Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2007 08:14:46

There have been some inconclusive discussions in the past about purported
lines of descent from Duke Richard III of Normandy, William the Conqueror's
uncle. However, these lines are not firmly supported by the little direct
evidence available.

This is found amongst the additions to Sigebert's 'Chronographia' written by
Robert de Torigni, where he stated: 'Ricardus tercius...genuit Nicolaum,
postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem
Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de
Baiocis' (Richard III fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and two
daughters, Papia wife of Walter of Saint-Valery, and Aelis wife of Viscount
Ranulf of Bayeux).

The paternity of Nicholas is confirmed by Orderic, 'Nicholaus Ricardi tercii
ducis Normannorum filius, a puero Fiscannensis monachus, conobium Sancti
Petri principis apostolorum in suburbio Rotomagensi fere LX annis rexit'
(Nicholas son of Duke Richard III of Normandy, a monk at Fécamp from
boyhood, directed the abbey of St Peter, prince of the apostles, in Rouen's
suburb for nearly 60 years).

There is as far as I am aware no other evidence for Aelis wife of Ranulf who
was viscount of Bayeux in 1047 when he joined Guy of Burgundy, count of
Brionne, in rebellion against William. It is supposed that he was father (or
possibly grandfather) to another Ranulf (died November 1120), who was
viscount of Bayeux by 1078/80 (father of Ranulf de Briquessart, earl of
Chester). However, the mother of this Viscount Ranulf of 1079/80 was named
Matilda, and the simplest explanation appears to be that - if Robert de
Torigni was correct in the first place about Aelis being a daughter of Duke
Richard III and wife of the next Ranulf going, the viscount of 1047 - the
latter had two marriages (as Laheudrie, who researched this family in the
1930s, thought) and his known descendants are only from the second wife,
Matilda.

The only way to retain Aelis in this genealogy is to make three viscounts
Ranulf, with a generation between the man of 1047 and the one of 1079/80
(assuming they were of the same agnatic line), but this is chronologically
unnecessary. The Ranulf of 1047 had succeeded his father Anchetil some time
after April 1033, and was most likely a contemporary of Guy of Burgundy
(born ca 1020) whom he joined in a foolhardy power grab. This would fit with
his first marriage to a daughter of Richard III, but hardly leaves room for
the Ranulf of 1079/80, born perhaps ca 1045/50 around the same time as his
wife's brother Earl Hugh of Chester and their known in-laws, to be his
grandson.

But there must be doubt over the accuracy of Robert de Torigni on this
anyway, both for lack of other evidence and due to his probable error about
the other alleged daughter, Papia.

Orderic syas that a Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the
Advocate of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons Walter
of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville. Since this Papia's younger
grandson Richard had an adult son-in-law helping him against the men of
Talou in the rebellion of William of Arques in 1052/53, it is clear that
Orderic's Papia must have belonged to the same generation as Richard III
(born after ca 1000) as a daughter of his father Duke Richard II, and
equally that her grandson Walter could not have married another Papia who
was her niece, i.e. his own first cousin once removed, if a daughter of
Richard III as Robert de Torigni stated.

The safest conclusion for want of further evidence would seem to be that
Richard III had a son Nicolas, perhaps a daughter Aelis who was the first
wife of Viscount Ranulf I of Bayeux but not mother of his son, and possibly
one named Papia who married an otherwise unkown Walter of Saint-Valery, not
the well-known man of this name mentioned by Orderic; and consequently that
Duke Richad III has no recorded descendants.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Gjest » 17 jun 2007 16:30:48

On 17 Jun., 08:14, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
There have been some inconclusive discussions in the past about purported
lines of descent from Duke Richard III of Normandy, William the Conqueror's
uncle. However, these lines are not firmly supported by the little direct
evidence available.

This is found amongst the additions to Sigebert's 'Chronographia' written by
Robert de Torigni, where he stated: 'Ricardus tercius...genuit Nicolaum,
postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem
Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de
Baiocis' (Richard III fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and two
daughters, Papia wife of Walter of Saint-Valery, and Aelis wife of Viscount
Ranulf of Bayeux).

The paternity of Nicholas is confirmed by Orderic, 'Nicholaus Ricardi tercii
ducis Normannorum filius, a puero Fiscannensis monachus, conobium Sancti
Petri principis apostolorum in suburbio Rotomagensi fere LX annis rexit'
(Nicholas son of Duke Richard III of Normandy, a monk at Fécamp from
boyhood, directed the abbey of St Peter, prince of the apostles, in Rouen's
suburb for nearly 60 years).

There is as far as I am aware no other evidence for Aelis wife of Ranulf who
was viscount of Bayeux in 1047 when he joined Guy of Burgundy, count of
Brionne, in rebellion against William. It is supposed that he was father (or
possibly grandfather) to another Ranulf (died November 1120), who was
viscount of Bayeux by 1078/80 (father of Ranulf de Briquessart, earl of
Chester). However, the mother of this Viscount Ranulf of 1079/80 was named
Matilda, and the simplest explanation appears to be that - if Robert de
Torigni was correct in the first place about Aelis being a daughter of Duke
Richard III and wife of the next Ranulf going, the viscount of 1047 - the
latter had two marriages (as Laheudrie, who researched this family in the
1930s, thought) and his known descendants are only from the second wife,
Matilda.

The only way to retain Aelis in this genealogy is to make three viscounts
Ranulf, with a generation between the man of 1047 and the one of 1079/80
(assuming they were of the same agnatic line), but this is chronologically
unnecessary. The Ranulf of 1047 had succeeded his father Anchetil some time
after April 1033, and was most likely a contemporary of Guy of Burgundy
(born ca 1020) whom he joined in a foolhardy power grab. This would fit with
his first marriage to a daughter of Richard III, but hardly leaves room for
the Ranulf of 1079/80, born perhaps ca 1045/50 around the same time as his
wife's brother Earl Hugh of Chester and their known in-laws, to be his
grandson.

But there must be doubt over the accuracy of Robert de Torigni on this
anyway, both for lack of other evidence and due to his probable error about
the other alleged daughter, Papia.

Orderic syas that a Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the
Advocate of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons Walter
of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville. Since this Papia's younger
grandson Richard had an adult son-in-law helping him against the men of
Talou in the rebellion of William of Arques in 1052/53, it is clear that
Orderic's Papia must have belonged to the same generation as Richard III
(born after ca 1000) as a daughter of his father Duke Richard II, and
equally that her grandson Walter could not have married another Papia who
was her niece, i.e. his own first cousin once removed, if a daughter of
Richard III as Robert de Torigni stated.

The safest conclusion for want of further evidence would seem to be that
Richard III had a son Nicolas, perhaps a daughter Aelis who was the first
wife of Viscount Ranulf I of Bayeux but not mother of his son, and possibly
one named Papia who married an otherwise unkown Walter of Saint-Valery, not
the well-known man of this name mentioned by Orderic; and consequently that
Duke Richard III has no recorded descendants.

Peter

Many thanks for this interesting item - coincidentally I had been
looking just the other day at the entry for Walter de St Valery ("de
Sancto Walarico") in Domesday People (pp 453-454), which calls him
"son of Bernard, advocate of Saint-Valery-sur-Somme... a descendant of
Richard III of Normandy, according to Orderic Vitalis, who gave
Bernard's parents as Gilbert advocate of Saint-Valery and a daughter
[sic, unnamed in DP] of Richard III and Papia 'de Envermeu'." Hence
this descent likely features in the ancestries of those many listers
who can trace back to Maud de St Valery and William de Braose.

Given Richard III's birthdate (c1000), it is possible that he could
have had a great-grandson (Walter) as a tenant-in-chief in 1086;
however, if as you state Walter's brother had an adult son-in-law in
1052, the chronology would become untenable. Given that Orderic does
not state which Duke Richard was the father of Gilbert's wife, then
Richard II would seem likely.

With reference to Robert de Torigny's statement that Richard III's
daughter Papia married Walter de St Valery: according to Keats-Rohan
(op cit) his wife was Elizabeth, sister of Miles de Montlhery.

Kind regards, Michael

taf

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 17 jun 2007 22:37:52

On Jun 17, 8:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

Given Richard III's birthdate (c1000), it is possible that he could
have had a great-grandson (Walter) as a tenant-in-chief in 1086;
however, if as you state Walter's brother had an adult son-in-law in
1052, the chronology would become untenable. Given that Orderic does
not state which Duke Richard was the father of Gilbert's wife, then
Richard II would seem likely.

My memory is a little vague, but I seem to recall a chronological
argument that she was even a generation earlier, daughter of Richard
I.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2007 23:31:29

On Jun 18, 7:37 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

Given Richard III's birthdate (c1000), it is possible that he could
have had a great-grandson (Walter) as a tenant-in-chief in 1086;
however, if as you state Walter's brother had an adult son-in-law in
1052, the chronology would become untenable. Given that Orderic does
not state which Duke Richard was the father of Gilbert's wife, then
Richard II would seem likely.

My memory is a little vague, but I seem to recall a chronological
argument that she was even a generation earlier, daughter of Richard
I.

This was assumed by Eleanor Searle in _Predatory Kinship_ but is not
supported by the evidence from Orderic, where Papia's grandson Walter
of Saint-Valery is described as "Ricardi iunioris ducis Normannorum ex
filia nomine Papia nepos". Richard the younger cannot be Richard I and
can only be Richard II, as Richard III is clearly too late; while
"nepos" must be vaguely used for "great-grandson" unless we are to
stretch it to great-nephew and postulate that Orderic wrote "filia"
when he meant "sorore".

The argument from chronology for Richard I is unnecessary - we don't
know when Richard II was born, but this could have been as early as ca
970/75, well before his parents Gunnora and Richard I were married
following the death of the latter's first wife Emma after March 968.
Richard II might have fathered Papia ca 990/95, allowing for her
grandson Richard to serve William in the early 1050s. As for his son-
in-law, the point we must take from Orderic is that his son-in-law was
an adult by 1053, but not necessarily that he was already married to
Richard's daughter - i.e. they were acting together in the events, but
the term "son-in-law" may be anachronistic for the precise time.

However, it needs to be remembered that Orderic was in some confusion
about the Saint-Valery connection. He stated that Papia's grandson
Richard of Heugleville served his "uncle" the duke for some time -
"Ricardus autem duci Normanniae auunculo videlicet suo diu militauit".
If this means his great-uncle, i.e. Papia's brother, it would be
William the Conqueror's father Robert I (1028-35) if she was Richard
II's daughter, or Richard II himself (996-1026/7) if she was Richard
I's daughter. In either case it is a stretch, since only Richard I's
great-gransdon could plausibly have been old enough to serve Richard
II or Robert II. If "avunculus" is the correct term, for great-uncle,
then it would indicate that Rochard I's great grandson served Richard
II, as Searle presumably read it. However, the Saint-Valery connection
would be strecthed very thin, in blood and chronology, by William's
time if this were true. I think "avunculus" was inaccurately used here
by Orderic for a cousin on the mother's side, i.e. Richard of
Heugleville had served the young Duke WIlliam for some time before the
events of 1052/53.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 17 jun 2007 23:36:04

On Jun 18, 8:31 am, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

However, it needs to be remembered that Orderic was in some confusion
about the Saint-Valery connection. He stated that Papia's grandson
Richard of Heugleville served his "uncle" the duke for some time -
"Ricardus autem duci Normanniae auunculo videlicet suo diu militauit".
If this means his great-uncle, i.e. Papia's brother, it would be
William the Conqueror's father Robert I (1028-35) if she was Richard
II's daughter, or Richard II himself (996-1026/7) if she was Richard
I's daughter. In either case it is a stretch, since only Richard I's
great-gransdon could plausibly have been old enough to serve Richard
II or Robert II.

Apologies, the last name shoud read "Robert I".

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 jun 2007 00:43:04

On Jun 18, 1:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:
On 17 Jun., 08:14, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:





There have been some inconclusive discussions in the past about purported
lines of descent from Duke Richard III of Normandy, William the Conqueror's
uncle. However, these lines are not firmly supported by the little direct
evidence available.

This is found amongst the additions to Sigebert's 'Chronographia' written by
Robert de Torigni, where he stated: 'Ricardus tercius...genuit Nicolaum,
postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem
Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de
Baiocis' (Richard III fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and two
daughters, Papia wife of Walter of Saint-Valery, and Aelis wife of Viscount
Ranulf of Bayeux).

The paternity of Nicholas is confirmed by Orderic, 'Nicholaus Ricardi tercii
ducis Normannorum filius, a puero Fiscannensis monachus, conobium Sancti
Petri principis apostolorum in suburbio Rotomagensi fere LX annis rexit'
(Nicholas son of Duke Richard III of Normandy, a monk at Fécamp from
boyhood, directed the abbey of St Peter, prince of the apostles, in Rouen's
suburb for nearly 60 years).

There is as far as I am aware no other evidence for Aelis wife of Ranulf who
was viscount of Bayeux in 1047 when he joined Guy of Burgundy, count of
Brionne, in rebellion against William. It is supposed that he was father (or
possibly grandfather) to another Ranulf (died November 1120), who was
viscount of Bayeux by 1078/80 (father of Ranulf de Briquessart, earl of
Chester). However, the mother of this Viscount Ranulf of 1079/80 was named
Matilda, and the simplest explanation appears to be that - if Robert de
Torigni was correct in the first place about Aelis being a daughter of Duke
Richard III and wife of the next Ranulf going, the viscount of 1047 - the
latter had two marriages (as Laheudrie, who researched this family in the
1930s, thought) and his known descendants are only from the second wife,
Matilda.

The only way to retain Aelis in this genealogy is to make three viscounts
Ranulf, with a generation between the man of 1047 and the one of 1079/80
(assuming they were of the same agnatic line), but this is chronologically
unnecessary. The Ranulf of 1047 had succeeded his father Anchetil some time
after April 1033, and was most likely a contemporary of Guy of Burgundy
(born ca 1020) whom he joined in a foolhardy power grab. This would fit with
his first marriage to a daughter of Richard III, but hardly leaves room for
the Ranulf of 1079/80, born perhaps ca 1045/50 around the same time as his
wife's brother Earl Hugh of Chester and their known in-laws, to be his
grandson.

But there must be doubt over the accuracy of Robert de Torigni on this
anyway, both for lack of other evidence and due to his probable error about
the other alleged daughter, Papia.

Orderic syas that a Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the
Advocate of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons Walter
of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville. Since this Papia's younger
grandson Richard had an adult son-in-law helping him against the men of
Talou in the rebellion of William of Arques in 1052/53, it is clear that
Orderic's Papia must have belonged to the same generation as Richard III
(born after ca 1000) as a daughter of his father Duke Richard II, and
equally that her grandson Walter could not have married another Papia who
was her niece, i.e. his own first cousin once removed, if a daughter of
Richard III as Robert de Torigni stated.

The safest conclusion for want of further evidence would seem to be that
Richard III had a son Nicolas, perhaps a daughter Aelis who was the first
wife of Viscount Ranulf I of Bayeux but not mother of his son, and possibly
one named Papia who married an otherwise unkown Walter of Saint-Valery, not
the well-known man of this name mentioned by Orderic; and consequently that
Duke Richard III has no recorded descendants.

Peter

Many thanks for this interesting item - coincidentally I had been
looking just the other day at the entry for Walter de St Valery ("de
Sancto Walarico") in Domesday People (pp 453-454), which calls him
"son of Bernard, advocate of Saint-Valery-sur-Somme... a descendant of
Richard III of Normandy, according to Orderic Vitalis, who gave
Bernard's parents as Gilbert advocate of Saint-Valery and a daughter
[sic, unnamed in DP] of Richard III and Papia 'de Envermeu'." Hence
this descent likely features in the ancestries of those many listers
who can trace back to Maud de St Valery and William de Braose.

The attribution of Richard II's concubine and later wife Papia from
Envermeu as mother to Papia who married Gulbert the Advocate is based
on nothing more than the same name, there is no source indicating who
was her mother. However, it may be a reasonable guess, since Papia
from Envermeu was mother of William, count of Arques and Mauger,
archbishop of Rouen from 1037, who would have been roughly
contemporary with Gulbert of Saint-Valery.

Given Richard III's birthdate (c1000), it is possible that he could
have had a great-grandson (Walter) as a tenant-in-chief in 1086;
however, if as you state Walter's brother had an adult son-in-law in
1052, the chronology would become untenable. Given that Orderic does
not state which Duke Richard was the father of Gilbert's wife, then
Richard II would seem likely.

With reference to Robert de Torigny's statement that Richard III's
daughter Papia married Walter de St Valery: according to Keats-Rohan
(op cit) his wife was Elizabeth, sister of Miles de Montlhery.

Yes, I think Robert de Torigni was most probably quite wrong about his
Papia's husband as well as her father - although we can't rule out
that there might have been a Walter in the previous generation, maybe
a brother of Gulbert, to account for a son-in-law of Richard III if he
also had a daughter named Papia. If so, we know nothing else about
them.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 18 jun 2007 17:40:47

On Jun 17, 3:31 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 18, 7:37 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:

My memory is a little vague, but I seem to recall a chronological
argument that she was even a generation earlier, daughter of Richard
I.


However, it needs to be remembered that Orderic was in some confusion
about the Saint-Valery connection. He stated that Papia's grandson
Richard of Heugleville served his "uncle" the duke for some time -
"Ricardus autem duci Normanniae auunculo videlicet suo diu militauit".

Ah, yes. That was it. It was precisely this statement that led to the
reconstruction I mentioned - if accurate, serving a long time for
uncle Richard could only mean Richard II. However, as you indicate,
Orderic (all of them for that matter) was often imprecise, and on
occasion inaccurate.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 jun 2007 03:58:35

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182123784.041569.19260@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 1:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

<snip>

With reference to Robert de Torigny's statement that Richard III's
daughter Papia married Walter de St Valery: according to Keats-Rohan
(op cit) his wife was Elizabeth, sister of Miles de Montlhery.

Yes, I think Robert de Torigni was most probably quite wrong about his
Papia's husband as well as her father - although we can't rule out
that there might have been a Walter in the previous generation, maybe
a brother of Gulbert, to account for a son-in-law of Richard III if he
also had a daughter named Papia. If so, we know nothing else about
them.

Someone has informed me off-list that in the Medieval Lands database Charles
Cawley states that Robert de Torigni described Papia as daughter of Richard
II, quoting 'Robert of Torigny names "Nicolaum.duas filias Papiam.uxorem
Walterii de Sancto Walerico et Aeliz uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis"
as the children of "Ricardo secundo duce Normannum filio primi Ricardi".'


Not surprisingly, this is an outright distortion of the passage in question,
cited from the edition by Léopold Delisle, that Cawley has failed to
comprehend.



The text is as follows:



"Mortuo Ricardo secundo, duce Normannorum, filio primi Ricardi, successit ei
filius ejus Ricardus tercius. Hic genuit Nicolaum, postea abatem Sancti
Audowni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem Walterii de Sancto
Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis. Hic tercius
Ricardus eodem primo anno ducatus sui mortuus est...." (On the death of Duke
Richard II of Normandy, son of Richard I, his son Richard III succeeded. He
fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and two daughters, that is
Papia the wife of Walter [sic, but Gulbert according to Orderic] of
Saint-Valery and Aelis the wife of Viscount Ranulf of Bayeux. Richard III
died in the same year, the first of his ducal reign...)


Papia may have been daughter of Richard II, or perhaps of Richard I, but
this is definitely not what Robert de Torigni stated. "Hic" (himself)
clearly refers to Richard III, who occurs before it in the nominative, and
not to his father Richard II or grandfather Richard I.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 22 jun 2007 04:18:01

Thursday, 21 June, 2007


Dear Peter, et al.,

Thanks for this interesting and detailed discussion of the
descendants (known and alleged) of Richard III of Normandy. In
connection with this one question arises, on a specific matter
that I thought had been settled somewhat differently. You
noted in the first post of this thread, ' Orderic says that a
Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the Advocate
of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons
Walter of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville.' In a prior
thread, Stewart Baldwin provided the text from Orderic [now
also available on the Henry Project page for Richard I, duke of
Normandy], wherein he stated concerning Gulbert and his family,

"Gulbertus cognomento Aduocatus de Sancto Gualerico
filiam Ricardi ducis uxorem duxit ex qua Bernardum patrem
Gualteri de Sancto Gualerico et Ricardum de Hugeuilla
genuit. Ricardus autem duci Normanni� auunculo uidelicet
suo diu militauit, cuius dono nobilem Adam Herluini senis
de Hugleuilla relictam cum toto patrimonio eius
accepit." [1]

It seems clear, assuming no error by Orderic in this case,
that Richard de Hugleville was the (younger) son of Gulbert,
and a sibling (not son) of Bernard. This removes one
generation from this lineage down to Richard's son Gulbert
d'Auffay (lord of Hugleville and Auffay, and a participant in
the Battle of Hastings) and daughter Ada, wife of Geoffrey de
Neumarche and ancestress (as I show it) of a myriad of Marcher
families (de Braose, de Bohun and FitzHerbert of Blaen Llyfni
for three). It also removes some of the apparent chronogical
constraints with regard to placing Gulbert de St. Valery's
wife Papia.

If the foregoing is now considered to be in error, I'd
certainly be interested in any and all particulars.

Cheers,

John




NOTES

[1] Stewart Baldwin, The Henry Project, page for 'Richard I
"Sans Peur" ("the Fearless"). URL:

http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... cha000.htm






On Jun 19, 10:58�pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1182123784.041569.19260@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 18, 1:30 am, m...@btinternet.com wrote:

snip

With reference to Robert de Torigny's statement that Richard III's
daughter Papia married Walter de St Valery: according to Keats-Rohan
(op cit) his wife was Elizabeth, sister of Miles de Montlhery.

Yes, I think Robert de Torigni was most probably quite wrong about his
Papia's husband as well as her father - although we can't rule out
that there might have been a Walter in the previous generation, maybe
a brother of Gulbert, to account for a son-in-law of Richard III if he
also had a daughter named Papia. If so, we know nothing else about
them.

Someone has informed me off-list that in the Medieval Lands database Charles
Cawley states that Robert de Torigni described Papia as daughter of Richard
II, quoting 'Robert of Torigny names "Nicolaum.duas filias Papiam.uxorem
Walterii de Sancto Walerico et Aeliz uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis"
as the children of "Ricardo secundo duce Normannum filio primi Ricardi".'

Not surprisingly, this is an outright distortion of the passage in question,
cited from the edition by Léopold Delisle, that Cawley has failed to
comprehend.

The text is as follows:

"Mortuo Ricardo secundo, duce Normannorum, filio primi Ricardi, successit ei
filius ejus Ricardus tercius. Hic genuit Nicolaum, postea abatem Sancti
Audowni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem Walterii de Sancto
Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis. Hic tercius
Ricardus eodem primo anno ducatus sui mortuus est...." (On the death of Duke
Richard II of Normandy, son of Richard I, his son Richard III succeeded. He
fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and two daughters, that is
Papia the wife of Walter [sic, but Gulbert according to Orderic] of
Saint-Valery and Aelis the wife of Viscount Ranulf of Bayeux. Richard III
died in the same year, the first of his ducal reign...)

Papia may have been daughter of Richard II, or perhaps of Richard I, but
this is definitely not what Robert de Torigni stated. "Hic" (himself)
clearly refers to Richard III, who occurs before it in the nominative, and
not to his father Richard II or grandfather Richard I.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jun 2007 05:03:29

On Jun 22, 1:18 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Thursday, 21 June, 2007

Dear Peter, et al.,

Thanks for this interesting and detailed discussion of the
descendants (known and alleged) of Richard III of Normandy. In
connection with this one question arises, on a specific matter
that I thought had been settled somewhat differently. You
noted in the first post of this thread, ' Orderic says that a
Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the Advocate
of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons
Walter of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville.' In a prior
thread, Stewart Baldwin provided the text from Orderic [now
also available on the Henry Project page for Richard I, duke of
Normandy], wherein he stated concerning Gulbert and his family,

"Gulbertus cognomento Aduocatus de Sancto Gualerico
filiam Ricardi ducis uxorem duxit ex qua Bernardum patrem
Gualteri de Sancto Gualerico et Ricardum de Hugeuilla
genuit. Ricardus autem duci Normanni? auunculo uidelicet
suo diu militauit, cuius dono nobilem Adam Herluini senis
de Hugleuilla relictam cum toto patrimonio eius
accepit." [1]

It seems clear, assuming no error by Orderic in this case,
that Richard de Hugleville was the (younger) son of Gulbert,
and a sibling (not son) of Bernard. This removes one
generation from this lineage down to Richard's son Gulbert
d'Auffay (lord of Hugleville and Auffay, and a participant in
the Battle of Hastings) and daughter Ada, wife of Geoffrey de
Neumarche and ancestress (as I show it) of a myriad of Marcher
families (de Braose, de Bohun and FitzHerbert of Blaen Llyfni
for three). It also removes some of the apparent chronogical
constraints with regard to placing Gulbert de St. Valery's
wife Papia.

If the foregoing is now considered to be in error, I'd
certainly be interested in any and all particulars.

You are right, John, Orderic as quoted wrote that Walter of St
Valery's father Bernard and Richard of Heugleville were the sons of
Papia, and so there is only a literal translation needed for
"avunculus" relating this Richard to a Duke Richard the younger. My
arithmetic was never good, but even so there is no excuse for this
miscount of so few generations by inattention to the text.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 jun 2007 14:30:29

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:Gb5di.15105$wH4.5453@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
There have been some inconclusive discussions in the past about purported
lines of descent from Duke Richard III of Normandy, William the
Conqueror's uncle. However, these lines are not firmly supported by the
little direct evidence available.

This is found amongst the additions to Sigebert's 'Chronographia' written
by Robert de Torigni, where he stated: 'Ricardus tercius...genuit
Nicolaum, postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet
uxorem Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis
de Baiocis' (Richard III fathered Nicholas, later abbot of Saint-Ouen, and
two daughters, Papia wife of Walter of Saint-Valery, and Aelis wife of
Viscount Ranulf of Bayeux).

The paternity of Nicholas is confirmed by Orderic, 'Nicholaus Ricardi
tercii ducis Normannorum filius, a puero Fiscannensis monachus, conobium
Sancti Petri principis apostolorum in suburbio Rotomagensi fere LX annis
rexit' (Nicholas son of Duke Richard III of Normandy, a monk at Fécamp
from boyhood, directed the abbey of St Peter, prince of the apostles, in
Rouen's suburb for nearly 60 years).

There is as far as I am aware no other evidence for Aelis wife of Ranulf
who was viscount of Bayeux in 1047 when he joined Guy of Burgundy, count
of Brionne, in rebellion against William. It is supposed that he was
father (or possibly grandfather) to another Ranulf (died November 1120),
who was viscount of Bayeux by 1078/80 (father of Ranulf de Briquessart,
earl of Chester). However, the mother of this Viscount Ranulf of 1079/80
was named Matilda, and the simplest explanation appears to be that - if
Robert de Torigni was correct in the first place about Aelis being a
daughter of Duke Richard III and wife of the next Ranulf going, the
viscount of 1047 - the latter had two marriages (as Laheudrie, who
researched this family in the 1930s, thought) and his known descendants
are only from the second wife, Matilda.

The only way to retain Aelis in this genealogy is to make three viscounts
Ranulf, with a generation between the man of 1047 and the one of 1079/80
(assuming they were of the same agnatic line), but this is chronologically
unnecessary. The Ranulf of 1047 had succeeded his father Anchetil some
time after April 1033, and was most likely a contemporary of Guy of
Burgundy (born ca 1020) whom he joined in a foolhardy power grab. This
would fit with his first marriage to a daughter of Richard III, but hardly
leaves room for the Ranulf of 1079/80, born perhaps ca 1045/50 around the
same time as his wife's brother Earl Hugh of Chester and their known
in-laws, to be his grandson.

But there must be doubt over the accuracy of Robert de Torigni on this
anyway, both for lack of other evidence and due to his probable error
about the other alleged daughter, Papia.

While the caution in the last paragraph seems warranted, I have been
prompted by John's correction regarding the Saint-Valery descent to go back
over the one above more thoroughly, and in particular to dig out the article
by Edmond de Laheudrie that is the authority for the usually accepted
genealogy of the viscounts of Bayeux ('Les vicomtes de Bayeux' in _Bulletin
de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie_ 46 (1938) 183-225.

It appears that Laheudrie may have been wrong about the successive
generations of Ranulfs, that have confused others too. The main problem is
in the decades between the defeat of Guido of Burgundy's rebellion at
Val-ès-Dunes in 1047, in which a Viscount Ranulf was involved on the losing
side, and occurrences of a viscount of the same name in the 1080s.

Laheudrie thought that these were the same man, married first to Duke
Richard III's (alleged) daughter Aelis and secondly to Matilda (so named by
Orderic, but called Margaret in CP vol III p 166), sister of Hugo, viscount
of Avranches & earl of Chester. (These two women were born perhaps around
twenty years apart, in the same order.) Matilda was the mother of her
husband's heir, so it has been assumed that Aelis had no known children.

However, there is considerable room for doubt about this. Ranulf survived
the battle in 1047 and was pardoned afterwards - Wace says that he fled
shamefully, William of Malmesbury recounts that his homage was later
accepted by Duke William, but it is not known how long he survived
afterwards. The Viscount Ranulf occurring ca 1080 had a paternal aunt named
Fredesendis who made a gift of Auberville to Holy Trinity abbey at Caen with
her nephew's consent, as it belonged to his fief, and Queen Matilda
compensated him for this with payment ["Fredesendis autem Ranulfi
vicecomitis amita dedit eidem ecclesie Osbernivillam, annuente eodem
Ranulfo, de cuius feodo erat, cui R(anulfo) pro concessu suo dedi ego regina
M(athildis) de pecunia mea"]. There are two versions of the charter
recording this, dated 1080 and 1082 respectively. It seems unlikey to me,
although not impossible, that the Ranulf of 1047 had a paternal aunt making
gifts as late as 1080/82, even if this donation and payment had taken place
some time beforehand.

Matilda of Avranches was apparently married to the viscount of ca 1080,
mother by him (or possibly a successor) to Ranulf of Briquessart, earl of
Chester. If this Ranulf of ca 1080 survived to November 1120, as Ranulf of
Briquessart's father evidently did, and consequently was a son of the rebel
in 1047 rather than the same man aged around 95 at his death, then his
mother could have been Richard III's daughter Aelis, provided we can believe
Robert de Torigni that such a person existed at all when Orderic and others
do not mention her in the same context.

It's a pity that so many differing opinions have been advanced (including,
so far, two by me...) to cloud the questions of chronology in this family.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 jun 2007 07:37:59

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182485009.850716.163450@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 1:18 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Thursday, 21 June, 2007

Dear Peter, et al.,

Thanks for this interesting and detailed discussion of the
descendants (known and alleged) of Richard III of Normandy. In
connection with this one question arises, on a specific matter
that I thought had been settled somewhat differently. You
noted in the first post of this thread, ' Orderic says that a
Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the Advocate
of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons
Walter of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville.' In a prior
thread, Stewart Baldwin provided the text from Orderic [now
also available on the Henry Project page for Richard I, duke of
Normandy]

Following on from John's correction, I checked this Henry Project page where
the following is noted regarding Eleanor Searle's placement of Papia as
daughter of Richard I:

"Although Searle did not explicitly state her reason for making Richard I
the father of Gulbert's wife, it seems clear that it was based on
chronological considerations, for she cites a charter of 1025 [Faroux no.
34] which was attested by Richard son of Gulbert, which seems to rule out
that Richard's mother could be a daughter of any Norman duke later than
Richard I."

This may have been Searle's reasoning, but if so she placed too much
reliance on the date proposed by Fauroux for the document in question. This
is a charter of Richard II for Fécamp, and the dating clause contains
conflicting indicatons for 1025 and, explicitly, August 1027; further, the
text refers to "beate memorie Abbati Willelmo" (abbot William of blessed
memory), who died after both dates, on 1 January 1031; moreover the
subsciptions include both Richard II himself and his successor Richard III
given a regnal number ("Ego tercius Ricardus hoc signo confirmo"). The
probability is that this charter, surviving in its earliest form as a later
pseudo-original, was added to over time from 1025. Consequently we can't say
when the attestation "Signum Ricardi filii Gulberti" was added. His presence
in a small and compartively illustrious group (three dukes of Normandy,
three bishops, two viscounts, the ducal chancellor and Richard son of
Gulbert) rather suggests that he was close to Richard II and/or to Richard
III, so as merely the younger son of an illegitimate daughter Richard of
Heugleville is perhaps more likely to have been the former's grandson than
nephew and the latter's nephew than cousin, i.e. Papia's father is more
likely from this charter's evidence too, apart from the statement of
Orderic, to have been Richard II than Richard I.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 24 jun 2007 00:54:26

Dear Peter,

Thanks for those added observations, and the details concerning
the '1025' charter from Faroux.

Concerning your views as to the placement of the mother of
Richard de Hugleville (i.e., more likely as daughter of Richard II of
Normandy than as his sister), this also has the added attraction in
modifying the magnitude of the error by Robert de Torigny in placing
her as a daughter of Richard III of Normandy. At least as a sister of
Richard III, this would be somewhat more understandable (vs. her
placement as an aunt of the same Richard). It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

Cheers,

John



On Jun 23, 2:37 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:1182485009.850716.163450@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Jun 22, 1:18 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Thursday, 21 June, 2007

Dear Peter, et al.,

Thanks for this interesting and detailed discussion of the
descendants (known and alleged) of Richard III of Normandy. In
connection with this one question arises, on a specific matter
that I thought had been settled somewhat differently. You
noted in the first post of this thread, ' Orderic says that a
Papia, daughter of a Duke Richard, married Gulbert the Advocate
of Saint-Valery and had a son Bernard who in turn had sons
Walter of Saint-Valery and Richard of Hugleville.' In a prior
thread, Stewart Baldwin provided the text from Orderic [now
also available on the Henry Project page for Richard I, duke of
Normandy]

Following on from John's correction, I checked this Henry Project page where
the following is noted regarding Eleanor Searle's placement of Papia as
daughter of Richard I:

"Although Searle did not explicitly state her reason for making Richard I
the father of Gulbert's wife, it seems clear that it was based on
chronological considerations, for she cites a charter of 1025 [Faroux no.
34] which was attested by Richard son of Gulbert, which seems to rule out
that Richard's mother could be a daughter of any Norman duke later than
Richard I."

This may have been Searle's reasoning, but if so she placed too much
reliance on the date proposed by Fauroux for the document in question. This
is a charter of Richard II for Fécamp, and the dating clause contains
conflicting indicatons for 1025 and, explicitly, August 1027; further, the
text refers to "beate memorie Abbati Willelmo" (abbot William of blessed
memory), who died after both dates, on 1 January 1031; moreover the
subsciptions include both Richard II himself and his successor Richard III
given a regnal number ("Ego tercius Ricardus hoc signo confirmo"). The
probability is that this charter, surviving in its earliest form as a later
pseudo-original, was added to over time from 1025. Consequently we can't say
when the attestation "Signum Ricardi filii Gulberti" was added. His presence
in a small and compartively illustrious group (three dukes of Normandy,
three bishops, two viscounts, the ducal chancellor and Richard son of
Gulbert) rather suggests that he was close to Richard II and/or to Richard
III, so as merely the younger son of an illegitimate daughter Richard of
Heugleville is perhaps more likely to have been the former's grandson than
nephew and the latter's nephew than cousin, i.e. Papia's father is more
likely from this charter's evidence too, apart from the statement of
Orderic, to have been Richard II than Richard I.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jun 2007 01:42:40

On Jun 24, 9:54 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Peter,

Thanks for those added observations, and the details concerning
the '1025' charter from Faroux.

Concerning your views as to the placement of the mother of
Richard de Hugleville (i.e., more likely as daughter of Richard II of
Normandy than as his sister), this also has the added attraction in
modifying the magnitude of the error by Robert de Torigny in placing
her as a daughter of Richard III of Normandy. At least as a sister of
Richard III, this would be somewhat more understandable (vs. her
placement as an aunt of the same Richard). It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I agree with John - it is also I think reasonable to suppose that
Orderic's consistent information about this family came from an
excellent source: Richard of Heugleville's grandson Drogo of
Neufmarché became a monk at Saint-Evroul, where Orderic perhaps heard
details of the family and its link to the dukes directly from him.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jun 2007 08:25:22

On Jun 24, 10:42 am, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:54 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:





Dear Peter,

Thanks for those added observations, and the details concerning
the '1025' charter from Faroux.

Concerning your views as to the placement of the mother of
Richard de Hugleville (i.e., more likely as daughter of Richard II of
Normandy than as his sister), this also has the added attraction in
modifying the magnitude of the error by Robert de Torigny in placing
her as a daughter of Richard III of Normandy. At least as a sister of
Richard III, this would be somewhat more understandable (vs. her
placement as an aunt of the same Richard). It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I agree with John - it is also I think reasonable to suppose that
Orderic's consistent information about this family came from an
excellent source: Richard of Heugleville's grandson Drogo of
Neufmarché became a monk at Saint-Evroul, where Orderic perhaps heard
details of the family and its link to the dukes directly from him.

On second thoughts, there may be a problem with making the younger
Papia a full-sister of Archbishop Mauger of Rouen and Count WIlliam of
Arques.

Mauger was made archbishop in 1037, following the death of his uncle
Robert (a son of Richard I and Gunnor). According to the account of
the archbishops written by a monk of Saint-Ouen at Rouen in the 1070s
or therabouts, Mauger was elevated to this office 'in pueritia',
literally in boyhood. The term strictly meant between 7 and 14 years
old, though it could have been stretched into the range of
'adolescentia' (14 to 28) in this context of disparaging the man.

Robert de Torigni reports the marriage of Richard II to Papia in 1024,
although stating more vaguely that this was after the death of his
first wife Judith (that had happened in June 1017). There is no
particular reason as far as I know to suppose that Mauger and William
were born much if at all before ca 1018 - William was living in the
late 1030s, probably into the 1040s, and was married, without any
recorded children.

There is no mention of a daughter born to Richard II and Papia, and if
Richard of Heugleville served Duke Robert I for some time before 1035
his mother would most plausibly have been born by ca 990/95, maybe 20+
years before Mauger and WIlliam.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jun 2007 14:51:57

On Jun 24, 5:25 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

Robert de Torigni reports the marriage of Richard II to Papia in 1024,
although stating more vaguely that this was after the death of his
first wife Judith (that had happened in June 1017). There is no
particular reason as far as I know to suppose that Mauger and William
were born much if at all before ca 1018 - William was living in the
late 1030s, probably into the 1040s, and was married, without any
recorded children.

A note by Elisabeth van Houts in her edition of the _Gesta Normannorum
ducum_ states "Charter evidence mentions that there was a son called
Walter" citing a document from Saint-Wandrille. However, this is far
from solid evidence - it is an undated charter by William ("Ego
Willelmus, nutu Dei comes, filius scilicet Ricardi, Normannorum
quondam ducis") with the following subscriptions: "S. Godefredi
vicecomitis, S. comitis, Walterius filius, Lambertus, Willelmus,
Osbernus" - there is no other record of a son, and it is not clear
from this whether the Walter here was Count William's son, as the odd
wording makes it appear, or if the name of his actual father is
missing after 'filius', or if this disconnected word is simply a
copyist's mistake.

The name Walter would be difficult to explain for a legitimate son, at
least, since it did not occur in the Norman ducal family or in the
comital family of Ponthieu that William's wife reportedly belonged to.

However, the original of this charter is lost and the earliest
surviving copy is in a 14th-century cartulary of Rouen cathedral from
which the edition was transcribed. Independent copies do not support
it: the word 'filius' was omitted in a vidimus of 1423 and in two
other cartulary copies from the 15th century. Orderic and other
narrative sources make no mention of any son.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 24 jun 2007 15:23:32

Dear Peter,

Thanks also for this last. I was going to raise the issue of
Count William's son Walter (I have a note citing D. C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror, p. 66) but your review of the charter evidence
puts paid to that.

You had stated in your prior post re: Count William of Arques,
that "William was living in the late 1030s, probably into the 1040s,
and was married, without any recorded children." He certainly lived
later than 25 Oct 1053. He was a leader of a rebellion against Duke
William of Normandy (later, _The Conqueror_), and an army including
his brother-in-law Count Enguerrand of Ponthieu was coming to relief
his castle of Arques when they were attacked by William's forces, and
Count Enguerrand killed on 25 Oct. 1053 [his brother Guy taking his
place]. William of Arques subsequently surrendered, and was exiled
from Normandy, said to have gone to Boulogne. Heather Tanner provides
the following from the Vita S. Bernardi:

' Willelmus quoque non long post inedia affectus
cum suis invitus castellum reddidit, et ipse a
nativo solo in exilium discessit. Denique cum
uxore sua, sorore scilicet Widonis Comitis
Pontivi, Eustachium Boloniae Comitem expetiit;
et in ejus familia victum et vestitum percipiens,
usque ad morte suam extorris remansit. ' [1]

I am not aware of any further record of Count William of Arques
or any descendants; Archbishop Mauger was deposed by an ecclesiastical
council at Lisieux held by Hugh, bishop of Lisieux and Ermenfrid,
bishop of Sitten and papal legate [Douglas, p. 69].

As to the primary matter of this thread, given the apparent
chronology concerning William of Arques, that of Richard de Hugleville
and his immediate family (such as it currently seems) and the
circumstances and characters involved in the rebellion of 1052-1053, I
concur that it is more likely that the mother of Richard de Hugleville
(Papia or no) was the daughter of an earlier liaison of Richard II of
Normandy.

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] Heather J. Tanner, Families, Friends and Allies:
Boulogne and Politics in Northern France and
England, c. 879-1160, p. 95 note <102>, cites
' (Bouquet 1738-1876): 9:40 '. This is from the
Vita S. Bernardi, ed. M. Bouquet (1738-1876) in
Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France.
Tanner's English rendering:

' William returned after a brief absence and
weakened/oppressed the unwilling castle and
that man departed alone in exile from his
native land. Then indeed with his wife,
namely the sister of Guy, count of Ponthieu
sought out Eustace count of Boulogne, and
remained in his familia, receiving food and
clothing, until his death. '




On Jun 24, 9:51?am, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 24, 5:25 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

snip

Robert de Torigni reports the marriage of Richard II to Papia in 1024,
although stating more vaguely that this was after the death of his
first wife Judith (that had happened in June 1017). There is no
particular reason as far as I know to suppose that Mauger and William
were born much if at all before ca 1018 - William was living in the
late 1030s, probably into the 1040s, and was married, without any
recorded children.

A note by Elisabeth van Houts in her edition of the _Gesta Normannorum
ducum_ states "Charter evidence mentions that there was a son called
Walter" citing a document from Saint-Wandrille. However, this is far
from solid evidence - it is an undated charter by William ("Ego
Willelmus, nutu Dei comes, filius scilicet Ricardi, Normannorum
quondam ducis") with the following subscriptions: "S. Godefredi
vicecomitis, S. comitis, Walterius filius, Lambertus, Willelmus,
Osbernus" - there is no other record of a son, and it is not clear
from this whether the Walter here was Count William's son, as the odd
wording makes it appear, or if the name of his actual father is
missing after 'filius', or if this disconnected word is simply a
copyist's mistake.

The name Walter would be difficult to explain for a legitimate son, at
least, since it did not occur in the Norman ducal family or in the
comital family of Ponthieu that William's wife reportedly belonged to.

However, the original of this charter is lost and the earliest
surviving copy is in a 14th-century cartulary of Rouen cathedral from
which the edition was transcribed. Independent copies do not support
it: the word 'filius' was omitted in a vidimus of 1423 and in two
other cartulary copies from the 15th century. Orderic and other
narrative sources make no mention of any son.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 24 jun 2007 23:56:42

On Jun 25, 12:23 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Peter,

Thanks also for this last. I was going to raise the issue of
Count William's son Walter (I have a note citing D. C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror, p. 66) but your review of the charter evidence
puts paid to that.

You had stated in your prior post re: Count William of Arques,
that "William was living in the late 1030s, probably into the 1040s,
and was married, without any recorded children." He certainly lived
later than 25 Oct 1053. He was a leader of a rebellion against Duke
William of Normandy (later, _The Conqueror_), and an army including
his brother-in-law Count Enguerrand of Ponthieu was coming to relief
his castle of Arques when they were attacked by William's forces, and
Count Enguerrand killed on 25 Oct. 1053 [his brother Guy taking his
place]. William of Arques subsequently surrendered, and was exiled
from Normandy, said to have gone to Boulogne. Heather Tanner provides
the following from the Vita S. Bernardi:

' Willelmus quoque non long post inedia affectus
cum suis invitus castellum reddidit, et ipse a
nativo solo in exilium discessit. Denique cum
uxore sua, sorore scilicet Widonis Comitis
Pontivi, Eustachium Boloniae Comitem expetiit;
et in ejus familia victum et vestitum percipiens,
usque ad morte suam extorris remansit. ' [1]

This is exactly the same wording as the interpolation by Orderic in
the _Gesta Normannorum ducum_, so that we still have only one source
for the marriage to a sister of the count of Ponthieu and survival in
exile on charity from the count of Boulogne. The chronology of William
of Talou's rebellion has been much debated by historians, and 1053 is
probably the current consensus. I was going from memory that he was
made a count ca 1037 and vaguely recalling a placement of the above
events as early as the 1040s, but this may be discredited now.
However, I am suspicious about the death of Enguerrand of Ponthieu
while allegedly going to the aid of Count William of Talou besieged at
Arques: why would the brother-in-law of Duke William of Normandy want
to support a rebellion by his cousins that was prompted by the duke's
illegitimacy? Did he want to make absolutely certain that no claim to
Normandy could ever arise for his own desendants for the same reason?
It seems a rum choice for family as well as political reasons.

Peter Stewart

John P. Ravilious

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 25 jun 2007 01:45:45

Dear Peter,

Enguerrand's choice was not so much rum, but rather sang real.

Enguerrand of Ponthieu's position in the struggle of Duke William
(of Normandy) vs. Count William (of Arques) was possibly caused in
part by his own views, perhaps incl. that a duchy under William of
Arques would be either less agressive or less capable than one under
Duke William was proving to be. An overriding concern in 1052/3 had
to do with King Henri of France and his policy towards Normandy. This
had changed after his rapprochment with Geoffrey 'Martel' of Anjou,
with whom he was having an amicable relationship by 15 August 1052.
In fact, King Henri was the leader of the forces moving against Duke
William, and was heading to Arques to relieve the siege in 1053 when
Count Enguerrand was slain.

Safe to say, Enguerrand's love of his own countship and its
continuance trumped any future concerns over the Duchy of Normandy (or
its lordship) in 1053.

Cheers,

John



On Jun 24, 6:56 pm, Peter Stewart <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
On Jun 25, 12:23 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:



Dear Peter,

Thanks also for this last. I was going to raise the issue of
Count William's son Walter (I have a note citing D. C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror, p. 66) but your review of the charter evidence
puts paid to that.

You had stated in your prior post re: Count William of Arques,
that "William was living in the late 1030s, probably into the 1040s,
and was married, without any recorded children." He certainly lived
later than 25 Oct 1053. He was a leader of a rebellion against Duke
William of Normandy (later, _The Conqueror_), and an army including
his brother-in-law Count Enguerrand of Ponthieu was coming to relief
his castle of Arques when they were attacked by William's forces, and
Count Enguerrand killed on 25 Oct. 1053 [his brother Guy taking his
place]. William of Arques subsequently surrendered, and was exiled
from Normandy, said to have gone to Boulogne. Heather Tanner provides
the following from the Vita S. Bernardi:

' Willelmus quoque non long post inedia affectus
cum suis invitus castellum reddidit, et ipse a
nativo solo in exilium discessit. Denique cum
uxore sua, sorore scilicet Widonis Comitis
Pontivi, Eustachium Boloniae Comitem expetiit;
et in ejus familia victum et vestitum percipiens,
usque ad morte suam extorris remansit. ' [1]

This is exactly the same wording as the interpolation by Orderic in
the _Gesta Normannorum ducum_, so that we still have only one source
for the marriage to a sister of the count of Ponthieu and survival in
exile on charity from the count of Boulogne. The chronology of William
of Talou's rebellion has been much debated by historians, and 1053 is
probably the current consensus. I was going from memory that he was
made a count ca 1037 and vaguely recalling a placement of the above
events as early as the 1040s, but this may be discredited now.
However, I am suspicious about the death of Enguerrand of Ponthieu
while allegedly going to the aid of Count William of Talou besieged at
Arques: why would the brother-in-law of Duke William of Normandy want
to support a rebellion by his cousins that was prompted by the duke's
illegitimacy? Did he want to make absolutely certain that no claim to
Normandy could ever arise for his own desendants for the same reason?
It seems a rum choice for family as well as political reasons.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 25 jun 2007 02:36:06

On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 07:52:21

On Jun 25, 10:45 am, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Peter,

Enguerrand's choice was not so much rum, but rather sang real.

Enguerrand of Ponthieu's position in the struggle of Duke William
(of Normandy) vs. Count William (of Arques) was possibly caused in
part by his own views, perhaps incl. that a duchy under William of
Arques would be either less agressive or less capable than one under
Duke William was proving to be. An overriding concern in 1052/3 had
to do with King Henri of France and his policy towards Normandy. This
had changed after his rapprochment with Geoffrey 'Martel' of Anjou,
with whom he was having an amicable relationship by 15 August 1052.
In fact, King Henri was the leader of the forces moving against Duke
William, and was heading to Arques to relieve the siege in 1053 when
Count Enguerrand was slain.

Safe to say, Enguerrand's love of his own countship and its
continuance trumped any future concerns over the Duchy of Normandy (or
its lordship) in 1053.

Well, this is one way to look at it, certainly.

However, I'm not sure that a Normandy with William of Talou in charge
was ever in prospect: he reportedly left the ducal force at Domfront,
having never been loyal to William in the first place, and went home
to fortify his base in Arques - this appears not a strategy for
supplanting his cousin on the ducal throne so much as for asserting
the independence of his own lands from the authority of the young
bastard ruler. King Henri would hardly have been inveigled into the
effort if it meant just exchanging one duke for another in a Normandy
with the same territorial extent & power.

The counts of Ponthieu had been loyal to the Capetians, but presumably
that is partly why Duke WIlliam gave his sister in marriage to
Enguerrand in the first place, to ensure a friendly neighbour who
would not be readily pressed into a campaign against him. Why would he
have wasted her hand if Enguerrand's siding with Henri was an
inevitable outcome anyway? Or why did this diplomatic manoeuvre come
unstuck so quickly, with Enguerrand preferring a speculative venture
with his sister's husband to defense of his wife's brother?

The rapprochement between Normandy and Flanders through the marriage
of William to Matilda was presumably a major concern for Henri, but
somewhat less worrying for Enguerrand in the midst of these old
enemies. I should have thought a Flemish duchess of Normandy who was
his wife's sister-in-law would have seemed a welcome change to the
count of Ponthieu. I can't see that the survival of his own countship
was under any threat from the Capetian king or from the count of Anjou
if he didn't rush to attack his brother-in-law, with no obvious gain
to be had from it.

The result was his own death and the captivity of his brother &
successor for two years, followed by Guy of Ponthieu swearing an oath
of loyalty to William the Bastard of Normandy. Whatever prompted
Enguerrand's actions in these events he was badly misguided, and would
surely have been - fairly predicatbly - better off telling King Henri
what else he could do with himself when his aid was requested.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 14:15:59

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 14:15:59

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 14:15:59

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 14:15:59

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

Doug McDonald

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 25 jun 2007 15:57:58

Peter Stewart wrote:

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart



Weighing in on this, in jester mode.

Yes, we all know we care exactly who was daughter of who. But in this case,
it really doesn't matter. We are all descendants of Richard II anyway,
in most cases through the Conqueror. It's unlikely that Papia is
a daughter of Richard III, and most of us are his descendants
anyway through Ranulph de Meschines. We know that Papia was a descendant of
Richard the Fearless, and we don't in any case know anything about
Papia's mother. Its not one of those important cases where a
generation really matters.

If one worries about one-generation gaps, I'd rather worry
about the ancestors of Arnulf of Metz!

Doug McDonald

John P. Ravilious

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 25 jun 2007 16:52:52

Dear Peter, et al.,

The name 'Paveia' in this instance is either a rendering of
Papia, or possibly the name of Richard II's wife/mistress having been
'Normanized' by others into Papia. This correlation was given by
Wilhelm Wackernagel in 1874 (unfortunately from what sources we do not
know) [1], in the linguistic periods of Althochdeutsch and
Mittelhochdeutsch, roughly the 11th century and some time on either
side.

The correlation here actually provides no ready answer concerning
Papia/Paveia or her origins. She could herself have been Norman, or
from a 'German' (possibly Frisian or Flemish) family. Richard II's
marital arrangements for his children by his first wife included
Flemish and Burgundian alliances, so there is little limitation to
ponder as to how far 'Paveia' may have come from.

Cheers,

John




NOTES

[1] Wilhelm Wackernagel, Kleinere Schriften (Leipzig: S. Hirzel,
1874), p. 289. This page can be seen via Googlebooks:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZQorAA ... ISO-8859-1





On Jun 25, 9:15�am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message

news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother.  Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 25 jun 2007 21:10:44

On Jun 25, 6:15 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message

news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Yes, if Poppa is a feminine form of Poppo (the most common
interpretation) and if Papia can appropriately be rendered as Paveie,
then this argument wouldn't hold. That being said, I am always wary of
a form that appears in a single occurrence, and I am not certain how
clear the Poppa/Poppo link is.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 23:05:23

On Jun 26, 6:10 am, taf <farme...@interfold.com> wrote:
On Jun 25, 6:15 am, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:





"taf" <farme...@interfold.com> wrote in message

news:1182735366.084714.83180@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 23, 4:54 pm, "John P. Ravilious" <ther...@aol.com> wrote:
It also might (accent on
might) gain some support from other suggestions that, being named
Papia (per Torigny) she was the daughter of Richard II's wife (or
mistress) Papia, and a full sister of Mauger, Archbishop of Rouen and
his brother William, Count of Arques.

I had weighed this argument years ago, but concluded that Papia was
probably a different form of Poppa, the name of Richard I's
grandmother. Were this the case, then Richard I would be almost as
likely to name a daughter by this name as his son would.

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Yes, if Poppa is a feminine form of Poppo (the most common
interpretation) and if Papia can appropriately be rendered as Paveie,
then this argument wouldn't hold. That being said, I am always wary of
a form that appears in a single occurrence, and I am not certain how
clear the Poppa/Poppo link is.

This has been discussed before. I'm no more convinced now than I was
then that Poppa is a feminine form of Poppo - if it was, it can also
be said to have appeared in a single feminine occurrence, Rollo's
Poppa.

As for the idea that Richard II's Papia/Paveia could have come from a
Frisian or Flemish family: her mother's name was Richildis and she had
brothers called Osbern and Ansfred; they held land at Envermeu. I
can't see any reason to think they were other than Normans.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Supposed descents from Duke Richard III of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 25 jun 2007 23:21:13

On Jun 26, 12:57 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

The wife of Richard II discussed in this thread is usually named Papia in
charters and narrative sources, but there is an extant original document of
Count William of Arques in which he names his mother Paveia ("per voluntatem
matris mee Paveie", Fauroux no. 112, p. 274). If this is really a form of
Poppa, it certainly doesn't help the argument that the name is a feminine
form of Poppo, which doesn't occur in a variant such as "Paveius" or
anything like it, as far as I know.

Peter Stewart

Weighing in on this, in jester mode.

Yes, we all know we care exactly who was daughter of who. But in this case,
it really doesn't matter. We are all descendants of Richard II anyway,
in most cases through the Conqueror. It's unlikely that Papia is
a daughter of Richard III, and most of us are his descendants
anyway through Ranulph de Meschines. We know that Papia was a descendant of
Richard the Fearless, and we don't in any case know anything about
Papia's mother. Its not one of those important cases where a
generation really matters.

If one worries about one-generation gaps, I'd rather worry
about the ancestors of Arnulf of Metz!

DIfferent interests to start with - I have next-to none at all in the
ancestry of moden people, but rather want to know about relationships
between medieval ones, for their own sake. If this is not done first,
then the questions of ancestry can't be clearly answered. In this
case, one of the questions is whether Richard III had any descendants,
yourself included. I don't think he did, but at present we can't be
sure either way.

If we simply content ourselves with a preferred answer, as above,
based on nothing but an otherwise mistaken statment by Robert de
Torigni in the 12th century, we may never know.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»