Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 aug 2007 22:28:20

Dear Will ~

You've asked an excellent question. Thank you for bringing this
matter to my attention.

Maud de Holand, King Richard II's half-sister, is known to have
married twice, her second husband being Waleran III de Luxembourg,
Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, who died in 1417. Waleran and Maud are
known to have married at Windsor, Berkshire in Easter week, 1380.
Maud was Count Waleran's first wife. She was buried at Westminster
Abbey 23 April 1392.

One of the pieces of evidence proving Maud and Waleran's marriage can
be found in Barante, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de
Valois, 1364-1477, 2 (1824): 450-451, which presents the transcript of
a contemporary letter of Waleran de Luxembourg dated 1403 written to
King Henry IV of England, in which Waleran specifically states:

"... moi, Waleran de Luxembourg, comte de Ligny et de Saint-Pol,
considérant l'affinité, amour, et confédération que j'avais avec très-
haut et puissant prince Richard, roi d'Angleterre, dont j'ai eu la
soeur pour épouse.").

Count Waleran subsequently married as his 2nd wife, Bonne of Bar,
daughter of Robert I, Duke of Bar, which wife survived him.

Count Waleran is known to have had one legitimate daughter, Jeanne,
wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, who was his heiress, and two
illegitimate sons, Jean [seigneur of Hautbordin] and Simon [prévôt of
Saint-Omer] by different mistresses (see Mémoires de la Societé des
antiquaires de Picardie, 3rd ser. 6 (1880): 387-388).

The sources that I've checked have generally stated that Count Waleran
died with male issue, that he was married twice, and that he left a
legitimate daughter and heiress, Jeanne, without naming which wife was
the mother of Jeanne (see, for example, Count Waleran's biography in
Michaud, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, 28 (1820): 464-
466). The confusion over which wife was the mother of Jeanne is
probably due to the lack of available information as to when Waleran's
first wife, Maud de Holand, died, and also as to when his second
marriage to Bonne of Bar occurred. One source I checked actually
stated that Maud de Holand died without issue.

All the sources I checked agree that Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne,
married in1402 Antoine de Bourgogne. I assume the concrete date of
this marriage comes from a published marriage settlement for this
couple.

My previous research established that Waleran's first wife, Maud de
Holand, was buried at Westminster Abbey 23 April 1392 (see, for
example, Hector Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394 (1982): 450-451, 488-
489; Taylor ed. The St. Albans Chronicle 1 (2003): 238).

It appears that Count Waleran married his second wife, Bonne of Bar,
about March 1401, when Bonne's father, Duke Robert, settled the
castle, ville, and dependencies of Nogent-le-Rotrou on Waleran and his
wife on "the occasion of their marriage." [Reference: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248]. Fret further discusses
the subsequent history of Bonne, wife of Count Waleran. He says
specifically that she died without issue ("... elle ne laissa point de
posterité"). On Bonne's death, she was succeeded at Nogent by her
brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar.

Given these facts, it seems obvious that Maud de Holand, the first
wife of Count Waleran, was the mother of Waleran's daughter and
heiress, Jeanne de Luxembourg. The chronology is certainly
acceptable. Also, we have a clear statement in print that Count
Waleran's second wife, Bonne of Bar, died without issue and that
Bonne's successor at Nogent was her brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar.

Interestingly, in the course of my research, I learned that it was an
incident at Countess Maud's house at Lucheu in the county of Saint-
Pol, followed by a duel for the honor of French knighthood, that was
said to have given rise to the holding of the famous jousts at St.
Inglebert in March-April 1390.

Lastly, for those interested in such matters, a seal of Count Waleran
has been preserved. A record of it can be found in De Raadt, Sceaux
Armoriés des Pays-Bas et de Pays Avoisinants, 2 (1899): 396, as
follows:

Seal dated 1390: un lion couronné, à la queue fourchée, C: un dragon
issant d'une cuve, S. deux griffons accroupis.

Likewise, a second letter of Count Waleran dated 1406 can be found in
Duchet & Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.


On Aug 17, 12:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

Douglas can you confirm for us *how* you know that Maud had no issue
by either marriage?

Thanks
Will Johnson

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av John Higgins » 17 aug 2007 23:35:39

This is a lot of verbiage to cover a question which has been discussed
before in this group (see the archives). For the latest information in an
authoritative reference regarding the parentage of Jeanne de Luxembourg, see
Schwennicke's ESNF, vol. 1.2, table 231 (published 1999), which also has
some different (and more exact) dates than those indicated below.

A briefer and more accurate answer would have been "Oops, I made a mistake -
Maud de Holand DID have issue by her second marriage."

PS: This can be marked as another error in RPA/PA3.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Will ~

You've asked an excellent question. Thank you for bringing this
matter to my attention.

Maud de Holand, King Richard II's half-sister, is known to have
married twice, her second husband being Waleran III de Luxembourg,
Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, who died in 1417. Waleran and Maud are
known to have married at Windsor, Berkshire in Easter week, 1380.
Maud was Count Waleran's first wife. She was buried at Westminster
Abbey 23 April 1392.

One of the pieces of evidence proving Maud and Waleran's marriage can
be found in Barante, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de
Valois, 1364-1477, 2 (1824): 450-451, which presents the transcript of
a contemporary letter of Waleran de Luxembourg dated 1403 written to
King Henry IV of England, in which Waleran specifically states:

"... moi, Waleran de Luxembourg, comte de Ligny et de Saint-Pol,
considérant l'affinité, amour, et confédération que j'avais avec très-
haut et puissant prince Richard, roi d'Angleterre, dont j'ai eu la
soeur pour épouse.").

Count Waleran subsequently married as his 2nd wife, Bonne of Bar,
daughter of Robert I, Duke of Bar, which wife survived him.

Count Waleran is known to have had one legitimate daughter, Jeanne,
wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, who was his heiress, and two
illegitimate sons, Jean [seigneur of Hautbordin] and Simon [prévôt of
Saint-Omer] by different mistresses (see Mémoires de la Societé des
antiquaires de Picardie, 3rd ser. 6 (1880): 387-388).

The sources that I've checked have generally stated that Count Waleran
died with male issue, that he was married twice, and that he left a
legitimate daughter and heiress, Jeanne, without naming which wife was
the mother of Jeanne (see, for example, Count Waleran's biography in
Michaud, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, 28 (1820): 464-
466). The confusion over which wife was the mother of Jeanne is
probably due to the lack of available information as to when Waleran's
first wife, Maud de Holand, died, and also as to when his second
marriage to Bonne of Bar occurred. One source I checked actually
stated that Maud de Holand died without issue.

All the sources I checked agree that Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne,
married in1402 Antoine de Bourgogne. I assume the concrete date of
this marriage comes from a published marriage settlement for this
couple.

My previous research established that Waleran's first wife, Maud de
Holand, was buried at Westminster Abbey 23 April 1392 (see, for
example, Hector Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394 (1982): 450-451, 488-
489; Taylor ed. The St. Albans Chronicle 1 (2003): 238).

It appears that Count Waleran married his second wife, Bonne of Bar,
about March 1401, when Bonne's father, Duke Robert, settled the
castle, ville, and dependencies of Nogent-le-Rotrou on Waleran and his
wife on "the occasion of their marriage." [Reference: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248]. Fret further discusses
the subsequent history of Bonne, wife of Count Waleran. He says
specifically that she died without issue ("... elle ne laissa point de
posterité"). On Bonne's death, she was succeeded at Nogent by her
brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar.

Given these facts, it seems obvious that Maud de Holand, the first
wife of Count Waleran, was the mother of Waleran's daughter and
heiress, Jeanne de Luxembourg. The chronology is certainly
acceptable. Also, we have a clear statement in print that Count
Waleran's second wife, Bonne of Bar, died without issue and that
Bonne's successor at Nogent was her brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar.

Interestingly, in the course of my research, I learned that it was an
incident at Countess Maud's house at Lucheu in the county of Saint-
Pol, followed by a duel for the honor of French knighthood, that was
said to have given rise to the holding of the famous jousts at St.
Inglebert in March-April 1390.

Lastly, for those interested in such matters, a seal of Count Waleran
has been preserved. A record of it can be found in De Raadt, Sceaux
Armoriés des Pays-Bas et de Pays Avoisinants, 2 (1899): 396, as
follows:

Seal dated 1390: un lion couronné, à la queue fourchée, C: un dragon
issant d'une cuve, S. deux griffons accroupis.

Likewise, a second letter of Count Waleran dated 1406 can be found in
Duchet & Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah.


On Aug 17, 12:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

Douglas can you confirm for us *how* you know that Maud had no issue
by either marriage?

Thanks
Will Johnson


-------------------------------
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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 aug 2007 02:38:29

Dear Newsgroup ~

As I survey the printed literature, I find much disagreement among the
major sources in print about the Luxembourg family. As such, I
believe we all can learn from the topic of this thread by studying the
original documents of the period and comparing them against the
printed secondary sources.

In my own book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), I state that Maud de
Holand married (2nd) Waleran III de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and
Saint-Pol. I believe that information is correct. But I note that
Anselme, Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny) says her name was"Mahaud de Roeux." This is clearly an error.
And, this error is echoed in MANY sources which I have encountered.

The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into
"Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753].

To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either
"Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her
lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or
Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame
de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have
been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay.

When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a
contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King
Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de
Roeux," or both.

Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own
correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes"
which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet &
Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante,
Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2
(1824): 450-451].

Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was
" Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor
his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition
of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg.

Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply
a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed
the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles. If Waleran III
de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much like to
know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his
database and delete the error.

Once again, I wish to extend my thanks to Will and Leo for bringing
these matters to my attention. It's much appreciated. We're going to
learn a lot from this thread, I can tell. And this is just the
beginning.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 aug 2007 03:41:52

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187401109.921569.140180@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

[...]

The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into
"Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753].

<G>

To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either
"Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her
lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or
Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame
de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have
been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay.

When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a
contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King
Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de
Roeux," or both.

<G>

Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own
correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes"
which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet &
Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante,
Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2
(1824): 450-451].

Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was
" Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor
his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition
of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg.

<G>

Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply
a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed
the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles.

<G>

If Waleran III de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much
like to know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his
database and delete the error.

<G>

[...]

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 aug 2007 04:38:58

Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced to
copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen ignoramus of the
Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.

This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".

Peter Stewart

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:j0txi.270$wi6.1689@eagle.america.net...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187401109.921569.140180@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

[...]

The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into
"Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753].

G

To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either
"Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her
lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or
Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame
de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have
been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay.

When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a
contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King
Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de
Roeux," or both.

G

Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own
correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes"
which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet &
Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante,
Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2
(1824): 450-451].

Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was
" Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor
his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition
of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg.

G

Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply
a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed
the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles.

G

If Waleran III de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much
like to know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his
database and delete the error.

G

[...]

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 18 aug 2007 05:08:53

On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced to
copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen ignoramus of the
Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.

This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".

Peter Stewart

The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.

DR

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 aug 2007 05:53:48

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to
copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen ignoramus of
the
Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.

This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".

Peter Stewart

The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.

Tell it to your fraternity buddy Hines, who loves nothing better than a
typo - is the Clampett academy in the city he called "Bribane", by any
chance?

Peter Stewart

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 18 aug 2007 05:54:28

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.

This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".

Peter Stewart

The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.

DR
--------------------------------------------------------------


Well, as we all know:

Stewart's noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no longer
continue at Oxford.

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av John Higgins » 18 aug 2007 05:56:16

So, if DR wants to "learn from this thread", one thing he can learn is that
he was wrong in his original post in this thread when he said that Waleran
III de Luxembourg died in 1417 - according to ESNF (already cited) he died
22 April 1415.

As for the rest of us, I guess we can learn about tactics of diversion and
obfuscation - if someone points out an error in your work, quickly focus on
the (possible) errors in another's work, and above all NEVER admit that you
make errors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Newsgroup ~

As I survey the printed literature, I find much disagreement among the
major sources in print about the Luxembourg family. As such, I
believe we all can learn from the topic of this thread by studying the
original documents of the period and comparing them against the
printed secondary sources.

In my own book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), I state that Maud de
Holand married (2nd) Waleran III de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and
Saint-Pol. I believe that information is correct. But I note that
Anselme, Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny) says her name was"Mahaud de Roeux." This is clearly an error.
And, this error is echoed in MANY sources which I have encountered.

The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into
"Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753].

To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either
"Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her
lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or
Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame
de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have
been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay.

When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a
contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King
Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de
Roeux," or both.

Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own
correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes"
which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet &
Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante,
Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2
(1824): 450-451].

Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was
" Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor
his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition
of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg.

Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply
a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed
the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles. If Waleran III
de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much like to
know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his
database and delete the error.

Once again, I wish to extend my thanks to Will and Leo for bringing
these matters to my attention. It's much appreciated. We're going to
learn a lot from this thread, I can tell. And this is just the
beginning.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


-------------------------------
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: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 aug 2007 06:08:05

Look to your own typos, Hines - if a noodle has to be "discombobulated" to
miss a letter, how do you account for your "Bribane"?

No self-awareness = no shame = no sense.

Peter Stewart


"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:7Zuxi.273$wi6.1749@eagle.america.net...
"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced
to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen
ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater.

This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas".

Peter Stewart

The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit.

DR
--------------------------------------------------------------

Well, as we all know:

Stewart's noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no
longer
continue at Oxford.

"Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart

A Disability He STILL HAS...

As We See In These NEWSGROUPS.

Straight from the horse's own mouth:

I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple
strings
of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I
have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 18 aug 2007 06:24:21

"John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.780.1187413464.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
So, if DR wants to "learn from this thread", one thing he can learn is
that
he was wrong in his original post in this thread when he said that Waleran
III de Luxembourg died in 1417 - according to ESNF (already cited) he died
22 April 1415.

Quite right, John. Another of the many things Richardson needs to learn
about this family is how wrong he was in stating that Waleran "left a
legitimate daughter and heiress, Jeanne". She had died in 1407.

But if Richardson imagines that he is going to get free tuition and research
assistance on this he is as much mistaken as ever.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 aug 2007 05:19:55

Dear Leo ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

As you know, in my last post, I asked you to provide the newsgroup
contemporary primary documentation to back up your statements that
Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, was called "Maud de Roeux"
or "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." In your reply, I note that
you have cited several secondary modern sources, which is all well and
good. However, you've neglected to provide any contemporary primary
documentation which is disappointing.

I believe I'm correct in saying that Maud de Holand's correct name and
titles in her lifetime would have been Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay
(in right of her first marriage) or Maud de Holand, Countess of Saint-
Pol and Ligny (in right of her second marriage). So far I haven't
seen any rerference to her in any contemporary records either as Maud
de Roeux, or Maud Dame de Roeux. The error of her being called Maud
de Roeux appears to have started with Pere Anselme, who referred to
her by this name, and who did not bother to name her parentage [see
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny)]. This is not the first error we have found in Anselme's work,
nor will it be the last.

Maud de Holand is named in the following contemporary records in her
lifetime:

Rymer, FÅ“dera, 7 (1728): 675 (Maud styled “sisterâ€

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 aug 2007 05:27:47

P.S. In my post just now I stated that Pere Anselme referred to Maud
de Holand as "Maud de Roeux." He actually called her ""Mahaud de
Roeux." Be it Maud or Mahaud, though, the "de Roeux" of her name is
just plain wrong.

DR

Leo van de Pas

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 aug 2007 07:30:55

Dear Douglas,

You know better than asking _me_ for primary sources.

I forgot to mention one more, which is interesting as the previous three
continental ones simply called her Mahaut de Roeux/Reux.

I seem to remember that you have access to Cahiers de Saint Louis? Page 16
is totally useless and they must have realised this as on page 961 is a much
better record:

Mathilde, dame de Roeux, died before 13 April 1392, however interesting this
may be, they still missed out on her daughter. It is a pity that Waleran is
not a descendant of Louis IX as otherwise it would have been interesting to
see how he would have been recorded.

This chapter of the Cahiers de Saint Louis has been given the following list
of sources

Burke's Guide to the Royal Fam ily
The Complete Peerage
Burke's Extinct Peerage
Dictionary of National Biography
C. W. Segrave, "The Segrave Family 1066-1935, published 1936.
Miscellanea Heraldica et Genealogica, 5e serie Vol IX, pp 162-165

You conveniently overlook that my secondary sources have quoted their
sources, how do you know those are not primary?

Thankis for your kind observation about the portraits on my website. With
the next update there will be two more Sultans and a few in regards to the
family of the Duke of Marlborough. It will depend on when the next update
will take place before they become visible.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


[quote]Dear Leo ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

As you know, in my last post, I asked you to provide the newsgroup
contemporary primary documentation to back up your statements that
Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, was called "Maud de Roeux"
or "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." In your reply, I note that
you have cited several secondary modern sources, which is all well and
good. However, you've neglected to provide any contemporary primary
documentation which is disappointing.

I believe I'm correct in saying that Maud de Holand's correct name and
titles in her lifetime would have been Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay
(in right of her first marriage) or Maud de Holand, Countess of Saint-
Pol and Ligny (in right of her second marriage). So far I haven't
seen any rerference to her in any contemporary records either as Maud
de Roeux, or Maud Dame de Roeux. The error of her being called Maud
de Roeux appears to have started with Pere Anselme, who referred to
her by this name, and who did not bother to name her parentage [see
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny)]. This is not the first error we have found in Anselme's work,
nor will it be the last.

Maud de Holand is named in the following contemporary records in her
lifetime:

Rymer, FÅ“dera, 7 (1728): 675 (Maud styled “sisterâ€

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Wale

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 aug 2007 09:47:35

Leo takes a more civil, sober tone.

Excellent!

DSH
---------------------------------------------------------

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.868.1187591520.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

Dear Douglas,

You know better than asking _me_ for primary sources.

I forgot to mention one more, which is interesting as the previous three
continental ones simply called her Mahaut de Roeux/Reux.

I seem to remember that you have access to Cahiers de Saint Louis? Page 16
is totally useless and they must have realised this as on page 961 is a
much better record:

Mathilde, dame de Roeux, died before 13 April 1392, however interesting
this may be, they still missed out on her daughter. It is a pity that
Waleran is not a descendant of Louis IX as otherwise it would have been
interesting to see how he would have been recorded.

This chapter of the Cahiers de Saint Louis has been given the following
list of sources

Burke's Guide to the Royal Fam ily
The Complete Peerage
Burke's Extinct Peerage
Dictionary of National Biography
C. W. Segrave, "The Segrave Family 1066-1935, published 1936.
Miscellanea Heraldica et Genealogica, 5e serie Vol IX, pp 162-165

You conveniently overlook that my secondary sources have quoted their
sources, how do you know those are not primary?

Thankis for your kind observation about the portraits on my website. With
the next update there will be two more Sultans and a few in regards to the
family of the Duke of Marlborough. It will depend on when the next update
will take place before they become visible.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia



----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran
de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Leo ~

Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated.

As you know, in my last post, I asked you to provide the newsgroup
contemporary primary documentation to back up your statements that
Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, was called "Maud de Roeux"
or "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." In your reply, I note that
you have cited several secondary modern sources, which is all well and
good. However, you've neglected to provide any contemporary primary
documentation which is disappointing.

I believe I'm correct in saying that Maud de Holand's correct name and
titles in her lifetime would have been Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay
(in right of her first marriage) or Maud de Holand, Countess of Saint-
Pol and Ligny (in right of her second marriage). So far I haven't
seen any rerference to her in any contemporary records either as Maud
de Roeux, or Maud Dame de Roeux. The error of her being called Maud
de Roeux appears to have started with Pere Anselme, who referred to
her by this name, and who did not bother to name her parentage [see
Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub
Ligny)]. This is not the first error we have found in Anselme's work,
nor will it be the last.

Maud de Holand is named in the following contemporary records in her
lifetime:

Rymer, Fodera, 7 (1728): 675 (Maud styled "sister" by King Richard II
of England);

Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1370-1374 (1914): 230, 420 (instances of
Maud de Courtenay or "lady de Courtenay" styled "king's kinswoman" by
King Edward III of England).

Further evidence of Maud de Holand's parentage, two marriages, and her
issue can be found in a 15th Century manuscript entitled
"Chronographia regum Francorum." For interest's sake, a copy of the
pertinent part of this text which is in Latin is copied below. The
text concerns Joan of Kent, Princess of Wales (died 1385), who was the
wife successively of William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, Thomas de
Holand, Earl of Kent, and Edward the Black Prince. This passage
discusses Joan of Kent's issue by her Holand marriage, including her
daughter, Maud de Holand, who is stated to have married first "lord
Courtenay" and second "Waleran, Count of Saint-Pol." By Maud's second
marriage to Count Waleran, she is stated to have been the mother of a
single daughter (name not given), who is said to have married Antoine
son of the Duke of Burgundy. This information is entirely correct.

". Hec, inquam, comitissa, consobrina regis Edowardi, tres maritos
habuit: primus fuit comes Saresberiensis, qui in remotis existens et
ibidem ultra debitam moram remanens, estimans ipsum esse mortuum
Thomam de Holandia, militem multe strenuitatis famosum desponsavit; de
quo plures liberos habuit; scilicet comitem Quenti qui successit et
comitem de Hondiston fratres; duas filias, quarum prima Johannes, dux
Britannie, comes Montisfortis, duxit in uxorem, de qua prole caruit;
alteram nomine Matildem primo nupsit dominus de Courtenayo et eo
mortuo Walrandus, comes Sancti Pauli, hinc prisionarius regis Anglie,
postmodum habuit uxorem, ex qua unicam suscepit filiam, quam postea
cum pervenit ad annos intelligibiles desponsavit Anthonius, filius
ducis Burgundie, post primum natus." [Reference: Moranville, ed.,
Chronographia regum Francorum, 2 (1893): 339-340].

Please note that there is NO reference in this source to Maud de
Holand being called Maud de Roeux. Rather, Maud is simply presented
as the daughter of Joan of Kent, by her 2nd husband, Thomas de
Holand. This material, by the way, would be a new addition to
Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 325 (sub Devon), which mentions Maud de
Holand's 2nd marriage to Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and
Ligny, but does not include any reference to their issue.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. I want to say again for much I enjoy the pictures/images that
you've included in your genealogical database. They are really quite
lovely.

Leo van de Pas wrote:
Perhaps I am a fool to spell it out for Richardson but he, as usual,
leaves a dirty taste in my mouth by his sneering and then not
replying.

As he full well knows, I am relying on the results of "hunters",
something he aspires to be himself, and so he should not sneer at the
work of real hunters.

In the beautiful production of Richardson's "Plantagent Ancestry",
which does have mistakes (but then the only person who does not make
mistakes, usually doesn't make anything at all) on page 420, all he
gives (in more detail then what I give here) about this lady is:

Maud de Holand, married (1) Hugh de Courtenay (2) Valeran III de
Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Ligny, she was buried 23 April 1392
in Westminster Abbey.

Let's start with

Dr. A.W.E. Dek, "Genealogie der Graven van Holland", page 93
Anton van Bourgondie, married (1) 21 February 1402 Johanna van
Luxemburg, daughter of Walram III van Luxemburg, graaf van St.Pol en
Mahaut de Reux (footnote 82, St.Marthe II page 1001)
This book shows four pages of sources.

Europaische Stammtafeln, Isenburg, Volume III Tafel 109
Under the heading "Die Grafen von Luxemburg in Ligny" we find
Valeram (Walram, Graf von Luxemburg in St.Pol und Ligny (this is how
Isenburg gives it, but then he was only a Professor in history)
here is given only one wife, Mahaut de Roeux, and their daughter
Johanna married Anton, Duke of Brabant. Sadly he does not give any
additional information for this wife of Valeram.
He gives a general sources list to which is added a rather awkward
detailed list.

Europaische Stammtafeln, Schwennicke, Volume VI Tafel 28
Valeran III married (1) 1374 Mahaut de Roeux who died before 13
April 1392; married (2) May 1393 Bona von Bar. Again no further
details for Mahaut de Roeux. His daughter (clearly marked off as to be
by the first wife): Jeanne Chatelaine de Lille who married Anton of
Burgundy, Duke of Brabant
There are quite a few sources for Tafels 28 to 30.

So far I have recorded three sources calling her Mahaut de Reux and
Mahaut de Roeux.

Burke's Peerage, 1938 page 802, here she is called Matilda, daughter
of Thomas Holland (yes Holland) and in 1380 she married Waleran de
Luxemburg, Count of Ligny and St.Paul (yes, St.Paul)

Burke's Peerage, 1999, page 834, here she is Maud de Holand and is
given "dead by 13 April 1392".

The Complete Peerage, Volume IV page 325.
Here Hugh de Courtenay is given papal dispensation (5 September
1363) and marries about 1365 Maud, daughter of Thomas de Holand, Earl
of Kent, by Joan, (afterwards Princess of Wales).....Maud as his widow
married "in Easter week 1380, at Windsor, Waleran de Luxemburg, Count
of Ligny and St.Pol, she died before 13 April 1392.

What should have alerted the "trained historian and genealogist" is
that in continental sources she is referred to as Mahaut de Roeux or
Reux, while English sources stick to Matilde (de) Holand. There must
be a reason for that. The French (infuriatingly) often refer to women
by the name of properties, not the family name. For instance ES Volume
III/4 Tafel 816 which displays the House of the Lusignans. Here Hugues
who married Jeanne de Fougeres is shown witrh four daughters, two are
simply given with their name but two are clearly named Marie de La
Marche and Jeanne de La Marche.

We only need to go to King Charles II's mistress Louise de
Kerouaille. Her family name was Penancoet.

In other words, was Maud/Matilda referred to by a property? I have
presumed that to be the case. Richardson sneers at my conclusion, let
him show I am wrong. And what about Edward III being faithful till
Philippa's death, but still producing a bastard a few years before
that death?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 aug 2007 19:50:53

Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

Special thanks go to Leo for his good response. Much appreciated.

As I've searched for primary documentation for dates for Maud de
Holand and her 2nd husband, Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint Pol
and Ligny, and for their daughter, Jeanne, I've turned up MANY
conflicting statements in print as to correct dates for the major
events of the lives of these people. This post will discuss the two
marriages of Count Waleran, and the correct marriage and death dates
of Maud and Waleran's daughter, Jeanne de Luxembourg (wife of Antoine
de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant and Limburg, Count of Rethel).

I've already posted chronological and other evidence which indicates
that Jeanne de Luxembourg was almost certainly the daughter and
heiress of Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Ligny, by his
1st wife, Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King Richard II of
England. The evidence below will further solidify that position.

We know that Count Waleran and his wife, Maud de Holand, were married
in 1380, and that Maud de Holand died in 1392. I've seen many sources
which state that their daughter, Jeanne, married in 1402 at Arras to
Antoine de Bourgogne. As we will see below, that information is
apparently correct. However, I've determined that Jeanne de
Luxembourg and Antoine de Bourgogne were actually contracted to marry
on 19 February 1393 [Reference: Willems, Les Gestes des Ducs de
Brabant, 2 (1843): 679-681]. A full transcript of the marriage
contract may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tXIBAA ... #PPA813,M1

Please note that Google Book Search has the wrong title of the work by
Willems listed at the top of its results page.

Various online sources state that Count Waleran de Luxembourg married
(2nd) 17 May 1393 Bonne de Bar, daughter of Robert I, Duke of Bar, by
Marie, daughter of Jean II, King of France. I haven't yet found the
documentation which proves this marriage took place on that date in
1393. However, the source, Mémoires de la Société des lettres,
sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc, 1 (1871): 140-142 specifically states
that Bonne de Bar and Count Waleran were contracted to marry in 1393.
This information can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4TM4AA ... 1393+Bonne

If Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne, was contracted to marry in 1393,
which is the same year Count Waleran married (or contracted to marry)
his second wife, Bonne, then obviously Jeanne can not have been
Bonne's daughter. Rather, Jeanne must therefore be the child of Count
Waleran's previous marriage to Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay.

Count Waleran and his second wife, Bonne, were definitely married
sometime before October 1396, as Count Waleran, his wife, and his
daughter are known to have attended the meeting of Richard II of
England and King Charles VI of France held at Ardres in that month
[see Annuaire-Bulletin Société de l'histoire de France (1881): 209-
224]. Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne, was presumably brought to the
meeting, she being the blood niece of King Richard II of England. See
the following weblink for a copy of that article:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dvkuAA ... 22#PPA3,M1

Pere Anselme states that Count Waleran and Bonne de Bar were married 2
June 1400 [Reference: Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3
(1728): 724]. But he is clearly in error as to this marriage date for
the reasons given above.

As for the correct date of the marriage of Jeanne de Luxembourg and
Antoine de Bourgogne, there is a modern source in print by Ernest
Petit which covers all of the major events in this time perod for the
reigning Dukes of Burgundy and their immediate families. This work is
entitled Itinéraires de Philippe le Hardi et de Jean sans Peur, ducs
de Bourgogne, 1363-1419 (1888). On page 324, it is stated that
Antoine de Bourgogne and his wife, Jeanne de Luxembourg, were married
at Arras on 25 April 1402.

This work may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yMgvAA ... ne#PPP9,M1

Page 566-567 of this same work, Petit provides actual specifics
regarding the documentation for the date of the marriage of Antoine de
Bourgogne and Jeanne de Luxembourg. The information is taken from
various contemporary accounts.

Pere Anselme states that Jeanne de Luxembourg and Antoine de Bourgogne
were married at Arras on 21 February 1402 [Reference: Histoire de la
Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724]. In this case, he is right
about the place, but once again wrong about the date. This gives us
room for pause before using Pere Anselme as a reliable source, as he
has been found wrong at several points in his treatment of Luxembourg
family.

Lastly, in the index to the work by Petit, pg. 704, he states that
Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, died 12 August
1407. Unfortunately, he does not include this event in the main body
of his work, nor does he provide any documentation for the date as far
as I can tell. This same death date is cited by Pere Anselme.and by
L'art de vérifier les dates (1818): 399. As such, I assume the date
is correct for Jeanne's death, but even so, I'd like to see primary
documentation for this date.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 20 aug 2007 23:29:22

Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~

As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of
Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant
and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne
died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des
environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne
de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also
buried.

The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows:

Wauters cites as his source the following work:

M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission
royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37.

Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text
published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AA ... ren&pgis=1

It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a
separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which
work was published the following year in 1856.

The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT ... #PPA129,M1

On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite
[obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke
of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in
the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April
1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is
written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text
is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is
simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar
with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if
the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April
1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515.

Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of
Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is
mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant
au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that
reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAA ... s=1#search

Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne
[John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above,
is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester,
younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des
croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present
nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were
related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean
de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 20 aug 2007 23:59:26

The only interest in this thread, from which Richardson confidently
predicted that he would learn so much, is to see how long he will waste time
on fumbling searches on the Internet for bits of information that are a
matter of common record instead of discovering and focusing on the primary
sources and standard historiography for the family he is trying to research.

He hasn't yet come upon to the most relevant & useful works in any
timeframe, even obsolete 19th-century books much less current studies.

Some professional.

Peter Stewart




"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187648962.076823.100780@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~

As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of
Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant
and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne
died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des
environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne
de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also
buried.

The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows:

Wauters cites as his source the following work:

M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission
royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37.

Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text
published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AA ... ren&pgis=1

It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a
separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which
work was published the following year in 1856.

The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT ... #PPA129,M1

On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite
[obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke
of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in
the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April
1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is
written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text
is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is
simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar
with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if
the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April
1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515.

Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of
Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is
mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant
au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that
reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAA ... s=1#search

Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne
[John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above,
is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester,
younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des
croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present
nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were
related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean
de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 aug 2007 00:44:33

On Aug 21, 6:06 am, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 08/20/07 11:56:20 Pacific Standard Time, royalances...@msn.com writes:http://books.google.com/books?id=tXIBAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA679&dq=1393+Wa...

--------------------------
Thank you Douglas.
This shorter link might work betterhttp://books.google.com/books?
id=tXIBAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA679

The longer one above appears to point after the end of the book, so
most people would just see the Title page (as the error-catch).

Why does Philip here call himself the Duke of Burgundy *and also*
the Count of Burgundy ?

I was under the impression that once you were a Duke the Count
title was sort-of obsoleted. Or were there two places called Burgundy
here ?

Yes.

Self-help is a good thing, saving the bandwidth of SGM, and so on
occasions in Wikipedia - see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Burgundy

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franche-Comt%C3%A9

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 aug 2007 03:27:37

Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

In my last post, I mentioned the historian Wauters stated that Jeanne
de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, died at Tervueren 12
August 1407. Wauters in turn cited as his source, Gachard, who had
published contemporary evidence which allegedly indicated that
Jeanne's funeral took place at Tervueren in April 1407, not August
1407. I thought perhaps Gachard made a mistake with the April 1407
date.

But checking further, I've now found yet another source that states
that Jeanne de Luxembourg died 12 April 1407, not 12 August 1407.

This source is: Festschrift für ernst Tappolet (1935), pg. 265.

See the following weblink for a snippet view of this item:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C58KAA ... s=1#search

And yet anoither source gives the death date of Jeanne de Luxembouerg
as 12 April 1407:

Stephanie Gaber, Historie de Carignan et du pays d'Yvois (1976), pg.
112.

See the following weblink for a snippet view of this item:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5fgaAA ... ril&pgis=1

If correct, then Jeanne de Luxembourg possibly died 12 April 1407, not
12 August 1407 as reported by Pere Anselme and many other sources.

Another reference to Jeanne de Luxembourg's death is reportedly found
in the source, Chroniques d'Enguerrand de Monstrelet, vol. 1, pg.
137. According to the index, this source allegedly states that Jeane
died in 1406 [sic].

Regarding Jeanne de Luxembourg's place of burial, Wauters states she
was buried at Tervueren. However, the following source states she was
buried in the church "des Carmes" in Bruxelles.

Bulletin de la Commission historique du déparatement du Nord 25
(1901): 118

The above source can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xzwDAA ... 1407+Avril

Regardless, if Gachard's account is reliable, then Jeanne de
Luxembourg was buried sometime in April 1407, at Tervueren, not in
August 1407 at Bruxelles as claimed by other sources.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

gbh

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av gbh » 21 aug 2007 08:52:08

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:29:22 -0000, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~

As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of
Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant
and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne
died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des
environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne
de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also
buried.

The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows:

Wauters cites as his source the following work:

M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission
royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37.

Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text
published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AA ... ren&pgis=1

It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a
separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which
work was published the following year in 1856.

The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT ... #PPA129,M1

On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite
[obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke
of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in
the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April
1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is
written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text
is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is
simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar
with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if
the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April
1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515.

The French editor seems to have misunderstood the Dutch date.

The Dutch introduction to the list of funeral expenses states that
Madame Johanne, Duchess of Brabant (God be merciful to her) died in
the year 1407, on the twelfth day of the month of August.

The form "oexst" is "oogst" in modern Dutch, now meaning "harvest",
but the word is originally from the Latin Augustus.

You will find a useful list of Old Dutch names of the months here:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oudnederlandse_maandnamen

The relevant column is the one labelled "Oud-Nederlandse naam".

Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of
Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is
mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant
au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that
reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAA ... s=1#search

Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne
[John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above,
is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester,
younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des
croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present
nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were
related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean
de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay.


gbh

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 21 aug 2007 10:27:35

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187663257.182784.225370@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Bulletin de la Commission historique du déparatement du Nord 25
(1901): 118

The above source can be found at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xzwDAA ... 1407+Avril

Did you happen to glance at page 115 as well as 118?

If so, you would have seen that Leuridan in 1901 named Waleran of
Luxemburg's first wife as "Mahaut de Reus, fille de Thomas de Holland, comte
de Kent, et sour utérine de Richard II, roi d'Angleterre" - the very point
you are labouring vainly to present as a new determination of your own, as
if no-one had ever studied this well-known lineage before; and the very
designation you are claiming to be wrong in Leo's database, as if the lady
could not have been simultaneously known as both "de Reus" (from a personal
possession) and "de Holland" (from her father's surname).

Where to from here, I wonder? Maybe it would be a good idea to apply some
scholarly method for a change, and start by finding the main stream of
primary and secondary materials for this family....all on your lonesome own.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 21 aug 2007 15:38:04

Dear gbh ~

Thank you very much for translating the Dutch text of the document n
Analectes historiques. It's very much appreciated.

Knowing that the contemporary text in Dutch specifically states that
Duchess Jeanne died 12 August 1407 now explains why Wauters gave that
as her death date, but cited this document whose introduction in
French stated Jeanne's funeral took place in April, not August, 1407.
The error in the introduction in Analectes historiques is an odd
publication error to make, but I know they happen. All the same, I'm
thankful that Gachard published this document in Analectes historiques
and that Wauters cited it. At least Gachard got the text of the
original document right.

However, it does not explain why two other modern sources I found gave
Jeanne's death as 12 April 1407, namely Festschrift für ernst Tappolet
(1935) and Historie de Carignan et du pays d'Yvois (1976). I also
found another modern source last night which was rather well
researched which stated Duchess Jeanne died in 1406, no month or day,
or source given. Needless to say, I'd have thought that Duchess
Jeanne's death date and burial place would have been well known facts
in secondary works by now, but they clearly are not.

This should give all of us reason to pause before endlessly copying
names and dates from secondary books without first checking
contemporary records.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

gbh wrote:
< On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:29:22 -0000, Douglas Richardson
< <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
<
< >Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~
< >
< >As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of
< >Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant
< >and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess
Jeanne
< >died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des
< >environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that
Jeanne
< >de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also
< >buried.
< >
< >The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows:
< >
< >Wauters cites as his source the following work:
< >
< > M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission
< >royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37.
< >
< >Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text
< >published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink:
< >
< <http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+avril
+1407+Tervueren&q=Jeanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&pgis=1
< >
< >It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in
a
< >separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which
< >work was published the following year in 1856.
< >
< >The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows:
< >
< >http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT51ztIC&pg=PA1&dq=Gachard
+Analectes+historiques#PPA129,M1
< >
< >On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral
rite
< >[obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne,
Duke
< >of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren)
in
< >the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as
April
< >1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document
is
< >written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual
text
< >is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is
< >simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar
< >with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing
if
< >the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date
April
< >1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515.
<
< The French editor seems to have misunderstood the Dutch date.
<
< The Dutch introduction to the list of funeral expenses states that
< Madame Johanne, Duchess of Brabant (God be merciful to her) died in
< the year 1407, on the twelfth day of the month of August.
<
< The form "oexst" is "oogst" in modern Dutch, now meaning "harvest",
< but the word is originally from the Latin Augustus.
<
< You will find a useful list of Old Dutch names of the months here:
< http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oudnederlandse_maandnamen
<
< The relevant column is the one labelled "Oud-Nederlandse naam".
<
< >Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of
< >Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is
< >mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de
Brabant
< >au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for
that
< >reference:
< >
< <http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne
+1407+Tervueren&q=%22Le+12+ao%C3%BBt+1407%22&pgis=1#search
< >
< >Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de
Bourgogne
< >[John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg
above,
< >is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of
Gloucester,
< >younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des
< >croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present
< >nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were
< >related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through
Jean
< >de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady
Courtenay.
<

> gbh

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 07:31:12

Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As expected, I
found many of the usual errors that have appeared elsewhere in other
secondary sources for the Luxembourg family. For example, Schwennicke
says that the fist wife of Waleran de Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux"
and that they married in 1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first
wife was Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at
Windsor, Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never
called "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error
carried over from Pere Anselme.

Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the statement
that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, died 2 June
1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see it has
been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan Hirschbiegel's
Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online.

My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband, Waleran
de Luxembourg's death in April 1415. In May 1415, Bonne, then styled
"Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of Nogent-le-Rotrou,
Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action to obtain the assignment
of 6,000 livres of rent which was granted to her by her contract of
marriage dated 1393. She presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou
in Oct. 1417. She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la Société des
lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): 140-142].

Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the
VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to Bonne and
Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 3 (1728):
724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne was
neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown in
an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime
before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard II
of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources
state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt
been able to confirm that date as of yet.

In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date
of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like to
have either of them with the proper documentation provided.

Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke
omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and
Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression
that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check
any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on
Schwennicke in the future.

Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful
discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, first
wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, in Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey
and its Estates in the Middle Ages (1977): 378. The following is a
weblink to that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ftJBgW ... rLijWltCv8

Harvey states that King Richard II of England attended his sister,
Maud's funeral at Westminster Abbey in 1392, which is doubtless
correct. She cites as a source, Polychronicon by Ranulph Higden,
which work was published many years ago in the Rolls series. I
haven't yet seen this citation, but I assume it deals with the burial
of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to
post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 08:31:00

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the actual date of the marriage of Waleran de Luxembourg,
Count of Saint Pol, and his second wife, Bonne de Bar, I find that the
date of 17 May 1393 is given for this couple's marriage in the
following source:

Congrès Archéoloqique de France: Séances générales tenués à Périgueux
et à Cambrai en 1858 (1859): 597–599.

There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could
well be correct.

Elsewehere, it appears that Count Waleran and Bonne's marriage is
discussed in some detail by Camille-Paul Joignon in her work entitled
En plein cœur du Barrois (1951): 74-75. There is a snippet view of
this work available at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VxsbAA ... 393&pgis=1

On page 75, Bonne's assignment of dower is discussed and the date of
May 1393 is mentioned on that page.

I presume a full view of the text would indicate the actual date of
marriage of this couple and also cite the available documentation for
the marriage.

This book is not available locally to me. It is, however, available
at the following five libraries:

1. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305 United States

2. Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 United States

3. New York Public Library - Research New York, NY 10018 United
States

4. University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3LU United Kingdom

5. Centre D'Etudes Super Renaissance Tours Cedex, 37013 France

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2007 09:34:58

Comments interspersed:

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187764272.206422.189250@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As
expected, I found many of the usual errors that have appeared
elsewhere in other secondary sources for the Luxembourg family.
For example, Schwennicke says that the fist wife of Waleran de
Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux" and that they married in
1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first wife was Maud
de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at Windsor,
Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never called
"Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error carried
over from Pere Anselme.

If you can't tell definitively whether or not she was called by a certain
designation, how exactly can you know this is an error, or indeed that it
originated with Anselme?

Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the
statement that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg,
died 2 June 1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see
it has been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan
Hirschbiegel's Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online.

My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband,
Waleran de Luxembourg's death in April 1415. In May 1415,
Bonne, then styled "Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of
Nogent-le-Rotrou, Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action
to obtain the assignment of 6,000 livres of rent which was
granted to her by her contract of marriage dated 1393. She
presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou in Oct. 1417.
She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités et
chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la
Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871):
140-142].

Strange that your "research", meaning a bit of desultory Googling, hasn't
revealed to you when she did actually die. Be sure to tell us when you make
this fabulous discovery about someone whose life details are already so well
known. If you had gone about even your amateurish fumbling more
conscientiously, you might have got your citation right - the extract for
1415 from _Annales historiques du Barrois_ by Vincent Servais was published
in _Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 2
(1872), not the preceding volume & year. If you then bothered to consult the
whole published work, you would find correct information about Bonne's
death: this is old news and is not going to be your original discovery.

Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the
VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to
Bonne and Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France
3 (1728): 724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne
was neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown
in an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime
before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard
II of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources
state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt
been able to confirm that date as of yet.

Be sure to let us know when you do, and where you found it. This again will
not be news just because some others gave a wrong date.

In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date
of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like
to have either of them with the proper documentation provided.

You have not provided the "proper documentation" for anything in this thread
so far - why should someone else take the first such trouble for you?

Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke
omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and
Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression
that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check
any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on
Schwennicke in the future.

Schwennicke certainly will have checked more primary documents than you have
done. Strange that you have not discovered Waleran had three known
illegitimate sons (all by different mothers), two of whom were named Jean.

Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful
discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay,
first wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, in Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster
Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (1977): 378. The following is a
weblink to that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ftJBgW ... rLijWltCv8

Harvey states that King Richard II of England attended his sister,
Maud's funeral at Westminster Abbey in 1392, which is doubtless
correct. She cites as a source, Polychronicon by Ranulph Higden,
which work was published many years ago in the Rolls series. I
haven't yet seen this citation, but I assume it deals with the burial
of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to
post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it.

You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't
turned this up, the relevant text is:

"Item xxiii. die Aprilis dominus noster rex apud Westmonasterium fecit
solemnes immo sumptuosas exequias pro sorore sua Matilda comitissa sancti
Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac
aureis ac pauperum distributione".

We know that she was dead by 13 April, because on that date her widower made
a donation for a mass to be said for her soul in perpetuity. You can have
the pleasure of discovering details for yourself.

If you need a translation of the Latin, doubtless Hines will be ready &
willing if not quite able to help.

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 aug 2007 11:22:35

On 22 Aug., 08:31, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the actual date of the marriage of Waleran de Luxembourg,
Count of Saint Pol, and his second wife, Bonne de Bar, I find that the
date of 17 May 1393 is given for this couple's marriage in the
following source:

Congrès Archéoloqique de France: Séances générales tenués à Périgueux
et à Cambrai en 1858 (1859): 597-599.

There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could
well be correct.

And it could be totally incorrect. What kind of scholarship does the
above statement evince?

This trawl of secondary and tertiary sources simply underscores yet
again the importance of relying on primary evidence. Fifty different
assertions plucked at random from google books, each dated 400 or 500
years after the event in question, are little more than a waste of
bandwidth.

MAR

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 12:27:45

Dear Newsgroup ~

As a followup to my post regarding the erroneous death date of Bonne
de Bar, Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, I've already posted records
which show Countess Bonne survived her husband, Count Waleran, and was
living as late as 1419.

Another source which indicates that Countess Bonne was living at the
time of her husband, Count Waleran's death in 1415 is the chronicles
of Enguerrand de Monstrelet [Reference: The Chronicles of Enguerrand
de Monstrelet 4 (1810): 121-123, 404-405].

I find that Countess Bonne was still living on 23 January 1423/4, when
her brother, Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar, gave Dun to her [Reference:
Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres (1926): 117].

As such, there is no question that Schwennicke is badly in error when
he states that Countess Bonne died 2 June 1400 [Reference:
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28 (sub Luxemburg)].
Schwennicke took this date from Anselme who stated Bonne married on
that date to Count Waleran. Countess Bonne neither died nor was
married on that date. Where the date 2 June 1400 comes from, only God
knows. It appears to have dropped from the heavens.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Leticia Cluff

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 22 aug 2007 12:39:08

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:31:00 -0700, Douglas Richardson
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

Regarding the actual date of the marriage of Waleran de Luxembourg,
Count of Saint Pol, and his second wife, Bonne de Bar, I find that the
date of 17 May 1393 is given for this couple's marriage in the
following source:

Congrès Archéoloqique de France: Séances générales tenués à Périgueux
et à Cambrai en 1858 (1859): 597–599.

There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could
well be correct.

Do I detect a slight inconsistency in your approach? This undocumented
date "could well be correct," but the use of the name Mahaut de
Roeux, for which you have been unable to find any primary
documentation, is undoubtedly "an error carried over from Pere
Anselme."

As far as I can see, unless one can cite primary sources for either
claim, the former could be totally wrong and the latter perfectly
correct.

Tish

Leticia Cluff

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 22 aug 2007 12:39:09

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:34:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't
turned this up, the relevant text is:

"Item xxiii. die Aprilis dominus noster rex apud Westmonasterium fecit
solemnes immo sumptuosas exequias pro sorore sua Matilda comitissa sancti
Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac
aureis ac pauperum distributione".


My Googling likewise failed to turn up this online source. Could you
please help me with a URL?

Tish

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2007 12:56:24

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:118oc35bua04gc3iq4k7a02mt66uksem43@4ax.com...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:34:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

snip


You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't
turned this up, the relevant text is:

"Item xxiii. die Aprilis dominus noster rex apud Westmonasterium fecit
solemnes immo sumptuosas exequias pro sorore sua Matilda comitissa sancti
Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac
aureis ac pauperum distributione".


My Googling likewise failed to turn up this online source. Could you
please help me with a URL?

By all means - see

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... 0264&M=tdm

page 265.

Most but not all of the Rolls Series volumes are digitised on Gallica, as
Richardson ought to know from advice given in his many past failures to use
this resource "professionally" (you are probably lucky enough, Tish, not to
realise how comical that idea is).

Peter Stewart

Leticia Cluff

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Leticia Cluff » 22 aug 2007 13:52:18

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:56:24 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

"Leticia Cluff" <leticia.cluff@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:118oc35bua04gc3iq4k7a02mt66uksem43@4ax.com...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:34:58 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:

snip


You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't
turned this up, the relevant text is:

"Item xxiii. die Aprilis dominus noster rex apud Westmonasterium fecit
solemnes immo sumptuosas exequias pro sorore sua Matilda comitissa sancti
Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac
aureis ac pauperum distributione".


My Googling likewise failed to turn up this online source. Could you
please help me with a URL?

By all means - see

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/Cadres ... 0264&M=tdm

page 265.

Most but not all of the Rolls Series volumes are digitised on Gallica, as
Richardson ought to know from advice given in his many past failures to use
this resource "professionally" (you are probably lucky enough, Tish, not to
realise how comical that idea is).


Many thanks. I wasn't aware that the British have to cross the
channel, so to speak, to read this work online. Trust the perfidious
French to get there first!

Tish

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 13:53:13

As a further postscript, I can further add that Bonne de Bar, Countess
of Ligny and Saint-Pol, gave a rent of 60 sols on 6 May 1425, to Marie
de Fains in recompensation for services rendered to her late mother
and to her.

See the following weblink for this reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d2AZAA ... s=1#search

Thus reference and the last one below are drawn from Volume 3 of
Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres.

Countess Bonne was a legatee in the 1430 will of her briother, Louis,
Duc-Cardinal de Bar, who bequeathed her two books which had belonged
to their mother, Marie of France [Reference: Réunion des sociétés des
beaux-arts des départements salle de l'hemicycle, à l'école nationale
des beaux-arts, 20th sesssion (1896): 283-285].

See the weblink below for this reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=r4kDAA ... #PPA285,M1

Countess Bonne died sometime before 12 Feb. 1450/1, on which date she
is called deceased.

The following weblink gives this reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=d2AZAA ... s=1#search

Lastly, we come to Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database hosted by
the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy which database states that Bonne
de Bar and her husband, Waleran de Luxembourg, were married at Saint-
Mihiel on 2 June 1400. No source is given for this statement. We've
already established that this date for this couple's marriage is
incorrect. Mr. Cawley further states that Countess Bonne died "after
20 Nov 1400 or 1436 or after" and was buried at Pont-à-Mousson. No
source is given for this statement either. Clearly the 1400 date is
wildly incorrect, as we know that Countess Bonne survived her
husband's death in 1415, and was still living in 1430, when she was
named a legatee in her brother, Louis' will. It remains to be seen if
Countess Bonne was living in 1436 (Cawley's SECOND approximated death
date), and if she was buried at Pont-à-Mousson. With no primary or
secondary sources cited by Mr. Cawley, this database remains of
extremely limited usefulness.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 14:00:33

On Aug 22, 6:53 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:

< Thus reference and the last one below are drawn from Volume 3 of
< Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres.

For "Thus reference and the last one below," please read "This
reference and the last one below"

My apologies for the typo.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 22 aug 2007 14:21:13

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187787193.549633.130550@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

<yet more worthless verbiage deleted>

With no primary or secondary sources cited by Mr. Cawley, this database
remains of extremely limited usefulness.

You knew that already, so why on earth are you using it? Have you now been
banned from the FHL?

In any event, Cawley cites many primary and secondary sources for his
database, whether or not he gives any for this particular section - the
trouble is rather with the indiscriminate choice, and the incompetent use he
makes, of these.

But with Richardson now engaged on the slowest reinvention of the
genealogical wheel that he has undertaken for some time, Cawley is apt to be
outdone in uselessness and wasted effort.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 14:50:55

Care should be taken to distinguish Bonne de Bar, dowager Countess of
Ligny and Saint-Pol, from her great-niece, Jeanne de Bar, also
Countess of Saint Pol, which Jeanne was living 25 January 1436, on
which date her cousin, René d'Anjou, abandoned his rights to "the
succession of the Countess of Saint-Pol, daughter of the deceased
Robert de Bar, his uncle, in case she should come to die without heirs
["... dans le cas où elle viendrait à mourir sans hoirs."]
[Reference: Henri Beaune & J. d'Arbaumont, Mémoires d'Olivier de La
Marche, 2 (Paris, 1884): 57].

See the following weblink for this reference:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uau2jj ... e+Pol+1436

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av John Higgins » 22 aug 2007 17:00:12

Before you rip into Schwennicke for being accurate and unreliable, you might
have checked the later volumes of ESNF. Vol. 6 was withdrawn and replaced
with several other volunes some years ago. The updated table for the
Luxembourgs is table 231 in vol. 1.2 (1999) - which has been cited before in
this thread. And, mirabile dictu, all the "errors" that excite you so much
below have been updated in the new edition. One item that may be of
interest to you in this particular pointless exercise is that it indicates
that Bonne de Bar, widow of Waleran de Luxembourg, had a will dated 1536.
This later volume is listed in the catalog of the FHL.

So we are "to pause before relying on Schwennicke in the future", huh? One
wonders how we should rely upon an author who doesn't check updated
information before spouting off and denigrating other authors without
foundation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As expected, I
found many of the usual errors that have appeared elsewhere in other
secondary sources for the Luxembourg family. For example, Schwennicke
says that the fist wife of Waleran de Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux"
and that they married in 1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first
wife was Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at
Windsor, Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never
called "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error
carried over from Pere Anselme.

Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the statement
that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, died 2 June
1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see it has
been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan Hirschbiegel's
Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online.

My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband, Waleran
de Luxembourg's death in April 1415. In May 1415, Bonne, then styled
"Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of Nogent-le-Rotrou,
Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action to obtain the assignment
of 6,000 livres of rent which was granted to her by her contract of
marriage dated 1393. She presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou
in Oct. 1417. She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la Société des
lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): 140-142].

Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the
VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to Bonne and
Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 3 (1728):
724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne was
neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown in
an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime
before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard II
of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources
state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt
been able to confirm that date as of yet.

In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date
of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like to
have either of them with the proper documentation provided.

Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke
omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and
Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression
that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check
any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on
Schwennicke in the future.

Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful
discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, first
wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, in Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey
and its Estates in the Middle Ages (1977): 378. The following is a
weblink to that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ftJBgW ... rg+Harvey+
Westminster+Abbey+Estates&sig=FzkZJVu5063KzCTxFrLijWltCv8

Harvey states that King Richard II of England attended his sister,
Maud's funeral at Westminster Abbey in 1392, which is doubtless
correct. She cites as a source, Polychronicon by Ranulph Higden,
which work was published many years ago in the Rolls series. I
haven't yet seen this citation, but I assume it deals with the burial
of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to
post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



-------------------------------
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

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av John Higgins » 22 aug 2007 17:16:41

Correction: First line below, for "accurate', read "inaccurate"....

Also, the date of the will of Bonne de Bar was 1436, not 1536. Typing too
fast....

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Higgins" <jthiggins@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Gen-Med" <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Before you rip into Schwennicke for being accurate and unreliable, you might
have checked the later volumes of ESNF. Vol. 6 was withdrawn and replaced
with several other volunes some years ago. The updated table for the
Luxembourgs is table 231 in vol. 1.2 (1999) - which has been cited before in
this thread. And, mirabile dictu, all the "errors" that excite you so much
below have been updated in the new edition. One item that may be of
interest to you in this particular pointless exercise is that it indicates
that Bonne de Bar, widow of Waleran de Luxembourg, had a will dated 1536.
This later volume is listed in the catalog of the FHL.

So we are "to pause before relying on Schwennicke in the future", huh? One
wonders how we should rely upon an author who doesn't check updated
information before spouting off and denigrating other authors without
foundation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc.

I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in
Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As expected, I
found many of the usual errors that have appeared elsewhere in other
secondary sources for the Luxembourg family. For example, Schwennicke
says that the fist wife of Waleran de Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux"
and that they married in 1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first
wife was Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at
Windsor, Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never
called "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error
carried over from Pere Anselme.

Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the statement
that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, died 2 June
1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see it has
been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan Hirschbiegel's
Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online.

My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband, Waleran
de Luxembourg's death in April 1415. In May 1415, Bonne, then styled
"Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of Nogent-le-Rotrou,
Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action to obtain the assignment
of 6,000 livres of rent which was granted to her by her contract of
marriage dated 1393. She presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou
in Oct. 1417. She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités
et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la Société des
lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): 140-142].

Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the
VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to Bonne and
Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 3 (1728):
724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne was
neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown in
an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime
before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard II
of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources
state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt
been able to confirm that date as of yet.

In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date
of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like to
have either of them with the proper documentation provided.

Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke
omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and
Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression
that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check
any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on
Schwennicke in the future.

Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful
discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, first
wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, in Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey
and its Estates in the Middle Ages (1977): 378. The following is a
weblink to that source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ftJBgW ... rg+Harvey+
Westminster+Abbey+Estates&sig=FzkZJVu5063KzCTxFrLijWltCv8

Harvey states that King Richard II of England attended his sister,
Maud's funeral at Westminster Abbey in 1392, which is doubtless
correct. She cites as a source, Polychronicon by Ranulph Higden,
which work was published many years ago in the Rolls series. I
haven't yet seen this citation, but I assume it deals with the burial
of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to
post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah



-------------------------------
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


-------------------------------
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

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 18:44:36

Dear John ~

Thank you for mentioning the revised Luxembourg chart in ES, Volume
1.2. When I have the time, I'll check it out.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


On Aug 22, 10:00 am, "John Higgins" <jthigg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Before you rip into Schwennicke for being accurate and unreliable, you might
have checked the later volumes of ESNF. Vol. 6 was withdrawn and replaced
with several other volunes some years ago. The updated table for the
Luxembourgs is table 231 in vol. 1.2 (1999) - which has been cited before in
this thread. And, mirabile dictu, all the "errors" that excite you so much
below have been updated in the new edition. One item that may be of
interest to you in this particular pointless exercise is that it indicates
that Bonne de Bar, widow of Waleran de Luxembourg, had a will dated 1536.
This later volume is listed in the catalog of the FHL.

So we are "to pause before relying on Schwennicke in the future", huh? One
wonders how we should rely upon an author who doesn't check updated
information before spouting off and denigrating other authors without
foundation.

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 aug 2007 19:41:07

On Aug 22, 5:27 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<
< I find that Countess Bonne was still living on 23 January 1423/4,
when
< her brother, Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar, gave Dun to her [Reference:
< Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres (1926): 117].

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is further information regarding the gift in 1424 of Dun by
Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar to his sister, Bonne de Bar, Countess of
Ligny and Saint-Pol, which can be found in the following source:

Mémoires de la Société d'Archéologie Lorraine, 3rd series 2 (1874):
479.

This reference can be found online at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1okEAA ... 36#PPA3,M1

From this source, we learn that the gift from Cardinal-Duc Louis to
his sister, Countess Bonne, was made for the term of her life only.

Also, that Bonne de Bar subsequently gave her woods and her large and
small "rappes" to the community of Mont on 1 July 1424.

Finally, the following source states that Bonne de Bar died in 1436,
when she was succeeded at Dun by [her great-nephew] Rene d'Anjou:

Société des naturalistes et archéologues du nord de la Meuse, 12
(1900): 10.

The above reference can be found online at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vfEDAA ... e+Bar+1436

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 aug 2007 06:09:06

Dear Newsgroup ~

As John Higgins has indicated, the current Family History Library
catalog indicates that the Family History Library holds Vol. 1, Pt.1-3
of the new series of Europäische Stammtafeln. They also hold Vol. 2,
Vol. 3, Pt. 1-5, and Volumes 4-21, all in the new series prepared by
Detlev Schwennicke.

What Mr. Higgins doesn't know is that Vol. 1, Pts. 1-3, Vol. 3, Pt. 5,
and Volumes 14-21 are not presently on the shelf. As far as I know,
Volume 1, Parrts 1-3 have NEVER been put out on the shelf. Rather,
the catalog indicates that most of the missing volumes are on
permanent loan, which fact Mr. Higgins sadly overlooked in his post
today. That means that these volumes are held in private by the
library staff and are not kept on the public shelves. See the weblink
below for the volumes with the "On Loan" designation which includes
Vol. 1, Pt. 2:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library ... umns=*,0,0

At such time as I have an opportunity to view the revised Luxembourg
chart in Vol. 1, Pt. 2, I should be happy to comment on its content.
If Mr. Higgins is correct that the revised chart is an improvement
over the older Luxembourg chart in Vol. 6, pg. 28, that is well and
good. However, my comments about the errors and omissions of the
older Luxembourg chart in Vol. 6, pg. 28 published in 1978 still
stand.

I note that Mr. Higgins tells us that the revised Luxembourg chart by
Mr. Schwennicke indicates that Bonne de Bar, Countess of Ligny and
Saint-Pol, left a will dated in 1536. If so, I should like to report
it immediately to Guiness Book of Records, as Bonne would have been
over 150 years old at the time of the making of this will. Surely
Mr. Higgins meant 1436, which is the year Bonne is stated to have died
in the following source:.

Société des naturalistes et archéologues du nord de la Meuse, 12
(1900): 10.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 aug 2007 06:47:05

Dear Newsgroup ~

While my fellow posters continue to puzzle over how Pere Anselme made
his error about Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, being named
Mahaud de Roeux, it should be noted that many years before Anselme
published his famous work, another Continental author correctly
identified Maud' parents, her correct name, and her 2nd marriage to
Waleran de Luxembourg in print. In a chart found in the work,
Trophées tant sacres que prohanes de la duché de Brabant, published in
1637 by Butkens, the author correctly placed Maud de Holand as the
child of Joan of Kent, Princess of Wales, by her marriage to Thomas de
Holand. This chart can be found in Chapitre 12, in a series of
charts which follow page 548 in Volume 1.

Regarding Maud de Holand, Butkens states:

"Mehaut Hollant femme de Walleran Comte de S. Pol." [That is, Maud
Holand wife of Waleran Count of Saint-Pol].

Maud's parentage and her two marriages are likewise correctly stated
in the 15th Century manuscript which was published in 1893 by
Moranville as Chronographia regum Francorum.

In neither Butkens or Chronographia regum Francorum is there any
mention that Maud de Holand was known as or called Maud de Roeux. In
fact, contemporary records which I have searched indicate that she was
known as Maud de Courtenay, or lady de Courtenay, after her first
marriage, and as Maud, Countess of Saint-Pol, after her second
marriage. This is in keeping with the standard practices by which
women of high rank were known in that time period.

Regardless, if someone has contemporary primary evidence which
indicates that Maud de Holand was called or known as Maud de Roeux, I
should like to see it.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 23 aug 2007 07:08:59

"Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1187848025.011218.107360@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

Dear Newsgroup ~

While my fellow posters continue to puzzle over how Pere Anselme made
his error about Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, being named
Mahaud de Roeux

<blathersnip>

Regardless, if someone has contemporary primary evidence which
indicates that Maud de Holand was called or known as Maud de Roeux, I
should like to see it.

This is an idiosyncratic way to go fishing: "It is self-evidently an error,
but just in case it isn't please give me the details so that I can be right
in a whole new way".

Peter Stewart

Douglas Richardson

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 23 aug 2007 17:00:43

Dear Leo ~

Yes, this is exactly the information I requested. Thank you for your
kind offer to help out. Much appreciated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Aug 23, 12:23 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:
< I will give here what Volume 1.2 Tafel 231 gives. I gladly will try
to scan
< that part of the chart for you, tell me if you want this to be done
<
< Valeran III, 1371 Cte de Ligny et de Saint-Pol, CdF, born 1355, died
chateau
< d'Yvoy 22 April 1415, buried at Yvoy
< Married (1) 1380 Mathilde de Holand, she dies before/olr about 13
April
< 1392, widow of Hugh de Courtenay, daughter of Thomas, 1.Lord Holand
and
< Joan, 4.Cts of Kent(Anjou-Plantagenet; married 2nd Saint Mihiel
(sic) 2 June
< 1400 Bona von Bar, test 1436 buried Pont-a-Mousson, daughter of Duke
Robert
< I.
<
< children:
< 1st marriage
< 1.Jeanne chatelaine de Lille, Comtesse de Ligny et de Saint-Pol,.
died 12
< August 1407, buried in Brussels,
< married Arras 21 February 1402, Anton von
Burgund.................etc.
<
< bastards
< by Agnes de Brie
< 2.Jean de Luxembourg batard de Saint Pol, he was legitimised and
married
<
< by Marie de la Lausiere
< 3.Simon de Luxembourg, he was legitimised but is recorded as
unmarried
<
< Hope this helps?
< Leo van de Pas
< Canberra, Australia

John Higgins

Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Wal

Legg inn av John Higgins » 23 aug 2007 17:14:26

You conveniently overlooked that I posted a correction regarding the date of
the will of Bonne de Bar almost immediately after the original message.
Perhaps you didn't notice it because I failed to follow your usual practice
of re-posting the entire message without indicating the corrections. Bottom
line: I admit my mistakes...you don't.

You might try asking the helpful staff at the FHL about access to the
volumes of ESNF not on the shelf. And there ARE other libraries that do
have the volumes in question available on inter-library loan.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval,alt.history.british
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt.,and Waleran de
Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol


Dear Newsgroup ~

As John Higgins has indicated, the current Family History Library
catalog indicates that the Family History Library holds Vol. 1, Pt.1-3
of the new series of Europäische Stammtafeln. They also hold Vol. 2,
Vol. 3, Pt. 1-5, and Volumes 4-21, all in the new series prepared by
Detlev Schwennicke.

What Mr. Higgins doesn't know is that Vol. 1, Pts. 1-3, Vol. 3, Pt. 5,
and Volumes 14-21 are not presently on the shelf. As far as I know,
Volume 1, Parrts 1-3 have NEVER been put out on the shelf. Rather,
the catalog indicates that most of the missing volumes are on
permanent loan, which fact Mr. Higgins sadly overlooked in his post
today. That means that these volumes are held in private by the
library staff and are not kept on the public shelves. See the weblink
below for the volumes with the "On Loan" designation which includes
Vol. 1, Pt. 2:

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library ... et.asp?dis
play=titledetails&titleno=290665&disp=Europ%C3%A4ische+Stammtafeln%20%20&col
umns=*,0,0

At such time as I have an opportunity to view the revised Luxembourg
chart in Vol. 1, Pt. 2, I should be happy to comment on its content.
If Mr. Higgins is correct that the revised chart is an improvement
over the older Luxembourg chart in Vol. 6, pg. 28, that is well and
good. However, my comments about the errors and omissions of the
older Luxembourg chart in Vol. 6, pg. 28 published in 1978 still
stand.

I note that Mr. Higgins tells us that the revised Luxembourg chart by
Mr. Schwennicke indicates that Bonne de Bar, Countess of Ligny and
Saint-Pol, left a will dated in 1536. If so, I should like to report
it immediately to Guiness Book of Records, as Bonne would have been
over 150 years old at the time of the making of this will. Surely
Mr. Higgins meant 1436, which is the year Bonne is stated to have died
in the following source:.

Société des naturalistes et archéologues du nord de la Meuse, 12
(1900): 10.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


-------------------------------
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

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»