Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemo

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Baudemo

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 25 okt 2006 20:07:16

Dear Newsgroup ~

In the process of collecting references to medieval kinship, I recently
encountered a contemporary list of kinsfolk for Blanche of Navarre,
Countess of Champagne (died 1229). Countess Blanche is familiar to
many here on the newsgroup, she being the full sister of Queen
Bérengère (or Berenguela) of Navarre, wife of Richard I, King of
England. The list of Countess Blanche's kinsfolk is similar to ones
I've found in other contemporary sources. Such lists display a group
of people who were designated as having received the same letter.
Individual salutations or titles were added next to each person's name
which were specific to that person. I assume such lists were assembled
to help clerks determine how to address each party who was to receive a
similar letter of the same date.

The modern editor states in a footnote that all eight parties below
were kin to Countess Blanche. However, since there is only an
indication of kinship to the first five, I have to assume that they
alone were related to the countess. Those that are designated as
kinsfolk are as follows: Constance of Aragon (wife of King Emmerich of
Hungary), Henry Duke of Lorraine and Brabant, Raymond Count of
Toulouse, Eleanor [de Vermandois] Countess of St. Quintin, and Agnes
[de Baudemont], Countess of Braine.

Source: H. d'Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de
Champagne (1860), pg. 461-462. The editor's additions to the text are
set in brackets.

1. H[andreas] Hung[arorum], Dalm[atorum], Chroat[orum], Rom[anorum]que
rex, uxor ejus consanguini sunt comitisse nostre.

2. H[enricus] dux Loth[aringie] et Brabantie, consanguineus.

3. R[aimondus] dux Narbonensis, comes Tolosanus, marchio Provincie,
consanguineus.

4. E[lienor] comitissa S[ancti] Quint[ini], domina Val[esii],
consanguinea.

5. A[gnes] comitissa Brane, consanguinea.

6. S[ymon] dux et marchio Lothoringie, fidelis.

7. Leuchorum episcopus in Tullensi.

8. Constantinopolitanus Alexius, in Xpisto Deo fidelis, imperator,
divinitus coronatus, sublimis, potens, excelsus, sempes Augustus et
moderator Romanorum, Commanus. END OF QUOTE.

It is not surprising to see Raymond, Count of Toulouse, on a list of
kinsfolk for Blanche of Navarre, as the two of them were near related
in two different ways, once by common descent from Alfonso VI, King of
Castile, and once by common descent from Guillaume I, Count of
Burgundy, died 1087. So far, so good. Next, the modern editor
identifies "H", King of Hungary as King Andrew of Hungary, but I
believe that Emmerich, King of Hungary (died 1204), is the king
intended. His wife, Constance of Aragon, was first cousin of Countess
Blanche, their mothers being half-sisters. That leaves us Henry Duke
of Lorraine and Brabant, Eleanor de Vermandois, and Agnes de Baudemont.
The ancestry of the first two parties is well known, but that of Agnes
de Baudemont, Countess of Braine, is rather limited.

Reviewing the ancestry of Duke Henry, I note that his
great-grandfather, Godfried I, Duke of Lower Lorraine (died 1140),
married (2nd) Clemence of Burgundy, widow of Robert II, Count of
Flanders (died 1111), and daughter of Guillaume I, Count of Burgundy
(died 1087). If Duke Henry had Clemence of Burgundy in his ancestry,
then he would be near related to Blanche of Navarre. However, Duke
Henry is commonly thought to descend from Duke Godfried I's first
marriage to Ide of Chiny. This is probably correct. Yet I note an
interesting chronological situation. Duke Henry's grandfather,
Godfried II (son of Ida of Chiny), is thought to have been born about
1105, yet he did not marry until about 1139. If he was the son of
Clemence of Burgundy, his birth would necessarily be sometime after
1111. This would fit much better with Godfried II's alleged marriage
about 1139.

As for Eleanor de Vermandois and Agnes de Baudemont, I'm unable to spot
any connection between them and Blanche of Navarre, nor any near
connection to Duke Henry, Count Raymond, or Queen Constance of Aragon.
In the case of Agnes de Baudemont, knowledge of her ancestry is rather
limited. At present she is not known to have had anything illustrious
in her background. However, she has a multitude of descendants
including Queen Philippe of Hainault (wife of King Edward III of
England), Queen Margaret of France (wife of King Edward I of England),
Jacquette de Luxembourg (wife of Richard Wydeville, K.G., Constable and
Treasurer of England), and Jeanne de Lusignan (wife of Sir Peter de
Geneville).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John P. Ravilious

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 26 okt 2006 01:06:57

Wednesday, 25 October, 2006


Dear Doug, Peter, et al.,

I show Blanca of Navarre and Henry I of Brabant as 4th
cousins 1x removed, based on common descent from Hildouin de
Montdidier and Adela de Roucy:


Hildouin IV = Adela
de Montdidier I de Roucy
_____________________I__________________
I I
Adela = Arnulf de Geoffrey = Beatrice
I Chiny II of Perche I
I I
I I
Otto II de Gilbert = Juliana
Chiny de L'Aigle I de Perche
I_____ I
I I
Godfrey IV = Ida Marguerite = Garcia Ramirez
the Bearded I de L'Aigle I (IV) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey II Sancho V
of Louvain (d. 1142) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey III (d. 1190) BLANCA
I of Navarre
I
HENRY I of Louvain (Brabant)


Cheers,

John


Douglas Richardson wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

There is an ancient pedigree of the Dukes of Brabant entitled
"Genealogia Ducum Brabantiæ Heredum Franciæ," a transcript of which
is published in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (SS), vol.
XXV, page 390 (available online at http://www.dmgh.de). Interestingly,
this pedigree does not record either of the marriages of Gottfried I,
Duke of Lower Lorraine (died 1140). Rather, it merely states that he
had one son, Gottfried [II], and three daughters, Alaida (or Alice),
Queen of England, Ida, Countess of Cleeves, and Clarissia.

Does anyone know of any documents which prove that Duke Gottfried I
married (1st) Ida of Chiny and (2nd) Clemence of Burgundy? Also, is
there a record which specifically states that Ida of Chiny was the
mother of Duke Gottfried I's son, Gottfried II, or is that simply a
presumption made by historians and genealogists?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2006 04:33:00

I'll ask the two questions again:

Does anyone know of any documents which prove that Duke Gottfried I
married (1st) Ida of Chiny and (2nd) Clemence of Burgundy? Also, is
there a record which specifically states that Ida of Chiny was the
mother of Duke Gottfried I's son, Gottfried II, or is that simply a
presumption made by historians and genealogists?

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 04:34:29

The descent tabulated below is conjectural, as there is no proof for the
link from Ida to Adela of Roucy through the comital family of Chiny.

Her paternity has long been a matter of dispute - Carl Knetsch in _Das Haus
Brabant: Genealogie der Herzoge von Brabant und der Landgrafen von Hessen_
(Darmstadt, 1917) considered that Ida belonged to the comital family of
Namur instead. There is no clear evidence available to resolve the point.

Peter Stewart


"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161821217.568656.236050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Wednesday, 25 October, 2006

Dear Doug, Peter, et al.,

I show Blanca of Navarre and Henry I of Brabant as 4th
cousins 1x removed, based on common descent from Hildouin de
Montdidier and Adela de Roucy:


Hildouin IV = Adela
de Montdidier I de Roucy
_____________________I__________________
I I
Adela = Arnulf de Geoffrey = Beatrice
I Chiny II of Perche I
I I
I I
Otto II de Gilbert = Juliana
Chiny de L'Aigle I de Perche
I_____ I
I I
Godfrey IV = Ida Marguerite = Garcia Ramirez
the Bearded I de L'Aigle I (IV) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey II Sancho V
of Louvain (d. 1142) of Navarre
I I
I I
Godfrey III (d. 1190) BLANCA
I of Navarre
I
HENRY I of Louvain (Brabant)


Cheers,

John

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2006 05:02:17

On the surface, John has proposed a kinship based on a common Roucy
descent which attempts to explain the existing kinship between Duke
Henry I of Brabant and Blanche of Navarre, Countess of Champagne. In
this time period (c. 1200), however, acknowledged kinships were much
closer in nature than those we find than in later periods. As such, we
would expect the two parties to be related no further than 3rd cousins,
or no more than 4th and 4th degrees of kindred. John's proposed
kinship would yield a kinship that is 5th and 6th degrees which is much
too remote.

Whatever the answer is, the claimed kinship should lie within the range
of the great-grandparents of the respective two parties. Of the two
kinships we have explained so far, one is 2nd and 2nd, the other is
doubly 3rd and 3rd. As expected, both of these fall within the 4th and
4th degrees of kindred. We should expect that Duke Henry and Countess
Blanche to be related within the 4th and 4th degrees as well.

This poses certain problems, as long hunks of Duke Henry's ancestry are
German, while large hunks of Countess Blanche's ancestry are Iberian.
Finding a common meeting ground is difficult at best. A likely spot
for common ground would be the wife of Duke Henry I's
great-grandfather, Duke Gottfried I, which woman is alleged to be Ida
of Chiny. Yet Duke Gottfried I is also alleged to also have married
after 1111 Clemence of Burgundy, which woman is a known near relative
of Countess Blanche. This matter deserves further study.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 05:15:40

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161814567.158976.38540@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

There is an ancient pedigree of the Dukes of Brabant entitled
"Genealogia Ducum Brabantiæ Heredum Franciæ," a transcript of which
is published in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (SS), vol.
XXV, page 390 (available online at http://www.dmgh.de). Interestingly,
this pedigree does not record either of the marriages of Gottfried I,
Duke of Lower Lorraine (died 1140). Rather, it merely states that he
had one son, Gottfried [II], and three daughters, Alaida (or Alice),
Queen of England, Ida, Countess of Cleeves, and Clarissia.

Does anyone know of any documents which prove that Duke Gottfried I
married (1st) Ida of Chiny and (2nd) Clemence of Burgundy? Also, is
there a record which specifically states that Ida of Chiny was the
mother of Duke Gottfried I's son, Gottfried II, or is that simply a
presumption made by historians and genealogists?

Duke Godefrid I had a wife named Ida who is usually said to be a daughter of
Otto II, count of Chiny by Adelais of Namur, on the strength of a later and
not very reliable chronicle that calls Adalbero of Chiny, bishop of Liège
(died 1145) "avunculus" (maternal uncle) to Duke Godefrid's children,
including his son & heir Godefrid II.

After the death of Ida, Godefrid I married Clemence of Burgundy who was the
widowed countess of Flanders. She occurs still with her Flemish title alone
in 1121, and then was called both countess of Flanders and duchess of
(Lower) Lorraine (i.e. Brabant) in a charter that was ascribed to 1125
(hence the dating given by Andreas Thiele noted before) but placed by
Vanderkindere as late as 1128. This is chronologically the first indication
that she had married Duke Godefrid I, and whenever their union took place it
was for political motives rather than reproductive ones: Clemence was too
old to have any more children.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 05:35:36

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161835337.546602.314870@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
On the surface, John has proposed a kinship based on a common Roucy
descent which attempts to explain the existing kinship between Duke
Henry I of Brabant and Blanche of Navarre, Countess of Champagne. In
this time period (c. 1200), however, acknowledged kinships were much
closer in nature than those we find than in later periods. As such, we
would expect the two parties to be related no further than 3rd cousins,
or no more than 4th and 4th degrees of kindred. John's proposed
kinship would yield a kinship that is 5th and 6th degrees which is much
too remote.

Whatever the answer is, the claimed kinship should lie within the range
of the great-grandparents of the respective two parties. Of the two
kinships we have explained so far, one is 2nd and 2nd, the other is
doubly 3rd and 3rd. As expected, both of these fall within the 4th and
4th degrees of kindred. We should expect that Duke Henry and Countess
Blanche to be related within the 4th and 4th degrees as well.

This poses certain problems, as long hunks of Duke Henry's ancestry are
German, while large hunks of Countess Blanche's ancestry are Iberian.
Finding a common meeting ground is difficult at best. A likely spot
for common ground would be the wife of Duke Henry I's
great-grandfather, Duke Gottfried I, which woman is alleged to be Ida
of Chiny. Yet Duke Gottfried I is also alleged to also have married
after 1111 Clemence of Burgundy, which woman is a known near relative
of Countess Blanche. This matter deserves further study.

A good place to start would be H Sproemberg's paper 'Clementia, Gräfin von
Flandern' in _Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire_ 42 (1964).

He considered that Clemence was born not long after 1060. She occurs with
two sons by her first husband in a charter issued by him before his
departure on crusade in autumn 1096; she was married to Duke Godefrid I
around 30 years after this.

She was not the mother of Duke Godefrid II. No matter how far this horse
gets flogged, it was already dead from the start.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Duke Godfried I Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant,

Legg inn av Birds » 26 okt 2006 07:48:10

For what's its worth. Duke Godfried I himself must have been born in
1060 or earlier. He was sent to the emperial court in 1072 for his
military education. Frans J. Van Droogebroeck (page 44) assumes that he
must have been at least 12 years to learn the noble art of warfare.
See: F.J. Van Droogebroeck, "Paltsgraaf Herman II (+1085) en de
stichting van de abdij van Affligem (28 juni 1062)", page 38-95, in:
Jaarboek voor Middeleeuwse Geschiedenis 2, Hilversum 1999. It looks
like his indirect source was Chronicon Brabantiae of Petrus van der
Heyden (circa 1450).

His mother countess Adela died 5-1-1085 (deduction Droogebroeck page
44). She was not identhic to countess Adelheid "of Orthen", daughter of
a count Everhard and widow of a Henry, as is usualy assumed. Duke
Godfried did not inherit but aquired Orthen around 1120. See: drs.
P.Th.J. Kuijer, "'s-Hertogenbosch. Stad in het hertogdom Brabant ca.
1185-1629", page 29, Zwolle 2000

Hans Vogels


Peter Stewart schreef:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161809151.265077.105690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dear Newsgroup ~

I just checked the Mittelalter genealogy website. It states that
Gottfried II, Duke of Lower Lorraine, was born about 1106, he being the
son of Duke Gottfried I, by his 1st wife, Ida of Chiny. This is the
accepted arrangement of this family. Yet I note that Gottfield II's
marriage to Liutgard von Sulzbach is dated as having taken place about
1139, which seems rather late.

For specific details, see the following weblink:

http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/br ... _1142.html

If Duke Gottfried II was born about 1106 as stated, then his wife
Liutgard was obviously much younger than he. Liutgard survived Duke
Gottfried II's death in 1142, and she married (2nd) Hugo von Dagsburg,
by whom she had several children.

Question: Can Duke Gottfried II possibly be a son of Duke Gottfried I,
by his 2nd marriage to Clemence of Burgundy? If so, it would explain
the stated kinship between Duke Gottfried II's grandson, Henry I, Duke
of Lorraine & Brabant, and Blanche of Navarre, Countess of Champagne.
Blanche of Navarre's great-grandfather, Raymond, Count of Burgundy, was
the brother of Clemence of Burgundy.

Since you are relying on the Genealogie Mittelalter website, why not start
in the information shallows by checking the dates given for these people
before leaping into the speculative deep end?

Erich Brandenburg is quoted as placing the first wife Ida's death after
1117, and Duke Godefrid I's subsequent marriage to Clemence after 1121.
Andreas Thiele is quoted as placing Ida's death before 1125 and the
remarriage to Clemence ca 1121. These authorities do not make up their data
as they go along. Further references are available to be checked.

Clemence, apparently born ca 1075, was married for the first time before
1092 to Robert II of Flanders who was born in 1065. She is not likely to
have borne any children after 1121, much less 1125, and certainly no such
freak is indicated by the records.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 12:33:22

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161833580.109369.68370@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I'll ask the two questions again:

Does anyone know of any documents which prove that Duke Gottfried I
married (1st) Ida of Chiny and (2nd) Clemence of Burgundy? Also, is
there a record which specifically states that Ida of Chiny was the
mother of Duke Gottfried I's son, Gottfried II, or is that simply a
presumption made by historians and genealogists?

Evidently this has not been made clear enough:

There is no doubt at all that Duke Godefrid I's first wife Ida was the
mother of his son & heir Godefrid II.

There is some doubt as to whether Ida and her brother Adalbero, bishop of
Liège belonged to the comital family of Chiny or to that of Namur: however,
the sources that conflict over this are consistent in stating that the
bishop's sister was the mother of Godefrid I's children.

Alberic of Troisfontaines somewhat vaguely stated a Namur connection, but
quite specically stated that Bishop A(da)lbero's sister was mother to
Godefrid II ("episcopus Albero Leodiensis...et soror eius comitissa
Lovaniensis, que comiti Lovanii peperit primum Godefridum comitem, fuerunt
de prosapia Namucensi").

It is absolutely certain that Bishop Adalbero of Liège was _not_ a brother
of Clemence of Burgundy and her other notable siblings including Pope
Calixtus II; it is equally certain that Duke Godefrid II of Brabant was
_not_ her son and the pope's nephew.

Neat solutions might be tempting, but are utterly worthless if they don't
fit the evidence that ought to be consulted before, not after, proposing
them.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2006 17:35:00

Peter Stewart wrote:
Alberic of Troisfontaines somewhat vaguely stated a Namur connection, but
quite specically stated that Bishop A(da)lbero's sister was mother to
Godefrid II ("episcopus Albero Leodiensis...et soror eius comitissa
Lovaniensis, que comiti Lovanii peperit primum Godefridum comitem, fuerunt
de prosapia Namucensi").

If I understand the Latin correctly, Alberic de Troisfontaines has
stated that Albero, Bishop of Liege, and his sister, [Ida], Countess of
Louvain, were of the family or lineage of Namur ["fuerunt de prosapia
Namucensi"]. That being the case, perhaps someone can explain why Ida
and her brother, Bishop Albero, have been attached to the Chiny family.
For example, Brandenburg states without any qualification that Ida was
"Tochter des Grafen Otto von Chiny." Andreas Thiele is even more
specific. He says Ida, wife of Duke Gottfried I, is "Tochter des
Grafen Otto II.; Nichte des Grafen Gottfried I. von Namur-Luxemburg."

For evidence supporting of a Namur connection, I note a charter dated
1131 issued by Duke Gottfried I with his son, Gottfried [II], which
charter had as its principle witnesses Godfrey, Count of Namur, and his
son, Henry [Reference: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (SS),
8 (1848): 553 (Gesta Abbatum Gemblacensium)].

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 26 okt 2006 18:41:57

Peter Stewart wrote:
A good place to start would be H Sproemberg's paper 'Clementia, Gräfin von
Flandern' in _Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire_ 42 (1964).

He considered that Clemence was born not long after 1060. She occurs with
two sons by her first husband in a charter issued by him before his
departure on crusade in autumn 1096; she was married to Duke Godefrid I
around 30 years after this.

The authoratative Complete Peerage has an entirely different spin on
this matter. In Volume 10 (1945), page 445, footnote l (sub Percy),
the following information is given regarding Duke Gottfried I's son,
Jocelin, who occurs only in English records:

"In his charters he describes hinself as 'brother of Queen Adeliz
(Aelidis)' (Reading Chartulary, Egerton MS. 3031, f. 37) or 'of
Louvain, the castellan' (Fountains Chartulary, p. 483) or 'the
castellan of Arundel' (Lewes Chartulary, Sussex Rec. Soc., part ii, p.
79). In the first of these references he mentions his father Duke
Godfrey and his mother (unfortunately unnamed). In a note by G.W.
Watson in the 1st edition of the present work it is pointed out that
the evidence against Jocelin being a legitimate son of Godfrey (Duke of
Lower Lorraine and Count of Brabant), or at all events brother of the
whole blood to Godfrey's known children, is chiefly negative. It is
known than Godfrey had a 2nd wife Clemence (m. circa 1120, d. 1133),
da. of William I, Count of Burgundy; and it appears to be no less
possible that she was Jocelin's mother than he was illegitimate." END
OF QUOTE.

Furthermore, while Clemence of Burgundy may appear in a charter with
her two sons by her first marriage dated Autumn 1096, her eldest son,
Baldwin, was still considered a boy in 1111, when he succeeded his
father as Count of Flanders [Reference: Orderic Vitalis, Vol. VI, Book
XI, p. 163]. If Clemence's eldest son was still a boy in 1111, then
obviously he was a mere infant in 1096. If so, this suggests Clemence
was still possibly of child bearing age when she married Duke Gottfried
about 1120.

If the 1120 marriage date between Clemence and Duke Gottfried I can be
sustained, then it seems highly improbable that Clemence was the mother
of Duke Gottfried I's elder two sons, Gottfried II and Heinrich. She
might, however, possibly be the mother of Duke Gottfried's younger son,
Jocelin of Louvain, just as stated by Complete Peerage. Jocelin of
Louvain was married after 1154, to Agnes de Percy, and thus was
considerably younger than Duke Gottfried I's other sons, Gottfried II
and Heinrich.

That being said, this leaves the matter of Blanche of Navarre's kinship
to Duke Henry I of Brabant yet unanswered.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av taf » 26 okt 2006 20:11:11

Douglas Richardson wrote:
On the surface, John has proposed a kinship based on a common Roucy
descent which attempts to explain the existing kinship between Duke
Henry I of Brabant and Blanche of Navarre, Countess of Champagne. In
this time period (c. 1200), however, acknowledged kinships were much
closer in nature than those we find than in later periods. As such, we
would expect the two parties to be related no further than 3rd cousins,
or no more than 4th and 4th degrees of kindred.

This is a non sequitur. The fact that it was more limited does not
creat the expectation of a specific limit.

John's proposed
kinship would yield a kinship that is 5th and 6th degrees which is much
too remote.

Whatever the answer is, the claimed kinship should lie within the range
of the great-grandparents of the respective two parties.

If we, for the sake of argument, accept this limitation, how hard can
it them be? You have clearly already looked or you wouldn't be trying
to rearrange pedigrees.

Blanche:
Ramon of Burgundy
Urraca, Queen of Leon & Castile
Ramon Berenger III of Catalonia
Dulce of Provence
Ramiro Sanchez of Monzon
Cristina Ruiz de Vivar
Geoffrey l'Aigle
Juliana de Perche

Henry:
Geoffrey I of Brabant
Ida (of Chiny or Namur)
Berenger of Sulzbach
Adelaide of Wolfratshausen
Arnold of Loos
Agnes of Mainz
Folmar V of Metz
Mathilda of Egisheim


So, which two are siblings? The answer is that none of them are.


Of the two
kinships we have explained so far, one is 2nd and 2nd, the other is
doubly 3rd and 3rd. As expected, both of these fall within the 4th and
4th degrees of kindred.

Both also fall within the 5th degree. And both fall within the 6th
degree. And the 7th . . .
Citing closer relationships does not support a specified limit to the
degree to which kinship was reported.

We should expect that Duke Henry and Countess
Blanche to be related within the 4th and 4th degrees as well.

Yet they weren't. Therefor the assumptions on which this deduction was
based must be erroneous.

Perhaps this scirbe admitted more distant kinship (although adding a
generations doesn't help much, but add two on one branch or the other
and a few interesting possibilities crop up, among others bringing
Stephanie, Countess of Burgundy and Ermesende, Duchess of Aquitaine
into play).

Perhaps it included kinship through spouses (much more common in the
Iberian context - this has been a repeated problem with this analytical
approach, assuming that all of Europe represented a monolithic cultural
entity: that a unifrom set of rules applied everywhere). Henry's wife
and Blanche's husband were 2nd cousins.

And yes, one and/or the other pedigree could be wrong, but before we go
trying to shuffle established and seemingly well-documented pedigrees,
perhaps more consideration should be given to the possibility that this
4th degree rule is just a rule of thumb and not a Papal dictate all
medieval scribes disobeyed at the peril of their immortal soul. (Next
would come the insistence that such a rule, if it is to be a sharp
instrument used to excise accepted pedigrees rather than simply a blunt
probe, has to be backed up by some indication of its basis; that it is
something more than a general impression. However, we have been through
that argument many times before, so there is little point in repeating
it.) This operates on two levels - first, did some such rule exist at
the time, or is this a modern attempt to codify something that was
fluid at the time, and second, even if there was some standard, have we
accurately deduced what that standard was?


Oh, and by the way, in the initial post of this thread:

"Countess Blanche is familiar to many here on the newsgroup, she being
the full sister of Queen Bérengère (or Berenguela) of Navarre, wife
of Richard I, King of England."

Is it any wonder this group gets accused of Anglo-Saxon bias? The
acting sovereign of an Iberian kingdom (and the means by which the
crown passed to a different family) has to be placed into context by
indicating she was sister of a little-known and seeminly superfluous
wife of an English king.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 22:55:24

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161880500.521032.64640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

Alberic of Troisfontaines somewhat vaguely stated a Namur connection, but
quite specically stated that Bishop A(da)lbero's sister was mother to
Godefrid II ("episcopus Albero Leodiensis...et soror eius comitissa
Lovaniensis, que comiti Lovanii peperit primum Godefridum comitem,
fuerunt
de prosapia Namucensi").

If I understand the Latin correctly, Alberic de Troisfontaines has
stated that Albero, Bishop of Liege, and his sister, [Ida], Countess of
Louvain, were of the family or lineage of Namur ["fuerunt de prosapia
Namucensi"]. That being the case, perhaps someone can explain why Ida
and her brother, Bishop Albero, have been attached to the Chiny family.
For example, Brandenburg states without any qualification that Ida was
"Tochter des Grafen Otto von Chiny." Andreas Thiele is even more
specific. He says Ida, wife of Duke Gottfried I, is "Tochter des
Grafen Otto II.; Nichte des Grafen Gottfried I. von Namur-Luxemburg."

For evidence supporting of a Namur connection, I note a charter dated
1131 issued by Duke Gottfried I with his son, Gottfried [II], which
charter had as its principle witnesses Godfrey, Count of Namur, and his
son, Henry [Reference: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (SS),
8 (1848): 553 (Gesta Abbatum Gemblacensium)].

This is not "evidence supporting of a Namur connection" - there was no
principle [sic] that principal [sic] witnesses to a charter had to belong to
the same male line as the wife & mother of the donors.

As for the statement of Alberic, "prosapia" may be used to indicate a
distaff relationship to the counts of Namur, that could have been traced
through the wife of Count Otto II of Chiny. We don't possess definite
evidence to elucidate this. Brandenburg and Thiele obviously considered the
matter settled, but others as mentioned before do not agree.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 26 okt 2006 23:13:46

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1161884517.269174.136420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
A good place to start would be H Sproemberg's paper 'Clementia, Gräfin
von Flandern' in _Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire_ 42 (1964).

He considered that Clemence was born not long after 1060. She occurs
with two sons by her first husband in a charter issued by him before his
departure on crusade in autumn 1096; she was married to Duke
Godefrid I around 30 years after this.

The authoratative Complete Peerage has an entirely different spin on
this matter. In Volume 10 (1945), page 445, footnote l (sub Percy),
the following information is given regarding Duke Gottfried I's son,
Jocelin, who occurs only in English records:

What follows is not a considered "spin" on the evidence about Clemence of
Burgundy, but just an unsupported suggestion in CP based on no apparent
research into her life. Clemence was a famous personage, who ruled Flanders
during the first Crusade: there is no reason whatever to believe that a
comparative non-entity such as Jocelin, if he had been her son and
consequently the nephew of a pope and many other notable figures, would have
referred to his mother anonymously while entirely depending for his
advancement on the first marriage of a paternal half-sister.

"In his charters he describes hinself as 'brother of Queen Adeliz
(Aelidis)' (Reading Chartulary, Egerton MS. 3031, f. 37) or 'of
Louvain, the castellan' (Fountains Chartulary, p. 483) or 'the
castellan of Arundel' (Lewes Chartulary, Sussex Rec. Soc., part ii, p.
79). In the first of these references he mentions his father Duke
Godfrey and his mother (unfortunately unnamed). In a note by G.W.
Watson in the 1st edition of the present work it is pointed out that
the evidence against Jocelin being a legitimate son of Godfrey (Duke of
Lower Lorraine and Count of Brabant), or at all events brother of the
whole blood to Godfrey's known children, is chiefly negative. It is
known than Godfrey had a 2nd wife Clemence (m. circa 1120, d. 1133),
da. of William I, Count of Burgundy; and it appears to be no less
possible that she was Jocelin's mother than he was illegitimate." END
OF QUOTE.

Furthermore, while Clemence of Burgundy may appear in a charter with
her two sons by her first marriage dated Autumn 1096, her eldest son,
Baldwin, was still considered a boy in 1111, when he succeeded his
father as Count of Flanders [Reference: Orderic Vitalis, Vol. VI, Book
XI, p. 163]. If Clemence's eldest son was still a boy in 1111, then
obviously he was a mere infant in 1096. If so, this suggests Clemence
was still possibly of child bearing age when she married Duke Gottfried
about 1120.

The charter I mentioned was not "dated Autumn 1096" (that would be most
extraordinary) but rather given before, and in preparation for, an event
that occurred in the autumn of 1096.

If the 1120 marriage date between Clemence and Duke Gottfried I can be
sustained,

It can't be - I have already pointed out that Clemence was _not_ yet duchess
of Lower Lorraine in 1121.

then it seems highly improbable that Clemence was the mother
of Duke Gottfried I's elder two sons, Gottfried II and Heinrich.

Once again, this is not a matter of what "seems" to meet a preconceived wish
that two people were related within an arbitrary degree, but rather a
question of what the sources actually tell us, that happens to be
incompatible with this futile agenda.

She might, however, possibly be the mother of Duke Gottfried's
younger son, Jocelin of Louvain, just as stated by Complete Peerage.

Misstated by CP, with no basis in evidence.

Jocelin of Louvain was married after 1154, to Agnes de Percy, and thus
was considerably younger than Duke Gottfried I's other sons, Gottfried II
and Heinrich.

How exactly do you know when he was born from when he was married? There are
instances of men marrying for the first time in their 50s.

That being said, this leaves the matter of Blanche of Navarre's kinship
to Duke Henry I of Brabant yet unanswered.

Quite so - in fact, no progress has been made towards resolving this point
except for the helpful post from Todd Farmerie.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 29 okt 2006 23:08:08

Peter Stewart wrote:

<"There is some doubt as to whether Ida and her brother Adalbero,
bishop of
<Liège belonged to the comital family of Chiny or to that of Namur:
however,
<the sources that conflict over this are consistent in stating that the
<bishop's sister was the mother of Godefrid I's children."

To date, Peter Stewart has quoted only Alberic of Troisfontaines as his
source that Duke Godfrey's first wife [name not stated] was the sister
of Adalbero, bishop of Liège, of unknown family. Alberic of
Troisfontaines says only that Bishop Adalbero and his sister were of
the lineage ["prosopia"] of the family of Namur, which statement is
quite vague.

After being pushed to produce further evidence, Mr. Stewart has finally
admitted the "paternity" of Duke Godfrey I's wife and Bishop Adalbero
"has long been a matter of dispute ... There is no clear evidence
available to resolve the point." Like a politician caught in a lie,
Mr. Stewart confesses what we suspected all along .... that the
parentage (not simply the paternity) of Duke Godfrey I's first wife is
totally unknown.

Unless further evidence can be advanced (and I hope it can), I believe
we should show Duke Godfrey I's first wife as unknown. Reliable
pedigrees are built on contemporary evidence, not hasty guesswork.
Relying on late date secondary sources such as Brandenburg and Thiele
only serve to confuse the issue.

One last point: If Blanche of Navarre was near related to Duke Henry I
of Lorraine & Brabant as we know was the case, then it would seem that
the received ancestries of one or the other person or both of them are
in error. Now that the previously accepted identity of Duke Henry's
great-grandmother has been removed, we are free to explore other
possibilities in that vein. No more Ida of Namur (or Chiny).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

taf

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av taf » 30 okt 2006 02:08:42

Douglas Richardson wrote:
To date, Peter Stewart has quoted only Alberic of Troisfontaines as his
source that Duke Godfrey's first wife [name not stated] was the sister
of Adalbero, bishop of Liège, of unknown family. Alberic of
Troisfontaines says only that Bishop Adalbero and his sister were of
the lineage ["prosopia"] of the family of Namur, which statement is
quite vague.

After being pushed to produce further evidence, Mr. Stewart has finally
admitted the "paternity" of Duke Godfrey I's wife and Bishop Adalbero
"has long been a matter of dispute ... There is no clear evidence
available to resolve the point." Like a politician caught in a lie,
Mr. Stewart confesses what we suspected all along .... that the
parentage (not simply the paternity) of Duke Godfrey I's first wife is
totally unknown.

Unless further evidence can be advanced (and I hope it can), I believe
we should show Duke Godfrey I's first wife as unknown. Reliable
pedigrees are built on contemporary evidence, not hasty guesswork.
Relying on late date secondary sources such as Brandenburg and Thiele
only serve to confuse the issue.

Have you no shame? With nothing more than your desire for it to be the
case to back you up, you suggested that the pedigree be rearranged to
make Godfrey II the son of Clemence of Burgundy rather than Ida. Mr.
Stewart provided direct documentation that the first wife and not the
second was the mother of Godfrey II. Now you rail on him because his
source does not also name her father? You make it somehow his fault
that in proving wrong your off-the-cuff speculation he didn't also
provide further documentation for a relationship that he never
supported to begin with. Then you go on to decry the use of secondary
sources when your original proposal was made without the slightest iota
of knowledge concerning the documentation of the relationships in
question, but simply because you wanted to change the accepted
pedigree. It is ironic you should use the words "Like a politician
caught in a lie". You got caught speculating from ignorance, and he
definitively negated your lame guess, but now, "Like a politician
caught in a lie" you twist the argument to suggest he is somehow at
fault.

Now you try nihilistic sleight of hand-

One last point: If Blanche of Navarre was near related to Duke Henry I
of Lorraine & Brabant as we know was the case,

"We" don't "know" this was the case. You think you know it is the
case, but you are clearly in error in that belief. As hard as you try
to make it true by force of unsupported assertion, it just doesn't work
in this case.

then it would seem that
the received ancestries of one or the other person or both of them are
in error.

You invent a rule, and then insist that the historical record must be
in error, as your rule could not possibly be.

Now that the previously accepted identity of Duke Henry's
great-grandmother has been removed,

Not exactly. Just rendered somewhat less precisely. (This is where the
nihilism comes into play - the basis for this argument is 'because we
don't know everything, we know nothing'.)

we are free to explore other
possibilities in that vein. No more Ida of Namur (or Chiny).

We are free to reevaluate things within the limits of the evidence,
which while lacking the precision with which it is often stated, is far
from the blank slate you are pretending it is. We still know that the
person in question was sister of Bishop Adalbero, and of the lineage of
the family of Namur.

Hmm.

Let's see.

Ramiro Sanchez of Monzon
Cristina Ruiz of Vivar
Geoffrey l'Aigle
Juliana of Perche
Raimond of Burgundy
Urraca of Castile
Raimond Berenger III of Catalonia
Dulce of Provence

Does that work for Urraca of Leon? No. Or Raymond of Burgundy? No.
Or Ramon Berenger of Catalonia? No. Or Cristina Ruiz de Vivar? No.
No! No!!! NO!!!!!

Tell us who you think Bishop Adalbero is sibling of. Which of these
great-grandparents of Blanche is of the lineage family of Namur? Which
belonged to a kindred that could have produced a Bishop without it
being noticed? (And Raimond of Burgundy is definitely out, given
Godfrey I's second marriage.)

Alternatively, tell us which part of Blanche's pedigree might be
erroneous. Can't, can you?

If you could, you would have proposed a solution already - we have now
moved to the "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" stage of
this argument. You claim a major coup, but must just be hoping no one
will notice that your major coup, besting Peter into admitting that the
maternal grandfather of Geoffrey II is unknown (again, ignoring the
fact that he entered the thread making that very statement), dosn't
change in the slightest the failure of these pedigrees to fulfill your
flawed view of what should appear in them.

Maybe it is the 'rule of thumb' that is erroneous, and not the
pedigrees.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 okt 2006 08:02:02

You had better go back and read the thread again - this diversionary blather
below is badly misconceived, even for your own underhand purpose.

I had already referred to another, independent, source that agrees with
Alberic of Troisfontaines in making Ida (NB the known name of Duke Godfrey's
first wife) a sister of Bishop A(da)lbero (II) of Liège. I have not been
"pushed" anywhere: I clarified the earlier posts quite vountarily when you
failed, as so often, to grasp the point.

I am not about to be goaded now into doing your research for you. Demanding
that this should be spoon-fed to you complete is the tantrum of a pathetic,
spoiled infant, not the proceeding of a trained historian or a
self-respecting professional in any field.

The parentage of Duke Godfrey's first wife is not totally unknown, but
rather disputed as I said. This is not a "lie", and nothing could be more
absurd than trying to pretend that I have made false statements to the
newsgroup. She and her known brother belonged to one of two families: either
their father or mother apparently (from a range of evidence that I am not
going to dolly-up for you) belonged to the comital family of Namur.

Brandenburg and Thiele have nothing to do with this, except that you
overlooked what they were quoted as saying in the first place.
Misrepresenting that I am relying on secondary sources is patently a grimy
pot calling a silver kettle black. I never rely on secondary sources when
primary ones are available to me, that is most of the time. I never
importune list members to look and interpret up primary sources that are
available to me, as you are doing yet again in this thread.

Alberic of Troisfontaines is one of the major sources for genealogy and
history in this time and place, and pretending that information in another
independent source that is partly corroborated and partly contradicted by
him is worthless - "hasty guesswork" indeed - only serves to proclaim your
own total ignorance of the subject.

Peter Stewart



"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162159688.314331.148410@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:

<"There is some doubt as to whether Ida and her brother Adalbero,
bishop of
<Liège belonged to the comital family of Chiny or to that of Namur:
however,
<the sources that conflict over this are consistent in stating that the
<bishop's sister was the mother of Godefrid I's children."

To date, Peter Stewart has quoted only Alberic of Troisfontaines as his
source that Duke Godfrey's first wife [name not stated] was the sister
of Adalbero, bishop of Liège, of unknown family. Alberic of
Troisfontaines says only that Bishop Adalbero and his sister were of
the lineage ["prosopia"] of the family of Namur, which statement is
quite vague.

After being pushed to produce further evidence, Mr. Stewart has finally
admitted the "paternity" of Duke Godfrey I's wife and Bishop Adalbero
"has long been a matter of dispute ... There is no clear evidence
available to resolve the point." Like a politician caught in a lie,
Mr. Stewart confesses what we suspected all along .... that the
parentage (not simply the paternity) of Duke Godfrey I's first wife is
totally unknown.

Unless further evidence can be advanced (and I hope it can), I believe
we should show Duke Godfrey I's first wife as unknown. Reliable
pedigrees are built on contemporary evidence, not hasty guesswork.
Relying on late date secondary sources such as Brandenburg and Thiele
only serve to confuse the issue.

One last point: If Blanche of Navarre was near related to Duke Henry I
of Lorraine & Brabant as we know was the case, then it would seem that
the received ancestries of one or the other person or both of them are
in error. Now that the previously accepted identity of Duke Henry's
great-grandmother has been removed, we are free to explore other
possibilities in that vein. No more Ida of Namur (or Chiny).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 okt 2006 18:55:40

Dear Hans ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

In his website at
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/nieder_lothringen, Karl-Heinz
Schreiber appears to quote Brandenburg as follows:

"XI. 140-143

siehe Knetsch, Brabant Seite 18 f.

Daß Gottfrieds I. (141) erste Frau nicht, wie noch Knetsch annimmt,
eine Tochter Alberts III. von Namur war, sondern seine Enkelin, Tochter
der Adelais von Namur und Ottos von Chiny, hat bereits Vanderkindere
(Berichtigung im Register zu Band 2, 44) richtig gesehen. Ida und ihr
Bruder Albero, Bischof von Lüttich, waren nach Alberich, S. Seite 23,
550, ex prosapia Namucensi; diese Angabe hat den Irrtum veranlaßt.
Alberich will aber damit nur sagen, daß sie von den Grafen von Namur
abstammten, führt sie auch unter Alberts III. Kindern nicht an. Da
aber Albero und sein Bruder Eustach 1139 (Wauters 2, 216), den Grafen
Gottfried von Namur, Alberts III. Sohn, ihren Oheim nennen, so kann er
nicht ihr Bruder gewesen sein, sondern nur der Bruder ihrer Mutter."
END OF QUOTE

I'm not at all fluent in German. But I believe Mr. Schreiber above
states that Duke Godfrey of Namur (son of Duke Albert III) is called
uncle of a certain Albero and his brother, Eustach, in a record dated
1139, citing Wauters 2, 216. I'm unclear if Schreiber means that this
Albero is the same person as Bishop Albero, the known brother-in-law of
Duke Godfrey I If so, it would obviously mean that Duke Godfrey I's
wife was the niece of Duke Godfrey of Namur. I earlier posted
reference to a charter issued by Duke Godfrey I which was witnessed by
Duke Godfrey of Namur.

Can someone verify the correct translation of Mr. Schreiber's comments?
Also, does anyone have access either to Wauters 2, 216 or to Knetsch,
Brabant Seite 18 f. which are cited by Schreiber.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 okt 2006 22:10:20

Dear Hans ~

We actually have confirmation of the Namur connection of Duke Godfrey
I's first wife Ida as indicated by Alberic of Troisfontaines. This
confirmation comes from an English contemporary source. Mr. Moriarty
in The American Geanealogy, 20 (1944): 255-256 points out that Duke
Godfrey I's daughter, Alice (or Adeliza) of Louvain, Queen of England,
referred to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, in England as her
"cognata" [kinswoman]. Moriarty further identified Milicent Marmion as
the daughter of Count Gervase of Rethel, by his wife, Elizabeth,
daughter of Count Godfrey of Namur (son of Count Albert III of Namur).

If Duke Godfrey I's first wife Ida was another daughter of Count
Godfrey of Namur as you have proposed, then Queen Alice and Milicent de
Rethel would have been first cousins, or if you prefer related in the
2nd and 2nd degrees of kindred.

You're correct that the chronology would permit Count Godfrey of Namur
to be the father of Duke Godfrey I's wife, Ida, and her brother, Bishop
Adalbero. Given that Count Godfrey's parents were named Albert and
Ida, certainly it would come as no surprise if we learned that Count
Godfrey had children by those names. You're also correct that Count
Godfrey's sister, Alice of Namur, wife of Otto II, Count of Chiny,
already has a son named Albert provided for in the received pedigrees.
If so, I agree that this makes it less likely that Alice was the mother
of Duke Godfrey I's wife, Ida, and her brother, Bishop Adalbero.

Elsewhere I've already noted that Count Godfrey of Namur served as the
principle witness to a charter of Duke Godfrey I in 1131. So clearly
the two men were closely allied to one another, politically if not by
marriage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 okt 2006 22:32:30

Ah, so Brandenburg and Thiele are condemned as mere secondary sources, while
relying on a tertiary online source which rehashes German authors that you
can't even understand is somehow a better proceeding?

"Reliable pedigrees are built on contemporary evidence, not hasty guesswork.
Relying on late date secondary sources such as Brandenburg and Thiele only
serve to confuse the issue." [Quote from Richardson, trained historian and
professional genalogist, yesterday - cf below].

Peter Stewart




"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162230940.513336.172360@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Hans ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

In his website at
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/nieder_lothringen, Karl-Heinz
Schreiber appears to quote Brandenburg as follows:

"XI. 140-143

siehe Knetsch, Brabant Seite 18 f.

Daß Gottfrieds I. (141) erste Frau nicht, wie noch Knetsch annimmt,
eine Tochter Alberts III. von Namur war, sondern seine Enkelin, Tochter
der Adelais von Namur und Ottos von Chiny, hat bereits Vanderkindere
(Berichtigung im Register zu Band 2, 44) richtig gesehen. Ida und ihr
Bruder Albero, Bischof von Lüttich, waren nach Alberich, S. Seite 23,
550, ex prosapia Namucensi; diese Angabe hat den Irrtum veranlaßt.
Alberich will aber damit nur sagen, daß sie von den Grafen von Namur
abstammten, führt sie auch unter Alberts III. Kindern nicht an. Da
aber Albero und sein Bruder Eustach 1139 (Wauters 2, 216), den Grafen
Gottfried von Namur, Alberts III. Sohn, ihren Oheim nennen, so kann er
nicht ihr Bruder gewesen sein, sondern nur der Bruder ihrer Mutter."
END OF QUOTE

I'm not at all fluent in German. But I believe Mr. Schreiber above
states that Duke Godfrey of Namur (son of Duke Albert III) is called
uncle of a certain Albero and his brother, Eustach, in a record dated
1139, citing Wauters 2, 216. I'm unclear if Schreiber means that this
Albero is the same person as Bishop Albero, the known brother-in-law of
Duke Godfrey I If so, it would obviously mean that Duke Godfrey I's
wife was the niece of Duke Godfrey of Namur. I earlier posted
reference to a charter issued by Duke Godfrey I which was witnessed by
Duke Godfrey of Namur.

Can someone verify the correct translation of Mr. Schreiber's comments?
Also, does anyone have access either to Wauters 2, 216 or to Knetsch,
Brabant Seite 18 f. which are cited by Schreiber.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 okt 2006 23:56:27

The point I made is not a "smear", and of course insults can be
deserved, as those directed at you almost invariably are.

If you have no luck finding a research assistant at the SLC
kindergartens who will take on your futile chore, maybe there is a
local clown school where you could offer tuition in return for the
services of a person more sensible than yourself.

Peter Stewart


Douglas Richardson wrote:
In politics, when you're losing an argument, it looks desperate when
you resort to name calling, smear, and insults. You look desperate,
Peter.

DR

Peter Stewart wrote:
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162228216.423800.319310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I for one would appreciate it if Mr. Stewart provided us an intelligent
synopsis of the evidence at hand, together with the original sources,
if he would be so kind.

No chance - if you need a research assistant, have the decency to pay for
one. I'm sure there are students in SLC with the competence you lack, who
would appreciate the income. Try any kindergarten.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 okt 2006 10:29:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162242620.528265.286470@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dear Hans ~

We actually have confirmation of the Namur connection of Duke Godfrey
I's first wife Ida as indicated by Alberic of Troisfontaines. This
confirmation comes from an English contemporary source. Mr. Moriarty
in The American Geanealogy, 20 (1944): 255-256 points out that Duke
Godfrey I's daughter, Alice (or Adeliza) of Louvain, Queen of England,
referred to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, in England as her
"cognata" [kinswoman]. Moriarty further identified Milicent Marmion as
the daughter of Count Gervase of Rethel, by his wife, Elizabeth,
daughter of Count Godfrey of Namur (son of Count Albert III of Namur).

If Duke Godfrey I's first wife Ida was another daughter of Count
Godfrey of Namur as you have proposed, then Queen Alice and Milicent de
Rethel would have been first cousins, or if you prefer related in the
2nd and 2nd degrees of kindred.

You're correct that the chronology would permit Count Godfrey of Namur
to be the father of Duke Godfrey I's wife, Ida, and her brother, Bishop
Adalbero. Given that Count Godfrey's parents were named Albert and
Ida, certainly it would come as no surprise if we learned that Count
Godfrey had children by those names. You're also correct that Count
Godfrey's sister, Alice of Namur, wife of Otto II, Count of Chiny,
already has a son named Albert provided for in the received pedigrees.
If so, I agree that this makes it less likely that Alice was the mother
of Duke Godfrey I's wife, Ida, and her brother, Bishop Adalbero.

Chronology might permit it, but the evidence simply does not - in fact, it
turns out to be just a bit of hasty guesswork, that has once again seduced
you by offering a neat though false solution to a difficulty.

Count Godfrey of Namur named all his offspring by his second wife Ermessinde
in a charter dated 27 November 1121, that is while Duchess Ida and her
brother Bishop Adalbero were both living, yet neither was amongst them - see
_Actes des comtes de Namur de la première race, 946-1196_, edited by Félix
Rousseau (Brussels, 1936) no. 2 p. 9, "Ego Godefridus comes Namucensis, et
Ermessendis comitissa...annuentibus filiis et filiabus nostris: Adalberto,
Heinrico, Clementia, Beatrice, Adelaide".

All of these are accounted for: Adalberto died ca 1127 leaving his younger
brother Henri the Blind to inherit Luxemburg through their mother in 1136
and Namur from their father in 1139. Bishop Adalbero of Liège lived until
1145; obviously he cannot have been a son of Godfrey's first marriage, that
would have made him a maternal uncle to Milisend de Rethel, since that would
also have made him the heir to Namur. (Note that the problem, sucj as it is,
of the names A(da)lbert and A(da)lbero occurring for brothers arises here
too.) Clementia married Konrad I, duke of Zähringen, Beatrice married Itier
(aka Gontier) the Devout, count of Rethel, and Adelaide married Balduin IV,
count of Hainault, so that none of these daughters could have been Ida under
another name.

It is sensible to consult the primary sources, or at least some
authoritative secondary study, instead of running off into the twilight
after conjectural hares.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 okt 2006 10:39:01

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1162226128.729423.314760@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart schreef:
As for the statement of Alberic, "prosapia" may be used to indicate a
distaff relationship to the counts of Namur,

It could but then again it could very well describe the factual
descent. "Prosapia" points usually to the family, the genus, the
lineage, the agnatic descent.

a distaff relationship to the counts of Namur, that could have been
traced
through the wife of Count Otto II of Chiny.

Why walk the difficult path when one could very easily have said "de
prosapia" of Chiny.

It looks to me that there might be more than meets the eye.

1. According ES VII Tafel 42 count Otto II of Chiny was married twice.
All children are from his second marriage to Adelaide von Namur. Otto
has even two sons with the name Albert: his heir Albert (1097-1162) and
bishop Albero (1136-1145) of Liege. That looks peculiar. Brothers with
the same name are known in later ages but in that period it looks a bit
artificially constructed.
2. Count Godfrey of Namur was married twice. His first marriage to
Sybille around 1087 was later annulled when she ran off (1103) with the
Lord of Coucy. From what I read Godfrey did not divorce his wife but
annulled his marriage. What becomes of the legal status of children
born from an annulled marriage?

I'm not clear what distinction you are making here - there was no civil
divorce or personal authority of a count over these matters, and children
from a marriage dissolved by the Church were usually recognised as
legitimate despite the annulment of their parents' canonical union.

In this case, there was no question of a son born from Godfrey's first
marriage being arbitrarily bastardised by his father without a whisper in
the record, then becoming an important bishop despite the stain. Also, why
would Gervais, count of Rethel, himself formerly a cleric, have chosen to
marry a full sister of the dispossessed son under such lurid circumstances?

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Gjest » 31 okt 2006 13:43:25

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Dear Hans ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

In his website at
http://www.genealogie-mittelalter.de/nieder_lothringen, Karl-Heinz
Schreiber appears to quote Brandenburg as follows:

"XI. 140-143

siehe Knetsch, Brabant Seite 18 f.

Daß Gottfrieds I. (141) erste Frau nicht, wie noch Knetsch annimmt,
eine Tochter Alberts III. von Namur war, sondern seine Enkelin, Tochter
der Adelais von Namur und Ottos von Chiny, hat bereits Vanderkindere
(Berichtigung im Register zu Band 2, 44) richtig gesehen.

That Godfrey I's first wife was not, as Knetsch has it, a daughter of
Albert III of Namur, but his granddaughter, daughter of Adelais of
Namur and Otto of Chiny, was correctly identified by Vanderkindere.

Ida und ihr
Bruder Albero, Bischof von Lüttich, waren nach Alberich, S. Seite 23,
550, ex prosapia Namucensi; diese Angabe hat den Irrtum veranlaßt.
Alberich will aber damit nur sagen, daß sie von den Grafen von Namur
abstammten, führt sie auch unter Alberts III. Kindern nicht an.

Da
aber Albero und sein Bruder Eustach 1139 (Wauters 2, 216), den Grafen
Gottfried von Namur, Alberts III. Sohn, ihren Oheim nennen, so kann er
nicht ihr Bruder gewesen sein, sondern nur der Bruder ihrer Mutter."

But Adelbero and his brother Eustach in 1139 called Count Godfrey of
Namur, Albert III's son, their uncle; thus he cannot have been their
brother, but the brother of their mother.

END OF QUOTE

I'm not at all fluent in German. But I believe Mr. Schreiber above
states that Duke Godfrey of Namur (son of Duke Albert III) is called
uncle of a certain Albero and his brother, Eustach, in a record dated
1139, citing Wauters 2, 216. I'm unclear if Schreiber means that this
Albero is the same person as Bishop Albero, the known brother-in-law of
Duke Godfrey I If so, it would obviously mean that Duke Godfrey I's
wife was the niece of Duke Godfrey of Namur. I earlier posted
reference to a charter issued by Duke Godfrey I which was witnessed by
Duke Godfrey of Namur.

Can someone verify the correct translation of Mr. Schreiber's comments?
Also, does anyone have access either to Wauters 2, 216 or to Knetsch,
Brabant Seite 18 f. which are cited by Schreiber.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 31 okt 2006 17:40:40

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
< That Godfrey I's first wife was not, as Knetsch has it, a daughter of
< Albert III of Namur, but his granddaughter, daughter of Adelais of
< Namur and Otto of Chiny, was correctly identified by Vanderkindere.

< But Adelbero and his brother Eustach in 1139 called Count Godfrey of
< Namur, Albert III's son, their uncle; thus he cannot have been their
< brother, but the brother of their mother.

Thanks so much for providing the English translation for the German
text.

Mr. Schreiber evidently believes that the Adelbero who referred to
Count Godfrey of Namur as his uncle in 1139 is the same individual as
Bishop Adalbero, brother of Duke Godfrey I's wife, ida. If so, I'd
like to see the text of the 1139 document to verify that this is
correct.

Fortunately, Schreiber gives the source for the 1139 document:

Wauters 2, 216

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Kinsfolk of Blanche of Navarre: Brabant, Vermandois, Bau

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 okt 2006 22:41:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1162312840.858214.90170@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
That Godfrey I's first wife was not, as Knetsch has it, a daughter of
Albert III of Namur, but his granddaughter, daughter of Adelais of
Namur and Otto of Chiny, was correctly identified by Vanderkindere.

But Adelbero and his brother Eustach in 1139 called Count Godfrey of
Namur, Albert III's son, their uncle; thus he cannot have been their
brother, but the brother of their mother.

Thanks so much for providing the English translation for the German
text.

Mr. Schreiber evidently believes that the Adelbero who referred to
Count Godfrey of Namur as his uncle in 1139 is the same individual as
Bishop Adalbero, brother of Duke Godfrey I's wife, ida. If so, I'd
like to see the text of the 1139 document to verify that this is
correct.

Fortunately, Schreiber gives the source for the 1139 document:

Wauters 2, 216

And it will be interesting to see how long - and how much help - it takes
before you work out what this means and (if miracles can happen) actually
look it up for yourself.

There is no doubt about the identity, and we have an independent source
giving this relationship that so fascinates you. Of course, that didn't stop
you lapping up the misguided conjecture that Count Godfrey was the bishop's
father. To this point you have not made even a token effort on your own
behalf to check and place into context any of the scraps of evidence that
have been given in this thread, much less to find out more except by
pleading, insulting and cajoling.

You can find these sources for yourself with little more effort than it
would take for you to verify the information if provided by someone else, so
go to it.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Birds » 01 nov 2006 17:00:56

Every now and then it is wise to stand still with what we (think we)
know for certain. That means questioning the results of previous
research in the past. Usually this starts when lose ends, or details no
one else questioned before or that were overlooked, show up. Not
everyone is in the possession of the necessary literature to check
thoughts that arise as attempts are made to explain a peculiarity. We
can either stay silent and let others try to explain the pieces or we
can show the underlying thought process here on the newsgroup in the
hope that other gifted researchers possess a key to further
enlightment. There is nothing wrong with ventilating a working
hypothesis. I'm here on the newsgroup to enhance my knowledge, not
to put forward harebrained suggestions or other remarks of that nature.
If things were clip and clear no hypothesis would be necessary. To get
to that point one must keep an open mind, unbiased by the contributions
from whom what so ever. I have been on the newsgroup now since January
2002 so I'm well aware how the hares hop and hook. So let's stick
to the facts c.q. pieces of information and how they can be explained
in a for everybody satisfying manner.

In previous years I have shown an interest in the comital family of
Namur, see:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 7c4e6595f9

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 3217b92c83

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 2aab2e30c1

In this string I have returned to Namur so to speak. Not on someone's
bidding but to satisfy my own curiosity. As part of the discussion
arose from my hypothetical suggestion it is time again to put in my bit
with regards to the newly presented facts and opinions.

Count Godfrey of Namur named all his offspring by his second wife Ermessinde
in a charter dated 27 November 1121, that is while Duchess Ida and her
brother Bishop Adalbero were both living, yet neither was amongst them - see
Actes des comtes de Namur de la première race, 946-1196_, edited by Félix
Rousseau (Brussels, 1936) no. 2 p. 9, "Ego Godefridus comes Namucensis, et
Ermessendis comitissa...annuentibus filiis et filiabus nostris: Adalberto,
Heinrico, Clementia, Beatrice, Adelaide".
All of these are accounted for: Adalberto died ca 1127 leaving his younger
brother Henri the Blind to inherit Luxemburg through their mother in 1136
and Namur from their father in 1139.

So? Count Godfrey of Namur occurs in a charter with his wife and -
their - children. In 1121 those children were still young and
unmarried as their parents married around 1109. The eldest of his named
children would have been max 11 years and the youngest one min 7 years.
There could even be more but minor children (< 7 years).

So his known daughters from his first marriage and their marriage
partners are not mentioned either. Does that exclude the possibility of
a extra (hypothetical) daughter? No.

I previously assumed that Ida's brother bishop Adalbero would have
been her full brother. In the present known Chiny genealogy we see two
brothers with the same name. If nobody finds fault with that situation
why should it be then the case if we substitute the situation from
Chiny to Namur?

But that strange duplicity need not be. Perhaps the later bishop
Adalbero was not a full brother but a half brother of Ida. The later
bishop might thus been identical with the son Adalbert mentioned in
1121. I saw in the genealogical chart of ES VII Tafel 68 and in Peters
post that the son Adalbert died ca. 1127. How certain can we be of that
fact? Is it a concrete fact or an assumption by a researcher from the
past. Is it an assumption because from 1127 onwards only the in 1121
second mentioned son Henry shows up in the charters with his father?

Does the eldest son have to be dead then? Could he not between
1121-1127 have chosen for a religious career? He certainly would not
have been the first eldest son who chose for that kind of future.
Remember for instance bishop Adalbero of Metz (929-962). He was the
eldest son of count Wigerich and Kunigonde. The name Adalbert/Adalbero
seems to have been very popular in certain families. It sometimes looks
if a son with that name was predestined to become a bishop or something
else high up on the religious ladder.

It looks like the in 1139 mentioned Adalbero has a brother with name
Eustace. They name count Godfrey of Namur as their uncle. But is this
Adalbero identical to bishop Adalbero? If so we can with certainty be
sure. The researcher Schreiber seems to be of that opinion. He refers
to Wauters 2, 216. This reference would seem to be part II, charter 216
(or page 216) of A. Wauters, Table Chronologique des Chartes et
Diplômes Imprimês concernant l'histoire de la Belgique, Bd. 1-10,
1866-1904. Checking the contents of that charter would certainly solve
the present discussion.

According to ES VIII Tafel 42 This brother Eustace is mentioned
1139/1159. He was the advocate of the Hasbengau.

siehe Knetsch, Brabant Seite 18 f.

Knetsch: (translated) His first wife was Ida, daughter of count Albert
III of Namur.
Literature: Chronica Albrici, SS, XXIII, S. 851
Remark: Not likely because of a to near kinship nature and of
chronological reasons

We actually have confirmation of the Namur connection of Duke Godfrey
I's first wife Ida as indicated by Alberic of Troisfontaines. This
confirmation comes from an English contemporary source. Mr. Moriarty
in The American Geanealogy, 20 (1944): 255-256 points out that Duke
Godfrey I's daughter, Alice (or Adeliza) of Louvain, Queen of England,
referred to Milicent, wife of Robert Marmion, in England as her
"cognata" [kinswoman]. Moriarty further identified Milicent Marmion as
the daughter of Count Gervase of Rethel, by his wife, Elizabeth,
daughter of Count Godfrey of Namur (son of Count Albert III of Namur).
If Duke Godfrey I's first wife Ida was another daughter of Count
Godfrey of Namur as you have proposed, then Queen Alice and Milicent de
Rethel would have been first cousins, or if you prefer related in the
2nd and 2nd degrees of kindred.

This is hardly a underwriting of my hypothetical suggestion. The
relationship between queen Alice and Millicent de Rethel would still be
there in the traditional assumption that queen Alice´s mother Ida was
a daughter of count Otto II of Chiny and Adelaide of Namur. Only then
the two ladies would be cousins removed in an extra generation (second
cousins?).
I'm not clear what distinction you are making here - there was no civil
divorce or personal authority of a count over these matters, and children
from a marriage dissolved by the Church were usually recognised as
legitimate despite the annulment of their parents' canonical union.

My knowledge in casu was insufficient. It must be due to the info I
read, speaking of annulment instead of a divorce. There was a
possibility that the Church law made a distinction between the two
concepts.

In this case, there was no question of a son born from Godfrey's first
marriage being arbitrarily bastardised by his father without a whisper in
the record, then becoming an important bishop despite the stain. Also, why
would Gervais, count of Rethel, himself formerly a cleric, have chosen to
marry a full sister of the dispossessed son under such lurid circumstances?

True. Point taken. If Gervais married his wife Elisabeth after her
hypothetical sister Ida had already been married he would have become a
brother in law to count Godfrey I of Louvain, duke of lower
Lotharingia. As the circumstances as you say were not so negative
(because of the annulment) as I might have thought, the explanation
that I came up with can be dropped.

It means also that there was no problem for a son from this union to
become a bishop. And as I pointed out earlier in this post the son
Adalbero need not be from his fathers first marriage. To cut short the
argumentation, the textual content of the charter of 1139 will provide
certainty on the generational position of bischop Adalbero of Liège

With regards,
Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart

Re: Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 nov 2006 11:30:03

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1162396856.236451.24670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Every now and then it is wise to stand still with what we (think we)
know for certain. That means questioning the results of previous
research in the past. Usually this starts when lose ends, or details no
one else questioned before or that were overlooked, show up. Not
everyone is in the possession of the necessary literature to check
thoughts that arise as attempts are made to explain a peculiarity. We
can either stay silent and let others try to explain the pieces or we
can show the underlying thought process here on the newsgroup in the
hope that other gifted researchers possess a key to further
enlightment. There is nothing wrong with ventilating a working
hypothesis. I'm here on the newsgroup to enhance my knowledge, not
to put forward harebrained suggestions or other remarks of that nature.

It is apparent from these remarks - when justification of your posts is not
needed in the first place - that you are looking for offense where none
exists, and yet managing to find some.

The comment of mine that I assume partly prompted yours above was addressed
not to you but to Douglas Richardson, as follows:

"It is sensible to consult the primary sources, or at least some
authoritative secondary study, instead of running off into the twilight
after conjectural hares."

Hares of course have qualities apart from their brains, such as fleetness of
foot and attrractiveness to coursing dogs, and here the point was simply
about their capacity to distract from the pursuit of other game. Expression
does not work to narrow and rigid rules: every analogy or metaphor cannot be
iron-clad in every possible context through all conceivable sense, in
English, Dutch or any language. If I mean to call something hare-brained,
including a hare, I shall do so. Please remember that Richardson has
proclaimed himself a professional genealogist, and that he has uncritical
admirers in this newsgroup, so that he should be held to appropriately
professional standards in the checking and interpretation of evidence. That
does not apply to all SGM members, most of whom do not pose as experts.

No-one has set out to insult you or to suggest that you are less entitled
than anyone else to speculate. Like everyone else, if you do this you need
to be prepared to learn if and how your conjectures may be wrong, and this
is not likely to be done with much ceremony in an internet newgroup where
responses are concentrated to fit the time that people can devote to it.

If you are given sufficient reason to see that a proposal is unwarranted,
but stick to it anyway, that is your prerogative. In this case, treating
Bishop Adalbero and his sister Duchess Ida as jigsaw pieces that can be
fitted into a particular family, largely on the strength of a rather vague
phrase from just one source, taken out of context anyway (the passage
included both the Chiny and Namur families) should not have been followed by
a self-respecting professional without due research. Richardson tends to
imagine that whatever he doesn't know is not known at all: however, a good
deal is recorded about Adalbero that flatly does not fit a picture of his
being Count Godfrey's son.

If things were clip and clear no hypothesis would be necessary. To get
to that point one must keep an open mind, unbiased by the contributions
from whom what so ever. I have been on the newsgroup now since January
2002 so I'm well aware how the hares hop and hook. So let's stick
to the facts c.q. pieces of information and how they can be explained
in a for everybody satisfying manner.

In previous years I have shown an interest in the comital family of
Namur, see:

<links snipped>

In this string I have returned to Namur so to speak. Not on someone's
bidding but to satisfy my own curiosity. As part of the discussion
arose from my hypothetical suggestion it is time again to put in my bit
with regards to the newly presented facts and opinions.

Given your interest over years in this lineage, you ought to realise that a
great deal of scholarship has gone into it, through centuries. It is
scarcely by accident that no scholar of note has upheld the genealogy that
you put forward. Would it not strike you as somewhat weird if it took until
2006 for someone who hasn't studied the sources to hit on the unaccountably
overlooked solution? Why exactly do you think no-one has suggested before
that Count Godfrey was perhaps father to Adalbero and Ida? A certain
reserve, or even modesty, in approach to puzzles that many others have
looked into doesn't go astray in genealogy, as in other fields of enquiry.

In this string I have returned to Namur so to speak. Not on someone's
bidding but to satisfy my own curiosity. As part of the discussion
arose from my hypothetical suggestion it is time again to put in my bit
with regards to the newly presented facts and opinions.

[I wrote:]
Count Godfrey of Namur named all his offspring by his second wife
Ermessinde
in a charter dated 27 November 1121, that is while Duchess Ida and her
brother Bishop Adalbero were both living, yet neither was amongst them -
see
Actes des comtes de Namur de la première race, 946-1196_, edited by
Félix
Rousseau (Brussels, 1936) no. 2 p. 9, "Ego Godefridus comes Namucensis,
et
Ermessendis comitissa...annuentibus filiis et filiabus nostris:
Adalberto,
Heinrico, Clementia, Beatrice, Adelaide".
All of these are accounted for: Adalberto died ca 1127 leaving his
younger
brother Henri the Blind to inherit Luxemburg through their mother in
1136
and Namur from their father in 1139.

So? Count Godfrey of Namur occurs in a charter with his wife and -
their - children. In 1121 those children were still young and
unmarried as their parents married around 1109. The eldest of his named
children would have been max 11 years and the youngest one min 7 years.
There could even be more but minor children (< 7 years).

No, there were not. I gave you the statement from the horse's mouth, but
this is not the only evidence. I am not going to write a dissertation on
this family to order, and limited the evidence to one citation with some
supporting comments that were enough to substantiate my point. Adalbero and
Ida were not Count Godfrey's children, either by his first wife Sibylle of
Porcien or by his second wife Ermesinde of Luxemburg.

So his known daughters from his first marriage and their marriage
partners are not mentioned either. Does that exclude the possibility of
a extra (hypothetical) daughter? No.

If Ida had been Godfrey's daughter her mother would necessarily have been
his first wife, since Ida was herself married around the time his second
marriage took place, probably before.

I previously assumed that Ida's brother bishop Adalbero would have
been her full brother.

If they had been offspring of Count Godfrey (as they were not) and legitmate
(as of course they both were) they must have been full siblings, since
Adalbero was also not a child of Ermesinde of Luxemburg: he became primicer
of Metz in 1131, and was certainly born well before November 1121 when as
seen already he was not mentioned in Count Godfrey's charter naming his
children by Ermesinde. He was NOT the same as Adalbert - see further below.

In the present known Chiny genealogy we see two
brothers with the same name. If nobody finds fault with that situation
why should it be then the case if we substitute the situation from
Chiny to Namur?

At the end of the 11th century Adalbero and Adalbertus were not considered
to be the same name. So far no-one has noted a difference between the
families on this point, but now that you bring it up, there was one: both
names can be accounted for in the onomastic of the Chiny family but not in
that of Namur. Count Otto II of Chiny, the putative father of Bishop
Adalbero and Ida (and their sister Countess Oda of Duras who has escaped
notice, along with four others more definitely his) had a paternal
half-brother named Adalbero, bishop of Verdun; Otto's wife Adelais was
daughter of Adalbert III of Namur. There is no mystery in this couple having
two sons named Adalbert and Adalbero respectively. The same does not apply
to Count Godfrey of Namur, brother of Adelais, in whose family there is no
recorded Adalbero.

But that strange duplicity need not be. Perhaps the later bishop
Adalbero was not a full brother but a half brother of Ida. The later
bishop might thus been identical with the son Adalbert mentioned in
1121. I saw in the genealogical chart of ES VII Tafel 68 and in Peters
post that the son Adalbert died ca. 1127. How certain can we be of that
fact? Is it a concrete fact or an assumption by a researcher from the
past. Is it an assumption because from 1127 onwards only the in 1121
second mentioned son Henry shows up in the charters with his father?

We know enough about these matters from several sources to rule out this
suggestion, but I am not going to provide a full account here to save
Richardson from doing his own work. For instance, Giselbert of Mons
specifically says that Count Godfrey's son Adalbert died young ("Godefridus
comes Namurcensis...de secunda uxore, Ermesende nomine, duos habuit filios,
Henricum scilicet comitem sepedictum et Albertum, qui juvenis decessit, et
filias tres" [By his second wife, named Ermesinde, Count Godfrey of Namur
had two sons, Count Henri, frequently mentioned, and Albert who died young,
and three daughters]). Please note, other sources verify this.

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters by his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other to a
nobleman at Epinoy)]. These were Elizabeth, wife of Count Gervais of Rethel
(although Roger was used in his family and may have occurred as a double
name) and Flandrina, wife of Hugo, seigneur of Epinoy. NB no third daughter,
no Duchess Ida - and please note that other sources confirm this
information.

Does the eldest son have to be dead then? Could he not between
1121-1127 have chosen for a religious career? He certainly would not
have been the first eldest son who chose for that kind of future.
Remember for instance bishop Adalbero of Metz (929-962). He was the
eldest son of count Wigerich and Kunigonde. The name Adalbert/Adalbero
seems to have been very popular in certain families. It sometimes looks
if a son with that name was predestined to become a bishop or something
else high up on the religious ladder.

Bishop Adalbero did not leave off being heir to a count to take holy orders,
and much less did he die young. He served in the chapter of Metz for five
years before being appointed to the see of Liège. We are specifically told
that he was elected due to his connection with both Count Henri of Namur and
Duke Godfrey of Lower Lorraine (also count of Louvain), because he could
bring an even-handedness to his dealings with these local magnates. Had he
been a brother of one and brother-in-law of the other, this would have been
a long-shot: in the event, he fell out with Henri of Namur within a short
time. This, like the appointment in the first place, is considerably more
plausible if they were only cousins, not siblings.

It looks like the in 1139 mentioned Adalbero has a brother with name
Eustace. They name count Godfrey of Namur as their uncle. But is this
Adalbero identical to bishop Adalbero? If so we can with certainty be
sure. The researcher Schreiber seems to be of that opinion. He refers
to Wauters 2, 216. This reference would seem to be part II, charter 216
(or page 216) of A. Wauters, Table Chronologique des Chartes et
Diplômes Imprimês concernant l'histoire de la Belgique, Bd. 1-10,
1866-1904. Checking the contents of that charter would certainly solve
the present discussion.

It might do, but if this could be considered certain do you really think
that Carl Knetsch and other scholars who make Count Godfrey and Bishop
Adalbero brothers would have ignored the fact, indicated in such a prominent
publication?

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2006 12:10:34

In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters by his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other to a
nobleman at Epinoy)].

I am not concerned here with the genealogy but with the use of words, in
particular 'nobili' translated as nobleman.

Part of the meaning is 'nobilis' is 'well-known' and it easy to see how
this developed from a statement of fact about the local gaffer to a word
to imply a superior class of being. What I wonder is when this
development of meaning occurred and whether there was any special
event(s) that led to this development?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Peter Stewart

Nobilis [was Re: Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège]

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 nov 2006 13:56:02

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:81826f7f4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters by
his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore
duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero
nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur
had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other to a
nobleman at Epinoy)].

I am not concerned here with the genealogy but with the use of words, in
particular 'nobili' translated as nobleman.

Part of the meaning is 'nobilis' is 'well-known' and it easy to see how
this developed from a statement of fact about the local gaffer to a word
to imply a superior class of being. What I wonder is when this
development of meaning occurred and whether there was any special
event(s) that led to this development?

I can't give a definite answer off the top of my head, but I would guess
that this must have been very early in the medieval era - the famous line
from Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, "Nobilis non vilis, cuius et nomen et
genus scitur" (the man known both by name and family is noble, not base) may
have been influential, and at any rate suggests that the meaning had started
to shift by the late 6th century.

The word nobilis is in a published fascicule of "Novum glossarium", that
ought to show the development, especially of the personal style "nobilis
vir", but I don't have a copy at home.

Peter Stewart

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Nobilis [was Re: Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège]

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2006 16:22:28

In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:81826f7f4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters by
his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore
duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero
nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur
had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other to a
nobleman at Epinoy)].

I am not concerned here with the genealogy but with the use of words, in
particular 'nobili' translated as nobleman.

Part of the meaning is 'nobilis' is 'well-known' and it easy to see how
this developed from a statement of fact about the local gaffer to a word
to imply a superior class of being. What I wonder is when this
development of meaning occurred and whether there was any special
event(s) that led to this development?

I can't give a definite answer off the top of my head, but I would guess
that this must have been very early in the medieval era - the famous line
from Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, "Nobilis non vilis, cuius et nomen et
genus scitur" (the man known both by name and family is noble, not base) may
have been influential, and at any rate suggests that the meaning had started
to shift by the late 6th century.

Thanks. 6th century is much earlier than I had imagined.

The word nobilis is in a published fascicule of "Novum glossarium",
that ought to show the development, especially of the personal style
"nobilis vir", but I don't have a copy at home.

Not cheap: http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/cat/dml.html


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Peter Stewart

Re: Nobilis [was Re: Adalbero of Namur, bishop of Liège]

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 nov 2006 22:34:02

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:ad92867f4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> wrote in message
news:81826f7f4e.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 2 Nov, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters
by
his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore
duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero
nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur
had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other
to a
nobleman at Epinoy)].

I am not concerned here with the genealogy but with the use of words,
in
particular 'nobili' translated as nobleman.

Part of the meaning is 'nobilis' is 'well-known' and it easy to see how
this developed from a statement of fact about the local gaffer to a
word
to imply a superior class of being. What I wonder is when this
development of meaning occurred and whether there was any special
event(s) that led to this development?

I can't give a definite answer off the top of my head, but I would guess
that this must have been very early in the medieval era - the famous line
from Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, "Nobilis non vilis, cuius et nomen
et
genus scitur" (the man known both by name and family is noble, not base)
may
have been influential, and at any rate suggests that the meaning had
started
to shift by the late 6th century.

Thanks. 6th century is much earlier than I had imagined.

The word nobilis is in a published fascicule of "Novum glossarium",
that ought to show the development, especially of the personal style
"nobilis vir", but I don't have a copy at home.

Not cheap: http://www.britac.ac.uk/pubs/cat/dml.html

Well, none of the reference works for medieval Latin can be cheap,
considering the amount of work that goes into them - but this is not the
publication I meant since it draws only from British sources.

See http://www.aibl.fr/fr/travaux/medieval/ducange.html for the background
to "Novum glossarium", i.e. the new Du Cange with universal coverage of
sources, and http://www.irht.cnrs.fr/recherche/lexico.htm for a list of the
published fascicules.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 11 nov 2006 11:07:42

Albéron II works just fine, Peter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 12:51:02

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163239662.385731.218710@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Albéron II works just fine, Peter.

No, Albero is the appropriate spelling in English if you prefer this form.

Albéron is one of several equally acceptable versions of his name, that
happens to be in French usage - as this is a language you patently do not
understand, why pose as being familiar with it?

If you are not careful you will end up as pretentious as Charles Crawley
with his absurd polyglot snippeting in the Medieval Lands database.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charters of Albéron II, Bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 11 nov 2006 12:52:02

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3Si5h.62844$rP1.52713@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1163239662.385731.218710@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Albéron II works just fine, Peter.

No, Albero is the appropriate spelling in English if you prefer this form.

Albéron is one of several equally acceptable versions of his name, that
happens to be in French usage - as this is a language you patently do not
understand, why pose as being familiar with it?

If you are not careful you will end up as pretentious as Charles Crawley
with his absurd polyglot snippeting in the Medieval Lands database.

Not quite - his work is creepy-crawly indeed, but the person's name is
Charles Cawley.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Oda of Duras sister of Adalbero, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Birds » 17 nov 2006 08:54:05

Is there something more known on the person of countes Oda of Duras,
sister of the well known Adalbero, bishop of Liège, then is stated in
ES VII Tafel 42 (Chiny) and VIII Tafel 25 (Duras). She must thus have
been a sister of Albero's brother Eustacius to.

I'm interested in the time frame in which she married count Giselbert
of Duras and in possible descendants.

A daughter of count Giselbert of Duras first marriage with a Gertrud,
is supposed to have married Mainer(us), lord of Cortessem. A daughter
of Mainer was possibly married to Dirk of Altena (1143-1189), thus
bringing Cortessem to this family when the male branch of Cortessem
expired. The name Eustachius pops up in the 13th century in a family
associated the the Dutch Lords of Altena.

Hans Vogels


Peter Stewart schreef:

Comments interspersed:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1162396856.236451.24670@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Every now and then it is wise to stand still with what we (think we)
know for certain. That means questioning the results of previous
research in the past. Usually this starts when lose ends, or details no
one else questioned before or that were overlooked, show up. Not
everyone is in the possession of the necessary literature to check
thoughts that arise as attempts are made to explain a peculiarity. We
can either stay silent and let others try to explain the pieces or we
can show the underlying thought process here on the newsgroup in the
hope that other gifted researchers possess a key to further
enlightment. There is nothing wrong with ventilating a working
hypothesis. I'm here on the newsgroup to enhance my knowledge, not
to put forward harebrained suggestions or other remarks of that nature.

It is apparent from these remarks - when justification of your posts is not
needed in the first place - that you are looking for offense where none
exists, and yet managing to find some.

The comment of mine that I assume partly prompted yours above was addressed
not to you but to Douglas Richardson, as follows:

"It is sensible to consult the primary sources, or at least some
authoritative secondary study, instead of running off into the twilight
after conjectural hares."

Hares of course have qualities apart from their brains, such as fleetness of
foot and attrractiveness to coursing dogs, and here the point was simply
about their capacity to distract from the pursuit of other game. Expression
does not work to narrow and rigid rules: every analogy or metaphor cannot be
iron-clad in every possible context through all conceivable sense, in
English, Dutch or any language. If I mean to call something hare-brained,
including a hare, I shall do so. Please remember that Richardson has
proclaimed himself a professional genealogist, and that he has uncritical
admirers in this newsgroup, so that he should be held to appropriately
professional standards in the checking and interpretation of evidence. That
does not apply to all SGM members, most of whom do not pose as experts.

No-one has set out to insult you or to suggest that you are less entitled
than anyone else to speculate. Like everyone else, if you do this you need
to be prepared to learn if and how your conjectures may be wrong, and this
is not likely to be done with much ceremony in an internet newgroup where
responses are concentrated to fit the time that people can devote to it.

If you are given sufficient reason to see that a proposal is unwarranted,
but stick to it anyway, that is your prerogative. In this case, treating
Bishop Adalbero and his sister Duchess Ida as jigsaw pieces that can be
fitted into a particular family, largely on the strength of a rather vague
phrase from just one source, taken out of context anyway (the passage
included both the Chiny and Namur families) should not have been followed by
a self-respecting professional without due research. Richardson tends to
imagine that whatever he doesn't know is not known at all: however, a good
deal is recorded about Adalbero that flatly does not fit a picture of his
being Count Godfrey's son.

If things were clip and clear no hypothesis would be necessary. To get
to that point one must keep an open mind, unbiased by the contributions
from whom what so ever. I have been on the newsgroup now since January
2002 so I'm well aware how the hares hop and hook. So let's stick
to the facts c.q. pieces of information and how they can be explained
in a for everybody satisfying manner.

In previous years I have shown an interest in the comital family of
Namur, see:

links snipped

In this string I have returned to Namur so to speak. Not on someone's
bidding but to satisfy my own curiosity. As part of the discussion
arose from my hypothetical suggestion it is time again to put in my bit
with regards to the newly presented facts and opinions.

Given your interest over years in this lineage, you ought to realise that a
great deal of scholarship has gone into it, through centuries. It is
scarcely by accident that no scholar of note has upheld the genealogy that
you put forward. Would it not strike you as somewhat weird if it took until
2006 for someone who hasn't studied the sources to hit on the unaccountably
overlooked solution? Why exactly do you think no-one has suggested before
that Count Godfrey was perhaps father to Adalbero and Ida? A certain
reserve, or even modesty, in approach to puzzles that many others have
looked into doesn't go astray in genealogy, as in other fields of enquiry.

In this string I have returned to Namur so to speak. Not on someone's
bidding but to satisfy my own curiosity. As part of the discussion
arose from my hypothetical suggestion it is time again to put in my bit
with regards to the newly presented facts and opinions.

[I wrote:]
Count Godfrey of Namur named all his offspring by his second wife
Ermessinde
in a charter dated 27 November 1121, that is while Duchess Ida and her
brother Bishop Adalbero were both living, yet neither was amongst them -
see
Actes des comtes de Namur de la première race, 946-1196_, edited by
Félix
Rousseau (Brussels, 1936) no. 2 p. 9, "Ego Godefridus comes Namucensis,
et
Ermessendis comitissa...annuentibus filiis et filiabus nostris:
Adalberto,
Heinrico, Clementia, Beatrice, Adelaide".
All of these are accounted for: Adalberto died ca 1127 leaving his
younger
brother Henri the Blind to inherit Luxemburg through their mother in
1136
and Namur from their father in 1139.

So? Count Godfrey of Namur occurs in a charter with his wife and -
their - children. In 1121 those children were still young and
unmarried as their parents married around 1109. The eldest of his named
children would have been max 11 years and the youngest one min 7 years.
There could even be more but minor children (< 7 years).

No, there were not. I gave you the statement from the horse's mouth, but
this is not the only evidence. I am not going to write a dissertation on
this family to order, and limited the evidence to one citation with some
supporting comments that were enough to substantiate my point. Adalbero and
Ida were not Count Godfrey's children, either by his first wife Sibylle of
Porcien or by his second wife Ermesinde of Luxemburg.

So his known daughters from his first marriage and their marriage
partners are not mentioned either. Does that exclude the possibility of
a extra (hypothetical) daughter? No.

If Ida had been Godfrey's daughter her mother would necessarily have been
his first wife, since Ida was herself married around the time his second
marriage took place, probably before.

I previously assumed that Ida's brother bishop Adalbero would have
been her full brother.

If they had been offspring of Count Godfrey (as they were not) and legitmate
(as of course they both were) they must have been full siblings, since
Adalbero was also not a child of Ermesinde of Luxemburg: he became primicer
of Metz in 1131, and was certainly born well before November 1121 when as
seen already he was not mentioned in Count Godfrey's charter naming his
children by Ermesinde. He was NOT the same as Adalbert - see further below.

In the present known Chiny genealogy we see two
brothers with the same name. If nobody finds fault with that situation
why should it be then the case if we substitute the situation from
Chiny to Namur?

At the end of the 11th century Adalbero and Adalbertus were not considered
to be the same name. So far no-one has noted a difference between the
families on this point, but now that you bring it up, there was one: both
names can be accounted for in the onomastic of the Chiny family but not in
that of Namur. Count Otto II of Chiny, the putative father of Bishop
Adalbero and Ida (and their sister Countess Oda of Duras who has escaped
notice, along with four others more definitely his) had a paternal
half-brother named Adalbero, bishop of Verdun; Otto's wife Adelais was
daughter of Adalbert III of Namur. There is no mystery in this couple having
two sons named Adalbert and Adalbero respectively. The same does not apply
to Count Godfrey of Namur, brother of Adelais, in whose family there is no
recorded Adalbero.

But that strange duplicity need not be. Perhaps the later bishop
Adalbero was not a full brother but a half brother of Ida. The later
bishop might thus been identical with the son Adalbert mentioned in
1121. I saw in the genealogical chart of ES VII Tafel 68 and in Peters
post that the son Adalbert died ca. 1127. How certain can we be of that
fact? Is it a concrete fact or an assumption by a researcher from the
past. Is it an assumption because from 1127 onwards only the in 1121
second mentioned son Henry shows up in the charters with his father?

We know enough about these matters from several sources to rule out this
suggestion, but I am not going to provide a full account here to save
Richardson from doing his own work. For instance, Giselbert of Mons
specifically says that Count Godfrey's son Adalbert died young ("Godefridus
comes Namurcensis...de secunda uxore, Ermesende nomine, duos habuit filios,
Henricum scilicet comitem sepedictum et Albertum, qui juvenis decessit, et
filias tres" [By his second wife, named Ermesinde, Count Godfrey of Namur
had two sons, Count Henri, frequently mentioned, and Albert who died young,
and three daughters]). Please note, other sources verify this.

Giselbert also tells us directly that Count Godfrey had two daughters by his
first marriage ("Godefridus comes Namurcensis...De prima quidem uxore duas
habuit filias, quarum una domino Rogero de Roseto nupsit, alia vero nupsit
cuidam nobili apud Spinoit" [By his first wife, Count Godfrey of Namur had
two daughters, one of whom was married to Roger of Rethel, the other to a
nobleman at Epinoy)]. These were Elizabeth, wife of Count Gervais of Rethel
(although Roger was used in his family and may have occurred as a double
name) and Flandrina, wife of Hugo, seigneur of Epinoy. NB no third daughter,
no Duchess Ida - and please note that other sources confirm this
information.

Does the eldest son have to be dead then? Could he not between
1121-1127 have chosen for a religious career? He certainly would not
have been the first eldest son who chose for that kind of future.
Remember for instance bishop Adalbero of Metz (929-962). He was the
eldest son of count Wigerich and Kunigonde. The name Adalbert/Adalbero
seems to have been very popular in certain families. It sometimes looks
if a son with that name was predestined to become a bishop or something
else high up on the religious ladder.

Bishop Adalbero did not leave off being heir to a count to take holy orders,
and much less did he die young. He served in the chapter of Metz for five
years before being appointed to the see of Liège. We are specifically told
that he was elected due to his connection with both Count Henri of Namur and
Duke Godfrey of Lower Lorraine (also count of Louvain), because he could
bring an even-handedness to his dealings with these local magnates. Had he
been a brother of one and brother-in-law of the other, this would have been
a long-shot: in the event, he fell out with Henri of Namur within a short
time. This, like the appointment in the first place, is considerably more
plausible if they were only cousins, not siblings.

It looks like the in 1139 mentioned Adalbero has a brother with name
Eustace. They name count Godfrey of Namur as their uncle. But is this
Adalbero identical to bishop Adalbero? If so we can with certainty be
sure. The researcher Schreiber seems to be of that opinion. He refers
to Wauters 2, 216. This reference would seem to be part II, charter 216
(or page 216) of A. Wauters, Table Chronologique des Chartes et
Diplômes Imprimês concernant l'histoire de la Belgique, Bd. 1-10,
1866-1904. Checking the contents of that charter would certainly solve
the present discussion.

It might do, but if this could be considered certain do you really think
that Carl Knetsch and other scholars who make Count Godfrey and Bishop
Adalbero brothers would have ignored the fact, indicated in such a prominent
publication?

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Oda of Duras sister of Adalbero, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 nov 2006 06:39:02

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1163750045.694688.259750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there something more known on the person of countes Oda of Duras,
sister of the well known Adalbero, bishop of Liège, then is stated in
ES VII Tafel 42 (Chiny) and VIII Tafel 25 (Duras). She must thus have
been a sister of Albero's brother Eustacius to.

Nothing more that I know of - the first place to look for details would be
the cartulary of Saint-Trond abbey, where her husband was advocate. This was
edited by Charles Piot & published in two volumes in the 1870s by the
Commission royale d'histoire, but I don't have immediate access to a copy.

I'm interested in the time frame in which she married count Giselbert
of Duras and in possible descendants.

They were married after the death of Count Giselbert's first wife, Gertrud,
in 1114 as correctly given in ES VI Tafel 60 (I don't have a copy of volume
VIII).

A daughter of count Giselbert of Duras first marriage with a Gertrud,
is supposed to have married Mainer(us), lord of Cortessem. A daughter
of Mainer was possibly married to Dirk of Altena (1143-1189), thus
bringing Cortessem to this family when the male branch of Cortessem
expired. The name Eustachius pops up in the 13th century in a family
associated the the Dutch Lords of Altena.

This is an extremely long, and loose, bow to draw - the name Eustachius was
by no means rare around the time and place in question, and there must have
been many ways for it to come into a particular family by the 13th century.

Peter Stewart

Birds

Re: Oda of Duras sister of Adalbero, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Birds » 19 nov 2006 12:25:39

It indeed looks like a longshot. The name Eustachius (Staas/Staasken)
is frequent in that period in the Belgian and North France region. To
me the eldest mentioning of the name known in the Low Countries is in
1247 the knight Eustachius, lord of Brakel. Since then the name
Eustachius was passed from generation to the next generation for 150
years, and passed on to junior branches and through female descendants.

The Van Brakels used two backwards standing salmons in their arms, just
like the Van Altena's, lords of Altena, Cortessem, Cranendonk, etc.
They were vassal of the lords of Altena. As there are younger brothers
known of the main branch Altena, the possibility exists that the Van
Brakels descent from one. The eldest vassel with the name Van Brakel
known was a Cesarius (Saris) of Brakel witness in 1212 for Dirk II of
Altena.

It is tempting to regard the name Cesarius as a incidental mistaken
version of the name Eustachius, but the name Cesarius is known as an
existing Dutch name dating from the early 14th century. As the 13th and
12th Dutch nobility is becoming more and more an open book it is
intriging to see a new name appear on the scene without an explanation.
Nearly all 13th and 14th naming in the nobility can be explained
through naming customs and transfer through descendancy.

Hans Vogels

Peter Stewart schreef:

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1163750045.694688.259750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is there something more known on the person of countes Oda of Duras,
sister of the well known Adalbero, bishop of Liège, then is stated in
ES VII Tafel 42 (Chiny) and VIII Tafel 25 (Duras). She must thus have
been a sister of Albero's brother Eustacius to.

Nothing more that I know of - the first place to look for details would be
the cartulary of Saint-Trond abbey, where her husband was advocate. This was
edited by Charles Piot & published in two volumes in the 1870s by the
Commission royale d'histoire, but I don't have immediate access to a copy.

I'm interested in the time frame in which she married count Giselbert
of Duras and in possible descendants.

They were married after the death of Count Giselbert's first wife, Gertrud,
in 1114 as correctly given in ES VI Tafel 60 (I don't have a copy of volume
VIII).

A daughter of count Giselbert of Duras first marriage with a Gertrud,
is supposed to have married Mainer(us), lord of Cortessem. A daughter
of Mainer was possibly married to Dirk of Altena (1143-1189), thus
bringing Cortessem to this family when the male branch of Cortessem
expired. The name Eustachius pops up in the 13th century in a family
associated the the Dutch Lords of Altena.

This is an extremely long, and loose, bow to draw - the name Eustachius was
by no means rare around the time and place in question, and there must have
been many ways for it to come into a particular family by the 13th century.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Oda of Duras sister of Adalbero, bishop of Liège

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 nov 2006 03:56:01

"Birds" <h.vogels6@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:1163935539.629864.69080@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
It indeed looks like a longshot. The name Eustachius (Staas/Staasken)
is frequent in that period in the Belgian and North France region. To
me the eldest mentioning of the name known in the Low Countries is
in 1247 the knight Eustachius, lord of Brakel. Since then the name
Eustachius was passed from generation to the next generation for 150
years, and passed on to junior branches and through female descendants.

The Van Brakels used two backwards standing salmons in their arms,
just like the Van Altena's, lords of Altena, Cortessem, Cranendonk, etc.
They were vassal of the lords of Altena. As there are younger brothers
known of the main branch Altena, the possibility exists that the Van
Brakels descent from one. The eldest vassel with the name Van Brakel
known was a Cesarius (Saris) of Brakel witness in 1212 for Dirk II of
Altena.

It is tempting to regard the name Cesarius as a incidental mistaken
version of the name Eustachius, but the name Cesarius is known as an
existing Dutch name dating from the early 14th century. As the 13th and
12th Dutch nobility is becoming more and more an open book it is
intriging to see a new name appear on the scene without an explanation.
Nearly all 13th and 14th naming in the nobility can be explained
through naming customs and transfer through descendancy.

This name very probably does not need such an explanation - a
straightforward interest in St Cesarius is the likeliest reason behind its
appearance. He was bishop of Arles in the early 6th century and made the
regulations for the first community of nuns in Gaul, to be headed by his
sister.

Perhaps the reform and spreading of convents in the course of the 12th
century brought him back to attention, leading to a devotion in some
families, or else possibly a relic of St Cesarius himself was brought into
the area of Brakel not long before the birth of Saris.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»