Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capetien from Charlemagne

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capetien from Charlemagne

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 08 aug 2006 09:16:03

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Charles the Bald
/
Judith
/
Baudouin II of Flanders
/
Arnulf I of Flanders
/
Hildegard of Flanders
/
Arnulf of Holland
/
Dirk III of Holland
/
Floris I of Holland
/
Bertha of Holland
/
Louis VI King of France

I hope this line holds. I did a quick cjeck and in the ancestor list of
Louis VI,
Charlemagne appears as nrs.3144, 3248, 4752, 4848 and 13036

Any correction gratefully received.
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Capetien from Charlemagne


Peter Stewart wrote:
"Roger LeBlanc" <leblancr@mts.net> wrote in message
news:44D7E2AA.4090503@mts.net...
Following up on the recent discussion regarding Carolingian descents,
who
is the first Capetien monarch with an undisputed descent from
Charlemagne.
I'm guessing it would be Louis VI?

I assume you mean a line that can be documented fully - if so, how are
you
tracing this from Charlemagne to Louis VI?

Using the very efficient search method on Leo's Genealogics website I
see there is a line from Charlemagne to Louis VII:

Charlemagne
|
Louis the Pious
|
Lothar I
|
Lothar II the Saxon
|
Berta (by his bigamous marriage to Waldrada) married Thibaud of Arles
|
Boso of Tuscany
|
Willa married Berengar II, king of Italy
|
Adalbert
|
Otto William of Burgundy
|
Renaud
|
William I
|
Gisela married Humbert II of Savoy
|
Adelaide married Louis VI of France
|
Louis VII

I haven't spotted a line to Louis VI.

Peter Stewart


Peter Stewart

Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capetien from Charlemagne

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 aug 2006 09:40:39

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:01dc01c6bab9$b7a3a8b0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Charles the Bald
/
Judith
/
Baudouin II of Flanders
/
Arnulf I of Flanders
/
Hildegard of Flanders
/
Arnulf of Holland

The undisputed line does not carry through to this link - Hildegard is not
proved by direct evidence to belong to the comital family of Flanders, this
is only a conjecture based on her sons given the names Arnulf and Egbert
that occur in Flanders for her putative father Count Arnulf I and one of his
younger sons Egbert (who died before Egbert of Holland was born). If this
is right, Hildegard can only have been a half-sister of Egbert of Flanders,
as his mother Adela of Vermandois was not married to Arnulf I until late in
934 whereas Hildegard was married by ca 945 at the latest. No earlier wife
of Arnulf I, who could have been her mother, is recorded.

/
Dirk III of Holland
/
Floris I of Holland
/
Bertha of Holland
/
Louis VI King of France

I hope this line holds. I did a quick cjeck and in the ancestor list of
Louis VI,
Charlemagne appears as nrs.3144, 3248, 4752, 4848 and 13036

Can you set out these other lines as well?

Peter Stewart

Fred Chalfant

Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capetien from Charlemagne

Legg inn av Fred Chalfant » 08 aug 2006 13:25:32

On 2006-08-08 04:40:39 -0400, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> said:

I hope this line holds. I did a quick cjeck and in the ancestor list of
Louis VI,
Charlemagne appears as nrs.3144, 3248, 4752, 4848 and 13036

Can you set out these other lines as well?

Peter Stewart


Here are 3 lines from Genealogics. I don't know how they match with the
numbers, but hopefully at least one is good.

Fred Chalfant

1-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Charles the Bald
/
Louis II the Stammerer
/
Ermentrud
/
Kunegund
/
Siegried of Luxemburg
/
Liutgard of Luxemburg
/
Dirk III of Holland
/
Floris I of Holland
/
Bertha of Holland
/
Louis VI of France

2-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Lothar I
/
Lothar II King of Lorraine
/
Bertha of Lorraine
/
Teutberga of Arles
/
Teutberga of Troyes
/
Constance of Provence
/
Guillaume II 'le Liberateur' of Arles and Provence
/
Constance of Provence
/
Henri I King of France

3-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Lothar I
/
Ludwig II
/
Ermengard of Italy
/
Louis III KIng of Lower Burgundy and Italy
/
Karl Konstantin of Vienne
/
Constance of Provence
/
Guillaume II 'le Liberateur' of Arles and Provence
/
Constance of Provence
/
Henri I King of France

Peter Stewart

Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capetien from Charlemagne

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 08 aug 2006 14:15:14

"Fred Chalfant" <fchal@charm.net> wrote in message
news:2006080808253275249-fchal@charmnet...
On 2006-08-08 04:40:39 -0400, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> said:

I hope this line holds. I did a quick cjeck and in the ancestor list of
Louis VI,
Charlemagne appears as nrs.3144, 3248, 4752, 4848 and 13036

Can you set out these other lines as well?

Peter Stewart


Here are 3 lines from Genealogics. I don't know how they match with the
numbers, but hopefully at least one is good.

Fred Chalfant

1-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Charles the Bald
/
Louis II the Stammerer
/
Ermentrud
/
Kunegund
/
Siegried of Luxemburg

There is dispute about this relationship (although it seems sound enough to
me), so that it doesn't quite meet the standard requested by Roger.

Liutgard of Luxemburg
/
Dirk III of Holland
/
Floris I of Holland
/
Bertha of Holland
/
Louis VI of France

2-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Lothar I
/
Lothar II King of Lorraine
/
Bertha of Lorraine
/
Teutberga of Arles
/
Teutberga of Troyes

This connection for Teutberga, the wife of Charles Constantin of Vienne, is
not a proven fact - the next link is even less so (see below).

Constance of Provence
/
Guillaume II 'le Liberateur' of Arles and Provence
/
Constance of Provence
/
Henri I King of France

3-

Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Lothar I
/
Ludwig II
/
Ermengard of Italy
/
Louis III KIng of Lower Burgundy and Italy
/
Karl Konstantin of Vienne
/
Constance of Provence

The mother of Guillaume II of Provence was named Constantia but her supposed
ancestry is merely conjecture (not at all persuasive to me) based on the
similarity of her name to Constantinus that some sources apply to Louis
III's son Charles, for unknown reason/s.

However, the name Constantia is not uncommon at the time & place in
question, including women who could not have been related to Charles
Constantin of Vienne; and if this lady had been his daughter she would not
normally have been named after him by feminising his principal given name
much less a supplementary one, that was probably not even baptismal. Anyway,
the feminine form of this would have been Constantina, not Constantia.

Guillaume II 'le Liberateur' of Arles and Provence
/
Constance of Provence
/
Henri I King of France

I wonder if anyone can suggest another, and _undisputed_, connection before
the line to Louis VII that was posted earlier.

Peter Stewart

volucris@chello.nl

Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Capeti

Legg inn av volucris@chello.nl » 09 aug 2006 21:30:56

Peter,

I beg to differ.

Arnulf I married Adela (late) in 934 (Les Annales de Flodoard (uitg.
Ph. Lauer), Paris 1905, p.59).

Arnulf and Adela are mentioned in a registration in the Liber
Memorialis Remiremont with their children: Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela,
Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert (Liber Memorialis von Remiremont, uitg.
E.Hlawitschka, K, Schmid und G. Tellenbach, MGH, Libri Memoriales, I
(1970), Textband, p.50).

The eldest daughter Liudgard is known to have been a daughter of Adela
of Vermandois.

Their eldest son Boudewijn/Baudouin/Baldwin was born ca. 940 (Werner,
K.F., Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000, in: Karl
der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben, Band IV, Das Nachleben, 403-479,
Düsseldorf 1976, p.470).

Hildegard was a younger daughter and therefore must have been born in
936 or latest in 937. In 938 she was engaged to Dirk II, at the same
time as her elder sister Liudgard with Wichman of Hamaland (Winter,
prof. J.M. van, Ansfried en Dirk, twee namen uit de Nederlandse
geschiedenis van de 10e en 11e eeuw, in: Naamkunde jrg.13, 1981, p.70,
noot 112; Winter, prof. J.M. van, Dirk I bis, een nieuwe Hollandse
graaf, in: Holland, jrg.15, 1983, p.194).

The marriage of Dirk II and Hildegard must have been consumated in 948
or 949 (Cordfunke, prof. E.H.P., Gravinnen van Holland. Huwelijk en
huwelijkspolitiek van de graven uit het Hollandse Huis, Zutphen 1987,
p.31).

Their son Arnulf is known under the epitheton 'Gandensis' and was
probably born in Gent/Gand. Dirk II acted - after the dead of his
father in law in 965 - as a gardian for the juvenile Arnulf II of
Flanders. He can be found many times as the most important lay withness
in 'Flandrian' charters.

Dutch scholars and historians do not doubt that
a. Dirk II was married to Hildegard daughter of Arnulf of Flanders,
b. Hildegard was a daugther of Adela of Vermandois.

I have not checked all the mentioned literature. I can only quote from
the Dutch literature.

Hans Vogels


Peter Stewart schreef:

""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:01dc01c6bab9$b7a3a8b0$0300a8c0@Toshiba...
Charlemagne
/
Louis I the Pious
/
Charles the Bald
/
Judith
/
Baudouin II of Flanders
/
Arnulf I of Flanders
/
Hildegard of Flanders
/
Arnulf of Holland

The undisputed line does not carry through to this link - Hildegard is not
proved by direct evidence to belong to the comital family of Flanders, this
is only a conjecture based on her sons given the names Arnulf and Egbert
that occur in Flanders for her putative father Count Arnulf I and one of his
younger sons Egbert (who died before Egbert of Holland was born). If this
is right, Hildegard can only have been a half-sister of Egbert of Flanders,
as his mother Adela of Vermandois was not married to Arnulf I until late in
934 whereas Hildegard was married by ca 945 at the latest. No earlier wife
of Arnulf I, who could have been her mother, is recorded.

/
Dirk III of Holland
/
Floris I of Holland
/
Bertha of Holland
/
Louis VI King of France

I hope this line holds. I did a quick cjeck and in the ancestor list of
Louis VI,
Charlemagne appears as nrs.3144, 3248, 4752, 4848 and 13036

Can you set out these other lines as well?

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 10 aug 2006 05:58:29

On 9 Aug 2006 13:30:56 -0700, "volucris@chello.nl"
<volucris@chello.nl> wrote:

Peter,

I beg to differ.

Arnulf I married Adela (late) in 934 (Les Annales de Flodoard (uitg.
Ph. Lauer), Paris 1905, p.59).

Arnulf and Adela are mentioned in a registration in the Liber
Memorialis Remiremont with their children: Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela,
Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert (Liber Memorialis von Remiremont, uitg.
E.Hlawitschka, K, Schmid und G. Tellenbach, MGH, Libri Memoriales, I
(1970), Textband, p.50).

The eldest daughter Liudgard is known to have been a daughter of Adela
of Vermandois.

Although this seems likely enough, I know of no documentation for
this.

Their eldest son Boudewijn/Baudouin/Baldwin was born ca. 940 (Werner,
K.F., Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000, in: Karl
der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben, Band IV, Das Nachleben, 403-479,
Düsseldorf 1976, p.470).

This birthdate is a reasonable estimate, but no great accuracy should
be assumed here.

Hildegard was a younger daughter and therefore must have been born in
936 or latest in 937. In 938 she was engaged to Dirk II, at the same
time as her elder sister Liudgard with Wichman of Hamaland (Winter,
prof. J.M. van, Ansfried en Dirk, twee namen uit de Nederlandse
geschiedenis van de 10e en 11e eeuw, in: Naamkunde jrg.13, 1981, p.70,
noot 112; Winter, prof. J.M. van, Dirk I bis, een nieuwe Hollandse
graaf, in: Holland, jrg.15, 1983, p.194).

What is the documentation for these engagements?

The marriage of Dirk II and Hildegard must have been consumated in 948
or 949 (Cordfunke, prof. E.H.P., Gravinnen van Holland. Huwelijk en
huwelijkspolitiek van de graven uit het Hollandse Huis, Zutphen 1987,
p.31).

Their son Arnulf is known under the epitheton 'Gandensis' and was
probably born in Gent/Gand. Dirk II acted - after the dead of his
father in law in 965 - as a gardian for the juvenile Arnulf II of
Flanders. He can be found many times as the most important lay withness
in 'Flandrian' charters.

Dutch scholars and historians do not doubt that
a. Dirk II was married to Hildegard daughter of Arnulf of Flanders,
b. Hildegard was a daugther of Adela of Vermandois.

I have not checked all the mentioned literature. I can only quote from
the Dutch literature.

While I am inclined toward uncertainty with regard to the claim that
Hildegarde MUST have been by an earlier wife of Arnulf, I know of no
reason to say for certain that she must have been a daughter of Adela.
In fact, there is no direct evidence that Dirk II's wife Hildegarde
was a daughter of Arnulf. The entry in the Liber Memorialis of
Remiremont does seem to suggest that Arnulf had a daughter named
Hildegarde (her presence in the list is hard to explain otherwise),
but there is no direct evidence that this was the same as Dirk's wife,
although the evidence that Arnulf probably did have a daughter of that
name does make the case a little better for making Dirk's wife a
daughter of Arnulf.

To my knowledge, the only argument that has been given for requiring
an early birth for Hildegarde is that her son Egbert became archbishop
of Treves in 977, so that he would have had to be born by 947 if he
had already attained the canonical age of thirty. Younger archbishops
are known, but I really don't know how rare that was, so I'm not sure
how much weight should be put on this argument alone when all of the
other evidence would be perfectly consistent with a marriage of
Hildegarde in the early 950's. (Arnulf, Dirk's son and successor by
Hildegarde, was married in 980, according to Annales Egmundani [MGH SS
16: 445].)

Incidently, "Gesta Treverorum" has an interesting remark about
archbishop Egbert: "Hic [i.e., Ekebertus] de Britannia ortus, patre
Theoderico comite et matre Hildegarda nomine, divitiis et nobilitate
Anglorum primoribus, divinitus, ut credimus, huic sedi est
praedestinatus" [MGH SS 8: 169] (Translation: He sprang from Britain,
[with] father Theoderic and mother Hildegard by name, [who were] by
richness and nobility the foremost of the English, prophsied, as we
believe, to be predestined for this seat.) This would fit well if
Hildegard were a daughter of Arnulf (whose mother was Anglo-Saxon
royalty), and would be more difficult to explain otherwise. (I am
assuming poetic licence with respect to the ablative plural
"primoribus" which would appear to include Theoderic among the English
nobility.)

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2006 09:31:28

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5oald2hglf20fl1oa3vcf5ffvttt24hfhd@4ax.com...

<snip>

To my knowledge, the only argument that has been given for requiring
an early birth for Hildegarde is that her son Egbert became archbishop
of Treves in 977, so that he would have had to be born by 947 if he
had already attained the canonical age of thirty. Younger archbishops
are known, but I really don't know how rare that was, so I'm not sure
how much weight should be put on this argument alone when all of the
other evidence would be perfectly consistent with a marriage of
Hildegarde in the early 950's. (Arnulf, Dirk's son and successor by
Hildegarde, was married in 980, according to Annales Egmundani [MGH SS
16: 445].)

Incidently, "Gesta Treverorum" has an interesting remark about
archbishop Egbert: "Hic [i.e., Ekebertus] de Britannia ortus, patre
Theoderico comite et matre Hildegarda nomine, divitiis et nobilitate
Anglorum primoribus, divinitus, ut credimus, huic sedi est
praedestinatus" [MGH SS 8: 169] (Translation: He sprang from Britain,
[with] father Theoderic and mother Hildegard by name, [who were] by
richness and nobility the foremost of the English, prophsied, as we
believe, to be predestined for this seat.) This would fit well if
Hildegard were a daughter of Arnulf (whose mother was Anglo-Saxon
royalty), and would be more difficult to explain otherwise. (I am
assuming poetic licence with respect to the ablative plural
"primoribus" which would appear to include Theoderic among the English
nobility.)

I will address the points raised by Hans Vogels in a separate post later -
on this matter of Egbert, I would suggest that the statement above from
"Gesta Treverorum" could allow for various interpretations: for instance,
that Dirk II's wife may have been an Anglo-Saxon lady, perhaps renamed to
the familiar (indeed quite common) Hildegard as an approximation of another
baptismal name, maybe one of the entourage of Countess Elftrude when she
came to Flanders. As to providing evidence that Countess Hildegard of West
Friesland was a granddaughter of Elftrude, remember that the latter's father
was no less than King Alred the Great, and yet Egbert's ancestry is not
described in this puff piece recalling a noble British origin as "royal".

Also, the statement that "as we believe" Egbert was predestined for the see
of Trier rather supports that he had waited until reaching the canonical age
of 30 to become a bishop - otherwise this would have required a
dispensation, and the "predestination" would have been made obvious to all
by an exception to the rule. The wording makes better sense to me if Egbert
had waited for the vacancy until other circumstances could equally account
for his election, and this detail was just incidental.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2006 10:49:42

<volucris@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1155155456.607122.129910@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

I beg to differ.

Arnulf I married Adela (late) in 934 (Les Annales de Flodoard (uitg.
Ph. Lauer), Paris 1905, p.59).

Arnulf and Adela are mentioned in a registration in the Liber
Memorialis Remiremont with their children: Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela,
Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert (Liber Memorialis von Remiremont, uitg.
E.Hlawitschka, K, Schmid und G. Tellenbach, MGH, Libri Memoriales, I
(1970), Textband, p.50).

This is less than compelling - for starters, it omits Elftrude who was
stated to be a daughter of Arnulf I, and more clearly was so going by
onomastics than a particular Countess Hildegard (a very common name) who may
or may not have been the person named above.

The eldest daughter Liudgard is known to have been a daughter of Adela
of Vermandois.

Their eldest son Boudewijn/Baudouin/Baldwin was born ca. 940 (Werner,
K.F., Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000, in: Karl
der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben, Band IV, Das Nachleben, 403-479,
Düsseldorf 1976, p.470).

Hildegard was a younger daughter and therefore must have been born in
936 or latest in 937. In 938 she was engaged to Dirk II, at the same
time as her elder sister Liudgard with Wichman of Hamaland (Winter,
prof. J.M. van, Ansfried en Dirk, twee namen uit de Nederlandse
geschiedenis van de 10e en 11e eeuw, in: Naamkunde jrg.13, 1981, p.70,
noot 112; Winter, prof. J.M. van, Dirk I bis, een nieuwe Hollandse
graaf, in: Holland, jrg.15, 1983, p.194).

The marriage of Dirk II and Hildegard must have been consumated in 948
or 949 (Cordfunke, prof. E.H.P., Gravinnen van Holland. Huwelijk en
huwelijkspolitiek van de graven uit het Hollandse Huis, Zutphen 1987,
p.31).

I'm afraid you are reading one interpretation of the evidence, apparently
agreed by Winter and Condfunke, as if this is an assurance of the facts.
However, these are not clear or straightforward, and if the scholars you
cite are correct they must either have presented some new evidence, unseen
by me & most historians (please post details if so), or they should have
argued their case in such as way that the admissability of differeing views
can be understood.

The timeline set out above is self-contradictory: if Hildegard was born in
936 or 937 she would not have been in a consummated marriage by 948. The age
of canonical marriage was 14 for females and 15 for males. This was in
compliance with an old tradition that puberty was the qualifying stage in
life, formalised by a canon of the council of Friuli in 796/7 - from memory
on the ground that no-one could take an oath in matters under the authority
of a bishop until they had reached at least 14.

Since Countess Hildegard of West Friesland had a son who became an
archbishop in 977, the strong presumption must be that he was born by 947 at
the latest and therefore she was herself born by 932/3 at the latest, i.e.
at least a full year before Arnulf of Flanders married Adela of Vermandois.

Their son Arnulf is known under the epitheton 'Gandensis' and was
probably born in Gent/Gand. Dirk II acted - after the dead of his
father in law in 965 - as a gardian for the juvenile Arnulf II of
Flanders. He can be found many times as the most important lay withness
in 'Flandrian' charters.

Dirk II was an executor of Arnulf I's will, not the guardian of his gradson
& heir - this role was given to Balduin Baldzo who belonged to the comital
family of Flanders and ruled it as guardian of the young Count Arnulf II.

Two later sources call Dirk II's son Arnulf of West Friesland "Gandensis"
but there is debate about what this signifies. Birth in Ghent is not a very
plausible explanation: more likely he had inherited castellan rights in
Ghent from his father, who in turn had probably obtained these directly from
the Frankish king. Arnulf I of Flanders had made the king his heir in 962,
and there was naturally an attempt to hold to this after he changed his
mind. We know from a diploma of Lothaire V that other rights formerly
belonging to the counts of Flanders were given by him to Dirk II in 969.
There was later a struggle for control of Ghent that was lost by his son
Arnulf, and the sources do not say he was a cousin of the Flemish count who
regained his rights, nor suggest that these had been transmitted through his
mother Hildegard in the fiurst place.

Dutch scholars and historians do not doubt that
a. Dirk II was married to Hildegard daughter of Arnulf of Flanders,
b. Hildegard was a daugther of Adela of Vermandois.

I have not checked all the mentioned literature. I can only quote from
the Dutch literature.

I have not read Winter on the subject, and will try to do so soon.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 10 aug 2006 11:14:25

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:WiDCg.9906$rP1.6985@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

Two later sources call Dirk II's son Arnulf of West Friesland "Gandensis"
but there is debate about what this signifies. Birth in Ghent is not a
very plausible explanation: more likely he had inherited castellan rights
in Ghent from his father, who in turn had probably obtained these directly
from the Frankish king. Arnulf I of Flanders had made the king his heir in
962, and there was naturally an attempt to hold to this after he changed
his mind. We know from a diploma of Lothaire V that other rights formerly
belonging to the counts of Flanders were given by him to Dirk II in 969.

Apologies for the typo - this should read "a diploma of Lothaire IV'.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 12 aug 2006 00:21:52

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:49:42 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

volucris@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1155155456.607122.129910@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

I beg to differ.

Arnulf I married Adela (late) in 934 (Les Annales de Flodoard (uitg.
Ph. Lauer), Paris 1905, p.59).

Arnulf and Adela are mentioned in a registration in the Liber
Memorialis Remiremont with their children: Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela,
Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert (Liber Memorialis von Remiremont, uitg.
E.Hlawitschka, K, Schmid und G. Tellenbach, MGH, Libri Memoriales, I
(1970), Textband, p.50).

This is less than compelling - for starters, it omits Elftrude who was
stated to be a daughter of Arnulf I, and more clearly was so going by
onomastics than a particular Countess Hildegard (a very common name) who may
or may not have been the person named above.

[snip]

I don't see the omission of Elftrude as having major relevance, as
there are two possible explantions for her absence from the list.

1. She may not have existed at all, since Lambert of Ardres is hardly
an unimpeachable source.

2. Even if she did exist, the list could have been compiled when
Ecbert was an infant, before her birth.

It is hard to escape the impression that, other than Hildegarde, the
individuals listed here are Arnulf I, his son Baldwin III, Arnulf's
wife Adela, Arnulf's daughter Liutgarde, and Arnulf's younger son
Egbert, all attested in other sources, and the strongest possibility
is that this Hildegarde was another daughter of Arnulf.

The identification of this Hildegarde with the wife of Dirk of Holland
is another matter, of course, but the indication that Arnulf probably
did have a daughter of the right name does add some strength to
onomastic argument for this case.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 aug 2006 01:08:51

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tk2qd2tvdmnv33ibbd2gvkchejgjnl0tm0@4ax.com...
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:49:42 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


volucris@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1155155456.607122.129910@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

I beg to differ.

Arnulf I married Adela (late) in 934 (Les Annales de Flodoard (uitg.
Ph. Lauer), Paris 1905, p.59).

Arnulf and Adela are mentioned in a registration in the Liber
Memorialis Remiremont with their children: Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela,
Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert (Liber Memorialis von Remiremont, uitg.
E.Hlawitschka, K, Schmid und G. Tellenbach, MGH, Libri Memoriales, I
(1970), Textband, p.50).

This is less than compelling - for starters, it omits Elftrude who was
stated to be a daughter of Arnulf I, and more clearly was so going by
onomastics than a particular Countess Hildegard (a very common name) who
may
or may not have been the person named above.

[snip]

I don't see the omission of Elftrude as having major relevance, as
there are two possible explantions for her absence from the list.

1. She may not have existed at all, since Lambert of Ardres is hardly
an unimpeachable source.

2. Even if she did exist, the list could have been compiled when
Ecbert was an infant, before her birth.

It is hard to escape the impression that, other than Hildegarde, the
individuals listed here are Arnulf I, his son Baldwin III, Arnulf's
wife Adela, Arnulf's daughter Liutgarde, and Arnulf's younger son
Egbert, all attested in other sources, and the strongest possibility
is that this Hildegarde was another daughter of Arnulf.

The identification of this Hildegarde with the wife of Dirk of Holland
is another matter, of course, but the indication that Arnulf probably
did have a daughter of the right name does add some strength to
onomastic argument for this case.

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a nuclear
family. If this is to be taken as indicating that Hildegard was a daughter
of Arnulf I, presumably in order of birth before Egbert and after Liutgard
as Hans suggested, is it also proposed that the last five names were younger
full-siblings? Their inclusion ought to be somewhat more telling, surely,
than Elftrude's absence, that could be explained more easily as due to her
later birth if they were not there - but what does this tell?

The name Hildegard makes no other appearnace in the comital family of
Flanders in the 10th century, and its occurrence here (absent Judith,
Elftrude, Ermentrude that might be expected to take priority) is not
compelling in my view.

The only "Hilde-" name associated with Arnulf I is his nephew Hildebrand,
abbot of Saint-Bertin, whose mother was one of the count's sisters, either
Ealswith or Ermentrud. One of these ladies could have married an Anglo-Saxon
nobleman for all I know, and on the nugatory evidence available might just
as well have been the mother of Countess Hildegard of West Friesland as
Arnulf I her father.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 12 aug 2006 03:48:52

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:08:51 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a nuclear
family.

[snip]

This is misleading. The first six names (Arnulfus ... Ecbert) are
written from left to right across the top of the page. Rainsuuinda
are Hageno appear in the same hand one line down, in such a way as to
make it unclear whether or not these entries belong with the other
six. The last three names, Harcker, Leuuui, and Berkard, appear in
the same hand from top to bottom in the left margin, and appear quite
clearly to be a separate group. Thus:

1. Hildegarde is quite clearly listed in the same group as Arnulf and
his wife and children.
2. There is no need to explain the other names, since three of them
are not in the same list, and whether or not the other two are in the
list is not obvious.

As with the entire memorial book of Remiremont, the edited version
(Teil 1.) groups entries based on which hand wrote them, rather than
where they appear on the page, and can be very misleading. One needs
to consult both the edited version and the photograph of the original
page (Teil 2., also available online) in order to accurately see what
the entries are. (In this case, trial and error gave me the relevant
folio 24v if I requested page "53" in part 2).

The only "Hilde-" name associated with Arnulf I is his nephew Hildebrand,
abbot of Saint-Bertin, whose mother was one of the count's sisters, either
Ealswith or Ermentrud. One of these ladies could have married an Anglo-Saxon
nobleman for all I know, and on the nugatory evidence available might just
as well have been the mother of Countess Hildegard of West Friesland as
Arnulf I her father.

This would be the most likely alternate possibility to making countess
Hildegard a daughter of Arnulf. I agree that the connection between
countess Hildegarde and Arnulf should not be regarded as proven, but I
do think that it is the most likely possibility.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 aug 2006 05:24:47

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:08:51 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a
nuclear
family.

[snip]

This is misleading.

Why? What do you se to ensure that the first six of the names must belong to
a nuclear family, except that they are written across one line?

The first six names (Arnulfus ... Ecbert) are
written from left to right across the top of the page. Rainsuuinda
are Hageno appear in the same hand one line down, in such a way as to
make it unclear whether or not these entries belong with the other
six. The last three names, Harcker, Leuuui, and Berkard, appear in
the same hand from top to bottom in the left margin, and appear quite
clearly to be a separate group.

This too could be misleading to anyone who has not looked at the page in
question (as I had done, by the way).

The name Ecbert is at the right-hand edge, so that the enxt name in this
group, whether Rainsuuinda or whoever else, could only appear on the line
below. Her name and Hageno's are written around the decorative arches, and
since all the names are written in the same hand they were apparently added
together after the page had been illuminated. Whether or not the other three
names, or at least one or two of them, could have been fitted eleswhere than
in the left margin is not determinative of anything much less that they form
a separate group. I consider them all to form a group as all were inscribed
above and deside the illumination in the same had and evidently at the same
time - the shade of ink looks perfectly consistent in the reproduction,
although that again is not definite.

Thus:

1. Hildegarde is quite clearly listed in the same group as Arnulf and
his wife and children.

Assuming that the order is indicative in the first place, as the alternation
of males and females names might imply, in which case it would be safest to
suppose that this Hildegard was a younger sister of Balduin and Luitgard,
elder only than Egbert, and therefore could not have been the mother of
Arnulf and Egbert of West Friesland.

But how can it be known that the Egbert listed is another child of Arnulf I
rather than, say, not the man after whom his younger son Egbert was named,
perhaps after this entry was written? How can it be known that the immediate
family of Arnulf includes everyone written across the same line as him and
no-one else, however connected, whose names were inscribed at the same time
in the adjacent spaces?

2. There is no need to explain the other names, since three of them
are not in the same list, and whether or not the other two are in the
list is not obvious.

This is not my view of the page layout - there is no indication of any break
in the group except that there is some gap down the column to Harcker and
his name could have fitted to the right of Hageno. If Arnulf I's family was
not undubitably complete at the time of the writing, because more children
might yet be born (including Elftrude), then why would the only gaps where
more names could fit later be left between Hageno and Harcker, and after
Berkard, rather than between Egbert and Rainsuuinda?

As with the entire memorial book of Remiremont, the edited version
(Teil 1.) groups entries based on which hand wrote them, rather than
where they appear on the page, and can be very misleading. One needs
to consult both the edited version and the photograph of the original
page (Teil 2., also available online) in order to accurately see what
the entries are. (In this case, trial and error gave me the relevant
folio 24v if I requested page "53" in part 2).

I have a copy of the book in front of me, and had checked the page for
myself, thank you.

The only "Hilde-" name associated with Arnulf I is his nephew Hildebrand,
abbot of Saint-Bertin, whose mother was one of the count's sisters, either
Ealswith or Ermentrud. One of these ladies could have married an
Anglo-Saxon
nobleman for all I know, and on the nugatory evidence available might just
as well have been the mother of Countess Hildegard of West Friesland as
Arnulf I her father.

This would be the most likely alternate possibility to making countess
Hildegard a daughter of Arnulf. I agree that the connection between
countess Hildegarde and Arnulf should not be regarded as proven, but I
do think that it is the most likely possibility.

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 12 aug 2006 05:36:56

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jKcDg.10768$rP1.8511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Stewart Baldwin wrote:
I agree that the connection between countess Hildegarde and Arnulf
should not be regarded as proven, but I do think that it is the most
likely possibility.

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

It also requires consideration of the oddity that two early copies of the
first author's part of 'Gesta Treverorum' should enlarge on Egbert's
ancestry as British and noble, rather than royal, while not even mentioning
that this had come through a most important and princely Flemish grandfather
with imperial ancestry of his own.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 13 aug 2006 00:02:19

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:24:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:08:51 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a
nuclear family.

[snip]

This is misleading.

Why? What do you se to ensure that the first six of the names
must belong to a nuclear family, except that they are written
across one line?

What is misleading is that there is no indication provided which would
allow the casual reader to realize that the above "names listed" in
that handwriting in fact appear on the page in something closer to the
following arrangement (evidently the last entries made on the page):

arnulfus.balduinus.adela.ledugart.hildigart.ecbert
rainsuui-----da.ha-------geno


harcker

leu.uui

berkard

[with "------" indicating spacing due to the illumination of the
manuscript being in the way]. Given this arrangement, with plenty of
room to put the three lower names closer to the others if they were
regarded as being in the same list, it seems irrelevant to me that
they were written by the same person. With the names on the second
line, the situation is obviously more ambiguous.

What SUGGESTS that the top line forms a family group (I would not use
a word as strong as "must" in this context) is not just the top line
itself, but the additional fact that we have a well known family group
independently attested at the correct time period which includes the
first, second, third, fourth, and sixth names on that top line, and it
is very difficult to believe that this is just a coincidence. If we
accept that the individuals in positions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are in fact
who they appear to be, then there is a strong presumption that number
5 is also a member of the same family. Here, the fact that Hildigart
is listed between two family members is reasonable circumstantial
evidence that she was also a child in the same family.

[snip]

But how can it be known that the Egbert listed is another child of Arnulf I
rather than, say, not the man after whom his younger son Egbert was named,
perhaps after this entry was written? How can it be known that the immediate
family of Arnulf includes everyone written across the same line as him and
no-one else, however connected, whose names were inscribed at the same time
in the adjacent spaces?

The man after whom Arnulf's son Egbert was named was presumably his
ancestor Egbert of Wessex (just as Arnulf's brother Adalolf was named
after Æthelwulf of Wessex). Of course, this might have been indirect,
with the younger Egbert being named after some intermediate Egbert who
was named after Egbert of Wessex, but that would just be conjecture,
and I don't see a plausible place to put such an intermediate Egbert
on the family tree who would still be alive in the 930's or 940's (as
the Egbert listed apparently was).

2. There is no need to explain the other names, since three of them
are not in the same list, and whether or not the other two are in the
list is not obvious.

This is not my view of the page layout - there is no indication of any break
in the group except that there is some gap down the column to Harcker and
his name could have fitted to the right of Hageno. If Arnulf I's family was
not undubitably complete at the time of the writing, because more children
might yet be born (including Elftrude), then why would the only gaps where
more names could fit later be left between Hageno and Harcker, and after
Berkard, rather than between Egbert and Rainsuuinda?

What reason do you have for suggesting that gaps would have been left
for hypothetical future children?

As with the entire memorial book of Remiremont, the edited version
(Teil 1.) groups entries based on which hand wrote them, rather than
where they appear on the page, and can be very misleading. One needs
to consult both the edited version and the photograph of the original
page (Teil 2., also available online) in order to accurately see what
the entries are. (In this case, trial and error gave me the relevant
folio 24v if I requested page "53" in part 2).

I have a copy of the book in front of me, and had checked the page for
myself, thank you.

I had assumed that you did. Please keep in mind that this is a public
forum, and that there are quite a few readers of the newsgroup who
would not know what I referring to without the above citation from
part 2 of the Liber memorialis.

[snip]

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

There is certainly chronological room for an earlier marriage of
Arnulf. Here's an conjecture to toss out for comment: What if both
Hildegard and Egbert were illegitimate children of Arnulf, born before
his marriage to Adela, with Hildegard being the older of the two?
This hypothesis would take care of the chronological problem regarding
Hildegard (if we assume that she was the same person as Dirk's wife),
and also make sense of the order in which the names are listed in the
Liber memorialis.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2006 02:38:44

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:88isd2hacuunmubh78u0tt1ajmrs2pf2s3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:24:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:08:51 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a
nuclear family.

[snip]

This is misleading.

Why? What do you se to ensure that the first six of the names
must belong to a nuclear family, except that they are written
across one line?

What is misleading is that there is no indication provided which would
allow the casual reader to realize that the above "names listed" in
that handwriting in fact appear on the page in something closer to the
following arrangement (evidently the last entries made on the page):

arnulfus.balduinus.adela.ledugart.hildigart.ecbert
rainsuui-----da.ha-------geno


harcker

leu.uui

berkard

[with "------" indicating spacing due to the illumination of the
manuscript being in the way]. Given this arrangement, with plenty of
room to put the three lower names closer to the others if they were
regarded as being in the same list, it seems irrelevant to me that
they were written by the same person. With the names on the second
line, the situation is obviously more ambiguous.

What SUGGESTS that the top line forms a family group (I would not use
a word as strong as "must" in this context) is not just the top line
itself, but the additional fact that we have a well known family group
independently attested at the correct time period which includes the
first, second, third, fourth, and sixth names on that top line, and it
is very difficult to believe that this is just a coincidence. If we
accept that the individuals in positions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are in fact
who they appear to be, then there is a strong presumption that number
5 is also a member of the same family. Here, the fact that Hildigart
is listed between two family members is reasonable circumstantial
evidence that she was also a child in the same family.

This is what I do not accept as carrying the force you ascribe to it: the
memorial book of Remiremont, like others, contains lists including
recognisably related people with others amongt them who cannot be placed in
their families, or indeed who can be excluded from close blood relationship
due to separate evidence. In this context, there were other forms of
intimate connection, social and spiritual, between individuals and groups
than biological ones, and these cannot always be known today.

I agree that the list in the first line looks like a family group, but the
fact remains that the next available space for another name in the group
after Egbert is exactly where Rainsuuinda's name is written. The scribe
evidently set out to add all eleven names to the page, whatever their origin
or links to each other, and found that due to the illumination one or two of
them could not fit above the arches. The next obvious place to continue was
down the left-hand margin - and I would not venture any conclusion based on
three names appeearing there or on the space before the first. I agree with
the editors that this appears to be a single, discete group of eleven names,
and I agree with you that the lists starts with Arnulf I of Flanders and his
heir Balduin. I also agree that it suggests he may have had a younger
daughter named Hildegard by his only known wife Adela of Vermandois.
However, if such a daughter existed she could not very well have been
Countess Hildegard of West Friesland, on chronological grounds.

This in turn suggests to me that Arnulf I probably did not have an older
namesake daughter by a previous wife who (unless she is Hildegard or
Rainsuuinda) is evidently not named along with him as would be expected in a
memorial book.

Very few groups begin with a female name followed by a male one, although
this is not unexampled. Without knowing who Rainsuuinda and Hageno were, it
seems to me safer to assume that they belonged to the group headed by
Arnulfus.

[snip]

But how can it be known that the Egbert listed is another child of Arnulf
I
rather than, say, not the man after whom his younger son Egbert was named,
perhaps after this entry was written? How can it be known that the
immediate
family of Arnulf includes everyone written across the same line as him and
no-one else, however connected, whose names were inscribed at the same
time
in the adjacent spaces?

The man after whom Arnulf's son Egbert was named was presumably his
ancestor Egbert of Wessex (just as Arnulf's brother Adalolf was named
after Æthelwulf of Wessex). Of course, this might have been indirect,
with the younger Egbert being named after some intermediate Egbert who
was named after Egbert of Wessex, but that would just be conjecture,
and I don't see a plausible place to put such an intermediate Egbert
on the family tree who would still be alive in the 930's or 940's (as
the Egbert listed apparently was).

It's just conjecture that Egbert of Flanders was named after his ancestor.
The most likely Anglo-Saxon names for Balduin II and Elftrude to give to
their children under the convention you are relying on for this would be
Alfred and Ealswith - the latter we know they gave a daughter, the former
appears not to have been used. For all I know, an English visitor named
Egbert may have been the godfather of Elfrtude's younger son, providing
merely a welcome enough co-incidence.


2. There is no need to explain the other names, since three of them
are not in the same list, and whether or not the other two are in the
list is not obvious.

This is not my view of the page layout - there is no indication of any
break
in the group except that there is some gap down the column to Harcker and
his name could have fitted to the right of Hageno. If Arnulf I's family
was
not undubitably complete at the time of the writing, because more children
might yet be born (including Elftrude), then why would the only gaps where
more names could fit later be left between Hageno and Harcker, and after
Berkard, rather than between Egbert and Rainsuuinda?

What reason do you have for suggesting that gaps would have been left
for hypothetical future children?

There are plenty of pages in such books with gaps that may be explained in
this way - it's not especially apopropriate to this instance, as I don't
consider that Rainsuuinda and Hageno were children of Arnulf I, but the fact
is that Rainsuuinda's name could have been placed elsewhere on the page if
the scribe wanted to mark a distinction from the alleged family group in the
first line as you suggest he did from the name Harcker.


As with the entire memorial book of Remiremont, the edited version
(Teil 1.) groups entries based on which hand wrote them, rather than
where they appear on the page, and can be very misleading. One needs
to consult both the edited version and the photograph of the original
page (Teil 2., also available online) in order to accurately see what
the entries are. (In this case, trial and error gave me the relevant
folio 24v if I requested page "53" in part 2).

I have a copy of the book in front of me, and had checked the page for
myself, thank you.

I had assumed that you did. Please keep in mind that this is a public
forum, and that there are quite a few readers of the newsgroup who
would not know what I referring to without the above citation from
part 2 of the Liber memorialis.

By all means, except that the context of your post was instruction in how to
consult a book properly, that you apparently assumed I had neglected to do
as you clearly assumed that on doing so I would see it your way - but I
didn't.

[snip]

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

There is certainly chronological room for an earlier marriage of
Arnulf. Here's an conjecture to toss out for comment: What if both
Hildegard and Egbert were illegitimate children of Arnulf, born before
his marriage to Adela, with Hildegard being the older of the two?
This hypothesis would take care of the chronological problem regarding
Hildegard (if we assume that she was the same person as Dirk's wife),
and also make sense of the order in which the names are listed in the
Liber memorialis.

I would agree that the order of names may not have any importance - but this
could extend to Egbert and Hildegard being reversed for all we know.

A trouble with the conjecture above is that the name of his legitimate
maternal ancestor Egbert would not seem a very likely choice for Arnulf to
give to an illegitimate son, or for Hildegard to give to her son as a
consequence, and unless the mother was an Anglo-Saxon noblewoman it does not
help to explain the 'Gesta Treverorum' author's version of Archbishop
Egbert's ancestry. The silence about his purportedly close connection to the
most noble and powerful counts of Flanders, as a grandson of Arnulf I,
remains a problem when more distant and less distinguished British ancestry
was claimed for him. It's hard to see how knowledge of that could have
outlasted the more recent and imposing memory of Arnulf I, especially if
Arnulf and Egbert of West Friesland were named after their mother's father
and brother respectively.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2006 03:14:47

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:EovDg.11133$rP1.4588@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:88isd2hacuunmubh78u0tt1ajmrs2pf2s3@4ax.com...

<snip>

There is certainly chronological room for an earlier marriage of
Arnulf. Here's an conjecture to toss out for comment: What if both
Hildegard and Egbert were illegitimate children of Arnulf, born before
his marriage to Adela, with Hildegard being the older of the two?
This hypothesis would take care of the chronological problem regarding
Hildegard (if we assume that she was the same person as Dirk's wife),
and also make sense of the order in which the names are listed in the
Liber memorialis.

I would agree that the order of names may not have any importance - but
this could extend to Egbert and Hildegard being reversed for all we know.

A trouble with the conjecture above is that the name of his legitimate
maternal ancestor Egbert would not seem a very likely choice for Arnulf to
give to an illegitimate son, or for Hildegard to give to her son as a
consequence, and unless the mother was an Anglo-Saxon noblewoman it does
not help to explain the 'Gesta Treverorum' author's version of Archbishop
Egbert's ancestry. The silence about his purportedly close connection to
the most noble and powerful counts of Flanders, as a grandson of Arnulf I,
remains a problem when more distant and less distinguished British
ancestry was claimed for him. It's hard to see how knowledge of that could
have outlasted the more recent and imposing memory of Arnulf I, especially
if Arnulf and Egbert of West Friesland were named after their mother's
father and brother respectively.

Another possibility that occurs to me is that Arnulf I had a daughter named
Hildegard who was the same as the lady whom Lambert of Ardres calls
Elstrude, allegedly made pregnant by Siegfried of Guines. The account by
Lambert is accurate enough on other matters regarding Arnulf I's
connections, and there doesn't appear to be a motive for him to invent this
one. He says that Elstrude was beautiful and was named after her grandmother
("Habuit autem...comes Balduinus mire pulchritudinis sororem, a Balduini
quondam uxore Elstrude nominatam Elstrudem, cuius Sifridus nimio languebat
amore...et eam clanculo impregnavit", MGH SS XXIV p. 568).

Lambert may have known the story but not the beautiful sister's name, and so
invented only that detail. At least this would leave all of Arnulf I's
plausibly recorded immediate family accounted for in the Remiremont list,
with some others following of unknown connection/s to them.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 aug 2006 07:16:07

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jKcDg.10768$rP1.8511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...

I agree that the connection between countess Hildegarde and
Arnulf should not be regarded as proven, but I do think that it
is the most likely possibility.

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

To add a bit more precision to this - Countess Hildegard's younger son first
appears as "Egbertus cancellarius" in a diploma of Emperor Otto II dated 18
January 976, and he continued in this capacity until at least 30 Jul 977,
being succeeded by Gerbert on or before 8 September. Egbert became
archbishop of Trier in succession to Theoderic (his father's namesake) who
died on 5 June 977.

I think it unlikely that Otto II would have entrusted his chancery at the
beginning of 976 to a man who wasn't already qualified by age - and
experience - to become a bishop. Egbert could not have attained the minimum
age for this, 30, if his mother's parents had been married less than 42
years earlier, apparently from Flodoard's account shortly before or during
the harvest time in 934, more clearly before 14 October in that year.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2006 00:08:16

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:WiDCg.9906$rP1.6985@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

The age of canonical marriage was 14 for females and 15 for males. This
was in compliance with an old tradition that puberty was the qualifying
stage in life, formalised by a canon of the council of Friuli in 796/7 -
from memory on the ground that no-one could take an oath in matters
under the authority of a bishop until they had reached at least 14.

Not surprisingly, my memory was inaccurate.

The canon of the Council of Friuli repeated the traditional rule, adopted
from Roman civil law, that children could not be married to each other
before reaching the age of puberty, adding that they should be consenting
and of similar age. [MGH Concilia II part 1 (Hanover & Leipzig, 1906), p.
192 cap. 9 [= Mansi XIII col. 848, misdated 791]: "Illud praeterea per omnia
praecaventes prohibere decrevimus, ut nullus praesumat ante annos
pubertatis, id est infra aetatem, puerum vel puellam in matrimonium sociare
nec in dissimili aetate, sed coaetaneos sibique consentientes."]

The Council of Mainz in 888 repeated from the 4th century Council of Hippo a
canon fixing the age for giving testimony at 14 [Mansi XVIII part I col. 70
cap. XXIII: "Et non minus quam quatuordecim annos aetatis habeat, qui ad
testimonium admittendus est secundum censuram canonicae institutionis."]

I will track the rules setting the minimum age for marriage as best I can
and post on this subject later. In broad terms, my understanding is that a
girl could be a bride at 12 but a wife at 14, that is to say marriage was
not to be consummated before the age of full puberty, and as defined by
Isidore of Seville this was 14 years.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Hildegard of Flanders Re: Louis VI to Charlemagne Fw: Ca

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 14 aug 2006 11:39:11

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:EovDg.11133$rP1.4588@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:88isd2hacuunmubh78u0tt1ajmrs2pf2s3@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:24:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:08:51 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

The full group of names listed in the memorial book of Remiremont is:

"Arnulfus, Balduinus, Adela, Leudgart, Hildigart, Ecbert, Rainsuuinda,
Hageno, Harcker, Leuuui, Berkard".

I see nothing to ensure that the first six of these must have been a
nuclear family.

[snip]

This is misleading.

Why? What do you se to ensure that the first six of the names
must belong to a nuclear family, except that they are written
across one line?

What is misleading is that there is no indication provided which would
allow the casual reader to realize that the above "names listed" in
that handwriting in fact appear on the page in something closer to the
following arrangement (evidently the last entries made on the page):

arnulfus.balduinus.adela.ledugart.hildigart.ecbert
rainsuui-----da.ha-------geno


harcker

leu.uui

berkard

[with "------" indicating spacing due to the illumination of the
manuscript being in the way]. Given this arrangement, with plenty of
room to put the three lower names closer to the others if they were
regarded as being in the same list, it seems irrelevant to me that
they were written by the same person. With the names on the second
line, the situation is obviously more ambiguous.

What SUGGESTS that the top line forms a family group (I would not use
a word as strong as "must" in this context) is not just the top line
itself, but the additional fact that we have a well known family group
independently attested at the correct time period which includes the
first, second, third, fourth, and sixth names on that top line, and it
is very difficult to believe that this is just a coincidence. If we
accept that the individuals in positions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are in fact
who they appear to be, then there is a strong presumption that number
5 is also a member of the same family. Here, the fact that Hildigart
is listed between two family members is reasonable circumstantial
evidence that she was also a child in the same family.

This is what I do not accept as carrying the force you ascribe to it: the
memorial book of Remiremont, like others, contains lists including
recognisably related people with others amongt them who cannot be placed
in their families, or indeed who can be excluded from close blood
relationship due to separate evidence. In this context, there were other
forms of intimate connection, social and spiritual, between individuals
and groups than biological ones, and these cannot always be known today.

Underscoring my point above is the occurrence of Count Arnulf I with some of
his family members and some others in an incontestably sequential list in
the confraternity book of Reichenau abbey - for this see _Das
Verbrüderungsbuch der Abtei Reichenau_, edited by Johanne Autenrieth, Dieter
Geuenich & Karl Schmid, MGH Libri memoriales et necrologia, nova series I
(Hanover, 1979), facsimile section, plate 68.

Across the bottom of the page a single hand has inscribed twenty-three names
in four columns. These names include some of Arnulf I's grandchildren
through his daughter Liutgard, wife of Count Wicman II of Hamaland: they
were born in the course of the 950s and so the entry was clearly made after
the birth of all of Arnulf I's own children, of whom the apparent youngest,
Egbert, was dead by 10 July 953.

Egbert however does not appear, and nor does a Hildegard. The relevant
sub-group within the list is written down the second column, as follows:

Eberhart
Uuigman
Arnolf
Balduuin
Bilidrud
Adala
Liutgart

By any criteria that would make Hildegard a child of Arnulf in the
Remiremont list, Bilidrud would qualify for the same conclusion here -
alternatively, she might be conjectured as a first wife of Count Arnulf, but
then so might Hildegard.

The list may have been written soon before 962, the year in which Balduin
and Liutgard both died, and may include only people who were then living.
The first column evidently contains some Etichonid kinsmen of Count Wicman
(two Meginhards and Eberhard, as well as the Eberhard who heads the second
column followed by Wicman himself), and two others whom I can't place off
the top of my head:

Meginhart
Eberhart
Zuntebold
Meginhart
Friderih

The third column has some kinswomen, presumably, and another Wicman
(probably the son of Liutgard and Wicman II, who died young before 973):

Euusa
Rihilt
Bilidrud
Ita
Uuigman

and the fourth column has some more of Liutgard's children, Meginhard who
died as a child in the early 960s, Liutgard who became abbess of Elten, and
the notorious Adela who had her own elder son murdered to please her second
husband, along with (maybe) a few in-laws:

Meginhart
Dietrih
Adala
Liutgart
Amalrat
Cunigund.

As I pointed out, such lists tend to include recognisably related people
mixed up with others who cannot be placed in the same families. In this case
the two Bilidruds are more likely to be related to each other than to Arnulf
I of Flanders, and yet one of them is placed next after his heir Balduin and
before his wife Adela of Vermandois.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Young bishops Re: Hildegard of Flanders

Legg inn av Birds » 15 aug 2006 21:02:41

Peter,

Balderik I (943-959) was below his required years when he was appointed
bishop of Luik/Lutich/Liège (955-959).
Bruno of Sachsen (925-965) was appointed chancellor with 16 en became
archbishop of Keulen/Köln in 953 when he was 28.
Folmar (ca.958-990) was appointed chancellor with 17 and when 18 became
bishop of Utrecht (976-990).

Nevertheless the possible politics behind political scene three
examples of young men in closely the same period as Egbert who ended up
high. Why not Egbert too? It certainly were turbulent times then.

They were not the only ones still young elected to high places. I'm
aware of a Simon of Limburg who was 16 when he was choosen as
archbishop in the end of the 12th century. No doubt there are a few
more examples when I really start digging.

I'm not saying that I put more trust in Dutch scholars then in you and
Stewart but sometimes things are written too certain from starters.
Regional politics played an important part in the choise of bishop
candidates. That means that candidates put foreward from the nobility
were often younger then required.

I saw Stewart and you using a minimum age of 30 years for being able te
be appointed bishop. I have read that before but without a solid
reference. Can you tell me what the basis was for the minimum age of
30.

I have seen others use a minimum age of 25 years in later ages for
becoming bishop. I can understand the 25 as being the age of becoming
an adult. A priest, abbot, dean, canon, etc. had to be minimal 25
years.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart schreef:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jKcDg.10768$rP1.8511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...

I agree that the connection between countess Hildegarde and
Arnulf should not be regarded as proven, but I do think that it
is the most likely possibility.

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

To add a bit more precision to this - Countess Hildegard's younger son first
appears as "Egbertus cancellarius" in a diploma of Emperor Otto II dated 18
January 976, and he continued in this capacity until at least 30 Jul 977,
being succeeded by Gerbert on or before 8 September. Egbert became
archbishop of Trier in succession to Theoderic (his father's namesake) who
died on 5 June 977.

I think it unlikely that Otto II would have entrusted his chancery at the
beginning of 976 to a man who wasn't already qualified by age - and
experience - to become a bishop. Egbert could not have attained the minimum
age for this, 30, if his mother's parents had been married less than 42
years earlier, apparently from Flodoard's account shortly before or during
the harvest time in 934, more clearly before 14 October in that year.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Young bishops Re: Hildegard of Flanders

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2006 23:53:29

For some reason the set markers (chevrons) do not appear when replying to
your message, Hans, so I will add a brief comment on top.

The canonical age for becoming a bishop was based on the belief that Jesus
had been 30 years old at the time of his baptism - this was an ancient rule,
and for instance the accusation that it had been breached was made against
St Athanasius in the 4th century. The required age remained in force through
the medieval period, with papal dispensation required to get round it, and
is current in the codex of 1983. The only exception to this was a period
when bishops were required to be at least 45, but this was at the whim of a
pope and not sustained in canon law.

The fact that there were exceptions is hardly surprising: opoes could and
did dispense from the rule. This happened with Bruno of Saxony, who was son
of the late German king and brother of the current one when he became
chancellor, as a means of consolidating power in his family, and was forced
to wait until he was 28 to be nominated and consecrated as archbishop of
Cologne. Election as a bishop is permitted from 27, but not consecration. We
tend to hear about expections, simply because there is an interval before
episcopal authority is exercised, or because someone else is brought in to
administer the diocese and/or to perform the functions for which a younger
bishop-elect is ineligible. This happened in the most scandalous case around
the time in question, when Hugo of Vermandois was nominated archbishop of
Rheims at the age of six - he was eventually consecrated at 21 but finally
deprived of his see due to the irregularities when he was 28. His father had
administered the diocese, and his ecclesiastical duties had been performed
by Odalric, the dispossessed bishop of Aix-en-Provence.

The point is that we know about this and other exceptions: we hear nothing
of the sort about Egbert in Trier. The evidence is that he succeeded
Theoderic who died in June 977 when fully qualified for immediate
consecration. Also there is no reason to suppose that the son of a mere
count of West Friesland would be promoted chancellor by Otto II at an early
age, ahead of older and more experienced men.

25 is (and was in the medieval period) the canonical age for becoming a
parochial priest, not a bishop.

Peter Stewart



"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1155672161.472328.249060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Balderik I (943-959) was below his required years when he was appointed
bishop of Luik/Lutich/Liège (955-959).
Bruno of Sachsen (925-965) was appointed chancellor with 16 en became
archbishop of Keulen/Köln in 953 when he was 28.
Folmar (ca.958-990) was appointed chancellor with 17 and when 18 became
bishop of Utrecht (976-990).

Nevertheless the possible politics behind political scene three
examples of young men in closely the same period as Egbert who ended up
high. Why not Egbert too? It certainly were turbulent times then.

They were not the only ones still young elected to high places. I'm
aware of a Simon of Limburg who was 16 when he was choosen as
archbishop in the end of the 12th century. No doubt there are a few
more examples when I really start digging.

I'm not saying that I put more trust in Dutch scholars then in you and
Stewart but sometimes things are written too certain from starters.
Regional politics played an important part in the choise of bishop
candidates. That means that candidates put foreward from the nobility
were often younger then required.

I saw Stewart and you using a minimum age of 30 years for being able te
be appointed bishop. I have read that before but without a solid
reference. Can you tell me what the basis was for the minimum age of
30.

I have seen others use a minimum age of 25 years in later ages for
becoming bishop. I can understand the 25 as being the age of becoming
an adult. A priest, abbot, dean, canon, etc. had to be minimal 25
years.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart schreef:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:jKcDg.10768$rP1.8511@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:d0eqd2hepnrhnr9shq9qlfg3jk7f1r87bq@4ax.com...

I agree that the connection between countess Hildegarde and
Arnulf should not be regarded as proven, but I do think that it
is the most likely possibility.

It's not unliklely, but it does involve a prior wife of Arnulf before he
married Adela in October 934 in order for Hildegard's second son to have
been imperial chancellor before becoming an archbishop in 977.

To add a bit more precision to this - Countess Hildegard's younger son
first
appears as "Egbertus cancellarius" in a diploma of Emperor Otto II dated
18
January 976, and he continued in this capacity until at least 30 Jul 977,
being succeeded by Gerbert on or before 8 September. Egbert became
archbishop of Trier in succession to Theoderic (his father's namesake) who
died on 5 June 977.

I think it unlikely that Otto II would have entrusted his chancery at the
beginning of 976 to a man who wasn't already qualified by age - and
experience - to become a bishop. Egbert could not have attained the
minimum
age for this, 30, if his mother's parents had been married less than 42
years earlier, apparently from Flodoard's account shortly before or during
the harvest time in 934, more clearly before 14 October in that year.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Young bishops Re: Hildegard of Flanders

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 15 aug 2006 23:55:29

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:JfsEg.12673$rP1.12031@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

The fact that there were exceptions is hardly surprising: opoes could and
did dispense from the rule.

This is news to me, having typed it - popes could dispense, but opoes I
believe were powerless in this respect.

Peter Stewart

Stewart Baldwin

Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hildegard of Flanders)

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 16 aug 2006 23:33:21

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 02:14:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Another possibility that occurs to me is that Arnulf I had a daughter named
Hildegard who was the same as the lady whom Lambert of Ardres calls
Elstrude, allegedly made pregnant by Siegfried of Guines. The account by
Lambert is accurate enough on other matters regarding Arnulf I's
connections, and there doesn't appear to be a motive for him to invent this
one. He says that Elstrude was beautiful and was named after her grandmother
("Habuit autem...comes Balduinus mire pulchritudinis sororem, a Balduini
quondam uxore Elstrude nominatam Elstrudem, cuius Sifridus nimio languebat
amore...et eam clanculo impregnavit", MGH SS XXIV p. 568).

Lambert may have known the story but not the beautiful sister's name, and so
invented only that detail. At least this would leave all of Arnulf I's
plausibly recorded immediate family accounted for in the Remiremont list,
with some others following of unknown connection/s to them.

It seems clear that Lambert had access to at least one version of
Genealogia comitum Flandriae [GCF], which did give him some accurate
information, but it seems that whenever Lambert tries to give
information that goes beyond GCF, his "accuracy" takes a big nosedive.
Most notably, Lambert places the story of Siegfried seduction of
Elftrude during the "reign" of count Baldwin III, after the death of
Baldwin's father Arnulf I, thus showing no awareness of the fact
Baldwin III predeceased Arnulf I (a fact easily missed if GCF
Bertiniana was the version of GCF being used by Lambert here and he
overlooked the significance of the word "iuvenis": "Arnulfus Magnus
genuit Balduinum, qui iuvenis morbo variolae obiit et apud Sanctum
Bertinum sepelitur. Hic duxerat filiam Herimanni ducis Saxonum
Mathildem, ex qua genuit Arnulfum. ...".)

Furthermore, Lambert did have a motive for inventing the connection,
and that appears in chapter 15, the beginning of which I quote here
(from MGH SS vol. 24 and from Shopkow's translation, copy-pasted from
my posting of 27 September 2004):

15. Confutatio eorum qui dicunt quod Erniculus tribus filiis suis
terram suam distribuerit.

Nec enim audiendi sunt illi qui somniando dictitant, quod ille quem
iam Bolonie comitem nominavimus Erniculum, qui apud S. Vulmarum de
Nemore vel de Silviaco Ernuldus nominatus cum duobus filiis suis,
Ernulpho videliciet et Eustacio, in eodem loco sepultus esse dicitur,
unquam terram Boloniensum et Sancti-Pauli atque Ghisnensium simul in
eodem tempore tenuisset, et quod pro qualitate affectionum trium
filiorum suorum et studio terram portionaliter iuxta studii et
affectionum ipsorum convenientiam competentem ipsis distribuisset.
Ghisnensium enim terra, circumspectis, lectis et relectis omnibus tam
Flandrie quam Bolonie chronicis, si qua sunt, authenticis, auditis
etiam et intellectis plurimorum narrationibus antiquorum et fabulis,
nunquam et nusquam Boloniensis terre portio vel appendicium invenitur
aut auditur, sed Flandrensis dignitatis ditioni post comitem Walbertum
totaliter inclinata et subiecta. ...

Translation of the above from Leah Shopkow, "Lambert of Ardres, The
History of the Counts of Guines and Lords of Ardres" (University of PA
Press, 2001):

15. A refutation of those who say that Erniculus divided his lands
among his three sons.

One should pay no attention to those people who say, as if they were
dreaming, that the man whom I just called Count Erniculus of Boulogne
(said to be buried under the name of Arnulf at Saint-Vulmar in
Samer-en-Bois, with his two sons, namely Arnulf and Eustace, in that
same place), ever held the lands of Boulogne, Saint-Pol, and Guines
together at the same time and that he distributed his land
proportionally to his three sons, according to how well they loved
him, what their pursuits were, and how suitable their love and
pursuits were. When one has examined, read, and reread all the
chronicles of both Flanders and Boulogne – to the extent that they are
authentic – and one has heard and understood the tales and fables of
many elders, one does not discover at any time or anywhere that
Guines was a part of or attached to Boulogne, but instead that after
Count Walbert's day, it was completely subject to Flemish dominion.
....

[end of quotes]

Here, Lambert is clearly acknowledging the existence of sources which
give a different picture. In these sources, count Ernicule divides
Boulogne, Saint-Pol [i.e., Ternois], and Guînes among his three sons,
of whom only two are named by Lambert: Arnulf and Eustace. Although
Lambert does not identify the missing third son given by these
sources, it is not difficult to guess his identity: count Ardolf of
Guînes, who Lambert states was married to a daughter of Ernicule.
Here, Lambert has evidently altered a son from his source into a
son-in-law. [Note that I am not claiming that these sources
necessarily had accurate information, only that Lambert tacitly
acknowledges the existence of such sources, and that he gives us some
idea of their contents.]

The political motive of Lambert for doing this is also pretty much
there in black-and-white: he denies the claim (whose existence he
verifies by denying it) that Guînes was part of Boulogne, stating
instead that Guînes was subject to Flanders.

The conjectured scenario would go something like this:

Having evidently converted Ardolf from a son into a son-in-law of
Ernicule, Lambert then appears to have used some local legends about
the Vikings in the area to supply his new genealogy to the now blank
parentage of Ardolf. [Cnut and Siegfried appear as kings of York
about 900, of whom Cnut (evidently the man of that name mentioned by
Lambert as a relative of Siegfried) minted coins at Quentovic (just a
few miles from Guînes).] The clear motive for the invention of the
younger Elftrude is that a marriage alliance with Flanders bolsters
the story that the count of Guînes was subject directly to Flanders.
The name of the daughter was evidently plucked out of GCF, tossing in
the story that she was named for her ancestor (whose husband is
carelessly misidentified by Lambert).

Given Lambert's acknowledgement of the alternate source, and the
lateness of Lambert as a source, I think that there is a high
probability of invention.

Note also that count Ernicule appears to have been the Arnulf who was
a "nepos" of count Arnulf I of Flanders [Flodoard, s.a. 962], so that
if Lambert's account were true, Ardolf would be married to his second
cousin.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hildegard of Flanders)

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 aug 2006 04:53:48

"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gc27e25nad42kh2m547vhpbpocd0aspfbh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 02:14:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Another possibility that occurs to me is that Arnulf I had a daughter
named
Hildegard who was the same as the lady whom Lambert of Ardres calls
Elstrude, allegedly made pregnant by Siegfried of Guines. The account by
Lambert is accurate enough on other matters regarding Arnulf I's
connections, and there doesn't appear to be a motive for him to invent
this
one. He says that Elstrude was beautiful and was named after her
grandmother
("Habuit autem...comes Balduinus mire pulchritudinis sororem, a Balduini
quondam uxore Elstrude nominatam Elstrudem, cuius Sifridus nimio languebat
amore...et eam clanculo impregnavit", MGH SS XXIV p. 568).

Lambert may have known the story but not the beautiful sister's name, and
so
invented only that detail. At least this would leave all of Arnulf I's
plausibly recorded immediate family accounted for in the Remiremont list,
with some others following of unknown connection/s to them.

It seems clear that Lambert had access to at least one version of
Genealogia comitum Flandriae [GCF], which did give him some accurate
information, but it seems that whenever Lambert tries to give
information that goes beyond GCF, his "accuracy" takes a big nosedive.
Most notably, Lambert places the story of Siegfried seduction of
Elftrude during the "reign" of count Baldwin III, after the death of
Baldwin's father Arnulf I, thus showing no awareness of the fact
Baldwin III predeceased Arnulf I (a fact easily missed if GCF
Bertiniana was the version of GCF being used by Lambert here and he
overlooked the significance of the word "iuvenis": "Arnulfus Magnus
genuit Balduinum, qui iuvenis morbo variolae obiit et apud Sanctum
Bertinum sepelitur. Hic duxerat filiam Herimanni ducis Saxonum
Mathildem, ex qua genuit Arnulfum. ...".)

I'm not sure why the word "iuvenis" would have tipped off Lambert that
Balduin had died before Arnulf - a person can die young and still outlive a
parent. Balduin III appears to have "reigned" as co-count of Flanders, if
not the sole ruler, for 3-4 years before he predeceased his father by a
smaller margin, so this is not a very gross error.

Furthermore, Lambert did have a motive for inventing the connection,
and that appears in chapter 15, the beginning of which I quote here
(from MGH SS vol. 24 and from Shopkow's translation, copy-pasted from
my posting of 27 September 2004):

15. Confutatio eorum qui dicunt quod Erniculus tribus filiis suis
terram suam distribuerit.

Nec enim audiendi sunt illi qui somniando dictitant, quod ille quem
iam Bolonie comitem nominavimus Erniculum, qui apud S. Vulmarum de
Nemore vel de Silviaco Ernuldus nominatus cum duobus filiis suis,
Ernulpho videliciet et Eustacio, in eodem loco sepultus esse dicitur,
unquam terram Boloniensum et Sancti-Pauli atque Ghisnensium simul in
eodem tempore tenuisset, et quod pro qualitate affectionum trium
filiorum suorum et studio terram portionaliter iuxta studii et
affectionum ipsorum convenientiam competentem ipsis distribuisset.
Ghisnensium enim terra, circumspectis, lectis et relectis omnibus tam
Flandrie quam Bolonie chronicis, si qua sunt, authenticis, auditis
etiam et intellectis plurimorum narrationibus antiquorum et fabulis,
nunquam et nusquam Boloniensis terre portio vel appendicium invenitur
aut auditur, sed Flandrensis dignitatis ditioni post comitem Walbertum
totaliter inclinata et subiecta. ...

Translation of the above from Leah Shopkow, "Lambert of Ardres, The
History of the Counts of Guines and Lords of Ardres" (University of PA
Press, 2001):

15. A refutation of those who say that Erniculus divided his lands
among his three sons.

One should pay no attention to those people who say, as if they were
dreaming, that the man whom I just called Count Erniculus of Boulogne
(said to be buried under the name of Arnulf at Saint-Vulmar in
Samer-en-Bois, with his two sons, namely Arnulf and Eustace, in that
same place), ever held the lands of Boulogne, Saint-Pol, and Guines
together at the same time and that he distributed his land
proportionally to his three sons, according to how well they loved
him, what their pursuits were, and how suitable their love and
pursuits were. When one has examined, read, and reread all the
chronicles of both Flanders and Boulogne - to the extent that they are
authentic - and one has heard and understood the tales and fables of
many elders, one does not discover at any time or anywhere that
Guines was a part of or attached to Boulogne, but instead that after
Count Walbert's day, it was completely subject to Flemish dominion.

[end of quotes]

Here, Lambert is clearly acknowledging the existence of sources which
give a different picture. In these sources, count Ernicule divides
Boulogne, Saint-Pol [i.e., Ternois], and Guînes among his three sons,
of whom only two are named by Lambert: Arnulf and Eustace. Although
Lambert does not identify the missing third son given by these
sources, it is not difficult to guess his identity: count Ardolf of
Guînes, who Lambert states was married to a daughter of Ernicule.
Here, Lambert has evidently altered a son from his source into a
son-in-law. [Note that I am not claiming that these sources
necessarily had accurate information, only that Lambert tacitly
acknowledges the existence of such sources, and that he gives us some
idea of their contents.]

Lambert explicitly acknowledges the existence of an opinion contrary to his
own, based on contested facts, but it is not clear to me that he tacitly
acknowledges this was expressed in written sources, much less ones already
circulated in opposition to his own point of view.

The case for Lambert's motivation would be stronger if he had made up a
narrative to show that the counts of Guines were vassals of the counts of
Flanders: the story of Elstrude and Siegfried, however factual it may be,
does not suggest this. All we are told is that Sigfried fell in love with
her and that she became pregnant - this does not mean that their illicit
relationship somehow reinforced her father's overlordship of Guines.

If Lambert had wanted to make such an argument he is more likely to have
adapted the history alleged by the monks of Saint-Bertin, claiming that the
territory of the counts of Guines had been donated to the abbey by Count
Walbert at the time of the foundation, and had been taken from the abbey by
Siegfried - since Arnulf I's father had been lay abbot of Saint-Bertin, this
might have favoured Lambert's case but instead he cast doubt on the claim.
Nevertheless he did represent that Siegfired's possession of Guines came as
unwelcome news to Arnulf I, to which he was reconciled on the intervention
of the Viking's nephew Cnut. Sigfired is stated by Lambert to have been
accepted by Arnulf as a friend before doing homage for Guines, prior to any
mention of Elstrude.

As you say, even if there were written histories opposed to Lambert's, we
cannot know if these were riddled with errors and falsehoods apart from the
point with which Lambert took issue.

The political motive of Lambert for doing this is also pretty much
there in black-and-white: he denies the claim (whose existence he
verifies by denying it) that Guînes was part of Boulogne, stating
instead that Guînes was subject to Flanders.

Yes, because Siegfried did homage for it to Arnulf I before he had even met
Elstrude.

The conjectured scenario would go something like this:

Having evidently converted Ardolf from a son into a son-in-law of
Ernicule, Lambert then appears to have used some local legends about
the Vikings in the area to supply his new genealogy to the now blank
parentage of Ardolf. [Cnut and Siegfried appear as kings of York
about 900, of whom Cnut (evidently the man of that name mentioned by
Lambert as a relative of Siegfried) minted coins at Quentovic (just a
few miles from Guînes).] The clear motive for the invention of the
younger Elftrude is that a marriage alliance with Flanders bolsters
the story that the count of Guînes was subject directly to Flanders.
The name of the daughter was evidently plucked out of GCF, tossing in
the story that she was named for her ancestor (whose husband is
carelessly misidentified by Lambert).

Lambert specifically relates that Elstrude did NOT marry Siegfired - she was
made pregnant by him and when this became known he fled from Flanders to
avoid her brother's response. He went back to Guines where he died shortly
afterwards, allegedly a matter of days before Balduin III died on 1 January
962 and consequently during his "reign" in Flanders. There is no suggestion
of a secret wedding, only of impregantion.

Given Lambert's acknowledgement of the alternate source, and the
lateness of Lambert as a source, I think that there is a high
probability of invention.

There is a certainty that it can't be taken as ironclad evidence, but I
don't agree that this incidental story with no compelling value for any
argument proposed along with it should be considered implausible or probably
invented.

Note also that count Ernicule appears to have been the Arnulf who was
a "nepos" of count Arnulf I of Flanders [Flodoard, s.a. 962], so that
if Lambert's account were true, Ardolf would be married to his second
cousin.

So that if Lambert's account were true, Ardolf would appear to you to be
married to his second cousin. I don't know whether Ernicule of Boulogne was
a nephew, great-nephew or other kinsman of Arnulf I, nor do I know what
Lambert thought about this beyond the mention that "Ernicule" was formally a
namesake of the count of Flanders, having been buried as "Arnulf".

Peter Stewart

Birds

Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hildega

Legg inn av Birds » 21 aug 2006 20:36:04

Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't just
appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

Stewart mentions now three earlier (10th century) brothers: count
Ardolf of Guînes (whom Lambert of Ardres makes into a son in law),
Arnulf and Eustace, sons of Count Erniculus of Boulogne (alias Arnulf).
With Erniculus/Arnulf as a likely son of Adalolf, count of Boulogne
(+ 933), brother of count Arnulf of Flanders.

Lambert refutes the opinion that lands of Guînes, Saint-Pol and
Boulogne were once in one hand, that of count Erniculus. Suppose that
this opinion however was true. Stewart makes clear that Lambert of
Ardres had a secret agenda in editing the history of the past.

The Christian names Baldwin and Eustace both occur in the families of
the counts of Guînes and Boulogne. The succession of the counts of
Guînes is clear: Ardolf (+ 996) has two sons Roger (d.y) and Raoul (+
1036). Raoul is followed as count by his son Eustace (+ 1052), etc.

The lands of Guînes, Saint-Pol and Boulogne seems a reference to the -
in the times of Lambert of Ardres - known descendants of the sons of
count Erniculus. That would suggest that we have to pin Saint-Pol and
Boulogne to the two other sons: Arnulf and Eustace. The last mentioned
seems a likely candidate for the paternity of Baldwin (+ 1024) count of
Boulogne, father of Eustace I (1024-1046). That would leave Saint-Pol
as (future) procession of the descendants of Arnulf.

I'm aware that I now might be on slippery ice but then again much has
been written and rewritten in recent and past and medieval times that
any suggestion could have its merits.

As Lambert of Ardres has been proven wrong over a number of details, so
could other chroniclers have misunderstood or misinterpreted items,
hence the different opinions on the parentage of the wives of the 10th
and early 11th generations.

Stewarts post pushes the Christian name Eustace further back to second
half of the 10th century. The counts of Boulogne are supposed to be
somehow descendants of a side branch of the counts of Flanders. The
traditional approach does not show certainty in the descent. At least
not in the strings read here on this newsgroup. It does not provide an
answer for the appearance of the Christian name Eustace in the family
of the counts of Boulogne. Maybe my suggestion does: direct naming of a
grandson Eustace after his grandfather.

As Eustace I of Boulogne married a noblewoman from Louvain with
Karolingian ancestry, he himself must have been considered an equal
marriage partner. His son Eustace II married an English princes. That
suggests that the ancestry of Eustace I must have been ´allright´.

I´m curious what you and Stewart make of this suggestion. Anything but
mincemeat will do. Had that already this evening.

Hans Vogels


Peter Stewart wrote:
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gc27e25nad42kh2m547vhpbpocd0aspfbh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 02:14:47 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Another possibility that occurs to me is that Arnulf I had a daughter
named
Hildegard who was the same as the lady whom Lambert of Ardres calls
Elstrude, allegedly made pregnant by Siegfried of Guines. The account by
Lambert is accurate enough on other matters regarding Arnulf I's
connections, and there doesn't appear to be a motive for him to invent
this
one. He says that Elstrude was beautiful and was named after her
grandmother
("Habuit autem...comes Balduinus mire pulchritudinis sororem, a Balduini
quondam uxore Elstrude nominatam Elstrudem, cuius Sifridus nimio languebat
amore...et eam clanculo impregnavit", MGH SS XXIV p. 568).

Lambert may have known the story but not the beautiful sister's name, and
so
invented only that detail. At least this would leave all of Arnulf I's
plausibly recorded immediate family accounted for in the Remiremont list,
with some others following of unknown connection/s to them.

It seems clear that Lambert had access to at least one version of
Genealogia comitum Flandriae [GCF], which did give him some accurate
information, but it seems that whenever Lambert tries to give
information that goes beyond GCF, his "accuracy" takes a big nosedive.
Most notably, Lambert places the story of Siegfried seduction of
Elftrude during the "reign" of count Baldwin III, after the death of
Baldwin's father Arnulf I, thus showing no awareness of the fact
Baldwin III predeceased Arnulf I (a fact easily missed if GCF
Bertiniana was the version of GCF being used by Lambert here and he
overlooked the significance of the word "iuvenis": "Arnulfus Magnus
genuit Balduinum, qui iuvenis morbo variolae obiit et apud Sanctum
Bertinum sepelitur. Hic duxerat filiam Herimanni ducis Saxonum
Mathildem, ex qua genuit Arnulfum. ...".)

I'm not sure why the word "iuvenis" would have tipped off Lambert that
Balduin had died before Arnulf - a person can die young and still outlive a
parent. Balduin III appears to have "reigned" as co-count of Flanders, if
not the sole ruler, for 3-4 years before he predeceased his father by a
smaller margin, so this is not a very gross error.

Furthermore, Lambert did have a motive for inventing the connection,
and that appears in chapter 15, the beginning of which I quote here
(from MGH SS vol. 24 and from Shopkow's translation, copy-pasted from
my posting of 27 September 2004):

15. Confutatio eorum qui dicunt quod Erniculus tribus filiis suis
terram suam distribuerit.

Nec enim audiendi sunt illi qui somniando dictitant, quod ille quem
iam Bolonie comitem nominavimus Erniculum, qui apud S. Vulmarum de
Nemore vel de Silviaco Ernuldus nominatus cum duobus filiis suis,
Ernulpho videliciet et Eustacio, in eodem loco sepultus esse dicitur,
unquam terram Boloniensum et Sancti-Pauli atque Ghisnensium simul in
eodem tempore tenuisset, et quod pro qualitate affectionum trium
filiorum suorum et studio terram portionaliter iuxta studii et
affectionum ipsorum convenientiam competentem ipsis distribuisset.
Ghisnensium enim terra, circumspectis, lectis et relectis omnibus tam
Flandrie quam Bolonie chronicis, si qua sunt, authenticis, auditis
etiam et intellectis plurimorum narrationibus antiquorum et fabulis,
nunquam et nusquam Boloniensis terre portio vel appendicium invenitur
aut auditur, sed Flandrensis dignitatis ditioni post comitem Walbertum
totaliter inclinata et subiecta. ...

Translation of the above from Leah Shopkow, "Lambert of Ardres, The
History of the Counts of Guines and Lords of Ardres" (University of PA
Press, 2001):

15. A refutation of those who say that Erniculus divided his lands
among his three sons.

One should pay no attention to those people who say, as if they were
dreaming, that the man whom I just called Count Erniculus of Boulogne
(said to be buried under the name of Arnulf at Saint-Vulmar in
Samer-en-Bois, with his two sons, namely Arnulf and Eustace, in that
same place), ever held the lands of Boulogne, Saint-Pol, and Guines
together at the same time and that he distributed his land
proportionally to his three sons, according to how well they loved
him, what their pursuits were, and how suitable their love and
pursuits were. When one has examined, read, and reread all the
chronicles of both Flanders and Boulogne - to the extent that they are
authentic - and one has heard and understood the tales and fables of
many elders, one does not discover at any time or anywhere that
Guines was a part of or attached to Boulogne, but instead that after
Count Walbert's day, it was completely subject to Flemish dominion.

[end of quotes]

Here, Lambert is clearly acknowledging the existence of sources which
give a different picture. In these sources, count Ernicule divides
Boulogne, Saint-Pol [i.e., Ternois], and Guînes among his three sons,
of whom only two are named by Lambert: Arnulf and Eustace. Although
Lambert does not identify the missing third son given by these
sources, it is not difficult to guess his identity: count Ardolf of
Guînes, who Lambert states was married to a daughter of Ernicule.
Here, Lambert has evidently altered a son from his source into a
son-in-law. [Note that I am not claiming that these sources
necessarily had accurate information, only that Lambert tacitly
acknowledges the existence of such sources, and that he gives us some
idea of their contents.]

Lambert explicitly acknowledges the existence of an opinion contrary to his
own, based on contested facts, but it is not clear to me that he tacitly
acknowledges this was expressed in written sources, much less ones already
circulated in opposition to his own point of view.

The case for Lambert's motivation would be stronger if he had made up a
narrative to show that the counts of Guines were vassals of the counts of
Flanders: the story of Elstrude and Siegfried, however factual it may be,
does not suggest this. All we are told is that Sigfried fell in love with
her and that she became pregnant - this does not mean that their illicit
relationship somehow reinforced her father's overlordship of Guines.

If Lambert had wanted to make such an argument he is more likely to have
adapted the history alleged by the monks of Saint-Bertin, claiming that the
territory of the counts of Guines had been donated to the abbey by Count
Walbert at the time of the foundation, and had been taken from the abbey by
Siegfried - since Arnulf I's father had been lay abbot of Saint-Bertin, this
might have favoured Lambert's case but instead he cast doubt on the claim.
Nevertheless he did represent that Siegfired's possession of Guines came as
unwelcome news to Arnulf I, to which he was reconciled on the intervention
of the Viking's nephew Cnut. Sigfired is stated by Lambert to have been
accepted by Arnulf as a friend before doing homage for Guines, prior to any
mention of Elstrude.

As you say, even if there were written histories opposed to Lambert's, we
cannot know if these were riddled with errors and falsehoods apart from the
point with which Lambert took issue.

The political motive of Lambert for doing this is also pretty much
there in black-and-white: he denies the claim (whose existence he
verifies by denying it) that Guînes was part of Boulogne, stating
instead that Guînes was subject to Flanders.

Yes, because Siegfried did homage for it to Arnulf I before he had even met
Elstrude.

The conjectured scenario would go something like this:

Having evidently converted Ardolf from a son into a son-in-law of
Ernicule, Lambert then appears to have used some local legends about
the Vikings in the area to supply his new genealogy to the now blank
parentage of Ardolf. [Cnut and Siegfried appear as kings of York
about 900, of whom Cnut (evidently the man of that name mentioned by
Lambert as a relative of Siegfried) minted coins at Quentovic (just a
few miles from Guînes).] The clear motive for the invention of the
younger Elftrude is that a marriage alliance with Flanders bolsters
the story that the count of Guînes was subject directly to Flanders.
The name of the daughter was evidently plucked out of GCF, tossing in
the story that she was named for her ancestor (whose husband is
carelessly misidentified by Lambert).

Lambert specifically relates that Elstrude did NOT marry Siegfired - she was
made pregnant by him and when this became known he fled from Flanders to
avoid her brother's response. He went back to Guines where he died shortly
afterwards, allegedly a matter of days before Balduin III died on 1 January
962 and consequently during his "reign" in Flanders. There is no suggestion
of a secret wedding, only of impregantion.

Given Lambert's acknowledgement of the alternate source, and the
lateness of Lambert as a source, I think that there is a high
probability of invention.

There is a certainty that it can't be taken as ironclad evidence, but I
don't agree that this incidental story with no compelling value for any
argument proposed along with it should be considered implausible or probably
invented.

Note also that count Ernicule appears to have been the Arnulf who was
a "nepos" of count Arnulf I of Flanders [Flodoard, s.a. 962], so that
if Lambert's account were true, Ardolf would be married to his second
cousin.

So that if Lambert's account were true, Ardolf would appear to you to be
married to his second cousin. I don't know whether Ernicule of Boulogne was
a nephew, great-nephew or other kinsman of Arnulf I, nor do I know what
Lambert thought about this beyond the mention that "Ernicule" was formally a
namesake of the count of Flanders, having been buried as "Arnulf".

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2006 03:29:02

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the origin of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of the
blue."


I replied:


"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."


My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if it is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake, even a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.



From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious. His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear his
particular name?



I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Birds » 22 aug 2006 07:39:21

Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the origin of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.


My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if it is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake, even a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.
Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald

Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.
From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious. His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as

well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.
I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2006 09:10:12

I'm not against postulating solutions, even when lacking direct evidence,
but only against the presentation of ephemeral "possibilities" as if they
were substantial genealogical scholarship. A speculation may be exactly
right, but if we have no way of establishing this it can't rise to the level
of knowledge, and may have no more value than if it was completely wrong.

One notable weakness in the proposal made by Hans is that it depends on
taking Lambert of Ardres as authoritative on an incidental matter - the
naming of a third son of Erniculus as Eustacius - while rejecting his
account on a more important question. Ascribing an ulterior motive to him on
the latter should not provide a license to cherry-pick information from him
on other points that happen to fit a neat hypothesis. If a source is
generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice versa - but we need
some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on specific
points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw pieces
together into a pattern.

Peter Stewart


"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156228761.498234.199410@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the origin
of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of
the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at
some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.

My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that
any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if it
is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake, even
a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as
serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald
Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.

From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious.
His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in
northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as
well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.

I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and
conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2006 09:13:21

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:EZyGg.15977$rP1.2314@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

If a source is generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice
versa - but
we need some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on
specific points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw
pieces together into a pattern.

This sentence is badly written - by "vice versa" I did not mean that if a
source is absolutely reliable it is generally so, but rather than if a
source is generally unreliable it is not absolutely so.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Birds » 22 aug 2006 23:44:06

As ephemeral is not in my normal daily language I had to look it up:
iets van één dag, kortstondig, one day fly. Oh boy oh boy, where did
I go wrong. Why was I so delusional.

My only weakness was that I took a suggestion of Stewart Baldwin and
elaborated further on it combining it with a titbit from the past. I'm
not rejecting anything. I hardly know Lambert of Ardres. All I know of
the good man is wat I read in George Duby, "Ridder, vrouw en priester"
(1987) on the subject of the Counts of Guines. Even in Duby I read a
mentioning of many faulty chronological facts. Lambert seems to have
written his Historia as an appology to his lord. Stewart mentions his
conclusion in his post that Lambert edited the past. He was aware of
other opinions and traditions on the past history. Lamberts aim would
have been to please his present master and audience and in that aim he
wrote his story. Stewart seems to have studied the work of Lambert in
detail as he mentions details that no other has brought to the
newsgroup before. My weakness seems to be that I trusted the remarks of
Stewart.

Peter calls me a cherry picker. What can I say. I can only smile at the
remark. I have to live with my familyname untill the day I die. But all
foolishness beside I have not even studied Lambert of Ardres so his
remarks are way off target. I don not know the total picture. I'm not
Heather Tanner with a 400 page book
(http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=11565) and a not so
good genealogical review on this group. I'm just one with a brief
moment of inspiration, hardly any transpiration. I wrote my post as a
genealogical possibility, as a possible direction for further study.
Like I wrote before "one has occainsionly to explore paths that no man
has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac".

Heather Tanner botched the (genealogical) job. You ridiculed my
approach. Come down of your pulpit and tell us how the pieces fit
togetgether. Stop weighing the evidence on golden scales. You are the
one who seem to know all the answers. Show us commoners some
enlightment. Stop dancing with words (I'm Dutch or have you forgotten),
urging us to a hyper cautious approach. Or can you only evaluate the
probability or factual content of the evidence brought before you. That
would make you a critic, a reviewer living on the products of others.

Next time please read carefully what I wrote in its total context and
if you care to react don't cherry pick yourself on what think you can
rebuff.

Cheers Peter.

Peter Stewart schreef:

I'm not against postulating solutions, even when lacking direct evidence,
but only against the presentation of ephemeral "possibilities" as if they
were substantial genealogical scholarship. A speculation may be exactly
right, but if we have no way of establishing this it can't rise to the level
of knowledge, and may have no more value than if it was completely wrong.

One notable weakness in the proposal made by Hans is that it depends on
taking Lambert of Ardres as authoritative on an incidental matter - the
naming of a third son of Erniculus as Eustacius - while rejecting his
account on a more important question. Ascribing an ulterior motive to him on
the latter should not provide a license to cherry-pick information from him
on other points that happen to fit a neat hypothesis. If a source is
generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice versa - but we need
some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on specific
points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw pieces
together into a pattern.

Peter Stewart


"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156228761.498234.199410@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the origin
of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of
the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at
some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.

My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that
any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if it
is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake, even
a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as
serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald
Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.

From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious.
His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in
northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as
well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.

I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and
conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2006 00:10:41

I suggest that you read my posts again - your aggresive and personal
response is far off the mark.

I have offered comments as directly requested by you, to the effect that
your proposal is incapable of proof on available evidence and has a notable
weakness in analytical method.

No-one had implied you were "delusional", although this could describe your
message below. My critical remarks were specifically about scholars who rely
too much on onomastics: as declared, and as clear from the beginning, you
(Hans Vogels) do not represent yourself as a scholar, and my remarks (far
from "ridicule" anyway) were clearly not directed at you personally but as a
general warning to the newsgroup.

By "ephemeral" I mean that one scholar's shining new hypothesis lacking in
evidence tends to be cast into the shade by another, or by a revision from
the original proponent, before long. I very definite set out that there is
no answer on the evidence in this case, so that your insulting challenge to
me to provide one indicates that you have not understood my posts thoroughly
enough to reply sensibly. Perhaps you will make the effort to do so.

Peter Stewart




"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156286646.256833.103000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As ephemeral is not in my normal daily language I had to look it up:
iets van één dag, kortstondig, one day fly. Oh boy oh boy, where did
I go wrong. Why was I so delusional.

My only weakness was that I took a suggestion of Stewart Baldwin and
elaborated further on it combining it with a titbit from the past. I'm
not rejecting anything. I hardly know Lambert of Ardres. All I know of
the good man is wat I read in George Duby, "Ridder, vrouw en priester"
(1987) on the subject of the Counts of Guines. Even in Duby I read a
mentioning of many faulty chronological facts. Lambert seems to have
written his Historia as an appology to his lord. Stewart mentions his
conclusion in his post that Lambert edited the past. He was aware of
other opinions and traditions on the past history. Lamberts aim would
have been to please his present master and audience and in that aim he
wrote his story. Stewart seems to have studied the work of Lambert in
detail as he mentions details that no other has brought to the
newsgroup before. My weakness seems to be that I trusted the remarks of
Stewart.

Peter calls me a cherry picker. What can I say. I can only smile at the
remark. I have to live with my familyname untill the day I die. But all
foolishness beside I have not even studied Lambert of Ardres so his
remarks are way off target. I don not know the total picture. I'm not
Heather Tanner with a 400 page book
(http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=11565) and a not so
good genealogical review on this group. I'm just one with a brief
moment of inspiration, hardly any transpiration. I wrote my post as a
genealogical possibility, as a possible direction for further study.
Like I wrote before "one has occainsionly to explore paths that no man
has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac".

Heather Tanner botched the (genealogical) job. You ridiculed my
approach. Come down of your pulpit and tell us how the pieces fit
togetgether. Stop weighing the evidence on golden scales. You are the
one who seem to know all the answers. Show us commoners some
enlightment. Stop dancing with words (I'm Dutch or have you forgotten),
urging us to a hyper cautious approach. Or can you only evaluate the
probability or factual content of the evidence brought before you. That
would make you a critic, a reviewer living on the products of others.

Next time please read carefully what I wrote in its total context and
if you care to react don't cherry pick yourself on what think you can
rebuff.

Cheers Peter.

Peter Stewart schreef:

I'm not against postulating solutions, even when lacking direct evidence,
but only against the presentation of ephemeral "possibilities" as if they
were substantial genealogical scholarship. A speculation may be exactly
right, but if we have no way of establishing this it can't rise to the
level
of knowledge, and may have no more value than if it was completely wrong.

One notable weakness in the proposal made by Hans is that it depends on
taking Lambert of Ardres as authoritative on an incidental matter - the
naming of a third son of Erniculus as Eustacius - while rejecting his
account on a more important question. Ascribing an ulterior motive to him
on
the latter should not provide a license to cherry-pick information from
him
on other points that happen to fit a neat hypothesis. If a source is
generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice versa - but we need
some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on
specific
points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw pieces
together into a pattern.

Peter Stewart


"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156228761.498234.199410@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace
I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the
origin
of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange
I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The
name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of
the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at
some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering
a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy
to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.

My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in
several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that
all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that
any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in
various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if
it
is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake,
even
a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as
serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald
Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.

From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was
named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for
an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace
was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious.
His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in
northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been
a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the
first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear
his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as
well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.

I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and
conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Birds

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Birds » 23 aug 2006 01:14:26

Peter,

That's the problem. I have read them to well. Your are a contributant
whose posts I carefully read. Your post are often a source of learning,
an enlightment. I read and reread what I wrote the last time and your
following answer. An answer not directed to me but definitely an
answer, and a selective one if I may remark. Were I sit pondering over
the correct words you often seem to rush to counter, hence the typos.
This answer of yours is a fine example: within minutes. That's what I
call agressive.

Agressive as my post may seem to you it is not intended that way. But I
want to point out to you that you often provoke the opposide party in
the way you write. My post of yesterday was in a positive cooperative
way. I can go a long way with your remarks. And then you write
something that put the few hairs that I still have left up in a minute.
I'm not the enemy and the times of college dictate are long gone. At
the end of the day I still decide for myself what is crap, possible,
plausible, likely. Your hyper critical standards need not be my
standards or that of the group. If it's allright for you okay, that
suits me. Freedom of thinking and freedom of speech.

I might not be a scholar but that does not mean that you can send me to
the corner the way you did, writing over my head as a warning to all
other would be amateurs. I'm researching en writing articles for over
15 years now, improving myself every year and still learning. You might
start occasionly with "you might be right in this or that assumption
but have you looked it this or that way". That's the positive
cooperative smooth way in which way you get people convinced.

I said it before. I did not study Lambert of Ardres. I did not apply
scientific methods. I did not dress the hypothesis up in a bla bla
story. No fried air. It was an inspiration. Sometimes you end up like
Einstein (did you read David Bodanis E=mc2?), but moreoften not.
Therefore you can not apply scientific standards to my suggestion. I
offered you the suggestion as your seem to know what you are writing
about and because you provided an earlier answer on something that in
the present light might be looked and answered differently.

You mention that my suggestion is as weak and unlikely but do not
provide further enlightment. The hypothesis of Heather Tanner is no
alternative. I have read the reviews. Your stand is thus that the
available information fails to provide a definite answer in
reconstructing the correct missing link between the mid 10th and the
11th century.
Okay.

Lets bury the hatchets. I'm an amiable person with a big shoe size.

Hans Vogels




Peter Stewart schreef:

I suggest that you read my posts again - your aggresive and personal
response is far off the mark.

I have offered comments as directly requested by you, to the effect that
your proposal is incapable of proof on available evidence and has a notable
weakness in analytical method.

No-one had implied you were "delusional", although this could describe your
message below. My critical remarks were specifically about scholars who rely
too much on onomastics: as declared, and as clear from the beginning, you
(Hans Vogels) do not represent yourself as a scholar, and my remarks (far
from "ridicule" anyway) were clearly not directed at you personally but as a
general warning to the newsgroup.

By "ephemeral" I mean that one scholar's shining new hypothesis lacking in
evidence tends to be cast into the shade by another, or by a revision from
the original proponent, before long. I very definite set out that there is
no answer on the evidence in this case, so that your insulting challenge to
me to provide one indicates that you have not understood my posts thoroughly
enough to reply sensibly. Perhaps you will make the effort to do so.

Peter Stewart




"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156286646.256833.103000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As ephemeral is not in my normal daily language I had to look it up:
iets van één dag, kortstondig, one day fly. Oh boy oh boy, where did
I go wrong. Why was I so delusional.

My only weakness was that I took a suggestion of Stewart Baldwin and
elaborated further on it combining it with a titbit from the past. I'm
not rejecting anything. I hardly know Lambert of Ardres. All I know of
the good man is wat I read in George Duby, "Ridder, vrouw en priester"
(1987) on the subject of the Counts of Guines. Even in Duby I read a
mentioning of many faulty chronological facts. Lambert seems to have
written his Historia as an appology to his lord. Stewart mentions his
conclusion in his post that Lambert edited the past. He was aware of
other opinions and traditions on the past history. Lamberts aim would
have been to please his present master and audience and in that aim he
wrote his story. Stewart seems to have studied the work of Lambert in
detail as he mentions details that no other has brought to the
newsgroup before. My weakness seems to be that I trusted the remarks of
Stewart.

Peter calls me a cherry picker. What can I say. I can only smile at the
remark. I have to live with my familyname untill the day I die. But all
foolishness beside I have not even studied Lambert of Ardres so his
remarks are way off target. I don not know the total picture. I'm not
Heather Tanner with a 400 page book
(http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=11565) and a not so
good genealogical review on this group. I'm just one with a brief
moment of inspiration, hardly any transpiration. I wrote my post as a
genealogical possibility, as a possible direction for further study.
Like I wrote before "one has occainsionly to explore paths that no man
has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac".

Heather Tanner botched the (genealogical) job. You ridiculed my
approach. Come down of your pulpit and tell us how the pieces fit
togetgether. Stop weighing the evidence on golden scales. You are the
one who seem to know all the answers. Show us commoners some
enlightment. Stop dancing with words (I'm Dutch or have you forgotten),
urging us to a hyper cautious approach. Or can you only evaluate the
probability or factual content of the evidence brought before you. That
would make you a critic, a reviewer living on the products of others.

Next time please read carefully what I wrote in its total context and
if you care to react don't cherry pick yourself on what think you can
rebuff.

Cheers Peter.

Peter Stewart schreef:

I'm not against postulating solutions, even when lacking direct evidence,
but only against the presentation of ephemeral "possibilities" as if they
were substantial genealogical scholarship. A speculation may be exactly
right, but if we have no way of establishing this it can't rise to the
level
of knowledge, and may have no more value than if it was completely wrong.

One notable weakness in the proposal made by Hans is that it depends on
taking Lambert of Ardres as authoritative on an incidental matter - the
naming of a third son of Erniculus as Eustacius - while rejecting his
account on a more important question. Ascribing an ulterior motive to him
on
the latter should not provide a license to cherry-pick information from
him
on other points that happen to fit a neat hypothesis. If a source is
generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice versa - but we need
some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on
specific
points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw pieces
together into a pattern.

Peter Stewart


"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156228761.498234.199410@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace
I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the
origin
of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange
I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The
name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of
the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at
some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering
a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy
to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.

My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in
several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that
all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that
any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in
various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if
it
is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake,
even
a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as
serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald
Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.

From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was
named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for
an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace
was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious.
His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in
northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been
a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the
first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear
his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as
well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.

I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and
conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Eustace of Boulogne Re: Elftrude and Siegfried (was: Hil

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2006 03:21:09

There is no "hatchet" to be buried, and no aggression on my part in
responding to a post as soon as I read it.

I was asked for comment on a very obvious but ill-founded speculation,
and I responded by pointing out that there is no evidence for it as
well as a notable weakness in the method of seizing on it. To
reiterate: there is no evidence of another Eustace in the ancestry of
Eustace I of Boulogne, or of another man named Eustace ruling there
before him whether related to him or not.

No-one is telling you what to think or what to decide, or by what
standard you may assess any question. Kindly do not try to instruct me
in what I may write or in how I may address you and/or other readers in
this public forum.

If you can't bear to read my forthright comments, I suggest that you
should refrain from asking me to comment in the first place. You
overreacted to an imagined slur on your capacity to speculate, but that
does not make me responsible for your misunderstanding.

You would do well also to refrain from attributing thoughts to Stewart
Baldwin that he has not chosen to express.

Peter Stewart


Birds wrote:
Peter,

That's the problem. I have read them to well. Your are a contributant
whose posts I carefully read. Your post are often a source of learning,
an enlightment. I read and reread what I wrote the last time and your
following answer. An answer not directed to me but definitely an
answer, and a selective one if I may remark. Were I sit pondering over
the correct words you often seem to rush to counter, hence the typos.
This answer of yours is a fine example: within minutes. That's what I
call agressive.

Agressive as my post may seem to you it is not intended that way. But I
want to point out to you that you often provoke the opposide party in
the way you write. My post of yesterday was in a positive cooperative
way. I can go a long way with your remarks. And then you write
something that put the few hairs that I still have left up in a minute.
I'm not the enemy and the times of college dictate are long gone. At
the end of the day I still decide for myself what is crap, possible,
plausible, likely. Your hyper critical standards need not be my
standards or that of the group. If it's allright for you okay, that
suits me. Freedom of thinking and freedom of speech.

I might not be a scholar but that does not mean that you can send me to
the corner the way you did, writing over my head as a warning to all
other would be amateurs. I'm researching en writing articles for over
15 years now, improving myself every year and still learning. You might
start occasionly with "you might be right in this or that assumption
but have you looked it this or that way". That's the positive
cooperative smooth way in which way you get people convinced.

I said it before. I did not study Lambert of Ardres. I did not apply
scientific methods. I did not dress the hypothesis up in a bla bla
story. No fried air. It was an inspiration. Sometimes you end up like
Einstein (did you read David Bodanis E=mc2?), but moreoften not.
Therefore you can not apply scientific standards to my suggestion. I
offered you the suggestion as your seem to know what you are writing
about and because you provided an earlier answer on something that in
the present light might be looked and answered differently.

You mention that my suggestion is as weak and unlikely but do not
provide further enlightment. The hypothesis of Heather Tanner is no
alternative. I have read the reviews. Your stand is thus that the
available information fails to provide a definite answer in
reconstructing the correct missing link between the mid 10th and the
11th century.
Okay.

Lets bury the hatchets. I'm an amiable person with a big shoe size.

Hans Vogels




Peter Stewart schreef:

I suggest that you read my posts again - your aggresive and personal
response is far off the mark.

I have offered comments as directly requested by you, to the effect that
your proposal is incapable of proof on available evidence and has a notable
weakness in analytical method.

No-one had implied you were "delusional", although this could describe your
message below. My critical remarks were specifically about scholars who rely
too much on onomastics: as declared, and as clear from the beginning, you
(Hans Vogels) do not represent yourself as a scholar, and my remarks (far
from "ridicule" anyway) were clearly not directed at you personally but as a
general warning to the newsgroup.

By "ephemeral" I mean that one scholar's shining new hypothesis lacking in
evidence tends to be cast into the shade by another, or by a revision from
the original proponent, before long. I very definite set out that there is
no answer on the evidence in this case, so that your insulting challenge to
me to provide one indicates that you have not understood my posts thoroughly
enough to reply sensibly. Perhaps you will make the effort to do so.

Peter Stewart




"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156286646.256833.103000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As ephemeral is not in my normal daily language I had to look it up:
iets van één dag, kortstondig, one day fly. Oh boy oh boy, where did
I go wrong. Why was I so delusional.

My only weakness was that I took a suggestion of Stewart Baldwin and
elaborated further on it combining it with a titbit from the past. I'm
not rejecting anything. I hardly know Lambert of Ardres. All I know of
the good man is wat I read in George Duby, "Ridder, vrouw en priester"
(1987) on the subject of the Counts of Guines. Even in Duby I read a
mentioning of many faulty chronological facts. Lambert seems to have
written his Historia as an appology to his lord. Stewart mentions his
conclusion in his post that Lambert edited the past. He was aware of
other opinions and traditions on the past history. Lamberts aim would
have been to please his present master and audience and in that aim he
wrote his story. Stewart seems to have studied the work of Lambert in
detail as he mentions details that no other has brought to the
newsgroup before. My weakness seems to be that I trusted the remarks of
Stewart.

Peter calls me a cherry picker. What can I say. I can only smile at the
remark. I have to live with my familyname untill the day I die. But all
foolishness beside I have not even studied Lambert of Ardres so his
remarks are way off target. I don not know the total picture. I'm not
Heather Tanner with a 400 page book
(http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=18&pid=11565) and a not so
good genealogical review on this group. I'm just one with a brief
moment of inspiration, hardly any transpiration. I wrote my post as a
genealogical possibility, as a possible direction for further study.
Like I wrote before "one has occainsionly to explore paths that no man
has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac".

Heather Tanner botched the (genealogical) job. You ridiculed my
approach. Come down of your pulpit and tell us how the pieces fit
togetgether. Stop weighing the evidence on golden scales. You are the
one who seem to know all the answers. Show us commoners some
enlightment. Stop dancing with words (I'm Dutch or have you forgotten),
urging us to a hyper cautious approach. Or can you only evaluate the
probability or factual content of the evidence brought before you. That
would make you a critic, a reviewer living on the products of others.

Next time please read carefully what I wrote in its total context and
if you care to react don't cherry pick yourself on what think you can
rebuff.

Cheers Peter.

Peter Stewart schreef:

I'm not against postulating solutions, even when lacking direct evidence,
but only against the presentation of ephemeral "possibilities" as if they
were substantial genealogical scholarship. A speculation may be exactly
right, but if we have no way of establishing this it can't rise to the
level
of knowledge, and may have no more value than if it was completely wrong.

One notable weakness in the proposal made by Hans is that it depends on
taking Lambert of Ardres as authoritative on an incidental matter - the
naming of a third son of Erniculus as Eustacius - while rejecting his
account on a more important question. Ascribing an ulterior motive to him
on
the latter should not provide a license to cherry-pick information from
him
on other points that happen to fit a neat hypothesis. If a source is
generally reliable it is not absolutely so, and vice versa - but we need
some external evidence and/or internal analysis to discriminate on
specific
points, rather than just finding a way to arrange selected jigsaw pieces
together into a pattern.

Peter Stewart


"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156228761.498234.199410@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Peter,

Remarks inserted inbetween.

Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1156188964.405929.226600@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

Reading Stewarts post and your answer a thought occurred to me
regarding the Christian name Eustace.

In an earlier string (Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace
I:
25-28 sept 2004) I put forward the question "Has't anyone approached
the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The name Eustace [for the
counts of Boulogne] must come from someone or somewhere. It can't
just appear out of the blue". You then kind of send me off with a
noncommittal answer.

I certainly didn't mean to be noncommittal, except insofar as the
origin
of
the name Eustace in this particular family can't be known. The exchange
I
assume you mean is the following, from 28 September 2004 in the thread
'Counts of Boulogne between Adalolf and Eustace I':

Hans Vogels wrote:
"Has't anyone aproached the matter from a onomastical viewpoint? The
name
Eustace must come from someone or somewere. It can't just apear out of
the
blue."

I replied:

"Why ever not? Even if you could trace back through a line of Eustaces,
there would still have to be a first. The name was probably chosen at
some
arbitrary point, and for similar reason to Hubert, without a series of
family precedents. Both carried a similar legend, where the saint was
converted to Christianity in the course of a hunt, due to encountering
a
stag with the crucifix shining in its antlers. Medieval people were
entranced by these stories, and no doubt on occasions they were happy
to
baptise a son & heir with a quite new name in honour of such pleasing
fictions, whether saintly or otherwise - for instance, the naming of
Bohemund after a legendary giant was discussed here recently."

Point taken.

My point is that Eustace could have been chosen independently in
several
families from devotion to the legend of St Eustace. Alternatively if a
superstitious belief is held (against the evidence, by the way) that
all
transmission of names in Frankish families must have been hereditary,
Eustace might have been established in a lineage for long enough that
any
two namesakes in the same area could be related to each other in
various
ways apart from father/grandfather-son/grandson. A younger Eustace, if
it
is
insisted that he belonged to the same family as an earlier namesake,
even
a
predecessor, could have been a nephew, a cousin, etc.

True, one can warn for the most obvious conclusion but then again it
could even be straight on the mark. With a too carefull and
relativistic approach one can cut off a line of reseach to soon before
the end of the sidepath is even investigated. As it seems now we have
within the same family of the counts of Boulogne an earlier namebearer
on a generation that could well be the generation of the grandfather.
One can differ of opinion on the factual how, but even the counts of
Guines are some way or another tied up with the counts of Boulogne and
Flanders. Even Stewart Baldwin who is well known and praised for his
critical and solid work of research ventures occasionly to places where
no man has gone before to seek solutions.

Some scholars take the hereditary possession of leading names as an
unquestioned premise for working out schemes that are presented as
serious
genealogy, but which are in fact just elaborate games, puzzle solutions
presented for no real purpose apart from having a solution.

Yes. The German scholars from the past and the well known Donald
Jackson certainly seem to know their way around. Combining and adding
mentionings and persons to strings of families.

From memory the first occurrence of Eustace for a layman in a Frankish
family was the son of the 7th century abbess Sadalberga, and he was
named
after the abbot of Luxeuil who was a counsellor of her father, not for
an
ancestor (NB Heather Tanner is wrong in stating that the name Eustace
was
"unkown" in France between the abbot of Luxeuil and Count Eustace I of
Boulogne). The original Eustace was a Roman saint, probably fictitious.
His
name must have been adopted by at least one aristocratic family in
northern
Europe for some reason at some point: we know that there must have been
a
first holder of any name in any family line, so why should not the
first
person definitely belonging in a lineage - in this case Eustace I of
Boulogne who died ca 1049 - also be the first in his lineage to bear
his
particular name?

Allright, but then again from this same line of reasoning it could as
well be the Eustace, the third son of count Erniculus of Boulogne, who
was the first one of the family to bear this particular name.

I am not "noncommittal" about this - I think an assuption that the
background of names in particular lines must always go deeper than the
available evidence allows us to trace is quite unwarranted, and
conjectures
based on this premise are more for amusement than enlightenment.

Peter Stewart

Indeed a carefull approach, besides an open mind should never be
forgotten in ones own research. The historic thruth - if one ever finds
the final answer - is often stranger than fiction. With wishfull
thinking one can come a long way but it is hardly a contribution to
science. But even then one has occainsionly to explore paths that no
man has gone before to be able to say that it was a dead end, a cul du
sac.

Hans Vogels

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»