King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillaume G
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Douglas Richardson
King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillaume G
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been claimed that King Henry I of England had an illegitimate
daughter, ?Mabel, who married Guillaume Gouet III, seigneur of
Montmirial. However, if such a marriage occured, it seems extremely
doubtful that this woman was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's son
and heir, Guillaume Gouet IV. We can be certain of this as Guillaume
Gouet IV is known to have married Isabelle de Blois, whose paternal
grandmother was Adele of England, sister of King Henry I of England
[see, for example, http://www.genealogy.euweb.cz/blois/blois1.html].
If Guillaume Gouet IV was truly a grandson of King Henry I of England,
it would make him and his wife related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees of
kinship. Such a marriage would have been strictly forbidden in this
time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
It has been claimed that King Henry I of England had an illegitimate
daughter, ?Mabel, who married Guillaume Gouet III, seigneur of
Montmirial. However, if such a marriage occured, it seems extremely
doubtful that this woman was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's son
and heir, Guillaume Gouet IV. We can be certain of this as Guillaume
Gouet IV is known to have married Isabelle de Blois, whose paternal
grandmother was Adele of England, sister of King Henry I of England
[see, for example, http://www.genealogy.euweb.cz/blois/blois1.html].
If Guillaume Gouet IV was truly a grandson of King Henry I of England,
it would make him and his wife related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees of
kinship. Such a marriage would have been strictly forbidden in this
time period.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158646507.864235.326480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Montmirail. This claim, without giving the lady's name or specifying the
husband's title, was made by Robert de Torigni: the identification of his
"Willelmus Goietus" with Guillaume Gouet III is likely but not certain.
No medieval source says that she was - as far as I know it is just a
presumption that Guillaume IV was the actually son of Guillaume III in the
first place, from the evidence that the younger namesake was associated with
the elder in several charters and apparently succeeded him.
I would not set much store by this database - on a quick glance, important
details are confused following other secondary sources, such as the death
dates of several counts of Blois named Thibaut that are clearly enough
distinguished in the primary sources.
Kathleen Thompson appears to suggest such a marriage in the table on p. 302
of her paper on the lords of Le Perche-Gouet, and that does seem to have
been intentional on her part. Elsewhere (from memory, in her paper on Henry
I's bastards) she notes that Guillaume III's wife is variously called by the
names Mabel and Isabel, one of which she took to be a probable error for the
other. However, both names were very common at the time, and the differing
sources may simply indicate two wives.
Peter Stewart
news:1158646507.864235.326480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been claimed that King Henry I of England had an illegitimate
daughter, ?Mabel, who married Guillaume Gouet III, seigneur of
Montmirial.
Montmirail. This claim, without giving the lady's name or specifying the
husband's title, was made by Robert de Torigni: the identification of his
"Willelmus Goietus" with Guillaume Gouet III is likely but not certain.
However, if such a marriage occured, it seems extremely
doubtful that this woman was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's son
and heir, Guillaume Gouet IV.
No medieval source says that she was - as far as I know it is just a
presumption that Guillaume IV was the actually son of Guillaume III in the
first place, from the evidence that the younger namesake was associated with
the elder in several charters and apparently succeeded him.
We can be certain of this as Guillaume
Gouet IV is known to have married Isabelle de Blois, whose paternal
grandmother was Adele of England, sister of King Henry I of England
[see, for example, http://www.genealogy.euweb.cz/blois/blois1.html].
I would not set much store by this database - on a quick glance, important
details are confused following other secondary sources, such as the death
dates of several counts of Blois named Thibaut that are clearly enough
distinguished in the primary sources.
If Guillaume Gouet IV was truly a grandson of King Henry I of England,
it would make him and his wife related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees of
kinship. Such a marriage would have been strictly forbidden in this
time period.
Kathleen Thompson appears to suggest such a marriage in the table on p. 302
of her paper on the lords of Le Perche-Gouet, and that does seem to have
been intentional on her part. Elsewhere (from memory, in her paper on Henry
I's bastards) she notes that Guillaume III's wife is variously called by the
names Mabel and Isabel, one of which she took to be a probable error for the
other. However, both names were very common at the time, and the differing
sources may simply indicate two wives.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
I note that Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project states the name of King
Henry I's bastard daughter was probably Mabel. But if Guillaume Gouet
III had two wives, as seems to be the case, and, if the name of only
one wife is known, then it surely it is uncertain if Guillaume's wife
who was King Henry I's daughter was named Mabel, or if Mabel was his
other wife. In any case, for the reason which I stated in my earlier
post, it is highly doubtful that King Henry I's daughter (whatever her
name) was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's successor, Guillaume
Gouet IV.
..
Thank you for sharing these observations. Much appreciated.
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ... tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
Isabelle/Elizabeth's second marriage to Guillaume Gouet IV is shown by
Europäische Stammtafeln, 2 (1984): 47 (sub Champagne and Brie). Her
two daughters by Gouet mentioned by Aliberic de Trois-Fontaines were
named named Mathilde and Agnès. The elder daughter, Mathilde, married
Hervé de Donzy, seigneur of Donzy, by which marriage she is ancestress
to the well known Jacquette de Luxembourg, wife of Richard Wydeville,
K.G., 1st Earl Rivers, Constable and Treasurer of England.
Perhaps we should reexamine Kathleen Thompson's statements again here
on the newsgroup. If anyone has access to Dr. Thompson's article, I'd
appreciate if they might post a quotation of her comments regarding
King Henry I's daughter who married Guillaume Gouet III.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158646507.864235.326480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been claimed that King Henry I of England had an illegitimate
daughter, ?Mabel, who married Guillaume Gouet III, seigneur of
Montmirial.
Montmirail. This claim, without giving the lady's name or specifying the
husband's title, was made by Robert de Torigni: the identification of his
"Willelmus Goietus" with Guillaume Gouet III is likely but not certain.
I note that Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project states the name of King
Henry I's bastard daughter was probably Mabel. But if Guillaume Gouet
III had two wives, as seems to be the case, and, if the name of only
one wife is known, then it surely it is uncertain if Guillaume's wife
who was King Henry I's daughter was named Mabel, or if Mabel was his
other wife. In any case, for the reason which I stated in my earlier
post, it is highly doubtful that King Henry I's daughter (whatever her
name) was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's successor, Guillaume
Gouet IV.
..
However, if such a marriage occured, it seems extremely
doubtful that this woman was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's son
and heir, Guillaume Gouet IV.
No medieval source says that she was - as far as I know it is just a
presumption that Guillaume IV was the actually son of Guillaume III in the
first place, from the evidence that the younger namesake was associated with
the elder in several charters and apparently succeeded him.
Thank you for sharing these observations. Much appreciated.
We can be certain of this as Guillaume
Gouet IV is known to have married Isabelle de Blois, whose paternal
grandmother was Adele of England, sister of King Henry I of England
[see, for example, http://www.genealogy.euweb.cz/blois/blois1.html].
I would not set much store by this database - on a quick glance, important
details are confused following other secondary sources, such as the death
dates of several counts of Blois named Thibaut that are clearly enough
distinguished in the primary sources.
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ... tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
Isabelle/Elizabeth's second marriage to Guillaume Gouet IV is shown by
Europäische Stammtafeln, 2 (1984): 47 (sub Champagne and Brie). Her
two daughters by Gouet mentioned by Aliberic de Trois-Fontaines were
named named Mathilde and Agnès. The elder daughter, Mathilde, married
Hervé de Donzy, seigneur of Donzy, by which marriage she is ancestress
to the well known Jacquette de Luxembourg, wife of Richard Wydeville,
K.G., 1st Earl Rivers, Constable and Treasurer of England.
Kathleen Thompson appears to suggest such a marriage in the table on p. 302
of her paper on the lords of Le Perche-Gouet, and that does seem to have
been intentional on her part. Elsewhere (from memory, in her paper on Henry
I's bastards) she notes that Guillaume III's wife is variously called by the
names Mabel and Isabel, one of which she took to be a probable error for the
other. However, both names were very common at the time, and the differing
sources may simply indicate two wives.
Perhaps we should reexamine Kathleen Thompson's statements again here
on the newsgroup. If anyone has access to Dr. Thompson's article, I'd
appreciate if they might post a quotation of her comments regarding
King Henry I's daughter who married Guillaume Gouet III.
Peter Stewart
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Dear Newsgroup ~
Another factor which indicates that Guillaume Gouet IV's wife was
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois is the subsequent divorce of their
grandson, Hervé de Donzy, from his wife, Mahaut de Courtenay. The two
parties, Hervé and Mahaut, are known to have been related in the 4th
degree of kindred. Looking at their respective family trees, it
appears that Hervé and Mahaut share common descent from Engelbert II,
Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien (died 1141) as shown below:
1. Engelbert II, Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien, died 1141.
2. Mathilde of Kärnten, married Thibaut IV le Grand, Count of Blois,
Champagne, and Troyes.
3. Isabelle (or Elizabeth) de Blois, married (2nd) Guillaume Gouet IV.
4. Mathilde Gouet, married Hervé III, seigneur of Donzy.
5. Hervé IV de Donzy, married Mahaut de Courtenay.
1. Engelbert II, Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien, died 1141.
2. Ida of Kärnten, married Guillaume III, Count of Nevers, Auxerre,
and Tonnerre.
3. Guy I, Count of Nevers, Auxerre, and Tonnerre.
4. Agnès of Nevers, married Pierre de Courtenay, Count of Nevers,
Auxerre, and Tonnerre.
5. Mahaut de Courtenay, married Hervé IV de Donzy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
Another factor which indicates that Guillaume Gouet IV's wife was
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois is the subsequent divorce of their
grandson, Hervé de Donzy, from his wife, Mahaut de Courtenay. The two
parties, Hervé and Mahaut, are known to have been related in the 4th
degree of kindred. Looking at their respective family trees, it
appears that Hervé and Mahaut share common descent from Engelbert II,
Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien (died 1141) as shown below:
1. Engelbert II, Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien, died 1141.
2. Mathilde of Kärnten, married Thibaut IV le Grand, Count of Blois,
Champagne, and Troyes.
3. Isabelle (or Elizabeth) de Blois, married (2nd) Guillaume Gouet IV.
4. Mathilde Gouet, married Hervé III, seigneur of Donzy.
5. Hervé IV de Donzy, married Mahaut de Courtenay.
1. Engelbert II, Duke of Kärnten, Margrave of Istrien, died 1141.
2. Ida of Kärnten, married Guillaume III, Count of Nevers, Auxerre,
and Tonnerre.
3. Guy I, Count of Nevers, Auxerre, and Tonnerre.
4. Agnès of Nevers, married Pierre de Courtenay, Count of Nevers,
Auxerre, and Tonnerre.
5. Mahaut de Courtenay, married Hervé IV de Donzy.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158678414.941138.208100@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My recollection on this point of Guillaume Gouet IV's wife apparently being
called Isabel was not precise - only the name Mabel occurs in this direct
context, but Kathleen Thompson speculated that Henry II's kinswoman
Eustachia (wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville and later second wife of Anselm
Candavène, count of Saint-Pol) might have been Guillaume Gouet IV's
daughter - however, her mother's name was given as Isabel in the
14th-century cartulary of Nogent-le-Rotrou. Thompson considered this was
perhaps a misreading of Mabel by the copyist, who was not always accurate
with names.
Thompson does not state that Guillaume IV was son of Guillaume III, although
this is the relationship shown in the table on p. 302 as noted before. In
the paper on the lords of Le Perche-Gouet she noted (p. 305) that Henry I
gave "his illegitimate daughter, Mabel, in marriage to William Gouet III",
and later (p. 306) "At another undetermined date William Gouet III was
succeeded by William Gouet IV".
There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson, including charters
that are more reliable than Alberic who mistakenly names Isabelle's grandson
"Geoffrey of Donzy", meaning Hervey, seigneur of Donzy & Saint-Aignan, later
count of Nevers & Auxerre. (There are other errors in the passage that the
quotation above is taken from.)
This may not be the actual date of her death - it is only given as a
commemoration, and that appears only in a 14th or 15th-century addition to
one local obituary. These dates can be misleading, as contemporary
obituaries (one of which presumably was the source for this later
supplement) frequently included the same person under several dates, with
sometimes no indication of the death as opposed to commemoration date/s,
sometimes distinguishing these by "obiit" and "commemoratio".
Peter Stewart
news:1158678414.941138.208100@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
My comments are interspersed below. DR
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158646507.864235.326480@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
It has been claimed that King Henry I of England had an illegitimate
daughter, ?Mabel, who married Guillaume Gouet III, seigneur of
Montmirial.
Montmirail. This claim, without giving the lady's name or specifying the
husband's title, was made by Robert de Torigni: the identification of
his
"Willelmus Goietus" with Guillaume Gouet III is likely but not certain.
I note that Stewart Baldwin's Henry Project states the name of King
Henry I's bastard daughter was probably Mabel. But if Guillaume Gouet
III had two wives, as seems to be the case, and, if the name of only
one wife is known, then it surely it is uncertain if Guillaume's wife
who was King Henry I's daughter was named Mabel, or if Mabel was his
other wife. In any case, for the reason which I stated in my earlier
post, it is highly doubtful that King Henry I's daughter (whatever her
name) was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's successor, Guillaume
Gouet IV.
My recollection on this point of Guillaume Gouet IV's wife apparently being
called Isabel was not precise - only the name Mabel occurs in this direct
context, but Kathleen Thompson speculated that Henry II's kinswoman
Eustachia (wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville and later second wife of Anselm
Candavène, count of Saint-Pol) might have been Guillaume Gouet IV's
daughter - however, her mother's name was given as Isabel in the
14th-century cartulary of Nogent-le-Rotrou. Thompson considered this was
perhaps a misreading of Mabel by the copyist, who was not always accurate
with names.
However, if such a marriage occured, it seems extremely
doubtful that this woman was the mother of Guillaume Gouet III's son
and heir, Guillaume Gouet IV.
No medieval source says that she was - as far as I know it is just a
presumption that Guillaume IV was the actually son of Guillaume III in
the
first place, from the evidence that the younger namesake was associated
with
the elder in several charters and apparently succeeded him.
Thank you for sharing these observations. Much appreciated.
Thompson does not state that Guillaume IV was son of Guillaume III, although
this is the relationship shown in the table on p. 302 as noted before. In
the paper on the lords of Le Perche-Gouet she noted (p. 305) that Henry I
gave "his illegitimate daughter, Mabel, in marriage to William Gouet III",
and later (p. 306) "At another undetermined date William Gouet III was
succeeded by William Gouet IV".
We can be certain of this as Guillaume
Gouet IV is known to have married Isabelle de Blois, whose paternal
grandmother was Adele of England, sister of King Henry I of England
[see, for example, http://www.genealogy.euweb.cz/blois/blois1.html].
I would not set much store by this database - on a quick glance,
important
details are confused following other secondary sources, such as the
death
dates of several counts of Blois named Thibaut that are clearly enough
distinguished in the primary sources.
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ... tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson, including charters
that are more reliable than Alberic who mistakenly names Isabelle's grandson
"Geoffrey of Donzy", meaning Hervey, seigneur of Donzy & Saint-Aignan, later
count of Nevers & Auxerre. (There are other errors in the passage that the
quotation above is taken from.)
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
This may not be the actual date of her death - it is only given as a
commemoration, and that appears only in a 14th or 15th-century addition to
one local obituary. These dates can be misleading, as contemporary
obituaries (one of which presumably was the source for this later
supplement) frequently included the same person under several dates, with
sometimes no indication of the death as opposed to commemoration date/s,
sometimes distinguishing these by "obiit" and "commemoratio".
Peter Stewart
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Peter Stewart a écrit :
However, one thing is to make a mistake about a name, one other is to
invent a parentage for a wife. Aubry's information can not be
completely dismissed on that ground only. Does the other sources
contradict that point?
I have faced the problem of contradictory commemoration dates for an
other individual for which three different dates of death appear in the
bibliography, based on three different commemorations/obits. Two of the
dates are relatively close, so I have assumed it was perhaps the death
and the inhumation, but of course it can be a complete coincidence (or
the same date repeated with an error).
How can be explain the fact she is commemorated as duchess of Apulia
and not under her second husband title? Can it be an indication she was
still known under that more prestigious title at the time of her second
marriage?
Pierre
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
...
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ... tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson, including charters
that are more reliable than Alberic who mistakenly names Isabelle's grandson
"Geoffrey of Donzy", meaning Hervey, seigneur of Donzy & Saint-Aignan, later
count of Nevers & Auxerre. (There are other errors in the passage that the
quotation above is taken from.)
However, one thing is to make a mistake about a name, one other is to
invent a parentage for a wife. Aubry's information can not be
completely dismissed on that ground only. Does the other sources
contradict that point?
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
This may not be the actual date of her death - it is only given as a
commemoration, and that appears only in a 14th or 15th-century addition to
one local obituary. These dates can be misleading, as contemporary
obituaries (one of which presumably was the source for this later
supplement) frequently included the same person under several dates, with
sometimes no indication of the death as opposed to commemoration date/s,
sometimes distinguishing these by "obiit" and "commemoratio".
I have faced the problem of contradictory commemoration dates for an
other individual for which three different dates of death appear in the
bibliography, based on three different commemorations/obits. Two of the
dates are relatively close, so I have assumed it was perhaps the death
and the inhumation, but of course it can be a complete coincidence (or
the same date repeated with an error).
How can be explain the fact she is commemorated as duchess of Apulia
and not under her second husband title? Can it be an indication she was
still known under that more prestigious title at the time of her second
marriage?
Pierre
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1158737683.989902.256820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hervé IV had brothers named Philippe and Renaud, but there is no trace of
one named Geoffroy apart from this passage. Geoffroy was the name of the
paternal grandfather, that was apparently transferred in error to the son of
Mathilde (also called Isabelle) who was daughter to Isabelle de Blois. If
Hervé III and Mathilde did have a son named Geoffroy he evidently did not
survive long enough to figure in charters of the family, and can hardly have
come to the notice of Aubrey de Troisfontaines ahead of his notable siblings
who lived to adulthood.
Mismatches of date between different obituaries are very common, but when
the same person was commemorated on various dates in the same house it can
be impossible to substantiate the actual date of death. Many records are
given as "depositio" when the death is clearly meant rather than burial, but
occasionally this is a later date than an obit leaving doubt - although I
have come across a few where the depositio is earlier than the obit, leaving
a different kind of doubt!
The other day I mentioned in a post that Pernelle de Montfort died on 3
February 1216, but on checking this I can only say she died on or before 3
February 1217 (new style). In the obituary of Joyenval abey, founded by her
husband Barthélemy, seigneur of Roye & grand chamberlain, her commemoration
is entered on 3 February 1216 (Annunciation style). However, Barthélemy's
own commemoration at Joyenval is given on 24 January with no other record of
him in this document, whereas from other obituaries it appears that he had
died weeks earlier, variously given on 7, 8, 9 and 10 January. (I have not
found a date between 10 and 24 concerning any aspect of his demise.)
It is only for highly important individuals that compilers of obituaries
tended to have definite enough information to agree with each other -
Charlemagne for instance is almost always given on 28 January, but we know
he was buried on the same day so perhaps that helped.
She kept on using the title "ducissa" after her second marriage. Her first
husband was heir to a kingdom, and I suppose she made the best of her rank
when he died too soon for this to be royal. I doubt that she would have left
Sicily before the death of her father-in-law Roger the Great, five years
after she was widowed: if so and there were other marriage prospects for her
in the meantime, they would have been a good deal grander than Guillaume
Gouet. She entered Fontrevaud after being widowed a second time, and her
death was probably notified from there as duchess of Apulia rather than as
dame of Montmirail.
Peter Stewart
news:1158737683.989902.256820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart a écrit :
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
...
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de
Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ...
tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de
Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website
at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson, including
charters
that are more reliable than Alberic who mistakenly names Isabelle's
grandson
"Geoffrey of Donzy", meaning Hervey, seigneur of Donzy & Saint-Aignan,
later
count of Nevers & Auxerre. (There are other errors in the passage that
the
quotation above is taken from.)
However, one thing is to make a mistake about a name, one other is to
invent a parentage for a wife. Aubry's information can not be
completely dismissed on that ground only. Does the other sources
contradict that point?
Hervé IV had brothers named Philippe and Renaud, but there is no trace of
one named Geoffroy apart from this passage. Geoffroy was the name of the
paternal grandfather, that was apparently transferred in error to the son of
Mathilde (also called Isabelle) who was daughter to Isabelle de Blois. If
Hervé III and Mathilde did have a son named Geoffroy he evidently did not
survive long enough to figure in charters of the family, and can hardly have
come to the notice of Aubrey de Troisfontaines ahead of his notable siblings
who lived to adulthood.
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
This may not be the actual date of her death - it is only given as a
commemoration, and that appears only in a 14th or 15th-century addition
to
one local obituary. These dates can be misleading, as contemporary
obituaries (one of which presumably was the source for this later
supplement) frequently included the same person under several dates,
with
sometimes no indication of the death as opposed to commemoration date/s,
sometimes distinguishing these by "obiit" and "commemoratio".
I have faced the problem of contradictory commemoration dates for an
other individual for which three different dates of death appear in the
bibliography, based on three different commemorations/obits. Two of the
dates are relatively close, so I have assumed it was perhaps the death
and the inhumation, but of course it can be a complete coincidence (or
the same date repeated with an error).
Mismatches of date between different obituaries are very common, but when
the same person was commemorated on various dates in the same house it can
be impossible to substantiate the actual date of death. Many records are
given as "depositio" when the death is clearly meant rather than burial, but
occasionally this is a later date than an obit leaving doubt - although I
have come across a few where the depositio is earlier than the obit, leaving
a different kind of doubt!
The other day I mentioned in a post that Pernelle de Montfort died on 3
February 1216, but on checking this I can only say she died on or before 3
February 1217 (new style). In the obituary of Joyenval abey, founded by her
husband Barthélemy, seigneur of Roye & grand chamberlain, her commemoration
is entered on 3 February 1216 (Annunciation style). However, Barthélemy's
own commemoration at Joyenval is given on 24 January with no other record of
him in this document, whereas from other obituaries it appears that he had
died weeks earlier, variously given on 7, 8, 9 and 10 January. (I have not
found a date between 10 and 24 concerning any aspect of his demise.)
It is only for highly important individuals that compilers of obituaries
tended to have definite enough information to agree with each other -
Charlemagne for instance is almost always given on 28 January, but we know
he was buried on the same day so perhaps that helped.
How can be explain the fact she is commemorated as duchess of Apulia
and not under her second husband title? Can it be an indication she was
still known under that more prestigious title at the time of her second
marriage?
She kept on using the title "ducissa" after her second marriage. Her first
husband was heir to a kingdom, and I suppose she made the best of her rank
when he died too soon for this to be royal. I doubt that she would have left
Sicily before the death of her father-in-law Roger the Great, five years
after she was widowed: if so and there were other marriage prospects for her
in the meantime, they would have been a good deal grander than Guillaume
Gouet. She entered Fontrevaud after being widowed a second time, and her
death was probably notified from there as duchess of Apulia rather than as
dame of Montmirail.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Dear Newsgroup ~.
The chief points that I've made so far is that it is uncertain if
Mabel, the known wife of Guillaume Gouet III, was his wife who was the
bastard daughter of King Henry I. Whatever was the name of King Henry
I's bastard daughter, she can not have been the mother of Guillaume
Gouet III's successor (and possible son), Guillaume Gouet IV. We can
be certain that Guillaume Gouet IV was NOT a grandson of King Henry I
of England, for Guillaume IV's wife, Isabelle de Blois, was herself the
granddaughter of a sister of King Henry I of England.
Regarding Isabelle de Blois's first marriage to Roger, Duke of Apulia,
there is additional information on her in Hubert Houben's book, Roger
II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, published in 1997 (English
translation in 2002). On page 87, Mr. Houben states the following:
"[The] chosen bride for Roger's son was not a king's daughter, she was
a daughter of a man closely linked with the Cistercian abbot, Count
Theobald IV of Blois and Champagne. The latter was a competitor for
power and influence with the King of France. He was the son of Adela,
the daughter of the first Norman King of England William the Conqueror,
who had married Count Stephen I of Blois. After the death of his uncle
Henry I (King of England 1100-1135), Count Theobald was chosen as his
successor, but a coup d'état by his younger brother Stephen deprived
him of the throne. On 22 December 1135, two days after Theobald's
election, which took place in Normandy, Stephen had himself crowned as
King of England in London, with the assistance of his other brother
Bishop Henry of Winchester. This fait accompli forced their elder
brother to resign his claim. Hence, although the bride chosen for
Roger's son was not a king's daughter, she was however the niece of the
Norman ruler of England.
To win over Bernard, Roger proposed the foundation of a Cistercian
abbey in his kingdom, which would obviously please the abbot. This was
the situation in August 1140, as we learn from one of Bernard's
letters: Roger's envoys were expected in Montpellier, from whence they
would escort the bride, Elizabeth, and some Ciscercian monks back to
Sicily. The bride's father had received the present of a precious vase
(which he would later give to Abbot Suger of St. Denis). Three other
letters from the correspondence between Bernard and Roger survive, all
of which are concerned with the foundatiion of the first Cistercian
house in the kingdom. However, we do not know if Roger went on to
found this monastery; nor is it clear if the house concerned was the
abbey of St. Mary of Sambucina in Calabria, which later claimed this
distinction - for the documents in question have been shown to be
forgeries.
It is possible that the marriage was postponed while Roger undertook
negotiations with Byzantium, for early in 1143 he was trying to obtain
the hand of one of the emperor's daughters for his son. It is probable
that for an imperial princess only his heir, Duke Roger, would have
been considered. The negotiations soon failed, since the Eastern Roman
ruler did not consider the King of Sicily sufficiently well born for an
alliance." END OF QUOTE. .
,
Mr. Houben gives further particulars in footnote 56 on page 87:
"The Letters of Saint Bernard, pp. 348-51, nos. 276-9; no. 279,
probably 1139-40, antedates the others, from c. 1142. Suger, De
Administratione, ed. Panofsky (1979), 79. This has been identified
with a glass vase which is today in the Louvre, see Johns (1995), 28n.
Alberic of Trois Fontaines, 841, calls the count's third daughter
(Isabelle or Elizabeth) 'a certain duchess in remote parts,' and
recorded that she later married William Gouet, Lord of Montmirail and
Perche-Gouet (near Chartres), with whom she had two daughters. See
Thompson (1997), 306-7; for Theobald and Stephen, see Davis (1967),
15-17. For the Cistercians, see Dupré Theseider (1956), 207ff.,
Kölzer (1994), 95-7, Houben (1995a), 76-7." END OF QUOTE
Mr. Houben seems not to have been aware of the "memorial" of
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois, Duchess of Apulia published by Lalore as
cited in my earlier post. Lalore's record proves that
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois in fact married Roger, Duke of Apulia,
which fact Houben leaves a bit murky. Regardless, Houben does confirm
that negotiations for the marriage of a daughter of Count Thibaut IV of
Blois and Champagne to marry the son of Roger II King of Sicily were
underway in August 1140. Thus, the marriage between Isabelle/Elizabeth
de Blois and her first husband, Roger, Duke of Apulia, necessarily took
place sometime after August 1140. All the same, it is interesting to
read that the vase which Isabelle/Elizabeth's father received as a
present from King Roger II of Sicily might have survived until today.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
The chief points that I've made so far is that it is uncertain if
Mabel, the known wife of Guillaume Gouet III, was his wife who was the
bastard daughter of King Henry I. Whatever was the name of King Henry
I's bastard daughter, she can not have been the mother of Guillaume
Gouet III's successor (and possible son), Guillaume Gouet IV. We can
be certain that Guillaume Gouet IV was NOT a grandson of King Henry I
of England, for Guillaume IV's wife, Isabelle de Blois, was herself the
granddaughter of a sister of King Henry I of England.
Regarding Isabelle de Blois's first marriage to Roger, Duke of Apulia,
there is additional information on her in Hubert Houben's book, Roger
II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, published in 1997 (English
translation in 2002). On page 87, Mr. Houben states the following:
"[The] chosen bride for Roger's son was not a king's daughter, she was
a daughter of a man closely linked with the Cistercian abbot, Count
Theobald IV of Blois and Champagne. The latter was a competitor for
power and influence with the King of France. He was the son of Adela,
the daughter of the first Norman King of England William the Conqueror,
who had married Count Stephen I of Blois. After the death of his uncle
Henry I (King of England 1100-1135), Count Theobald was chosen as his
successor, but a coup d'état by his younger brother Stephen deprived
him of the throne. On 22 December 1135, two days after Theobald's
election, which took place in Normandy, Stephen had himself crowned as
King of England in London, with the assistance of his other brother
Bishop Henry of Winchester. This fait accompli forced their elder
brother to resign his claim. Hence, although the bride chosen for
Roger's son was not a king's daughter, she was however the niece of the
Norman ruler of England.
To win over Bernard, Roger proposed the foundation of a Cistercian
abbey in his kingdom, which would obviously please the abbot. This was
the situation in August 1140, as we learn from one of Bernard's
letters: Roger's envoys were expected in Montpellier, from whence they
would escort the bride, Elizabeth, and some Ciscercian monks back to
Sicily. The bride's father had received the present of a precious vase
(which he would later give to Abbot Suger of St. Denis). Three other
letters from the correspondence between Bernard and Roger survive, all
of which are concerned with the foundatiion of the first Cistercian
house in the kingdom. However, we do not know if Roger went on to
found this monastery; nor is it clear if the house concerned was the
abbey of St. Mary of Sambucina in Calabria, which later claimed this
distinction - for the documents in question have been shown to be
forgeries.
It is possible that the marriage was postponed while Roger undertook
negotiations with Byzantium, for early in 1143 he was trying to obtain
the hand of one of the emperor's daughters for his son. It is probable
that for an imperial princess only his heir, Duke Roger, would have
been considered. The negotiations soon failed, since the Eastern Roman
ruler did not consider the King of Sicily sufficiently well born for an
alliance." END OF QUOTE. .
,
Mr. Houben gives further particulars in footnote 56 on page 87:
"The Letters of Saint Bernard, pp. 348-51, nos. 276-9; no. 279,
probably 1139-40, antedates the others, from c. 1142. Suger, De
Administratione, ed. Panofsky (1979), 79. This has been identified
with a glass vase which is today in the Louvre, see Johns (1995), 28n.
Alberic of Trois Fontaines, 841, calls the count's third daughter
(Isabelle or Elizabeth) 'a certain duchess in remote parts,' and
recorded that she later married William Gouet, Lord of Montmirail and
Perche-Gouet (near Chartres), with whom she had two daughters. See
Thompson (1997), 306-7; for Theobald and Stephen, see Davis (1967),
15-17. For the Cistercians, see Dupré Theseider (1956), 207ff.,
Kölzer (1994), 95-7, Houben (1995a), 76-7." END OF QUOTE
Mr. Houben seems not to have been aware of the "memorial" of
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois, Duchess of Apulia published by Lalore as
cited in my earlier post. Lalore's record proves that
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois in fact married Roger, Duke of Apulia,
which fact Houben leaves a bit murky. Regardless, Houben does confirm
that negotiations for the marriage of a daughter of Count Thibaut IV of
Blois and Champagne to marry the son of Roger II King of Sicily were
underway in August 1140. Thus, the marriage between Isabelle/Elizabeth
de Blois and her first husband, Roger, Duke of Apulia, necessarily took
place sometime after August 1140. All the same, it is interesting to
read that the vase which Isabelle/Elizabeth's father received as a
present from King Roger II of Sicily might have survived until today.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Douglas Richardson a écrit :
<...>
Note however that Suger makes no connection between the gift and the
marriage:
"Lagenanm quoque preclaram, quam nobis comes Blesensis Theobaldus in
eodem vase destinavit in quo ei rex Siciliae illud transmiserat, et
aliis in eodem officio gratanter apposuimus".
<...>
The identification of the object is rejected by the last (?) editor, F.
Gasparri (Suger, Oeuvres, I, Paris, 1996, p. 241, n. 284: "Cet objet,
désigné par Suger sous le nom de 'lagena' est vraisemblablement
perdu. On a jadis proposé de l'identifier [...] avec la superbe
aiguière de cristal de roche ciselé d'art fatimide des Xe-XIe s.
[...]. La recherche actuelle réfute cependant cette identification du
fait que Suger ne précise pas de quelle matière est faite cette
'lagena praeclara', et qu'en outre le mot 'lagena' évoque un objet de
grandes dimensions, ce qui n'est pas le cas de cette aiguière".
Pierre
<...>
The bride's father had received the present of a precious vase
(which he would later give to Abbot Suger of St. Denis).
...
Note however that Suger makes no connection between the gift and the
marriage:
"Lagenanm quoque preclaram, quam nobis comes Blesensis Theobaldus in
eodem vase destinavit in quo ei rex Siciliae illud transmiserat, et
aliis in eodem officio gratanter apposuimus".
<...>
"The Letters of Saint Bernard, pp. 348-51, nos. 276-9; no. 279,
probably 1139-40, antedates the others, from c. 1142. Suger, De
Administratione, ed. Panofsky (1979), 79. This has been identified
with a glass vase which is today in the Louvre, see Johns (1995), 28n.
The identification of the object is rejected by the last (?) editor, F.
Gasparri (Suger, Oeuvres, I, Paris, 1996, p. 241, n. 284: "Cet objet,
désigné par Suger sous le nom de 'lagena' est vraisemblablement
perdu. On a jadis proposé de l'identifier [...] avec la superbe
aiguière de cristal de roche ciselé d'art fatimide des Xe-XIe s.
[...]. La recherche actuelle réfute cependant cette identification du
fait que Suger ne précise pas de quelle matière est faite cette
'lagena praeclara', et qu'en outre le mot 'lagena' évoque un objet de
grandes dimensions, ce qui n'est pas le cas de cette aiguière".
Pierre
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Peter Stewart a écrit :
OK but that does not invalidate the fact that Isabelle, wife of
Guillaume IV, was a daughter of Thibaud IV of Blois.
Can it not be the reverse then, obit meaning the death, which would be
more coherent with the etymology?
It recalls widows of French kings still going as regina although they
were remarried. Or Mathilde l'emperesse.
Pierre
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1158737683.989902.256820@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart a écrit :
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
...
The source that Guillaume Gouet IV married Isabelle/Elizabeth de
Blois,
daughter of Thibaut IV, Count of Blois, Champagne, and Troyes is the
well known chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines. Alberic gives the
following particulars regarding the third daughter of Thibaut IV:
"Habuit etiam predictus Campanie comes Theobaldus filias sex ...
tertia
quedam ducissa in partibus remotis. Hanc postea duxit Guilelmus Goez
in dyocesi Carnotensi, et genuit duas filias, matrem Gaufridi de
Dunzei
et Agnetam domnam de Monteforti in Cenomania." [Reference: Chronica
Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium 1152, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica SS
XXIII (1925): 841 - which source is available at the gallica website
at
the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... pagination].
There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson, including
charters
that are more reliable than Alberic who mistakenly names Isabelle's
grandson
"Geoffrey of Donzy", meaning Hervey, seigneur of Donzy & Saint-Aignan,
later
count of Nevers & Auxerre. (There are other errors in the passage that
the
quotation above is taken from.)
However, one thing is to make a mistake about a name, one other is to
invent a parentage for a wife. Aubry's information can not be
completely dismissed on that ground only. Does the other sources
contradict that point?
Hervé IV had brothers named Philippe and Renaud, but there is no trace of
one named Geoffroy apart from this passage. Geoffroy was the name of the
paternal grandfather, that was apparently transferred in error to the son of
Mathilde (also called Isabelle) who was daughter to Isabelle de Blois. If
Hervé III and Mathilde did have a son named Geoffroy he evidently did not
survive long enough to figure in charters of the family, and can hardly have
come to the notice of Aubrey de Troisfontaines ahead of his notable siblings
who lived to adulthood.
OK but that does not invalidate the fact that Isabelle, wife of
Guillaume IV, was a daughter of Thibaud IV of Blois.
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois's given name and first marriage to Roger,
Duke of Apulia (died 1148), are vouched by her own obituary dated 13
August kept in the diocese of Troyes:
Foundations: 13 Aug.- "Ce jour, mémoire d'Elisabeth, duchesse de
Pouille [épouse du duc Roger], soeur du comte Henri [Ier, le
Libéral]." [Reference: C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux
Obituaries et Confraternités du Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de
Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville de Troyes et a la Champagne
Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 284].
This may not be the actual date of her death - it is only given as a
commemoration, and that appears only in a 14th or 15th-century addition
to
one local obituary. These dates can be misleading, as contemporary
obituaries (one of which presumably was the source for this later
supplement) frequently included the same person under several dates,
with
sometimes no indication of the death as opposed to commemoration date/s,
sometimes distinguishing these by "obiit" and "commemoratio".
I have faced the problem of contradictory commemoration dates for an
other individual for which three different dates of death appear in the
bibliography, based on three different commemorations/obits. Two of the
dates are relatively close, so I have assumed it was perhaps the death
and the inhumation, but of course it can be a complete coincidence (or
the same date repeated with an error).
Mismatches of date between different obituaries are very common, but when
the same person was commemorated on various dates in the same house it can
be impossible to substantiate the actual date of death. Many records are
given as "depositio" when the death is clearly meant rather than burial, but
occasionally this is a later date than an obit leaving doubt - although I
have come across a few where the depositio is earlier than the obit, leaving
a different kind of doubt!
Can it not be the reverse then, obit meaning the death, which would be
more coherent with the etymology?
The other day I mentioned in a post that Pernelle de Montfort died on 3
February 1216, but on checking this I can only say she died on or before 3
February 1217 (new style). In the obituary of Joyenval abey, founded by her
husband Barthélemy, seigneur of Roye & grand chamberlain, her commemoration
is entered on 3 February 1216 (Annunciation style). However, Barthélemy's
own commemoration at Joyenval is given on 24 January with no other record of
him in this document, whereas from other obituaries it appears that he had
died weeks earlier, variously given on 7, 8, 9 and 10 January. (I have not
found a date between 10 and 24 concerning any aspect of his demise.)
It is only for highly important individuals that compilers of obituaries
tended to have definite enough information to agree with each other -
Charlemagne for instance is almost always given on 28 January, but we know
he was buried on the same day so perhaps that helped.
How can be explain the fact she is commemorated as duchess of Apulia
and not under her second husband title? Can it be an indication she was
still known under that more prestigious title at the time of her second
marriage?
She kept on using the title "ducissa" after her second marriage. Her first
husband was heir to a kingdom, and I suppose she made the best of her rank
when he died too soon for this to be royal. I doubt that she would have left
Sicily before the death of her father-in-law Roger the Great, five years
after she was widowed: if so and there were other marriage prospects for her
in the meantime, they would have been a good deal grander than Guillaume
Gouet. She entered Fontrevaud after being widowed a second time, and her
death was probably notified from there as duchess of Apulia rather than as
dame of Montmirail.
It recalls widows of French kings still going as regina although they
were remarried. Or Mathilde l'emperesse.
Pierre
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Dear Pierre ~
Thank you for the important clarification regarding the history of the
vase sent to Count Thibaut IV of Blois and Champagne by King Roger II
of Sicily in 1140.
For the benefit of those who do not read French, the information you
posted states that Monsieur Gasparri, the editor of Suger's works,
indicated in 1996 that the vase in question has been lost
["vraisemblablement perdu"].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
Thank you for the important clarification regarding the history of the
vase sent to Count Thibaut IV of Blois and Champagne by King Roger II
of Sicily in 1140.
For the benefit of those who do not read French, the information you
posted states that Monsieur Gasparri, the editor of Suger's works,
indicated in 1996 that the vase in question has been lost
["vraisemblablement perdu"].
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com wrote:
Douglas Richardson a écrit :
...
The bride's father had received the present of a precious vase
(which he would later give to Abbot Suger of St. Denis).
...
Note however that Suger makes no connection between the gift and the
marriage:
"Lagenanm quoque preclaram, quam nobis comes Blesensis Theobaldus in
eodem vase destinavit in quo ei rex Siciliae illud transmiserat, et
aliis in eodem officio gratanter apposuimus".
...
"The Letters of Saint Bernard, pp. 348-51, nos. 276-9; no. 279,
probably 1139-40, antedates the others, from c. 1142. Suger, De
Administratione, ed. Panofsky (1979), 79. This has been identified
with a glass vase which is today in the Louvre, see Johns (1995), 28n.
The identification of the object is rejected by the last (?) editor, F.
Gasparri (Suger, Oeuvres, I, Paris, 1996, p. 241, n. 284: "Cet objet,
désigné par Suger sous le nom de 'lagena' est vraisemblablement
perdu. On a jadis proposé de l'identifier [...] avec la superbe
aiguière de cristal de roche ciselé d'art fatimide des Xe-XIe s.
[...]. La recherche actuelle réfute cependant cette identification du
fait que Suger ne précise pas de quelle matière est faite cette
'lagena praeclara', et qu'en outre le mot 'lagena' évoque un objet de
grandes dimensions, ce qui n'est pas le cas de cette aiguière".
Pierre
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Douglas Richardson a écrit :
Well, "important"... we can say that nothing is totally unimportant on
those subjects...
.... and that's why I take the liberty to clarify now that Françoise
Gasparri is a lady and not a Monsieur.
Pierre
Dear Pierre ~
Thank you for the important clarification regarding the history of the
vase sent to Count Thibaut IV of Blois and Champagne by King Roger II
of Sicily in 1140.
Well, "important"... we can say that nothing is totally unimportant on
those subjects...
For the benefit of those who do not read French, the information you
posted states that Monsieur Gasparri, the editor of Suger's works,
.... and that's why I take the liberty to clarify now that Françoise
Gasparri is a lady and not a Monsieur.
Pierre
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1158773115.105472.66850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
This puzzles me - you have apparently misunderstood my point about the
reliability of Aubrey of Troisfontaines: I only meant that he is not the
best source for the marriages of Isabelle. There is no question whatsoever
that she married first Roger, duke of Apulia and secondly Guillaume Gouet
IV. As I wrote, "There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson,
including charters that are more reliable than Alberic". This does not imply
that the other sources contradict Aubrey, rather they augment his vague
information. The point I intended to make is about the unsatisfactory
reliance on Aubrey for proof of this matter when it is more fully and more
immediately attested in other sources.
I wrote:
I would take it that any entry stating "obiit" under a certain date is meant
to record that the person actually died on that date. However, news
travelled slowly and/or erratically at times, and mistakes were frequently
made. When "depositio" is recorded a few days or more after an obit, it may
well refer to the date of burial, but when it is recorded beforehand it
presumably does not mean that the person was buried alive resulting in the
later obit. This may rather be the result - for instance - of a variant
record of the death having been copied later on from the obituary of another
house. In many obituaries "depositio" may indicate death or burial, in
others the term clearly indicates death and not burial. "Commemoratio" often
was fixed on the date of death as reported to the house in question, but
sometimes the date for this was simply transferred from the date for a
spouse or parent, or was linked to burial, or otherwise determined by
varying conventions such as marking the end of an initial mourning period.
Sometimes the date may have been set in advance by the person who came to
die later, and could be even a birthday as with a few of the Carolingians.
Peter Stewart
news:1158773115.105472.66850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
OK but that does not invalidate the fact that Isabelle, wife of
Guillaume IV, was a daughter of Thibaud IV of Blois.
This puzzles me - you have apparently misunderstood my point about the
reliability of Aubrey of Troisfontaines: I only meant that he is not the
best source for the marriages of Isabelle. There is no question whatsoever
that she married first Roger, duke of Apulia and secondly Guillaume Gouet
IV. As I wrote, "There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson,
including charters that are more reliable than Alberic". This does not imply
that the other sources contradict Aubrey, rather they augment his vague
information. The point I intended to make is about the unsatisfactory
reliance on Aubrey for proof of this matter when it is more fully and more
immediately attested in other sources.
I wrote:
Mismatches of date between different obituaries are very common, but
when
the same person was commemorated on various dates in the same house it
can
be impossible to substantiate the actual date of death. Many records are
given as "depositio" when the death is clearly meant rather than burial,
but
occasionally this is a later date than an obit leaving doubt - although
I
have come across a few where the depositio is earlier than the obit,
leaving
a different kind of doubt!
Can it not be the reverse then, obit meaning the death, which would be
more coherent with the etymology?
I would take it that any entry stating "obiit" under a certain date is meant
to record that the person actually died on that date. However, news
travelled slowly and/or erratically at times, and mistakes were frequently
made. When "depositio" is recorded a few days or more after an obit, it may
well refer to the date of burial, but when it is recorded beforehand it
presumably does not mean that the person was buried alive resulting in the
later obit. This may rather be the result - for instance - of a variant
record of the death having been copied later on from the obituary of another
house. In many obituaries "depositio" may indicate death or burial, in
others the term clearly indicates death and not burial. "Commemoratio" often
was fixed on the date of death as reported to the house in question, but
sometimes the date for this was simply transferred from the date for a
spouse or parent, or was linked to burial, or otherwise determined by
varying conventions such as marking the end of an initial mourning period.
Sometimes the date may have been set in advance by the person who came to
die later, and could be even a birthday as with a few of the Carolingians.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158766621.732663.9430@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
<quotations snipped>
You might have turned over to page 88 of Houben's book in translation, where
the passage you quoted continues: "The marriage between Duke Roger and
Elizabeth took place at the latest in 1143".
As I said before, there are other and better sources than Aubrey de
Troisfontaines for this, and you can find some of these cited in Kathleen
Thompson's paper.
The record published by Charles Lalore is in fact a 17th- or 18th-century
calendar of memorials, presumably derived ultimately from a medieval source
but we don't know what that stated. The title "duchess of Apulia" and the
information that she was sister to Count Henri may have been glosses added
by the modern compiler for all we know. (I had referred to the wrong heading
before when I dated this - against the clear evidence of orthography - to a
14th- or 15th-century supplement: it's not a good practice to navigate
within books on Gallica, always better to download first).
Peter Stewart
news:1158766621.732663.9430@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Regarding Isabelle de Blois's first marriage to Roger, Duke of Apulia,
there is additional information on her in Hubert Houben's book, Roger
II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West, published in 1997 (English
translation in 2002). On page 87, Mr. Houben states the following:
<quotations snipped>
Mr. Houben seems not to have been aware of the "memorial" of
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois, Duchess of Apulia published by Lalore as
cited in my earlier post. Lalore's record proves that
Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois in fact married Roger, Duke of Apulia,
which fact Houben leaves a bit murky.
You might have turned over to page 88 of Houben's book in translation, where
the passage you quoted continues: "The marriage between Duke Roger and
Elizabeth took place at the latest in 1143".
Regardless, Houben does confirm
that negotiations for the marriage of a daughter of Count Thibaut IV of
Blois and Champagne to marry the son of Roger II King of Sicily were
underway in August 1140. Thus, the marriage between Isabelle/Elizabeth
de Blois and her first husband, Roger, Duke of Apulia, necessarily took
place sometime after August 1140. All the same, it is interesting to
read that the vase which Isabelle/Elizabeth's father received as a
present from King Roger II of Sicily might have survived until today.
As I said before, there are other and better sources than Aubrey de
Troisfontaines for this, and you can find some of these cited in Kathleen
Thompson's paper.
The record published by Charles Lalore is in fact a 17th- or 18th-century
calendar of memorials, presumably derived ultimately from a medieval source
but we don't know what that stated. The title "duchess of Apulia" and the
information that she was sister to Count Henri may have been glosses added
by the modern compiler for all we know. (I had referred to the wrong heading
before when I dated this - against the clear evidence of orthography - to a
14th- or 15th-century supplement: it's not a good practice to navigate
within books on Gallica, always better to download first).
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Dear Newsgroup ~
The commemorative date, August 13th, given for Isabelle/Elizabeth de
Blois, Duchess of Apulia, was likely her death date, or very close to
it. Elsewhere I find that Lalore gives dates of obiit, anniversaries,
and commemoration for both of Isabelle's parents, Thibaut IV, Count of
Blois, Champagne, and Troyes, and his wife, Mathilde of Kärnten. In
each instance, the dates given for "obiit" and "anniversaire" match
those labelled "mémoire."
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 214
(Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 10 Jan. - "Obiit Theobaldus, comes
Campanie"), 247 (Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 13 Dec. - "Obiit
Mathildis, comitissa"), 271(Foundations 10 Jan. "Anniversaire pour
très-illustre Thibault [II], comte de Champagne, décédé ce
jour"), 283-284,291 (Foundations: 13 Dec. - "Mémoire de Mathilde
[fille d'Englebert, marquis d'Istrie], épouse du comte Thibaut
[II]"), 314.
Lalore also includes the "mémoire" of Isabelle de Blois' sister, Marie
de Blois, wife of Eudes II, Duke of Burgundy. This record indicates
that Duchess Marie was commemorated on 13 March, and further that she
was buried at Fontrevault, where she died the 11th of that month.
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 273
(Foundations: 13 March - "Mémoire de Marie, fille de Thibaut [II],
comte de Champagne, et femme d'Eudes (II), duc de Bourgogne. Elle a
sa sépulture à Fontevrault, où elle est décédé le 11 de ce
mois").
Marie de Blois was Abbess of Fontevrault at the time of her death.
Doubtless an obiit can be found for her in the records of that house.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
The commemorative date, August 13th, given for Isabelle/Elizabeth de
Blois, Duchess of Apulia, was likely her death date, or very close to
it. Elsewhere I find that Lalore gives dates of obiit, anniversaries,
and commemoration for both of Isabelle's parents, Thibaut IV, Count of
Blois, Champagne, and Troyes, and his wife, Mathilde of Kärnten. In
each instance, the dates given for "obiit" and "anniversaire" match
those labelled "mémoire."
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 214
(Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 10 Jan. - "Obiit Theobaldus, comes
Campanie"), 247 (Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 13 Dec. - "Obiit
Mathildis, comitissa"), 271(Foundations 10 Jan. "Anniversaire pour
très-illustre Thibault [II], comte de Champagne, décédé ce
jour"), 283-284,291 (Foundations: 13 Dec. - "Mémoire de Mathilde
[fille d'Englebert, marquis d'Istrie], épouse du comte Thibaut
[II]"), 314.
Lalore also includes the "mémoire" of Isabelle de Blois' sister, Marie
de Blois, wife of Eudes II, Duke of Burgundy. This record indicates
that Duchess Marie was commemorated on 13 March, and further that she
was buried at Fontrevault, where she died the 11th of that month.
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 273
(Foundations: 13 March - "Mémoire de Marie, fille de Thibaut [II],
comte de Champagne, et femme d'Eudes (II), duc de Bourgogne. Elle a
sa sépulture à Fontevrault, où elle est décédé le 11 de ce
mois").
Marie de Blois was Abbess of Fontevrault at the time of her death.
Doubtless an obiit can be found for her in the records of that house.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158850743.693020.234580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It's not unlikely that the date 13 August was taken from a source that
represented this as the date of death, but even if it could be established
(and it can't) that doesn't prove the point. As I have been trying to
explain, the use of obituaries for proof - even when we possess the original
document - is just not that simple. According to Alberic of Troisfontaines,
Count Thibaut IV died on 8 January; he was commemorated on 9 January at
Châteaudun, on 10 January at Chartres and some other houses, on 11 January
at Saint-Martin des Champs. No date is given in the annals of Lagny, where
he was buried.
Her obit is given elsewhere on 7 August - go figure. It is important to note
that 12th century obituaries almost never give family details or other
information apart from occasionally noting benefactions of the individual to
the house, and the record above is clearly a 17th- or 18th-century
compilation of details with the ordinals added by Lalore for further
clarity.
It's also worth noting that we can't be certain of Isabelle's first
husband's death over the range of a full year, as he died on 2 May and some
contemporary sources place this in 1148, others in 1149. The only way to
approach certainty on such points is by the synopsis of evidence, where
available, not by advocating one particular - and very much later - record
on the basis of what it says about other people compared to secondary
authorities.
Peter Stewart
news:1158850743.693020.234580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~
The commemorative date, August 13th, given for Isabelle/Elizabeth de
Blois, Duchess of Apulia, was likely her death date, or very close to
it. Elsewhere I find that Lalore gives dates of obiit, anniversaries,
and commemoration for both of Isabelle's parents, Thibaut IV, Count of
Blois, Champagne, and Troyes, and his wife, Mathilde of Kärnten. In
each instance, the dates given for "obiit" and "anniversaire" match
those labelled "mémoire."
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 214
(Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 10 Jan. - "Obiit Theobaldus, comes
Campanie"), 247 (Obituaire de Saint-Étienne: 13 Dec. - "Obiit
Mathildis, comitissa"), 271(Foundations 10 Jan. "Anniversaire pour
très-illustre Thibault [II], comte de Champagne, décédé ce
jour"), 283-284,291 (Foundations: 13 Dec. - "Mémoire de Mathilde
[fille d'Englebert, marquis d'Istrie], épouse du comte Thibaut
[II]"), 314.
It's not unlikely that the date 13 August was taken from a source that
represented this as the date of death, but even if it could be established
(and it can't) that doesn't prove the point. As I have been trying to
explain, the use of obituaries for proof - even when we possess the original
document - is just not that simple. According to Alberic of Troisfontaines,
Count Thibaut IV died on 8 January; he was commemorated on 9 January at
Châteaudun, on 10 January at Chartres and some other houses, on 11 January
at Saint-Martin des Champs. No date is given in the annals of Lagny, where
he was buried.
Lalore also includes the "mémoire" of Isabelle de Blois' sister, Marie
de Blois, wife of Eudes II, Duke of Burgundy. This record indicates
that Duchess Marie was commemorated on 13 March, and further that she
was buried at Fontrevault, where she died the 11th of that month.
C. Lalore, Collection des Principaux Obituaries et Confraternités du
Diocèse de Troyes (Collection de Documents Inédits relatif a la Ville
de Troyes et a la Champagne Méridionale, vol. 2) (1882): 273
(Foundations: 13 March - "Mémoire de Marie, fille de Thibaut [II],
comte de Champagne, et femme d'Eudes (II), duc de Bourgogne. Elle a
sa sépulture à Fontevrault, où elle est décédé le 11 de ce
mois").
Marie de Blois was Abbess of Fontevrault at the time of her death.
Doubtless an obiit can be found for her in the records of that house.
Her obit is given elsewhere on 7 August - go figure. It is important to note
that 12th century obituaries almost never give family details or other
information apart from occasionally noting benefactions of the individual to
the house, and the record above is clearly a 17th- or 18th-century
compilation of details with the ordinals added by Lalore for further
clarity.
It's also worth noting that we can't be certain of Isabelle's first
husband's death over the range of a full year, as he died on 2 May and some
contemporary sources place this in 1148, others in 1149. The only way to
approach certainty on such points is by the synopsis of evidence, where
available, not by advocating one particular - and very much later - record
on the basis of what it says about other people compared to secondary
authorities.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Peter Stewart wrote:
I used a "limited view" online version of Houben's book which only
allowed me access to page 87. I was unable to view pages 86 or 88.
Thank for sharing the information from page 88. Since you have access
to page 88, perhaps you can tell us Houben's source that Roger, Duke of
Apulia, and Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois married in or before 1143?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
You might have turned over to page 88 of Houben's book in translation, where
the passage you quoted continues: "The marriage between Duke Roger and
Elizabeth took place at the latest in 1143".
I used a "limited view" online version of Houben's book which only
allowed me access to page 87. I was unable to view pages 86 or 88.
Thank for sharing the information from page 88. Since you have access
to page 88, perhaps you can tell us Houben's source that Roger, Duke of
Apulia, and Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois married in or before 1143?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www. royalancestry. net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158939358.569224.305920@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Unfortunately the English transaltion of Houben's book (I don't have the
German edition) is vitiated by the batching of references by paragraph - not
as bad of course as the practice of lumping them all together for a lot of
details, but nevertheless troublesome for specific points. I don't have time
to check them: going by the order it ought to be Ioannes Kinnamos, though
perhaps there is a charter of 1143 that is not cited, but again I don't have
time to research the matter.
By the way, it is notable that Chalandon dated the marriage to August 1140
(without citing his source) while Houben only says "at the latest in 1143".
Peter Stewart
news:1158939358.569224.305920@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You might have turned over to page 88 of Houben's book in translation,
where
the passage you quoted continues: "The marriage between Duke Roger and
Elizabeth took place at the latest in 1143".
I used a "limited view" online version of Houben's book which only
allowed me access to page 87. I was unable to view pages 86 or 88.
Thank for sharing the information from page 88. Since you have access
to page 88, perhaps you can tell us Houben's source that Roger, Duke of
Apulia, and Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois married in or before 1143?
Unfortunately the English transaltion of Houben's book (I don't have the
German edition) is vitiated by the batching of references by paragraph - not
as bad of course as the practice of lumping them all together for a lot of
details, but nevertheless troublesome for specific points. I don't have time
to check them: going by the order it ought to be Ioannes Kinnamos, though
perhaps there is a charter of 1143 that is not cited, but again I don't have
time to research the matter.
By the way, it is notable that Chalandon dated the marriage to August 1140
(without citing his source) while Houben only says "at the latest in 1143".
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Vo%Qg.34389$rP1.16556@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
This is not quite right - I found the discrepancy between Houben and
Chalandon intriguing enough to make time this afternoon to check further.
Chalandon wrote that the date of the marriage was uncertain but that it very
probably took place in 1140. His reason for this is a letter from St Bernard
of Clairvaux to Amadeus, abbot of Hautecombe, stating that the party sent by
King Roger of Sicily to conduct Count Thibaut's daughter to his son was due
to set sail from Montpellier on 23 August. Amadeus was asked to send his
father or some other messenger ahead of this - but the circumstances do not
help in dating the letter, which is conventionally ascribed to 1140. Amadeus
was abbot of Hautecombe from 1139 until late 1144 when he became bishop of
Lausanne; his father Amadeus of Clermont, seigneur of Hauterive, lived until
ca 1150. Without other evidence to narrow it down, the letter could have
referred to 23 August 1144 as the embarcation date.
Houben relied on Ioannes Kinnamos for stating that the marriage took place
"at the latest in 1143", according to his English translators at least -
however, it appears he should have meant "at the earliest in 1143". Kinnamos
relates that King Roger had sent legates to Emperor Ioannes II seeking a
bride of imperial blood for his son, and that this request was made again to
Emperor Manuel I (who succeeded to the throne in April 1143). Manuel then
sent an envoy, Basileios Xeros, to discuss this matter with Roger in Sicily.
Presumably Houben assumed that Roger would not have sought an imperial bride
unless his son was presently free to marry. If he was still unmarried for
some time after April 1143, it is fairly unlikely - although not
impossible - that negotiations with the Byzantine court could have failed in
time to allow for a French bride to be secured and despatched by late August
of the same year. Consequently 1144 would be more plausible for Isabelle's
departure from Montpellier on 23 August and her marriage soon afterwards to
the younger Roger.
She may have been sent from France ca 1140, still underage, to live at King
Roger's court until she was ready to marry his heir. This had evidently not
yet happened by April 1143, but if she was on the spot it could have been
concluded soon after. Double dealing on such matters was not unusual.
None of Houben's further references gives any information to justify "at the
latest in 1143".
Peter Stewart
news:Vo%Qg.34389$rP1.16556@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158939358.569224.305920@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You might have turned over to page 88 of Houben's book in translation,
where
the passage you quoted continues: "The marriage between Duke Roger and
Elizabeth took place at the latest in 1143".
I used a "limited view" online version of Houben's book which only
allowed me access to page 87. I was unable to view pages 86 or 88.
Thank for sharing the information from page 88. Since you have access
to page 88, perhaps you can tell us Houben's source that Roger, Duke of
Apulia, and Isabelle/Elizabeth de Blois married in or before 1143?
Unfortunately the English transaltion of Houben's book (I don't have the
German edition) is vitiated by the batching of references by paragraph -
not as bad of course as the practice of lumping them all together for a
lot of details, but nevertheless troublesome for specific points. I don't
have time to check them: going by the order it ought to be Ioannes
Kinnamos, though perhaps there is a charter of 1143 that is not cited, but
again I don't have time to research the matter.
By the way, it is notable that Chalandon dated the marriage to August 1140
(without citing his source) while Houben only says "at the latest in
1143".
This is not quite right - I found the discrepancy between Houben and
Chalandon intriguing enough to make time this afternoon to check further.
Chalandon wrote that the date of the marriage was uncertain but that it very
probably took place in 1140. His reason for this is a letter from St Bernard
of Clairvaux to Amadeus, abbot of Hautecombe, stating that the party sent by
King Roger of Sicily to conduct Count Thibaut's daughter to his son was due
to set sail from Montpellier on 23 August. Amadeus was asked to send his
father or some other messenger ahead of this - but the circumstances do not
help in dating the letter, which is conventionally ascribed to 1140. Amadeus
was abbot of Hautecombe from 1139 until late 1144 when he became bishop of
Lausanne; his father Amadeus of Clermont, seigneur of Hauterive, lived until
ca 1150. Without other evidence to narrow it down, the letter could have
referred to 23 August 1144 as the embarcation date.
Houben relied on Ioannes Kinnamos for stating that the marriage took place
"at the latest in 1143", according to his English translators at least -
however, it appears he should have meant "at the earliest in 1143". Kinnamos
relates that King Roger had sent legates to Emperor Ioannes II seeking a
bride of imperial blood for his son, and that this request was made again to
Emperor Manuel I (who succeeded to the throne in April 1143). Manuel then
sent an envoy, Basileios Xeros, to discuss this matter with Roger in Sicily.
Presumably Houben assumed that Roger would not have sought an imperial bride
unless his son was presently free to marry. If he was still unmarried for
some time after April 1143, it is fairly unlikely - although not
impossible - that negotiations with the Byzantine court could have failed in
time to allow for a French bride to be secured and despatched by late August
of the same year. Consequently 1144 would be more plausible for Isabelle's
departure from Montpellier on 23 August and her marriage soon afterwards to
the younger Roger.
She may have been sent from France ca 1140, still underage, to live at King
Roger's court until she was ready to marry his heir. This had evidently not
yet happened by April 1143, but if she was on the spot it could have been
concluded soon after. Double dealing on such matters was not unusual.
None of Houben's further references gives any information to justify "at the
latest in 1143".
Peter Stewart
-
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
Re: King Henry I's bastard daughter, ?Mabel, wife of Guillau
Peter Stewart a écrit :
Indeed I misunderstood your point. Richardson justified the marriage of
Isabelle of Blois and Guillaume IV by a link to an online genealogy,
you pointed this genealogy was unreliable, to substantiate his claim he
quoted Aubry, then you objected there were other sources (but I didn't
understand you mean by that "other more reliable sources who say the
same thing") and pointed some mistakes in Aubry. So I assumed you were
rejecting Aubry's testimony on Isabelle of Blois' marriage on the basis
that he confuses the name of her grandson and so that he was never
reliable. Of course, if what you mean is only that when Aubry is
contradicted by contemporary diplomatic sources, those sources must be
preferred, I completely agree.
Very interesting, thank you?
Pierre
"pierre_aronax@hotmail.com" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.fr> wrote in message
news:1158773115.105472.66850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
snip
OK but that does not invalidate the fact that Isabelle, wife of
Guillaume IV, was a daughter of Thibaud IV of Blois.
This puzzles me - you have apparently misunderstood my point about the
reliability of Aubrey of Troisfontaines: I only meant that he is not the
best source for the marriages of Isabelle. There is no question whatsoever
that she married first Roger, duke of Apulia and secondly Guillaume Gouet
IV. As I wrote, "There are other sources, most of them cited by Thompson,
including charters that are more reliable than Alberic". This does not imply
that the other sources contradict Aubrey, rather they augment his vague
information. The point I intended to make is about the unsatisfactory
reliance on Aubrey for proof of this matter when it is more fully and more
immediately attested in other sources.
Indeed I misunderstood your point. Richardson justified the marriage of
Isabelle of Blois and Guillaume IV by a link to an online genealogy,
you pointed this genealogy was unreliable, to substantiate his claim he
quoted Aubry, then you objected there were other sources (but I didn't
understand you mean by that "other more reliable sources who say the
same thing") and pointed some mistakes in Aubry. So I assumed you were
rejecting Aubry's testimony on Isabelle of Blois' marriage on the basis
that he confuses the name of her grandson and so that he was never
reliable. Of course, if what you mean is only that when Aubry is
contradicted by contemporary diplomatic sources, those sources must be
preferred, I completely agree.
I wrote:
Mismatches of date between different obituaries are very common, but
when
the same person was commemorated on various dates in the same house it
can
be impossible to substantiate the actual date of death. Many records are
given as "depositio" when the death is clearly meant rather than burial,
but
occasionally this is a later date than an obit leaving doubt - although
I
have come across a few where the depositio is earlier than the obit,
leaving
a different kind of doubt!
Can it not be the reverse then, obit meaning the death, which would be
more coherent with the etymology?
I would take it that any entry stating "obiit" under a certain date is meant
to record that the person actually died on that date. However, news
travelled slowly and/or erratically at times, and mistakes were frequently
made. When "depositio" is recorded a few days or more after an obit, it may
well refer to the date of burial, but when it is recorded beforehand it
presumably does not mean that the person was buried alive resulting in the
later obit. This may rather be the result - for instance - of a variant
record of the death having been copied later on from the obituary of another
house. In many obituaries "depositio" may indicate death or burial, in
others the term clearly indicates death and not burial. "Commemoratio" often
was fixed on the date of death as reported to the house in question, but
sometimes the date for this was simply transferred from the date for a
spouse or parent, or was linked to burial, or otherwise determined by
varying conventions such as marking the end of an initial mourning period.
Sometimes the date may have been set in advance by the person who came to
die later, and could be even a birthday as with a few of the Carolingians.
Very interesting, thank you?
Pierre