Wednesday, 6 September, 2006
Hello All,
The subject of Redburh (Rædburh, also Redburga), wife of
Egbert of Wessex (King of Wessex 802-839), and her ancestry has
been a matter of debate for some time. Described by "regis
Francorum sororia" [ sister <better, sister-in-law> of the king
of the Franks ] in an early, but possibly not contemporary,
record, she has been variously identified as a sister or
sister-in-law of Charlemagne [1].
Something Chico Doria wrote in 1998 struck a cord the other
day. He suggested that the name Redburh sounded 'Robertinian',
i.e. similar to names found in the family of the Counts of Paris
(ancestors of the Capetian Kings of France). In particular, he
queried as to the equation or derivation, " Raedburh < ?
Hrodtburga or something similar " [2]. This suggestion deserves
further exploration, and certainly presents a good possibility
for the origin of Redburh.
Louis the Pious, king of the Franks (Holy Roman Emperor) was
married to his first wife Ermengarde in 794, with their issue
having been born during the period 795-805. As Louis was born in
778, it is reasonable to assume that Ermengarde was born say
778-780, and that she was likely aged between 16 and 17 (no less
than 15) when their first son Lothar was born in 795. This
reasonably parallels the family of Egbert. He was most
likely married to Redburh during his exile on the Continent,
between 799 and (probably no later than) 802. The birth date of
Egbert's son Ethelwulf is usually placed between 802 and 806,
although I have not noted a contemporary source for same.
While it is true that Charlemagne was King of the Franks
during the period that Egbert was in exile, it is also true that
his son Louis succeeded him as King of the Franks in 814, and
ruled as same (as well as Emperor) for 26 years, until his
death in 840. Louis and Egbert were more likely of the same
approximate age than say Charlemagne and Egbert: the greater
likelihood would be that the two would have married ladies of
a similar age (or younger).
Part of the uncertainty here derives from the dating of the
Trinity College MS cited by Searle. The question here is, how
contemporaneous was the document to the early 9th century, and
how best to interpret the term 'regis Francorum'? If the
meaning is the straightforward traditional approach, certainly
Charlemagne was intended: however, if the meaning is that
Redburh was sister-in-law to he who was King of the Franks when
the author of the MS wrote this entry, that could well mean
Louis, and not Charlemagne. Certainly, the careers of Louis
and Egbert would make their being 'brothers-in-law' more
likely than Charlemagne and Egbert.
The family of the Robertines (or the Counts of Hesbaye as
you may prefer) is now better understood, thanks to the work
of Christian Settipani and several others. If the name Redburh
is a Wessex rendering of Hrodtburga, or Chrodburga, it would
certainly point towards the possibility of a connection to
the family of Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz [see table below].
Given the problems in dealing with this family to date, the
possibility of a daughter of Count Ingram (father-in-law of
Louis the Pious) of the name Chrodburga being otherwise
unaccounted for in Frankish records is certainly believable.
Chico's suggestion, in addition to some onomastic support,
would (based on chronology and the Trinity College text) point
towards a sister-in-law of Louis the Pious as the best
candidate for Egbert's wife.
The following chart illustrates the conjecture relationship
(Redburh's connection to Ermengarde shown as a broken line
_ _ _ _).
NN = Landrada
__________________I______________________
I I I
Chrodegang NN Chrodbert
Bishop of Metz " fratris [Robert]
d. 766 Hruotgangi " I
I I
I I
Charlemagne = (2) Hildegarde Count Ingram Robert
d. 814 I of Hesbaye C of Worms
I I d. 822
____I __________I_ _ _ I
I I I I
Louis 'the Pious' = 1) Ermengarde ?Chrodburga? Robert
King of the Franks I (m. 794) <Redburga, C of Paris
(rex Francorum) I d. 818 Rædburh> d. 866
814-840 I = Egbert I
b. 778; d. 840 I (m. 799x802) V
I d. 838/839 <CAPET>
I I
__________________I_________ _____I_________
I I I I I I I
Lothar Pepin I Rotrude Louis Ethelwulf Ethelstan
fl. ___I fl. <Æthelwulf> <Æthelstan>
795-855 I 805-876 b. ca. 802- d. 850
Hildegarde 806
d. 858
There is no noted issue concerning consanguinity, as least
insofar as has been noted as yet. Ethelwulf, son of Egbert and
Redburh, was married (2ndly) to Judith, daughter of Charles
(the Bald), King of France and son of Louis 'the Pious'.
However, Charles was the son of Louis by his 2nd wife Judith.
Judith (the wife of Ethelwulf) was not related to Redburh.
There are possibly similar names in other families. By his
3rd wife Chruodhaid, Charles Martel had a son Bernhard, and
allegedly Bernhard's daughter Rothais (or Chruodhaid) was the
concubine of her cousin Pepin, King of Italy (d. 810, brother
of Louis the Pious). While the title 'king of the Franks' in
the Trinity College MS cited by Searle seems definitive, the
matter cannot be shown as proven.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] William George Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles:
The Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings
and Nobles [Cambridge: the University Press, 1899], p. 343.
Text and annotations (entitled Anglo-Saxon Pedigrees
Annotated-Part 1, transcribed by Michael Wood) courtesy
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, http://fmg.ac/
See the SGM archives for numerous discussions on this issue.
[2] Francisco Antonio Doria, <Fwd: Re: Reburga-Raedburh: meaning
of 'sororia'>, SGM, , 9 June 1998.
* John P. Ravilious
The origins of Redburh or Rædburh ( a conjecture)
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The origins of Redburh or Rædburh (a conjecture)
If conjectures like the one below are to be made public, it is surely worht
giving some rationale for preferring one idea to another.
For starters, if Rædburh is supposed to be possibly an Anglo-Saxon rendering
of Ruodburga, are there examples of the name of any Frankish duke, king or
other called Ruodbert becoming "Rædbert" across the Channel?
And if the onomastic connection can be supported at all, why seize on just
one family with royal links using names with the "Chrod-" element? Why not
look at the family of Madelgarde, whose daughter by Charlemagne was named
Chrothildis? Or the mothers of his daughters Ruotrudis and Ruodhaid? Or the
family of his daughter-in-law Ruothais who married Pippin, king of Italy?
If these are to be eliminated, why? And why not also the family of Count
Ingramn?
Peter Stewart
<Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news:324.b493669.32303304@aol.com...
giving some rationale for preferring one idea to another.
For starters, if Rædburh is supposed to be possibly an Anglo-Saxon rendering
of Ruodburga, are there examples of the name of any Frankish duke, king or
other called Ruodbert becoming "Rædbert" across the Channel?
And if the onomastic connection can be supported at all, why seize on just
one family with royal links using names with the "Chrod-" element? Why not
look at the family of Madelgarde, whose daughter by Charlemagne was named
Chrothildis? Or the mothers of his daughters Ruotrudis and Ruodhaid? Or the
family of his daughter-in-law Ruothais who married Pippin, king of Italy?
If these are to be eliminated, why? And why not also the family of Count
Ingramn?
Peter Stewart
<Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news:324.b493669.32303304@aol.com...
Wednesday, 6 September, 2006
Hello All,
The subject of Redburh (Rædburh, also Redburga), wife of
Egbert of Wessex (King of Wessex 802-839), and her ancestry has
been a matter of debate for some time. Described by "regis
Francorum sororia" [ sister <better, sister-in-law> of the king
of the Franks ] in an early, but possibly not contemporary,
record, she has been variously identified as a sister or
sister-in-law of Charlemagne [1].
Something Chico Doria wrote in 1998 struck a cord the other
day. He suggested that the name Redburh sounded 'Robertinian',
i.e. similar to names found in the family of the Counts of Paris
(ancestors of the Capetian Kings of France). In particular, he
queried as to the equation or derivation, " Raedburh < ?
Hrodtburga or something similar " [2]. This suggestion deserves
further exploration, and certainly presents a good possibility
for the origin of Redburh.
Louis the Pious, king of the Franks (Holy Roman Emperor) was
married to his first wife Ermengarde in 794, with their issue
having been born during the period 795-805. As Louis was born in
778, it is reasonable to assume that Ermengarde was born say
778-780, and that she was likely aged between 16 and 17 (no less
than 15) when their first son Lothar was born in 795. This
reasonably parallels the family of Egbert. He was most
likely married to Redburh during his exile on the Continent,
between 799 and (probably no later than) 802. The birth date of
Egbert's son Ethelwulf is usually placed between 802 and 806,
although I have not noted a contemporary source for same.
While it is true that Charlemagne was King of the Franks
during the period that Egbert was in exile, it is also true that
his son Louis succeeded him as King of the Franks in 814, and
ruled as same (as well as Emperor) for 26 years, until his
death in 840. Louis and Egbert were more likely of the same
approximate age than say Charlemagne and Egbert: the greater
likelihood would be that the two would have married ladies of
a similar age (or younger).
Part of the uncertainty here derives from the dating of the
Trinity College MS cited by Searle. The question here is, how
contemporaneous was the document to the early 9th century, and
how best to interpret the term 'regis Francorum'? If the
meaning is the straightforward traditional approach, certainly
Charlemagne was intended: however, if the meaning is that
Redburh was sister-in-law to he who was King of the Franks when
the author of the MS wrote this entry, that could well mean
Louis, and not Charlemagne. Certainly, the careers of Louis
and Egbert would make their being 'brothers-in-law' more
likely than Charlemagne and Egbert.
The family of the Robertines (or the Counts of Hesbaye as
you may prefer) is now better understood, thanks to the work
of Christian Settipani and several others. If the name Redburh
is a Wessex rendering of Hrodtburga, or Chrodburga, it would
certainly point towards the possibility of a connection to
the family of Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz [see table below].
Given the problems in dealing with this family to date, the
possibility of a daughter of Count Ingram (father-in-law of
Louis the Pious) of the name Chrodburga being otherwise
unaccounted for in Frankish records is certainly believable.
Chico's suggestion, in addition to some onomastic support,
would (based on chronology and the Trinity College text) point
towards a sister-in-law of Louis the Pious as the best
candidate for Egbert's wife.
The following chart illustrates the conjecture relationship
(Redburh's connection to Ermengarde shown as a broken line
_ _ _ _).
NN = Landrada
__________________I______________________
I I I
Chrodegang NN Chrodbert
Bishop of Metz " fratris [Robert]
d. 766 Hruotgangi " I
I I
I I
Charlemagne = (2) Hildegarde Count Ingram Robert
d. 814 I of Hesbaye C of Worms
I I d. 822
____I __________I_ _ _ I
I I I I
Louis 'the Pious' = 1) Ermengarde ?Chrodburga? Robert
King of the Franks I (m. 794) <Redburga, C of Paris
(rex Francorum) I d. 818 Rædburh> d. 866
814-840 I = Egbert I
b. 778; d. 840 I (m. 799x802) V
I d. 838/839 <CAPET
I I
__________________I_________ _____I_________
I I I I I I I
Lothar Pepin I Rotrude Louis Ethelwulf Ethelstan
fl. ___I fl. <Æthelwulf> <Æthelstan
795-855 I 805-876 b. ca. 802- d. 850
Hildegarde 806
d. 858
There is no noted issue concerning consanguinity, as least
insofar as has been noted as yet. Ethelwulf, son of Egbert and
Redburh, was married (2ndly) to Judith, daughter of Charles
(the Bald), King of France and son of Louis 'the Pious'.
However, Charles was the son of Louis by his 2nd wife Judith.
Judith (the wife of Ethelwulf) was not related to Redburh.
There are possibly similar names in other families. By his
3rd wife Chruodhaid, Charles Martel had a son Bernhard, and
allegedly Bernhard's daughter Rothais (or Chruodhaid) was the
concubine of her cousin Pepin, King of Italy (d. 810, brother
of Louis the Pious). While the title 'king of the Franks' in
the Trinity College MS cited by Searle seems definitive, the
matter cannot be shown as proven.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] William George Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles:
The Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings
and Nobles [Cambridge: the University Press, 1899], p. 343.
Text and annotations (entitled Anglo-Saxon Pedigrees
Annotated-Part 1, transcribed by Michael Wood) courtesy
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, http://fmg.ac/
See the SGM archives for numerous discussions on this issue.
[2] Francisco Antonio Doria, <Fwd: Re: Reburga-Raedburh: meaning
of 'sororia'>, SGM, , 9 June 1998.
* John P. Ravilious
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: The origins of Redburh or Rædburh (a conjecture)
Dear Peter,
I thought the rationale behind the conjecture was
straightforward, but nonetheless:
If the language of the Trinity College MS. in question is to be
taken verbatim, we are looking for a sister-in-law of the King of the
Franks (or, a King of the Franks anyway). One might argue re: Pepin of
Italy or another Carolingian of the period, but again, using the text
without additional inference we should be looking at Charlemagne or
Louis le Debonair.
My point: that Louis makes better sense, chronologically, and
his wife was a daughter of Count Ingram. Ruodburga, or Redburh, makes
a nice fit.
Does this disprove other possibilities? At this point,
certainly not. It merely seems to be the best interpretation of what
evidence and facts we have to hand.
As to your question concderning any examples of the name of
any male Frank called Ruodbert being rendered "Rædbert" in England, I
am not aware of any. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge (pro or
con) can chime in on this question.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
I thought the rationale behind the conjecture was
straightforward, but nonetheless:
If the language of the Trinity College MS. in question is to be
taken verbatim, we are looking for a sister-in-law of the King of the
Franks (or, a King of the Franks anyway). One might argue re: Pepin of
Italy or another Carolingian of the period, but again, using the text
without additional inference we should be looking at Charlemagne or
Louis le Debonair.
My point: that Louis makes better sense, chronologically, and
his wife was a daughter of Count Ingram. Ruodburga, or Redburh, makes
a nice fit.
Does this disprove other possibilities? At this point,
certainly not. It merely seems to be the best interpretation of what
evidence and facts we have to hand.
As to your question concderning any examples of the name of
any male Frank called Ruodbert being rendered "Rædbert" in England, I
am not aware of any. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge (pro or
con) can chime in on this question.
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
If conjectures like the one below are to be made public, it is surely worht
giving some rationale for preferring one idea to another.
For starters, if Rædburh is supposed to be possibly an Anglo-Saxon rendering
of Ruodburga, are there examples of the name of any Frankish duke, king or
other called Ruodbert becoming "Rædbert" across the Channel?
And if the onomastic connection can be supported at all, why seize on just
one family with royal links using names with the "Chrod-" element? Why not
look at the family of Madelgarde, whose daughter by Charlemagne was named
Chrothildis? Or the mothers of his daughters Ruotrudis and Ruodhaid? Or the
family of his daughter-in-law Ruothais who married Pippin, king of Italy?
If these are to be eliminated, why? And why not also the family of Count
Ingramn?
Peter Stewart
Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news:324.b493669.32303304@aol.com...
Wednesday, 6 September, 2006
Hello All,
The subject of Redburh (Rædburh, also Redburga), wife of
Egbert of Wessex (King of Wessex 802-839), and her ancestry has
been a matter of debate for some time. Described by "regis
Francorum sororia" [ sister <better, sister-in-law> of the king
of the Franks ] in an early, but possibly not contemporary,
record, she has been variously identified as a sister or
sister-in-law of Charlemagne [1].
Something Chico Doria wrote in 1998 struck a cord the other
day. He suggested that the name Redburh sounded 'Robertinian',
i.e. similar to names found in the family of the Counts of Paris
(ancestors of the Capetian Kings of France). In particular, he
queried as to the equation or derivation, " Raedburh < ?
Hrodtburga or something similar " [2]. This suggestion deserves
further exploration, and certainly presents a good possibility
for the origin of Redburh.
Louis the Pious, king of the Franks (Holy Roman Emperor) was
married to his first wife Ermengarde in 794, with their issue
having been born during the period 795-805. As Louis was born in
778, it is reasonable to assume that Ermengarde was born say
778-780, and that she was likely aged between 16 and 17 (no less
than 15) when their first son Lothar was born in 795. This
reasonably parallels the family of Egbert. He was most
likely married to Redburh during his exile on the Continent,
between 799 and (probably no later than) 802. The birth date of
Egbert's son Ethelwulf is usually placed between 802 and 806,
although I have not noted a contemporary source for same.
While it is true that Charlemagne was King of the Franks
during the period that Egbert was in exile, it is also true that
his son Louis succeeded him as King of the Franks in 814, and
ruled as same (as well as Emperor) for 26 years, until his
death in 840. Louis and Egbert were more likely of the same
approximate age than say Charlemagne and Egbert: the greater
likelihood would be that the two would have married ladies of
a similar age (or younger).
Part of the uncertainty here derives from the dating of the
Trinity College MS cited by Searle. The question here is, how
contemporaneous was the document to the early 9th century, and
how best to interpret the term 'regis Francorum'? If the
meaning is the straightforward traditional approach, certainly
Charlemagne was intended: however, if the meaning is that
Redburh was sister-in-law to he who was King of the Franks when
the author of the MS wrote this entry, that could well mean
Louis, and not Charlemagne. Certainly, the careers of Louis
and Egbert would make their being 'brothers-in-law' more
likely than Charlemagne and Egbert.
The family of the Robertines (or the Counts of Hesbaye as
you may prefer) is now better understood, thanks to the work
of Christian Settipani and several others. If the name Redburh
is a Wessex rendering of Hrodtburga, or Chrodburga, it would
certainly point towards the possibility of a connection to
the family of Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz [see table below].
Given the problems in dealing with this family to date, the
possibility of a daughter of Count Ingram (father-in-law of
Louis the Pious) of the name Chrodburga being otherwise
unaccounted for in Frankish records is certainly believable.
Chico's suggestion, in addition to some onomastic support,
would (based on chronology and the Trinity College text) point
towards a sister-in-law of Louis the Pious as the best
candidate for Egbert's wife.
The following chart illustrates the conjecture relationship
(Redburh's connection to Ermengarde shown as a broken line
_ _ _ _).
NN = Landrada
__________________I______________________
I I I
Chrodegang NN Chrodbert
Bishop of Metz " fratris [Robert]
d. 766 Hruotgangi " I
I I
I I
Charlemagne = (2) Hildegarde Count Ingram Robert
d. 814 I of Hesbaye C of Worms
I I d. 822
____I __________I_ _ _ I
I I I I
Louis 'the Pious' = 1) Ermengarde ?Chrodburga? Robert
King of the Franks I (m. 794) <Redburga, C of Paris
(rex Francorum) I d. 818 Rædburh> d. 866
814-840 I = Egbert I
b. 778; d. 840 I (m. 799x802) V
I d. 838/839 <CAPET
I I
__________________I_________ _____I_________
I I I I I I I
Lothar Pepin I Rotrude Louis Ethelwulf Ethelstan
fl. ___I fl. <Æthelwulf> <Æthelstan
795-855 I 805-876 b. ca. 802- d. 850
Hildegarde 806
d. 858
There is no noted issue concerning consanguinity, as least
insofar as has been noted as yet. Ethelwulf, son of Egbert and
Redburh, was married (2ndly) to Judith, daughter of Charles
(the Bald), King of France and son of Louis 'the Pious'.
However, Charles was the son of Louis by his 2nd wife Judith.
Judith (the wife of Ethelwulf) was not related to Redburh.
There are possibly similar names in other families. By his
3rd wife Chruodhaid, Charles Martel had a son Bernhard, and
allegedly Bernhard's daughter Rothais (or Chruodhaid) was the
concubine of her cousin Pepin, King of Italy (d. 810, brother
of Louis the Pious). While the title 'king of the Franks' in
the Trinity College MS cited by Searle seems definitive, the
matter cannot be shown as proven.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] William George Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles:
The Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings
and Nobles [Cambridge: the University Press, 1899], p. 343.
Text and annotations (entitled Anglo-Saxon Pedigrees
Annotated-Part 1, transcribed by Michael Wood) courtesy
Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, http://fmg.ac/
See the SGM archives for numerous discussions on this issue.
[2] Francisco Antonio Doria, <Fwd: Re: Reburga-Raedburh: meaning
of 'sororia'>, SGM, , 9 June 1998.
* John P. Ravilious
-
Peter Stewart
Re: The origins of Redburh or Rædburh (a conjecture)
John P. Ravilious wrote:
agree.
I understood that the date of the document cited by Searle is unknown,
so that the preference for Louis over Charlemagne or another Frankish
king of the same era is just another degree of conjecture, not in
itself a firm rationale.
Louis was a king (of Aquitaine) from 781, so that the chronological
overlap with his father Charlemagne ought to be considered in this
matter.
My point is that presenting one possibility in isolation from a number
of others - that are not mentioned, much less discussed - without
giving reasons for the promotion of one throry rather than another, can
be misleading.
Peter Stewart
Dear Peter,
I thought the rationale behind the conjecture was
straightforward, but nonetheless:
If the language of the Trinity College MS. in question is to be
taken verbatim, we are looking for a sister-in-law of the King of the
Franks (or, a King of the Franks anyway). One might argue re: Pepin of
Italy or another Carolingian of the period, but again, using the text
without additional inference we should be looking at Charlemagne or
Louis le Debonair.
My point: that Louis makes better sense, chronologically, and
his wife was a daughter of Count Ingram. Ruodburga, or Redburh, makes
a nice fit.
Does this disprove other possibilities? At this point,
certainly not. It merely seems to be the best interpretation of what
evidence and facts we have to hand.
As to your question concderning any examples of the name of
any male Frank called Ruodbert being rendered "Rædbert" in England, I
am not aware of any. Perhaps someone with direct knowledge (pro or
con) can chime in on this question.
From "a nice fit" to "the best interpretaion" is a long gap that needs
to be filled up with some kind of rationale if others are expected to
agree.
I understood that the date of the document cited by Searle is unknown,
so that the preference for Louis over Charlemagne or another Frankish
king of the same era is just another degree of conjecture, not in
itself a firm rationale.
Louis was a king (of Aquitaine) from 781, so that the chronological
overlap with his father Charlemagne ought to be considered in this
matter.
My point is that presenting one possibility in isolation from a number
of others - that are not mentioned, much less discussed - without
giving reasons for the promotion of one throry rather than another, can
be misleading.
Peter Stewart