Mahaut de Roeux

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Mahaut de Roeux

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 20 aug 2007 00:54:37

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,
Canberra, Australia

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Mahaut de Roeux

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 20 aug 2007 05:19:20

"Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.858.1187567718.7287.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

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....

---------------Cordon Sanitaire----------------------------------------

A gratuitous slur and totally unnecessary.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»