be the head of Jerusalem (not King, by his own choice). The
house of Anjou is specifically mentioned in at least one place, but very
tenuous.
However Fulk V, chosen to marry into this family, was the Count of Anjou at
the time. So now I'm curious whether there could be a link from Fulk also back
to Guillem.
This is all very airy at the moment.
Thank you for your comments.
Will Johnson
Melisende and Fulk V of Anjou and Maine (later King of Jerusalem), I harkened
back to earlier reading I had done.
There was a theory put forward twenty or so years back, that Godfroi and
Baldwin I his brother, were descendents of Guillem de Gellone. My first question
is, is this sound? And my second is, Baldwin II, said to be their cousin,
does he also descend in this same way somehow?
Then finally, Godfroi is said to be part of the "Grail family" and was
mentioned in several romances thus, and supposedly this explains in some part why he
was chosen to be the head of Jerusalem (not King, by his own choice). The
house of Anjou is specifically mentioned in at least one place, but very
tenuous.
However Fulk V, chosen to marry into this family, was the Count of Anjou at
the time. So now I'm curious whether there could be a link from Fulk also back
to Guillem.
This is all very airy at the moment.
Thank you for your comments.
Will Johnson
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In article <7d.6e17ddeb.301a5bd2@aol.com>, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If you are referring to their alleged connection in the fabricated
genealogy found in _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, then the answer is no. But
there may be unknown connections between the historical Guilhem and
Godfrey of Bouillon / Eustace of Boulogne, in the many gaps in the
ancestry of Ida of Lorraine. The most widely repeated descents from
Guilhem are alleged via the counts of Angouleme or the counts of
Provence (though these are not proved); there may be descents via other
paths, which are unknown.
Not to my knowledge.
Wolfram's _Parzival_ is the most ambitious text to weave people in 'real
life' into the grail-family mythos as it had developed by the later 12th
century. His text does not emphasize the Lorrainer identity of the swan
or grail knights (which is prevalent elsewhere), but it does focus on
the Angevins. A while ago I did a genealogy of the characters in that
tale; it is at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rzival.pdf
Again, a descent from Guilhem would have to come fairly
tortuously--perhaps to Fulk Nerra via Giselbert of Burgundy (d. 956), or
to Geoffrey of the Gatinais via Beatrix of Macon. Giselbert and Beatrix
were both connected to southern nobles of the 9th c., which could lead
to unknown descents from William, especially if one accepts Claudie
Duhamel-Amado's thesis that Guilhem must have had a broad descendancy
all over Languedoc - Provence which has escaped documentation.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
After the recent thread which connected Hughes de Payens with the marriage of
Melisende and Fulk V of Anjou and Maine (later King of Jerusalem), I harkened
back to earlier reading I had done.
There was a theory put forward twenty or so years back, that Godfroi and
Baldwin I his brother, were descendents of Guillem de Gellone. My first
question
is, is this sound?
If you are referring to their alleged connection in the fabricated
genealogy found in _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_, then the answer is no. But
there may be unknown connections between the historical Guilhem and
Godfrey of Bouillon / Eustace of Boulogne, in the many gaps in the
ancestry of Ida of Lorraine. The most widely repeated descents from
Guilhem are alleged via the counts of Angouleme or the counts of
Provence (though these are not proved); there may be descents via other
paths, which are unknown.
And my second is, Baldwin II, said to be their cousin,
does he also descend in this same way somehow?
Not to my knowledge.
Then finally, Godfroi is said to be part of the "Grail family" and was
mentioned in several romances thus, and supposedly this explains in some part
why he was chosen to be the head of Jerusalem (not King, by his own choice).
The house of Anjou is specifically mentioned in at least one place, but very
tenuous.
Wolfram's _Parzival_ is the most ambitious text to weave people in 'real
life' into the grail-family mythos as it had developed by the later 12th
century. His text does not emphasize the Lorrainer identity of the swan
or grail knights (which is prevalent elsewhere), but it does focus on
the Angevins. A while ago I did a genealogy of the characters in that
tale; it is at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rzival.pdf
However Fulk V, chosen to marry into this family, was the Count of Anjou at
the time. So now I'm curious whether there could be a link from Fulk also
back to Guillem.
Again, a descent from Guilhem would have to come fairly
tortuously--perhaps to Fulk Nerra via Giselbert of Burgundy (d. 956), or
to Geoffrey of the Gatinais via Beatrix of Macon. Giselbert and Beatrix
were both connected to southern nobles of the 9th c., which could lead
to unknown descents from William, especially if one accepts Claudie
Duhamel-Amado's thesis that Guilhem must have had a broad descendancy
all over Languedoc - Provence which has escaped documentation.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Guillem de Gellone
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
No. Once the younger son of a second-tier count (and disputed heir to
another) managed to become ruler of the Seat of Heaven, it became
necessary for him to have a pedigree to match.
Baldwin was a younger kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin I, but the nature
of the relationship is entirely obscure (largely because several aspects
of Baldwin II's immediate ancestry remain problematic).
As I said above, this is backwards - it is because he became Protector
of the Holy Sepulcre that explains why such ancestry was assigned him,
and not the ancestry which contributed to his position.
taf
There was a theory put forward twenty or so years back, that Godfroi and
Baldwin I his brother, were descendents of Guillem de Gellone. My first question
is, is this sound?
No. Once the younger son of a second-tier count (and disputed heir to
another) managed to become ruler of the Seat of Heaven, it became
necessary for him to have a pedigree to match.
And my second is, Baldwin II, said to be their cousin,
does he also descend in this same way somehow?
Baldwin was a younger kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin I, but the nature
of the relationship is entirely obscure (largely because several aspects
of Baldwin II's immediate ancestry remain problematic).
Then finally, Godfroi is said to be part of the "Grail family" and was
mentioned in several romances thus, and supposedly this explains in some part why he
was chosen to be the head of Jerusalem (not King, by his own choice).
As I said above, this is backwards - it is because he became Protector
of the Holy Sepulcre that explains why such ancestry was assigned him,
and not the ancestry which contributed to his position.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/28/05 10:30:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Baldwin was a younger kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin I, but the nature
of the relationship is entirely obscure (largely because several aspects
of Baldwin II's immediate ancestry remain problematic). >>
Thank you Nat and taf for your comments.
Since posting, I reviewed the genealogical chart presented in Holy Blood,
Holy Grail on this section of the history.
I agree in principal that their long, tortured argument, has many leaps of
faith, however some parts of it may prove to be valid.
On the specific issue of the ancestry of Baldwin II is not his father Hugh,
Count of Rethel and then Hugh's mother is Ida of Boulogne, daughter of Eustache
I, Count of Boulogne ?
Then this same Eustache I, is the father of Eustache II, Count of Boulogne
who is then the father of Godfroi and Baudoin I.
So if that is accurate than the specific relationship between Baudoin I and
Baudoin II would be 1st cousins, once removed.
This is the line presented as descending from Guillem of Gellone, so I've
answered one question, which is, does the theory present both Baldwin I and
Baldwin II as descended from Guillem in the same way. The answer is yes. That
does not say the theory is *correct* that is another issue entirely
But I'm wondering if part of the relationship between Baldwin 1 and Baldwin 2
is in doubt, which part is it? What is the weak link?
Thanks
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Baldwin was a younger kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin I, but the nature
of the relationship is entirely obscure (largely because several aspects
of Baldwin II's immediate ancestry remain problematic). >>
Thank you Nat and taf for your comments.
Since posting, I reviewed the genealogical chart presented in Holy Blood,
Holy Grail on this section of the history.
I agree in principal that their long, tortured argument, has many leaps of
faith, however some parts of it may prove to be valid.
On the specific issue of the ancestry of Baldwin II is not his father Hugh,
Count of Rethel and then Hugh's mother is Ida of Boulogne, daughter of Eustache
I, Count of Boulogne ?
Then this same Eustache I, is the father of Eustache II, Count of Boulogne
who is then the father of Godfroi and Baudoin I.
So if that is accurate than the specific relationship between Baudoin I and
Baudoin II would be 1st cousins, once removed.
This is the line presented as descending from Guillem of Gellone, so I've
answered one question, which is, does the theory present both Baldwin I and
Baldwin II as descended from Guillem in the same way. The answer is yes. That
does not say the theory is *correct* that is another issue entirely
But I'm wondering if part of the relationship between Baldwin 1 and Baldwin 2
is in doubt, which part is it? What is the weak link?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Guillem de Gellone
<WJhonson@aol.com> wrote in message news:bb.5c4f1518.301a82e1@aol.com...
This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart
In a message dated 7/28/05 10:30:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Baldwin was a younger kinsman of Godfrey and Baldwin I, but the nature
of the relationship is entirely obscure (largely because several aspects
of Baldwin II's immediate ancestry remain problematic).
Thank you Nat and taf for your comments.
Since posting, I reviewed the genealogical chart presented in Holy Blood,
Holy Grail on this section of the history.
I agree in principal that their long, tortured argument, has many leaps of
faith, however some parts of it may prove to be valid.
On the specific issue of the ancestry of Baldwin II is not his father
Hugh,
Count of Rethel and then Hugh's mother is Ida of Boulogne, daughter of
Eustache
I, Count of Boulogne ?
This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Guillem de Gellone
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Baldwin is son of Hugh. However, we know from charter evidence that
Hugh is son of Manasses and Jutta. This, apparently, has been turned
into Ida (a curious choice, since the name Ida appears to have been
brought into the Boulogne family through Godfrey's mother, while Judith
might be expected in a family with Flemish ties). The only reason for
speculating that she is daughter of Eustace I is exact that Baldwin II
was cousin of Baldwin I. Independent of this speculation, the pedigrees
usually show her as sister of Eudes of Roucy, but the chronology is
virtually impossible, so it needs to be set aside (or at least modified
as well. Richard suggested that the link was through Baldwin II's
mother, who was herself made the daughter of Eustace I, but this is no
better - she appears to have been daughter of Gui of Montlheri.
Yes, if only. Mathieu has suggested a similar kinship, but through a
'corrected' pedigree of Baldwin II's mother, while Murray investigated
the possibility of a connection on the side of Godfrey and Baldwin I's
mother (which I find less pleasing, but I suspect Baldwin II did not
have my pleasure in mind when he decided to be kinsman of Baldwin I and
Godfrey).
All of it. We just have no basis for identifying the true connection.
Eustace I had no known daughter Ida (or any other name, other than
Gerberga, wife of Frederick of Luxembourg). Hugh's mother Jutta is of
unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law, Dada, wife of Manasses II.
On the other side of the equation, Boulogne, Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun,
and whatever family Godfrey's maternal grandmother, Doda (which reminded
Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II) belonged must be considered. It
is just too complex - too much is unknown all the way around.
taf
On the specific issue of the ancestry of Baldwin II is not his father Hugh,
Count of Rethel and then Hugh's mother is Ida of Boulogne, daughter of Eustache
I, Count of Boulogne ?
Baldwin is son of Hugh. However, we know from charter evidence that
Hugh is son of Manasses and Jutta. This, apparently, has been turned
into Ida (a curious choice, since the name Ida appears to have been
brought into the Boulogne family through Godfrey's mother, while Judith
might be expected in a family with Flemish ties). The only reason for
speculating that she is daughter of Eustace I is exact that Baldwin II
was cousin of Baldwin I. Independent of this speculation, the pedigrees
usually show her as sister of Eudes of Roucy, but the chronology is
virtually impossible, so it needs to be set aside (or at least modified
as well. Richard suggested that the link was through Baldwin II's
mother, who was herself made the daughter of Eustace I, but this is no
better - she appears to have been daughter of Gui of Montlheri.
So if that is accurate than the specific relationship between Baudoin I and
Baudoin II would be 1st cousins, once removed.
Yes, if only. Mathieu has suggested a similar kinship, but through a
'corrected' pedigree of Baldwin II's mother, while Murray investigated
the possibility of a connection on the side of Godfrey and Baldwin I's
mother (which I find less pleasing, but I suspect Baldwin II did not
have my pleasure in mind when he decided to be kinsman of Baldwin I and
Godfrey).
But I'm wondering if part of the relationship between Baldwin 1 and Baldwin 2
is in doubt, which part is it? What is the weak link?
All of it. We just have no basis for identifying the true connection.
Eustace I had no known daughter Ida (or any other name, other than
Gerberga, wife of Frederick of Luxembourg). Hugh's mother Jutta is of
unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law, Dada, wife of Manasses II.
On the other side of the equation, Boulogne, Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun,
and whatever family Godfrey's maternal grandmother, Doda (which reminded
Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II) belonged must be considered. It
is just too complex - too much is unknown all the way around.
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Guillem de Gellone
Will Johnson wrote;
No, it remains a puzzle. Alan Murray has proposed that the connection
came through St Ida of Lorraine's mother Uoda, who he thinks could have
belonged to the comital family of Rethel, perhaps as a paternal aunt of
King Balduin II's father Count Hugo. I don't find this altogether
convincing, but it's as good as any other theory I suppose.
Peter Stewart
A few sources I looked at, named this Ida of Boulogne, a few only mentioned
that Baldwin I and Baldwin II were "cousins". One, the 1911 Brittanica says
that Baldwin II was Baldwin I's nephew. Does anyone know of anything definitive
that says what the relationship was and HOW it existed? That is, who are the
missing links between these two men?
No, it remains a puzzle. Alan Murray has proposed that the connection
came through St Ida of Lorraine's mother Uoda, who he thinks could have
belonged to the comital family of Rethel, perhaps as a paternal aunt of
King Balduin II's father Count Hugo. I don't find this altogether
convincing, but it's as good as any other theory I suppose.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/28/2005 8:30:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
A few sources I looked at, named this Ida of Boulogne, a few only mentioned
that Baldwin I and Baldwin II were "cousins". One, the 1911 Brittanica says
that Baldwin II was Baldwin I's nephew. Does anyone know of anything definitive
that says what the relationship was and HOW it existed? That is, who are the
missing links between these two men?
Thanks
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
On the specific issue of the ancestry of Baldwin II is not his father
Hugh,
Count of Rethel and then Hugh's mother is Ida of Boulogne, daughter of
Eustache I, Count of Boulogne ?
This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart
A few sources I looked at, named this Ida of Boulogne, a few only mentioned
that Baldwin I and Baldwin II were "cousins". One, the 1911 Brittanica says
that Baldwin II was Baldwin I's nephew. Does anyone know of anything definitive
that says what the relationship was and HOW it existed? That is, who are the
missing links between these two men?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/28/2005 11:30:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
Well I have Ida in my database called Ida d'Ardennes and then I saw that
Rethel is supposed to be "in the Ardennes". Are both of these things factual?
Thanks
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
No, it remains a puzzle. Alan Murray has proposed that the connection
came through St Ida of Lorraine's mother Uoda, who he thinks could have
belonged to the comital family of Rethel, perhaps as a paternal aunt of
King Balduin II's father Count Hugo. I don't find this altogether
convincing, but it's as good as any other theory I suppose.
Well I have Ida in my database called Ida d'Ardennes and then I saw that
Rethel is supposed to be "in the Ardennes". Are both of these things factual?
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Guillem de Gellone
Will Johnson wrote:
Unfortunately, Ida appears in some reputable books as well - e.g. Sir Steven
Runciman's History of the Crusades. I have never quite worked out how this
wikipedia thing is meant to work (e.g. what does the entry on Rohese, wife
of Richard de Lucy, say at the moment? I suppose it depends who's been there
last), but maybe it would help to pre-empt people changing it back again if
you mentioned that you're aware that Runciman got it wrong!
Chris Phillips
I have corrected the http://www.wikipedia.com entry for Baldwin II as follows.
Please make comments if this presentation is not accurate:
"Baldwin was the son of Hugh, count of Rethel, and his wife Melisende of
Monthlery; Hugh, son of Baldwin of Rethel and an unknown wife. Baldwin of
Bourcq
was a cousin of the brothers Eustace III, Godfrey, and Baldwin, whom he
followed on the First Crusade in 1096. Although Baldwin II is called a
"cousin" of
Baldwin I, the exact manner in which they are related has never been
discovered.
Some disreputable books have claimed a fictitious Ida of Boulogne as
mother
to Baldwin II in order to force the relationship, but this person never
existed."
Unfortunately, Ida appears in some reputable books as well - e.g. Sir Steven
Runciman's History of the Crusades. I have never quite worked out how this
wikipedia thing is meant to work (e.g. what does the entry on Rohese, wife
of Richard de Lucy, say at the moment? I suppose it depends who's been there
last), but maybe it would help to pre-empt people changing it back again if
you mentioned that you're aware that Runciman got it wrong!
Chris Phillips
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Guillem de Gellone
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
If you are continuing the pedigree, as appears to be the case, then this
is incorrect:
Hugh was son of Manasses III of Rethel by wife Jutta, of uncertain origin.
Baldwin of Bourcq
Rather than limit it to this one speculative solution, I would broaden
it to include the various hypotheses (and also, some of the works in
question, such as Runciman's History, are not generally regarded as
disreputable - just grossly mistaken/misled on this specific point):
Various schemes have been proposed involving Baldwin's mother or
grandmother (usually erroneously referred to in these reconstructions as
an enigmatic Ida of Boulogne) in order to force the relationship, but
none of these have a sound basis.
taf
I have corrected the http://www.wikipedia.com entry for Baldwin II as follows.
Please make comments if this presentation is not accurate:
"Baldwin was the son of Hugh, count of Rethel, and his wife Melisende of
Monthlery; Hugh, son of Baldwin of Rethel and an unknown wife.
If you are continuing the pedigree, as appears to be the case, then this
is incorrect:
Hugh was son of Manasses III of Rethel by wife Jutta, of uncertain origin.
Baldwin of Bourcq
was a cousin of the brothers Eustace III, Godfrey, and Baldwin, whom he
followed on the First Crusade in 1096. Although Baldwin II is called a "cousin" of
Baldwin I, the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
Some disreputable books have claimed a fictitious Ida of Boulogne as mother
to Baldwin II in order to force the relationship, but this person never
existed."
Rather than limit it to this one speculative solution, I would broaden
it to include the various hypotheses (and also, some of the works in
question, such as Runciman's History, are not generally regarded as
disreputable - just grossly mistaken/misled on this specific point):
Various schemes have been proposed involving Baldwin's mother or
grandmother (usually erroneously referred to in these reconstructions as
an enigmatic Ida of Boulogne) in order to force the relationship, but
none of these have a sound basis.
taf
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Guillem de Gellone
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
There is some question as to what either of them means - Doda is
rendered (as Peter pointed out), as Uota by Murray, and may (? probably)
represent some form of Ida. Dada is likewise a nickname of some sort,
but this woman is quite obscure, and what the name represents is in doubt.
taf
In a message dated 7/28/05 11:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Hugh's mother Jutta is of unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law,
Dada, wife of Manasses II. On the other side of the equation, Boulogne,
Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun, and whatever family Godfrey's maternal grandmother, Doda
(which reminded Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II) belonged must be
considered. It
is just too complex - too much is unknown all the way around.
Manasses is a very odd name to pick if you're going to name your children
after biblical figures. He wasn't exactly a great heroic figure.
On another issue, what happened to the names Doda and Dada ? Did these
vanish from the scene? Or did we get them in transformed state as .... what?
There is some question as to what either of them means - Doda is
rendered (as Peter pointed out), as Uota by Murray, and may (? probably)
represent some form of Ida. Dada is likewise a nickname of some sort,
but this woman is quite obscure, and what the name represents is in doubt.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/28/05 8:30:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart >>
I have corrected the http://www.wikipedia.com entry for Baldwin II as follows.
Please make comments if this presentation is not accurate:
"Baldwin was the son of Hugh, count of Rethel, and his wife Melisende of
Monthlery; Hugh, son of Baldwin of Rethel and an unknown wife. Baldwin of Bourcq
was a cousin of the brothers Eustace III, Godfrey, and Baldwin, whom he
followed on the First Crusade in 1096. Although Baldwin II is called a "cousin" of
Baldwin I, the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
Some disreputable books have claimed a fictitious Ida of Boulogne as mother
to Baldwin II in order to force the relationship, but this person never
existed."
Thanks
Will Johnson
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
<< This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart >>
I have corrected the http://www.wikipedia.com entry for Baldwin II as follows.
Please make comments if this presentation is not accurate:
"Baldwin was the son of Hugh, count of Rethel, and his wife Melisende of
Monthlery; Hugh, son of Baldwin of Rethel and an unknown wife. Baldwin of Bourcq
was a cousin of the brothers Eustace III, Godfrey, and Baldwin, whom he
followed on the First Crusade in 1096. Although Baldwin II is called a "cousin" of
Baldwin I, the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
Some disreputable books have claimed a fictitious Ida of Boulogne as mother
to Baldwin II in order to force the relationship, but this person never
existed."
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Guillem de Gellone
Chris Phillips wrote:
To a degree that is exactly it, although it is indicated that those
contributing should take compromise positions and recognize legitimate
alternative opinion rather than having a continuous tennis match between
extremes. I don't think, though, there is any way to stop someone from
posting an extreme position in place of a moderate one. (I was working
up material on early Navarre, and someone posted a whole lot of stuff
that is either based research too cutting edge for me to be aware of it,
or so old it has long been dismissed without coming to my notice. I am
at a loss what to do now.)
Just a friendly suggestion - perhaps it would be a good idea for anyone
planning to update/correct wiki to post here and leave a little time for
comment before uploading the change. At least then a reasonable
compromise can be hammered out here rather than through warring wiki
submissions.
taf
I have never quite worked out how this
wikipedia thing is meant to work (e.g. what does the entry on Rohese, wife
of Richard de Lucy, say at the moment? I suppose it depends who's been there
last),
To a degree that is exactly it, although it is indicated that those
contributing should take compromise positions and recognize legitimate
alternative opinion rather than having a continuous tennis match between
extremes. I don't think, though, there is any way to stop someone from
posting an extreme position in place of a moderate one. (I was working
up material on early Navarre, and someone posted a whole lot of stuff
that is either based research too cutting edge for me to be aware of it,
or so old it has long been dismissed without coming to my notice. I am
at a loss what to do now.)
Just a friendly suggestion - perhaps it would be a good idea for anyone
planning to update/correct wiki to post here and leave a little time for
comment before uploading the change. At least then a reasonable
compromise can be hammered out here rather than through warring wiki
submissions.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/28/05 11:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Hugh's mother Jutta is of unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law,
Dada, wife of Manasses II. On the other side of the equation, Boulogne,
Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun, and whatever family Godfrey's maternal grandmother, Doda
(which reminded Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II) belonged must be
considered. It
is just too complex - too much is unknown all the way around. >>
Manasses is a very odd name to pick if you're going to name your children
after biblical figures. He wasn't exactly a great heroic figure.
On another issue, what happened to the names Doda and Dada ? Did these
vanish from the scene? Or did we get them in transformed state as .... what?
Will Johnson
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
<< Hugh's mother Jutta is of unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law,
Dada, wife of Manasses II. On the other side of the equation, Boulogne,
Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun, and whatever family Godfrey's maternal grandmother, Doda
(which reminded Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II) belonged must be
considered. It
is just too complex - too much is unknown all the way around. >>
Manasses is a very odd name to pick if you're going to name your children
after biblical figures. He wasn't exactly a great heroic figure.
On another issue, what happened to the names Doda and Dada ? Did these
vanish from the scene? Or did we get them in transformed state as .... what?
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/29/05 12:30:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< Unfortunately, Ida appears in some reputable books as well - e.g. Sir
Steven
Runciman's History of the Crusades. I have never quite worked out how this
wikipedia thing is meant to work (e.g. what does the entry on Rohese, wife
of Richard de Lucy, say at the moment? I suppose it depends who's been there
last), but maybe it would help to pre-empt people changing it back again if
you mentioned that you're aware that Runciman got it wrong!
Chris Phillips >>
Thank you Chris for your response.
I have added a reference to Runciman, I also started a "talk" page on Baldwin
II just in case people want to argue the point, without reverting my changes
right-off
On your second point here is the entry for "Richard de Luci" (not my spelling)
"Richard de Luci was first noted as Sheriff of the County of Essex. His wife
Rohese, who is named in several documents, might have been a sister of Faramus
of Boulonge. When Henry II came to the throne in 1154, he was made Chief
Justiciar of England jointly with Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester. When
de Beaumont died in 1168, he continued to hold the office in his own right.
He resigned his office in 1179, and retired to Lesnes Abbey in Kent, where he
died and was buried three months later 14 Jul 1179."
There is, as yet, no page for his wife Rohese. In order to make one, we
first have to give her a more particular (unique-ish) name. Rohese is too common.
So she'd have to become something like Rohese of Outer Mongolia
or
something. Then we link her to limbo, by just adding '[' around her name. Then
when someone clicks on her, they will go to a new page, that can be edited.
There are over 600,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia right now.
Who would have thought so many people wanted to show off their erudition ?
(grin)
Will Johnson
cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk writes:
<< Unfortunately, Ida appears in some reputable books as well - e.g. Sir
Steven
Runciman's History of the Crusades. I have never quite worked out how this
wikipedia thing is meant to work (e.g. what does the entry on Rohese, wife
of Richard de Lucy, say at the moment? I suppose it depends who's been there
last), but maybe it would help to pre-empt people changing it back again if
you mentioned that you're aware that Runciman got it wrong!
Chris Phillips >>
Thank you Chris for your response.
I have added a reference to Runciman, I also started a "talk" page on Baldwin
II just in case people want to argue the point, without reverting my changes
right-off
On your second point here is the entry for "Richard de Luci" (not my spelling)
"Richard de Luci was first noted as Sheriff of the County of Essex. His wife
Rohese, who is named in several documents, might have been a sister of Faramus
of Boulonge. When Henry II came to the throne in 1154, he was made Chief
Justiciar of England jointly with Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester. When
de Beaumont died in 1168, he continued to hold the office in his own right.
He resigned his office in 1179, and retired to Lesnes Abbey in Kent, where he
died and was buried three months later 14 Jul 1179."
There is, as yet, no page for his wife Rohese. In order to make one, we
first have to give her a more particular (unique-ish) name. Rohese is too common.
So she'd have to become something like Rohese of Outer Mongolia
something. Then we link her to limbo, by just adding '[' around her name. Then
when someone clicks on her, they will go to a new page, that can be edited.
There are over 600,000 entries in the English version of wikipedia right now.
Who would have thought so many people wanted to show off their erudition ?
(grin)
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Guillem de Gellone
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42ea8bd9@news.ColoState.EDU...
I prefer the form Uoda, because this was used by her daughter Ida. The
difference between their two names as given in the document is clear enough
to suggest that Uoda (Uda) was not considered the same name as Ida.
This occurs in an original charter preserved in the archive of Munsterbilsen
(where the mother was buried), "ego peccatrix Ida...ea uidelicet conditione,
ut pie anime matris mee Vode et aui mei marchionis Godezonis...continuas
inde habeant elemosinarum et orationum hostias pacificas"
Uoda is written with the "o" superscribed above the "V".
Peter Stewart
news:42ea8bd9@news.ColoState.EDU...
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/28/05 11:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:
Hugh's mother Jutta is of unknown parentage, as is her mother-in-law,
Dada, wife of Manasses II. On the other side of the equation, Boulogne,
Ponthieu, Louvain, Verdun, and whatever family Godfrey's maternal
grandmother, Doda (which reminded Mathieu of Dada, wife of Manasses II)
belonged must be considered. It is just too complex - too much is
unknown all the way around.
Manasses is a very odd name to pick if you're going to name your children
after biblical figures. He wasn't exactly a great heroic figure.
On another issue, what happened to the names Doda and Dada ? Did these
vanish from the scene? Or did we get them in transformed state as ....
what?
There is some question as to what either of them means - Doda is rendered
(as Peter pointed out), as Uota by Murray, and may (? probably) represent
some form of Ida. Dada is likewise a nickname of some sort, but this
woman is quite obscure, and what the name represents is in doubt.
I prefer the form Uoda, because this was used by her daughter Ida. The
difference between their two names as given in the document is clear enough
to suggest that Uoda (Uda) was not considered the same name as Ida.
This occurs in an original charter preserved in the archive of Munsterbilsen
(where the mother was buried), "ego peccatrix Ida...ea uidelicet conditione,
ut pie anime matris mee Vode et aui mei marchionis Godezonis...continuas
inde habeant elemosinarum et orationum hostias pacificas"
Uoda is written with the "o" superscribed above the "V".
Peter Stewart
-
CE Wood
Re: Guillem de Gellone
One of the major problems with Wikipedia is the accuracy of its
imformation. In that sense, it is similar to WorldRoots. Although
sources are sometimes given, the reliability of the author is not
established, not are individual facts referenced,
It can also be changed at any time, so using it as a reference is
unreliable.
Caveat emptor.
CE Wood
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
imformation. In that sense, it is similar to WorldRoots. Although
sources are sometimes given, the reliability of the author is not
established, not are individual facts referenced,
It can also be changed at any time, so using it as a reference is
unreliable.
Caveat emptor.
CE Wood
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/28/05 8:30:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
p_m_stewart@msn.com writes:
This is doubly imaginary - as to actual evidence, the father of Count Hugo
of Rethel did not have a recorded wife named Ida (Hugo's mother was Judith,
of unknown ancestry), and Count Eustace I of Boulogne did not have a
daughter of this name (which only came into his family with the second - or
possibly third - wife of his son Eustace II).
Peter Stewart
I have corrected the http://www.wikipedia.com entry for Baldwin II as follows.
Please make comments if this presentation is not accurate:
"Baldwin was the son of Hugh, count of Rethel, and his wife Melisende of
Monthlery; Hugh, son of Baldwin of Rethel and an unknown wife. Baldwin of Bourcq
was a cousin of the brothers Eustace III, Godfrey, and Baldwin, whom he
followed on the First Crusade in 1096. Although Baldwin II is called a "cousin" of
Baldwin I, the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
Some disreputable books have claimed a fictitious Ida of Boulogne as mother
to Baldwin II in order to force the relationship, but this person never
existed."
Thanks
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Guillem de Gellone
In a message dated 7/29/05 6:15:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wood_ce@msn.com
writes:
<< One of the major problems with Wikipedia is the accuracy of its
imformation. In that sense, it is similar to WorldRoots. Although
sources are sometimes given, the reliability of the author is not
established, not are individual facts referenced, >>
WorldConnect is the result of each person's endeavor.
Wikipedia is the result of a collection of persons. It is a single post,
collaborative effort. WorldConnect is a multiple post, single-person effort.
They are quite different in my opinion.
Wikipedia has the chance to rise to the top as the pre-eminent site on which
groups of people can collaborate and share joint research efforts.
WorldConnect will never be able to do that.
On WorldConnect once a person becomes "popular" they spawn hundreds of hits,
most of which are worthless. On wikipedia, once a person becomes "popular"
they spawn hundreds of corrections to a single hit, which only makes that page
better and better.
Will Johnson
writes:
<< One of the major problems with Wikipedia is the accuracy of its
imformation. In that sense, it is similar to WorldRoots. Although
sources are sometimes given, the reliability of the author is not
established, not are individual facts referenced, >>
WorldConnect is the result of each person's endeavor.
Wikipedia is the result of a collection of persons. It is a single post,
collaborative effort. WorldConnect is a multiple post, single-person effort.
They are quite different in my opinion.
Wikipedia has the chance to rise to the top as the pre-eminent site on which
groups of people can collaborate and share joint research efforts.
WorldConnect will never be able to do that.
On WorldConnect once a person becomes "popular" they spawn hundreds of hits,
most of which are worthless. On wikipedia, once a person becomes "popular"
they spawn hundreds of corrections to a single hit, which only makes that page
better and better.
Will Johnson