Which of his father's wives was Hugh's mother?
Complete Peerage fails to clarify the question. First, it is said
that "Of the [two] sons, William was certainly born of the 1st
marriage, and Hugh presumably of the 2nd ..." (p. 578 note c). Then
on page 579 it says Hugh was "br. and h., presumably of the half
blood" of William, claiming in a note (j) that a charter quoted in
note (c) is "proof" of the relationship. But the charter is no such
proof: "I William Bigod, dapifer [i.e. steward] of the king of the
English, for the remediation of the souls of my father Roger Bigod and
my mother Adelidis and for my health and [that] of my brother Hugh and
of my sisters..." This invites the natural interpretation that Hugh
was William's full brother, not his half-brother.
Moreover, if Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Toni, he should have
inherited Belvoir from her; but instead, his (half-) sister Cecily
inherited it from her mother, eventually, after surviving her sister
Maud, she and Maud apparently coming into its possession by surviving
their other (full) brothers. (They did not survive Hugh. Cicely, the
ultimate heiress of Belvoir, died in 1136; Hugh in 1176/77.)
The authorities I've been able to find are unanimous in accepting
Adeliza de Toni as Hugh's mother, so what's wrong with the argument
I've set out above?
Mother of Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Mother of Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk
In message of 16 Mar, skip31@racsa.co.cr wrote:
Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
site:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html
Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Which of his father's wives was Hugh's mother?
Complete Peerage fails to clarify the question. First, it is said
that "Of the [two] sons, William was certainly born of the 1st
marriage, and Hugh presumably of the 2nd ..." (p. 578 note c). Then
on page 579 it says Hugh was "br. and h., presumably of the half
blood" of William, claiming in a note (j) that a charter quoted in
note (c) is "proof" of the relationship. But the charter is no such
proof: "I William Bigod, dapifer [i.e. steward] of the king of the
English, for the remediation of the souls of my father Roger Bigod and
my mother Adelidis and for my health and [that] of my brother Hugh and
of my sisters..." This invites the natural interpretation that Hugh
was William's full brother, not his half-brother.
Moreover, if Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Toni, he should have
inherited Belvoir from her; but instead, his (half-) sister Cecily
inherited it from her mother, eventually, after surviving her sister
Maud, she and Maud apparently coming into its possession by surviving
their other (full) brothers. (They did not survive Hugh. Cicely, the
ultimate heiress of Belvoir, died in 1136; Hugh in 1176/77.)
The authorities I've been able to find are unanimous in accepting
Adeliza de Toni as Hugh's mother, so what's wrong with the argument
I've set out above?
Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
site:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html
Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
-
wjhonson
Re: Mother of Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk
On Mar 16, 3:34 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
Thanks Tim that was a very helpful link in helping straighten out the
early chronology of the Tosny family of Belvoir.
Will Johnson
Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
site:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html
Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones:http://powys.org/- Hide quoted text -
Thanks Tim that was a very helpful link in helping straighten out the
early chronology of the Tosny family of Belvoir.
Will Johnson
-
Gjest
Re: Mother of Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk
Thanks,Tim, for the lead.
If I read Keats-Rohan's article correctly, her answer to my question
is simple:
Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Tosni because his father had only one
wife.
In all humility, however, I must say that although she was right about
the mother, it was for the wrong reason; that I cannot accept her
argument for the non-existence of an earlier marriage of Roger Bigod.
Her argument is in two parts: First a straw-man is set up by saying
the two wives were "of the same name" lending plausibility to her
dismissal as "inconclusive" of a clause in a charter of Roger's first-
born son William;
and second, an elaborate analysis of the chronology of Roger's
children founded on a charter of his, to which four of them attested,
mentioning "King Henry."
The first part of the argument is necessary to clear the way for the
second part, for if the clause in William's charter is not
inconclusive the matter is determined before the second part begins.
The first part fails because the two ladies did not have the same
name.
William's charter is read " "matris meae Adelidis." CP IX:577, note
q.
His father Roger is quoted mentioning his wife as "uxoris meae
Adeliciae." Id. at note r.
"Adelidis" is the genitive case of a feminine noun whose third-
declension nominitave case could be either "Adelide" or
"Adelidis." (Compare mare, maris; hostis, hostis.)
"Adeliciae" is the genitive (or, less likely in the context, dative)
case of a feminine noun in the first declension whose nominative is
"Adelicia."
"Adelide" and "Adelicia" are not the same name, any more than "Adele"
and "Alice" are the same.
William's charter cannot be dismissed as ambiguous on the subject of
his mother's name.
***
Keats-Rohan's second argument boils down to this: [Since Henry
acceeded to the throne in 1087 and Roger died in 1107, it is made]
"highly unlikely that Roger acquired a second wife and second family
before this death ...".
The children who attested the charter in question were William,
Humphrey, Gonnora and Matilda [Maud].
Roger had two other children: Hugh and Cicely.
All we can infer from the facts given (which do not include the date
of the charter) is that at some time during the Reign of Henry I and
while Roger was alive he had four children old enough to witness a
legal document, one of whom was William. Any number of those four
could have been born in the reign of the Conqueror. For all we know,
a first wife could have died as early as when she gave birth to
William, and Roger could have remarried soon after that.
In the twenty years of Henry's reign during which Roger was alive
there was plenty of time to acquire a second wife and raise three
children to an age sufficient for witnessing documents.
Keats-Rohan's "highly unlikely" is just a question-begging non-
sequitur.
***
The good news is that if the recital of attestors to the charter
mentioning Henry names them in order of seniority, its omission of
Hugh and Cicely raises a strong implication that Hugh was not born
before Humphrey, Gonnora or Maud, and that his mother was therefore
Adelicia not Adelide.
Strictly speaking, my original question was why didn't Hugh inherit
Belvoir. I think this is better answered in Prosopon #10, but I still
have a whole lot to learn about
the laws of succession in the early Norman times. If, for example,
Cicely's mother
could give Belvoir to her in defeasance of Hugh's claim, shouldn't
there be some indication of the king's assent?
On Mar 16, 5:34 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
If I read Keats-Rohan's article correctly, her answer to my question
is simple:
Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Tosni because his father had only one
wife.
In all humility, however, I must say that although she was right about
the mother, it was for the wrong reason; that I cannot accept her
argument for the non-existence of an earlier marriage of Roger Bigod.
Her argument is in two parts: First a straw-man is set up by saying
the two wives were "of the same name" lending plausibility to her
dismissal as "inconclusive" of a clause in a charter of Roger's first-
born son William;
and second, an elaborate analysis of the chronology of Roger's
children founded on a charter of his, to which four of them attested,
mentioning "King Henry."
The first part of the argument is necessary to clear the way for the
second part, for if the clause in William's charter is not
inconclusive the matter is determined before the second part begins.
The first part fails because the two ladies did not have the same
name.
William's charter is read " "matris meae Adelidis." CP IX:577, note
q.
His father Roger is quoted mentioning his wife as "uxoris meae
Adeliciae." Id. at note r.
"Adelidis" is the genitive case of a feminine noun whose third-
declension nominitave case could be either "Adelide" or
"Adelidis." (Compare mare, maris; hostis, hostis.)
"Adeliciae" is the genitive (or, less likely in the context, dative)
case of a feminine noun in the first declension whose nominative is
"Adelicia."
"Adelide" and "Adelicia" are not the same name, any more than "Adele"
and "Alice" are the same.
William's charter cannot be dismissed as ambiguous on the subject of
his mother's name.
***
Keats-Rohan's second argument boils down to this: [Since Henry
acceeded to the throne in 1087 and Roger died in 1107, it is made]
"highly unlikely that Roger acquired a second wife and second family
before this death ...".
The children who attested the charter in question were William,
Humphrey, Gonnora and Matilda [Maud].
Roger had two other children: Hugh and Cicely.
All we can infer from the facts given (which do not include the date
of the charter) is that at some time during the Reign of Henry I and
while Roger was alive he had four children old enough to witness a
legal document, one of whom was William. Any number of those four
could have been born in the reign of the Conqueror. For all we know,
a first wife could have died as early as when she gave birth to
William, and Roger could have remarried soon after that.
In the twenty years of Henry's reign during which Roger was alive
there was plenty of time to acquire a second wife and raise three
children to an age sufficient for witnessing documents.
Keats-Rohan's "highly unlikely" is just a question-begging non-
sequitur.
***
The good news is that if the recital of attestors to the charter
mentioning Henry names them in order of seniority, its omission of
Hugh and Cicely raises a strong implication that Hugh was not born
before Humphrey, Gonnora or Maud, and that his mother was therefore
Adelicia not Adelide.
Strictly speaking, my original question was why didn't Hugh inherit
Belvoir. I think this is better answered in Prosopon #10, but I still
have a whole lot to learn about
the laws of succession in the early Norman times. If, for example,
Cicely's mother
could give Belvoir to her in defeasance of Hugh's claim, shouldn't
there be some indication of the king's assent?
On Mar 16, 5:34 pm, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote:
In message of 16 Mar, ski...@racsa.co.cr wrote:
Which of his father's wives was Hugh's mother?
Complete Peerage fails to clarify the question. First, it is said
that "Of the [two] sons, William was certainly born of the 1st
marriage, and Hugh presumably of the 2nd ..." (p. 578 note c). Then
on page 579 it says Hugh was "br. and h., presumably of the half
blood" of William, claiming in a note (j) that a charter quoted in
note (c) is "proof" of the relationship. But the charter is no such
proof: "I William Bigod, dapifer [i.e. steward] of the king of the
English, for the remediation of the souls of my father Roger Bigod and
my mother Adelidis and for my health and [that] of my brother Hugh and
of my sisters..." This invites the natural interpretation that Hugh
was William's full brother, not his half-brother.
Moreover, if Hugh's mother was Adeliza de Toni, he should have
inherited Belvoir from her; but instead, his (half-) sister Cecily
inherited it from her mother, eventually, after surviving her sister
Maud, she and Maud apparently coming into its possession by surviving
their other (full) brothers. (They did not survive Hugh. Cicely, the
ultimate heiress of Belvoir, died in 1136; Hugh in 1176/77.)
The authorities I've been able to find are unanimous in accepting
Adeliza de Toni as Hugh's mother, so what's wrong with the argument
I've set out above?
Have a look at Katherine Keats-Rohan's article, No 9, on the Prosopon
site:
http://www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/prosopon.html
Note that you can get it in either Word or PDF formats.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones:http://powys.org/