Giselbert of Wallerfangen
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Stewart Baldwin
Giselbert of Wallerfangen
A while back, I mentioned concerns about the parentage of Otgiva, wife
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.
Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.
Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.
The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)
Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
Stewart Baldwin
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.
Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.
Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.
The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)
Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
Stewart Baldwin
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
In article <fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com>,
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
<...>
I don't know the historiography here at all, but in a vacuum your
analysis seems perfectly appropriate and I would immediately try to find
the basis for Hirsch's doubts about any issue for the Pavia-slain
Giselbert. Certainly a 'iuvenis' could have had issue: Duby famously
showed how this could be and was applied to middle-aged men who were yet
to come into a landed position, or who were otherwise in the shadow of
elders or siblings. Even Prince Charles could still be called a 'youth'
in this sense.
The issue of the use or misuse of territorial designation is also
interesting and your take is plausible: 'of Luxemburg' is an accretion
that may well have been a product of anachronistic and misleading
application of toponymic surnames. On a related note, I'm interested
to see 'pagus' and 'comitatus' distinguished in these passages: in
Western contemporary Mediterranean documents with which I'm familiar,
'pagus' remains a neutral territorial unit, and 'comitatus' is used more
or less for fiscal or demesne properties belonging to a count; since
plenty of comital ambits were understood as encompassing more than one
pagus, such a scenario is perfectly plausible in those terms.
And what was the prior and subsequent history of the 'county' of
'Wallerfangen' anyway? It is not necessary, I suppose, to explain shy
Otgiva might not have brought an interest in these particular places to
her husband and issue?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
<...>
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
I don't know the historiography here at all, but in a vacuum your
analysis seems perfectly appropriate and I would immediately try to find
the basis for Hirsch's doubts about any issue for the Pavia-slain
Giselbert. Certainly a 'iuvenis' could have had issue: Duby famously
showed how this could be and was applied to middle-aged men who were yet
to come into a landed position, or who were otherwise in the shadow of
elders or siblings. Even Prince Charles could still be called a 'youth'
in this sense.
The issue of the use or misuse of territorial designation is also
interesting and your take is plausible: 'of Luxemburg' is an accretion
that may well have been a product of anachronistic and misleading
application of toponymic surnames. On a related note, I'm interested
to see 'pagus' and 'comitatus' distinguished in these passages: in
Western contemporary Mediterranean documents with which I'm familiar,
'pagus' remains a neutral territorial unit, and 'comitatus' is used more
or less for fiscal or demesne properties belonging to a count; since
plenty of comital ambits were understood as encompassing more than one
pagus, such a scenario is perfectly plausible in those terms.
And what was the prior and subsequent history of the 'county' of
'Wallerfangen' anyway? It is not necessary, I suppose, to explain shy
Otgiva might not have brought an interest in these particular places to
her husband and issue?
Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-1203B1.20461708112006@news.west.earthlink.net...
No, Nat - he was born an old woman.
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-1203B1.20461708112006@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com>,
Stewart Baldwin <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote:
...
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
I don't know the historiography here at all, but in a vacuum your
analysis seems perfectly appropriate and I would immediately try to find
the basis for Hirsch's doubts about any issue for the Pavia-slain
Giselbert. Certainly a 'iuvenis' could have had issue: Duby famously
showed how this could be and was applied to middle-aged men who were yet
to come into a landed position, or who were otherwise in the shadow of
elders or siblings. Even Prince Charles could still be called a 'youth'
in this sense.
No, Nat - he was born an old woman.
Peter Stewart
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:46:18 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
Of prior history, I know only of count Egilolf, already mentioned in
my previous posting. I know of no other reference to the "county" of
Wallerfangen.
Stewart Baldwin
<nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
And what was the prior and subsequent history of the 'county' of
'Wallerfangen' anyway? It is not necessary, I suppose, to explain shy
Otgiva might not have brought an interest in these particular places to
her husband and issue?
Of prior history, I know only of count Egilolf, already mentioned in
my previous posting. I know of no other reference to the "county" of
Wallerfangen.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
Dear Stewart,
I was curious about Wallerfangen and used the Internet. Of course things
have changed over a 1000 years and the Internet is not infallible. What I
found was that (today) Wallerfangen is a city in Saarland, it is the oldest
city there and received city rights in the 13th century from Duke Friedrich
III of Lorraine, and this does not make it a county.
I may be wrong but in the times you are talking about, was it not possible
to be a Count without having land attached to it? In which case Giselbert
could have been a count and as well have been the owner of Wallerfangen, and
for simplicity he was called Count Giselbert von Wallerfangen?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
I was curious about Wallerfangen and used the Internet. Of course things
have changed over a 1000 years and the Internet is not infallible. What I
found was that (today) Wallerfangen is a city in Saarland, it is the oldest
city there and received city rights in the 13th century from Duke Friedrich
III of Lorraine, and this does not make it a county.
I may be wrong but in the times you are talking about, was it not possible
to be a Count without having land attached to it? In which case Giselbert
could have been a count and as well have been the owner of Wallerfangen, and
for simplicity he was called Count Giselbert von Wallerfangen?
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:46:18 GMT, Nathaniel Taylor
nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
And what was the prior and subsequent history of the 'county' of
'Wallerfangen' anyway? It is not necessary, I suppose, to explain shy
Otgiva might not have brought an interest in these particular places to
her husband and issue?
Of prior history, I know only of count Egilolf, already mentioned in
my previous posting. I know of no other reference to the "county" of
Wallerfangen.
Stewart Baldwin
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com...
I don't know that this is capable of being settled on the evidence
available. Hirsch was right that no descendants can be ascribed to
Giselbert, but that doesn't necessarily rule them out.
It is notable that Countess Otgiva's sister Gisela had a son named
Gi(se)lbert de Gant, lord of Folkingham after 1066 ("Gisilbertus frater
Balduini Gandensis" in the Chronicle of Watten (MGH SS XIV 169). He was
apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been born at the
latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death in May 1004, but
the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020 or 1025 the more
comfotable this chronology would become. The name Giselbert was also given
to one of the younger sons of his elder brother Balduin I of Ghent, lord of
Aalst.
If Otgiva and her sister Gisela were orphaned as children they may well have
been brought up in the family of their paternal uncle Frederic of Luxemburg,
accounting for the later idea that Otgiva was sister to his sons. However,
there seems to be no trace of rights passing to them from a father who was
certainly not landless, nor is there any indication that Count Giselbert of
Wallerfangen was ever married.
Peter Stewart
news:fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com...
A while back, I mentioned concerns about the parentage of Otgiva, wife
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.
Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.
Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.
The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)
Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
I don't know that this is capable of being settled on the evidence
available. Hirsch was right that no descendants can be ascribed to
Giselbert, but that doesn't necessarily rule them out.
It is notable that Countess Otgiva's sister Gisela had a son named
Gi(se)lbert de Gant, lord of Folkingham after 1066 ("Gisilbertus frater
Balduini Gandensis" in the Chronicle of Watten (MGH SS XIV 169). He was
apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been born at the
latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death in May 1004, but
the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020 or 1025 the more
comfotable this chronology would become. The name Giselbert was also given
to one of the younger sons of his elder brother Balduin I of Ghent, lord of
Aalst.
If Otgiva and her sister Gisela were orphaned as children they may well have
been brought up in the family of their paternal uncle Frederic of Luxemburg,
accounting for the later idea that Otgiva was sister to his sons. However,
there seems to be no trace of rights passing to them from a father who was
certainly not landless, nor is there any indication that Count Giselbert of
Wallerfangen was ever married.
Peter Stewart
-
John P. Ravilious
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
Dear Peter,
Thanks for this latest post. I had not noted prior SGM
discussion placing Gilbert de Gand (or Gant) as a son of Gisela and the
count of Alost. Since the 2000 mention of this, has any other evidence
come forward which makes this a certainty?
Two items of onomastic note )leaving Otgiva aside for the
moment):
1. If Gisela was a daughter of Count Frederick (brother of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen)
she would have had a brother Giselbert, graf von Salm and
ancestor of the
later Counts of Luxemburg from his son Conrad (d. 1086)
onward.
2. Gilbert de Gand had, among his other issue, a daughter Emma,
wife of Alan
de Percy and ancestress of the Lords Percy, Earls of
Northumberland, &c.
Emma surely is not an uncommon name. However, among the
siblings of
Gisela and Giselbert von Salm we have the wife of Count Welf
von Altdorf
(d. 1030), called Ermentrude in the ES tafeln but identified
called 'Imiza' in
the 'Historia Welforum Weingartensis' previously cited by
Stewart Baldwin:
"Guelfo supra nominatus, Rudolfi huius filius, uxorem duxit de
gente Salica de castro Glizberch, Imizam nomine, sororem
Heinrici
ducis Noricorum et Friderici ducis Lotharingiorum et
Adilberonis
episcopi Metensis."
If 'Imiza' is a perhaps a rendering of Emma, perhaps we have
Gilbert de Gand
naming his daughter Emma for his maternal aunt, wife of Count
Welf?
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
Thanks for this latest post. I had not noted prior SGM
discussion placing Gilbert de Gand (or Gant) as a son of Gisela and the
count of Alost. Since the 2000 mention of this, has any other evidence
come forward which makes this a certainty?
Two items of onomastic note )leaving Otgiva aside for the
moment):
1. If Gisela was a daughter of Count Frederick (brother of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen)
she would have had a brother Giselbert, graf von Salm and
ancestor of the
later Counts of Luxemburg from his son Conrad (d. 1086)
onward.
2. Gilbert de Gand had, among his other issue, a daughter Emma,
wife of Alan
de Percy and ancestress of the Lords Percy, Earls of
Northumberland, &c.
Emma surely is not an uncommon name. However, among the
siblings of
Gisela and Giselbert von Salm we have the wife of Count Welf
von Altdorf
(d. 1030), called Ermentrude in the ES tafeln but identified
called 'Imiza' in
the 'Historia Welforum Weingartensis' previously cited by
Stewart Baldwin:
"Guelfo supra nominatus, Rudolfi huius filius, uxorem duxit de
gente Salica de castro Glizberch, Imizam nomine, sororem
Heinrici
ducis Noricorum et Friderici ducis Lotharingiorum et
Adilberonis
episcopi Metensis."
If 'Imiza' is a perhaps a rendering of Emma, perhaps we have
Gilbert de Gand
naming his daughter Emma for his maternal aunt, wife of Count
Welf?
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com...
A while back, I mentioned concerns about the parentage of Otgiva, wife
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.
Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.
Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.
The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)
Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
I don't know that this is capable of being settled on the evidence
available. Hirsch was right that no descendants can be ascribed to
Giselbert, but that doesn't necessarily rule them out.
It is notable that Countess Otgiva's sister Gisela had a son named
Gi(se)lbert de Gant, lord of Folkingham after 1066 ("Gisilbertus frater
Balduini Gandensis" in the Chronicle of Watten (MGH SS XIV 169). He was
apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been born at the
latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death in May 1004, but
the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020 or 1025 the more
comfotable this chronology would become. The name Giselbert was also given
to one of the younger sons of his elder brother Balduin I of Ghent, lord of
Aalst.
If Otgiva and her sister Gisela were orphaned as children they may well have
been brought up in the family of their paternal uncle Frederic of Luxemburg,
accounting for the later idea that Otgiva was sister to his sons. However,
there seems to be no trace of rights passing to them from a father who was
certainly not landless, nor is there any indication that Count Giselbert of
Wallerfangen was ever married.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
There is a paper by Richard Sherman, The Continental Origins of the Ghent
Family of Lincolnshire, in _Nottingham Medieval Studies_ 22 (1978),
concluding that Gilbert was most probably son of Otgiva's sister Gisela - I
see no reason to doubt this except that we don't have a source directly
stating it, as with a vast number of plausible relationships.
The names Frederic, Heinric and Adalbero would be at least as likely to
occur amongst Gisela's sons and grandsons as Giselbert if she had been
daughter to Frederic of Luxemburg, whose most notable brothers were Heinric,
a duke of Bavaria, and Adalbero, a bishop of Metz - yet none of these names
does appear, whereas Gi(se)lbert persisted for some generations.
Peter Stewart
"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163072772.376758.81610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter,
Thanks for this latest post. I had not noted prior SGM
discussion placing Gilbert de Gand (or Gant) as a son of Gisela and the
count of Alost. Since the 2000 mention of this, has any other evidence
come forward which makes this a certainty?
Two items of onomastic note )leaving Otgiva aside for the
moment):
1. If Gisela was a daughter of Count Frederick (brother of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen)
she would have had a brother Giselbert, graf von Salm and
ancestor of the
later Counts of Luxemburg from his son Conrad (d. 1086)
onward.
2. Gilbert de Gand had, among his other issue, a daughter Emma,
wife of Alan
de Percy and ancestress of the Lords Percy, Earls of
Northumberland, &c.
Emma surely is not an uncommon name. However, among the
siblings of
Gisela and Giselbert von Salm we have the wife of Count Welf
von Altdorf
(d. 1030), called Ermentrude in the ES tafeln but identified
called 'Imiza' in
the 'Historia Welforum Weingartensis' previously cited by
Stewart Baldwin:
"Guelfo supra nominatus, Rudolfi huius filius, uxorem duxit de
gente Salica de castro Glizberch, Imizam nomine, sororem
Heinrici
ducis Noricorum et Friderici ducis Lotharingiorum et
Adilberonis
episcopi Metensis."
If 'Imiza' is a perhaps a rendering of Emma, perhaps we have
Gilbert de Gand
naming his daughter Emma for his maternal aunt, wife of Count
Welf?
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
Family of Lincolnshire, in _Nottingham Medieval Studies_ 22 (1978),
concluding that Gilbert was most probably son of Otgiva's sister Gisela - I
see no reason to doubt this except that we don't have a source directly
stating it, as with a vast number of plausible relationships.
The names Frederic, Heinric and Adalbero would be at least as likely to
occur amongst Gisela's sons and grandsons as Giselbert if she had been
daughter to Frederic of Luxemburg, whose most notable brothers were Heinric,
a duke of Bavaria, and Adalbero, a bishop of Metz - yet none of these names
does appear, whereas Gi(se)lbert persisted for some generations.
Peter Stewart
"John P. Ravilious" <therav3@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163072772.376758.81610@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Dear Peter,
Thanks for this latest post. I had not noted prior SGM
discussion placing Gilbert de Gand (or Gant) as a son of Gisela and the
count of Alost. Since the 2000 mention of this, has any other evidence
come forward which makes this a certainty?
Two items of onomastic note )leaving Otgiva aside for the
moment):
1. If Gisela was a daughter of Count Frederick (brother of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen)
she would have had a brother Giselbert, graf von Salm and
ancestor of the
later Counts of Luxemburg from his son Conrad (d. 1086)
onward.
2. Gilbert de Gand had, among his other issue, a daughter Emma,
wife of Alan
de Percy and ancestress of the Lords Percy, Earls of
Northumberland, &c.
Emma surely is not an uncommon name. However, among the
siblings of
Gisela and Giselbert von Salm we have the wife of Count Welf
von Altdorf
(d. 1030), called Ermentrude in the ES tafeln but identified
called 'Imiza' in
the 'Historia Welforum Weingartensis' previously cited by
Stewart Baldwin:
"Guelfo supra nominatus, Rudolfi huius filius, uxorem duxit de
gente Salica de castro Glizberch, Imizam nomine, sororem
Heinrici
ducis Noricorum et Friderici ducis Lotharingiorum et
Adilberonis
episcopi Metensis."
If 'Imiza' is a perhaps a rendering of Emma, perhaps we have
Gilbert de Gand
naming his daughter Emma for his maternal aunt, wife of Count
Welf?
Cheers,
John
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Stewart Baldwin" <sbaldw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:fqp4l2dto294p8gc9gkptn5c5l8rs6o66t@4ax.com...
A while back, I mentioned concerns about the parentage of Otgiva, wife
of Baldwin IV of Flanders (commonly thought to be a daughter of
Frederick, son of Siegfried of Luxemburg), because of the difficulty
in ruling out the possibility that she was a daughter of Frederick's
brother Giselbert, count of Wallerfangen. At first, I thought of this
as just a loose end that needed to be cleaned up, rather than a
necessary change in Otgiva's parentage. However, having looked at the
case more closely, I now think that the evidence is leaning in the
direction of making Otgiva a daughter of Giselbert.
Briefly, the case for making Otgiva a daughter of Frederick goes
something like this. The medieval sources (various versions of
"Genealogia comitum Flandriae" [GCF]) make her the daughter of a count
Giselbert of Luxemburg (with "of Luxemburg" missing in the earliest
version). However, she cannot have been a daughter of Frederick's son
Giselbert of Luxemburg (for straightforward reasons of chronology),
and a later version of GCF ["Flandria Generosa" ca. 1164] would
apparently make Otgiva a sister of men known to be sons of Frederick
(while still making her a daughter of Giselbert). If Frederick's son
Giselbert were the only known Giselbert in the family, this reasoning
would be OK, but I know of only one case in which the possibility of
Giselbert of Wallerfangen was even considered [Siegfried Hirsch,
Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 1: 538 n. 8, where
the idea is quickly set aside with the words "... und dem zu Pavia
gefallenen Giselbert kann man nicht leichthin Nachkommen andichten."],
so it is not clear that this alternate possibility has even been
considered by many scholars looking at Otgiva's parentage.
Not much is known about Giselbert of Wallerfangen. He appears in an
act of 996 (between 21 May and 23 September) in which a certain
Bertha, widow of count Volkmar, gave (to the abbey of St. Maximin,
Trier) Mutfort (Mudenfurt) in the pagus of Moselgau and countship of
Vaudrevange/Wallerfangen, ruled by count Giselbert ["Dedit in pago
Moselensi in comitatu Waldelevinga, cui Gisilbertus comes preesse
videtur, villam Mudenfurt nominatum, ..." C. Wampach, "Urkunden- und
Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur
burgundischen Zeit", I (Luxemburg, 1935), 292 (#207)], receiving the
village of Dalhem from the abbacy in exchange ["... Dedimus ei econtra
in precario per manum sepenominati advocati nostri comitis Henrici in
eodem pago et comitatu villam Dalheim nominatam ..." ibid., 293].
Another act, from 962 (the year before Giselbert's father Sigefroid
acquired the castle of Luxemburg), shows that Dalheim was acquired by
the abbacy in that year, as a donation from a certain Thiedo, and that
the countship of Wallerfangen was then ruled by a count Egilolf ["...
predium Dalaheim nominatum, quod est in Rezcenci pago in comitatu
Waldervinga, cui Egilolfus comes preesse videtur." Wampach (1935), 226
(#171); note that the pagus here is named as Rizzagau instead of
Moselgau]. Giselbert accompanied the emperor Heinrich II (his
brother-in-law) to Italy in 1004, and died of wounds received in Pavia
in a riot which occurred after the coronation of the emperor as king
of Italy ["Ibi tum quidam egreius iuvenis, Gisilbertus nomine, frater
reginae, a Longobardis vulneratus oppeciit, et consociorum tristiciam
vehementer adauxit." Thietmar, Chron., vi, 6, MGH SS 3: 806; "Tunc
iuvenis quidam, frater reginae, Gislebertus nomine, a Langobardis
vulneratur." Adelbold, Vita Henrici Imp., c. 39, MGH SS 4: 693]. As
Peter Stewart has already pointed out in a previous posting, the word
"iuvenis" would not rule out a birth of ca. 970 for Giselbert, making
it chronologically possible that Giselbert was Otgiva's father.
The case is complicated by the fact that the designation "of
Luxemburg" would probably not have been used as early as the early
eleventh century. For example, although Siegfried is documented as
obtaining the castle of Luxemburg, he is never actually called "of
Luxemburg" in a contemporary document. Also, this castle does not
appear to be explicitly documented as being in the posssession of any
of his sons, leaving scholars to use other evidence to try deducing
which son had that castle as a part of his inheritance. Wallerfangen
is in Saarland. However, Mutfort and Dalheim, which were mentioned as
being in Giselbert's countship, are very near to Luxemburg, just to
the southeast [Wampach, Map III]. Thus, although it is unlikely that
Giselbert of Wallerfangen would have been called "of Luxemburg" in his
lifetime, a writer of the early twelfth century (e.g., Lambert of St.
Omer, the earliest known writer to call Otgiva a daughter of count
Giselbert "of Luxemburg") could very well have referred to him
anachronistically as "of Luxemburg", just as a writer of the same
period anachronistically referred to Giselbert's brother Adalbero
["Huic successit Liudolfus. Eo Pontificante, praefuit in monasterio
sancti Paulini praepositus nomine Adelbero, de Lucelenburch ortus, vir
potens et dives, habens castella haec: Sarburch, Berencastel et
Rutiche, ..." Gesta Treverorum, c. 30, MGH SS 8: 171]. (None of
Saarburg, Berncastel, Roussy are as close to Luxemburg as Mutfort and
Dalheim.)
Since the earliest known account (evidently written when people who
knew Otgiva would still be alive) calls Otgiva a daughter of a count
Giselbert (with no location given), and a reasonable candidate of that
name is known, this seems preferable to a conclusion based on a source
(at least partly confused) of a hundred years later. On the other
hand, even though I am now leaning in that direction, the case is
still not conclusive. I am still looking for more evidence that might
be relevant.
The obvious question would be: Does anybody but Hirsch comment on the
possibility that Giselbert of Wallerfangen was the Giselbert in
question?
I don't know that this is capable of being settled on the evidence
available. Hirsch was right that no descendants can be ascribed to
Giselbert, but that doesn't necessarily rule them out.
It is notable that Countess Otgiva's sister Gisela had a son named
Gi(se)lbert de Gant, lord of Folkingham after 1066 ("Gisilbertus frater
Balduini Gandensis" in the Chronicle of Watten (MGH SS XIV 169). He was
apparently born before 1040, so that his mother could have been born at
the
latest within 9 months of Giselbert of Wallerfangen's death in May 1004,
but
the further back his birth can be placed towards ca 1020 or 1025 the more
comfotable this chronology would become. The name Giselbert was also given
to one of the younger sons of his elder brother Balduin I of Ghent, lord
of
Aalst.
If Otgiva and her sister Gisela were orphaned as children they may well
have
been brought up in the family of their paternal uncle Frederic of
Luxemburg,
accounting for the later idea that Otgiva was sister to his sons. However,
there seems to be no trace of rights passing to them from a father who was
certainly not landless, nor is there any indication that Count Giselbert
of
Wallerfangen was ever married.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Giselbert of Wallerfangen
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nZE4h.61864$rP1.60670@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Apologies for another lapse - this should read "Frederic of Luxemburg, whose
most notable sons were Heinric...and Adalbero".
Peter Stewart
news:nZE4h.61864$rP1.60670@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
There is a paper by Richard Sherman, The Continental Origins of the Ghent
Family of Lincolnshire, in _Nottingham Medieval Studies_ 22 (1978),
concluding that Gilbert was most probably son of Otgiva's sister Gisela -
I see no reason to doubt this except that we don't have a source directly
stating it, as with a vast number of plausible relationships.
The names Frederic, Heinric and Adalbero would be at least as likely to
occur amongst Gisela's sons and grandsons as Giselbert if she had been
daughter to Frederic of Luxemburg, whose most notable brothers were
Heinric, a duke of Bavaria, and Adalbero, a bishop of Metz - yet none of
these names does appear, whereas Gi(se)lbert persisted for some
generations.
Apologies for another lapse - this should read "Frederic of Luxemburg, whose
most notable sons were Heinric...and Adalbero".
Peter Stewart