Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Peter Stewart

Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 30 aug 2007 07:51:33

In the Henry Project page for Richard I of Normandy, at
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... cha000.htm, a son is
recorded as follows:

"Robertus Danus, d. bef. 985x989.
[See the note by Elisabeth van Houts in GND 1, 130 (cites Faroux p. 22;
Obituaires de la province de Sens (Paris, 1906), ii, 193)]"

The citations given by Elisabeth van Houts do not check out as stated -
there is no mention of a "Robertus Danus" on page 22 or in the index of the
edition of Norman ducal charters by Marie Fauroux

The entry in the obituary of Saint-Père de Chartres, in a section compiled
at the priory of Saint-Pierre de Juziers, near Mantes, in the 12th/13th
centuries, is as follows (under 12 August): "Robertus, puer, filius comitis
Richardi" (the boy Robert, son of Count Richard). The editor ascribed this
notice to a son of Richard I of Normandy, without citing evidence. Between 7
and 14 that is the normal range for "puer".

Van Houts got the information and the byname "Danus" for this youngster,
directly or indirectly, from an uncited source, 'Translationes sancti
Dadonis vel Audoeni episcopi' (Saint Ouen, bishop of Rouen). This describes
ceremonies that took place between 985 and 989 according to Fauroux on page
22, as cited (though without mentioning the boy Robert). The relevant
passage is in _Acta Sanctorum_, August vol. 4, page 824: "Adfuerunt huic tam
felici obsequio et digno spectaculo dux ipse egregius Ricardus cum conjuge
sua Albereda nomine, et filio Roberto cognomine Dano, qui defunctus sepultus
est apud sanctum Petrum Carnoti, et cum aliis filiis et filiabus ex eadem
uxore" (present at this blessed funeral and fitting spectacle were the
distinguished Duke Richard himself with his wife named Albreda [Duchess
Gunnor], and son Robert bynamed the Dane, who deceased is buried at
Saint-Père de Chartres, along with other sons and daughters from the same
wife).

Note that the boy Robert was living in 985/89, not dead before that time.
Also the passage does not necessarily mean to say that Robert the Dane was a
son of Gunnor/Albreda. He certainly can't have been the same as her son
Robert, who was born before his parents' marriage, probably ca 980 or
earlier, became count of Evreux and archbishop of Rouen, and lived until
1037 when he was no "puer" by any stretch. It seems unlikely that the ducal
couple had two sons of the same name living in 985/89, though not
impossible.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 30 aug 2007 19:54:23

On Aug 29, 11:51 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

The entry in the obituary of Saint-Père de Chartres, in a section compiled
at the priory of Saint-Pierre de Juziers, near Mantes, in the 12th/13th
centuries, is as follows (under 12 August): "Robertus, puer, filius comitis
Richardi" (the boy Robert, son of Count Richard). The editor ascribed this
notice to a son of Richard I of Normandy, without citing evidence.

'Translationes sancti
Dadonis vel Audoeni episcopi' (Saint Ouen, bishop of Rouen). This describes
ceremonies that took place between 985 and 989 according to Fauroux on page
22, as cited (though without mentioning the boy Robert). The relevant
passage is in _Acta Sanctorum_, August vol. 4, page 824: "Adfuerunt huic tam
felici obsequio et digno spectaculo dux ipse egregius Ricardus cum conjuge
sua Albereda nomine, et filio Roberto cognomine Dano, qui defunctus sepultus
est apud sanctum Petrum Carnoti, et cum aliis filiis et filiabus ex eadem
uxore" (present at this blessed funeral and fitting spectacle were the
distinguished Duke Richard himself with his wife named Albreda [Duchess
Gunnor], and son Robert bynamed the Dane, who deceased is buried at
Saint-Père de Chartres, along with other sons and daughters from the same
wife).

Note that the boy Robert was living in 985/89, not dead before that time.
Also the passage does not necessarily mean to say that Robert the Dane was a
son of Gunnor/Albreda. He certainly can't have been the same as her son
Robert, who was born before his parents' marriage, probably ca 980 or
earlier, became count of Evreux and archbishop of Rouen, and lived until
1037 when he was no "puer" by any stretch. It seems unlikely that the ducal
couple had two sons of the same name living in 985/89, though not
impossible.

I am not sure I am following your thought on this.

Robert Danus was son of Gunnor, and was buried at St. Pere. (or am I
reading too much into "other sons . . . of the same wife"?)

Count & Archbishop Robert would not have been called puer, and was
alive in the 980s.

Are you suggesting, then, that it is "unlikely" he is the same as the
Robert puer, son of Count Richard, also buried at St. Pere? This
seems the only possible way of there not being a two Roberts born to
Richard and Gunnor, which you find unlikely.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 02:05:50

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1188500063.999483.9320@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 11:51 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

The entry in the obituary of Saint-Père de Chartres, in a section
compiled
at the priory of Saint-Pierre de Juziers, near Mantes, in the 12th/13th
centuries, is as follows (under 12 August): "Robertus, puer, filius
comitis
Richardi" (the boy Robert, son of Count Richard). The editor ascribed
this
notice to a son of Richard I of Normandy, without citing evidence.

'Translationes sancti
Dadonis vel Audoeni episcopi' (Saint Ouen, bishop of Rouen). This
describes
ceremonies that took place between 985 and 989 according to Fauroux on
page
22, as cited (though without mentioning the boy Robert). The relevant
passage is in _Acta Sanctorum_, August vol. 4, page 824: "Adfuerunt huic
tam
felici obsequio et digno spectaculo dux ipse egregius Ricardus cum
conjuge
sua Albereda nomine, et filio Roberto cognomine Dano, qui defunctus
sepultus
est apud sanctum Petrum Carnoti, et cum aliis filiis et filiabus ex
eadem
uxore" (present at this blessed funeral and fitting spectacle were the
distinguished Duke Richard himself with his wife named Albreda [Duchess
Gunnor], and son Robert bynamed the Dane, who deceased is buried at
Saint-Père de Chartres, along with other sons and daughters from the
same
wife).

Note that the boy Robert was living in 985/89, not dead before that
time.
Also the passage does not necessarily mean to say that Robert the Dane
was a
son of Gunnor/Albreda. He certainly can't have been the same as her son
Robert, who was born before his parents' marriage, probably ca 980 or
earlier, became count of Evreux and archbishop of Rouen, and lived until
1037 when he was no "puer" by any stretch. It seems unlikely that the
ducal
couple had two sons of the same name living in 985/89, though not
impossible.

I am not sure I am following your thought on this.

Robert Danus was son of Gunnor, and was buried at St. Pere. (or am I
reading too much into "other sons . . . of the same wife"?)

That's my view - I think the meaning is: present at this blessed funeral and
fitting spectacle were the distinguished Duke Richard himself with his wife
named Albreda [Duchess Gunnor], and [Duke Robert's] son Robert bynamed the
Dane, who deceased is buried at Saint-Père de Chartres, along with other
sons and daughters from the same wife [who was present, i.e. not who was
mother od Robertus Danus].

Count & Archbishop Robert would not have been called puer, and was
alive in the 980s.

Are you suggesting, then, that it is "unlikely" he is the same as the
Robert puer, son of Count Richard, also buried at St. Pere? This
seems the only possible way of there not being a two Roberts born to
Richard and Gunnor, which you find unlikely.

I don't know for certain where Robert the count/archbishop was buried, but
this was presumably in Rouen or perhaps in Evreux, and well after he could
conceivably have been called 'puer'.

Given the much later date of the entry in the obituary of Saint-Père de
Chartres about 'Robertus, puer, filius comitis Richardi', it can't be quite
certain that this refers to a son of Richard I of Normandy anyway, or for
that matter to anyone buried in the place. Both Richard I and Richard II of
Normandy are recorded in the same obituary, giving the editor his reason for
the identification, but both of these rulers were buried in Fécamp, not
Chartres. Richard II's son Duke Robert I was aged ca 30+ at the time of his
death on pilgrimage at the beginning of July, not 12 August, 1035, and he
was buried first in Bythinia and later in Apulia.

Richard I's son Robert the Dane was probably older than his children (or,
perhaps, other children) by Gunnor, in order to be noted in this way by name
while they are not, and his mother had maybe arrived in a later influx from
Denmark to account for the byname in one so young as he must have been in
985/89, whereas Gunnor was apparently from the previous a generation born &
raised in Normandy - her brother Herfast is called 'the Dane', possily
indicating that he was not, but I don't think this can be taken as a
tranfserable surname in the family for the following generation.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 02:21:35

"Volucris" <volucris@kpnplanet.nl> wrote in message
news:1188502487.070466.79440@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Peter,

The only thing that link these two pieces of information is the
assumption that they must both refer to one Robert, son of duke
Richard I, following a citation of Elisabeth van Houts (sounds Dutch)
and a comment of an editor.

Elisabeth van Houts is indeed Dutch, now at Cambridge. At least one of her
published works is written in Dutch, _Gesta Normannorum ducum: een studie
over de handschriften, de tekst, het geschiedwerk en het genre_ (Groningen,
1982).

That need not be. "Robertus, puer, filius comitis Richardi" (the boy
Robert, son of Count Richard) could have been the son of a different
duke Richard.

He could have been son of a Count Richard who was not duke of Normandy,
maybe.

He could also have been a son of duke Richard I from his first
marriage, who died young.

Dudo is clear that Richard I's wife Emma died childless ("Emma, uxor ejus,
filia scilicet Hugonis magni ducis, defungitur absque liberis") so that she
could not have left a son able to accompany his father and second wife in
985/89.

Maybe the son Robert, later count of Evreux, was named after this
deceased elder brother.

But Robert the count/archbishop must have been living at the same time, in
985/89.

To me the mentioned son Robert alias the Dane at the ceremony in
985/989 might easily have been the later count of Evreux. I guess that
Robert the Dane would haven of the category 'puer' in 985/989. Say
that he was minimal 7 years old then. That would make him being born
at latest 978/982. That puts him in the timeframe that you see the as
the time the son Robert of Richard I and his wive Albreda/Gunnor
should have been born.

This is not plausible if the account stating that Robert the Dane was
deceased and buried at Chartres was written, as I think (but am not sure) it
must have been, while Robert the count/archbishop was still living. I will
check this further when I can.

Do we know the burial place of Robert, bishop of Rouen?

I don't, but it is perhaps stated in 'Acta archiepiscopum Rotomagensium', I
will check this too when I can get to a library.

Peter Stewart

taf

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av taf » 31 aug 2007 03:46:10

On Aug 30, 6:05 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
That's my view - I think the meaning is: present at this blessed funeral and
fitting spectacle were the distinguished Duke Richard himself with his wife
named Albreda [Duchess Gunnor], and [Duke Robert's] son Robert bynamed the
Dane, who deceased is buried at Saint-Père de Chartres, along with other
sons and daughters from the same wife [who was present, i.e. not who was
mother od Robertus Danus].

Ah, I see now. Gotcha.


Richard I's son Robert the Dane was probably older than his children (or,
perhaps, other children) by Gunnor, in order to be noted in this way by name
while they are not,

Yes, I think he would have been the oldest one who was present. How
old were Richard's other children by those other than Gunnor?


985/89, whereas Gunnor was apparently from the previous a generation born &
raised in Normandy - her brother Herfast is called 'the Dane', possily
indicating that he was not, but I don't think this can be taken as a
tranfserable surname in the family for the following generation.

agreed. 'The Dane' as indication of Danish descent would have been a
meaningless distinction, applicable to too much of the population, and
I can't think of any 'inherited' bynames dating this early.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 05:03:16

"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1188528370.954176.59950@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 30, 6:05 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

<snip>

[I had written:]
Richard I's son Robert the Dane was probably older than his children
(or,
perhaps, other children) by Gunnor, in order to be noted in this way by
name
while they are not,

Yes, I think he would have been the oldest one who was present. How
old were Richard's other children by those other than Gunnor?

According to Dudo (the "intellectual nullity" as Lucien Musset justly called
him) Richard I had two sons and two daughters born to concubines_after_ the
death of his first wife, Emma daughter of Duke Hugo Magnus. This is
plausible, unlike much else that he relates, and would mean that these
children were born from approximately 969 onwards - Emma last occurs in
March 968.

One of these illegitimate daughters was Beatrix, married perhaps ca 985 to
Ebles of Comborn who was apparently born ca 960. The elder of the sons named
by Dudo was Godfrey, who became count of Brionne. There's not much to pin
down his chronology precisely, but he could have been born in the 970s for
all we know. The second of these sons, again according to Dudo, was William,
count of Eu, maybe born by the mid-970s. My guess is that both were away
from their father's household in Rouen by the time of the ceremonies in
985/89, and were not mentioned because they were not present.

Gunnor's son Robert supposedly became archbishop of Rouen following the
death of his predecessor Hugo in November of 989 or 990. If this is true and
took place without a very long vacancy in the see, then he must have been
under-age at the time as he could not have been born as early as 964 to have
reached the canonical age of 26 for election (30 for consecration) as a
bishop.

Like his elder full brother Duke Richard II, he was probably born in the
970s before their parents' marriage. Dudo says that Richard and Gunnor had
five sons and three daughters, representing their births as taking place in
the course of time ("processu temporis") after the parents were duly
married, that is after 968 and probably not soon after. We can only account
with certainty for three of their sons, Duke Richard II, Count/Archbishop
Robert, and Count Mauger of Corbeil. The daughters are all known - Havisa,
who married (ca 996/1000) Geoffrey I of Brittany, Emma, who married Kings
Æthelred II (ca April 1002) and later Cnut, and Mathilda who married (ca
1003) Count Odo II of Blois: all of these girls may well have been born in
the 980s.

Robert the Dane _could_ have been one of the two sons of Richard I and
Gunnor whose names are not recorded, as Elisabeth van Houts and others have
assumed, but that leads to several difficulties: if he was the eldest,
standing out to be the only one named amongst the brood in 985/89, he would
have been notable in other contexts as the heir to his father at that time,
yet we don't hear of this. If he was younger than Richard II, there is not
only the mystery of why two sons of the same union would be named Robert
without - for instance - a William after Richard's highly esteemed father,
but also why a middle son would be noted above the rest and given a byname,
suggesting a special link to Denmark (although this might just mean, say,
that he had been taught to speak the old language), that was never attached
to any other child of Gunnor.

I think it's more plausible that Dudo left out a third son by another
concubine, older than Gunnor's children, because Robert the Dane had made
little mark before he died in boyhood, well before Dudo was writing in the
1020s.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 07:37:06

Further to the points discussed below, there is a charter of Richard I for
Fécamp - undated but evidently given on the day of the church's dedication,
known to be 15 June 990 - surviving only in a 12th-century copy of
questionable accuracy, that was possibly subscribed by Robert the Dane.

David Douglas, in The Earliest Norman Counts, EHR 61 (1946), argued that the
Robert appearing as next witness after Godfrey, William and Mauger, whom he
reasonably took to be the sons of Richard I, was the same as a count of
Mortain living until after ca 1015, and in his opinion probably another son
of Richard I by a concubine in addition to the two mentioned by Dudo.

Leaving aside questions about this putative count of Mortain in other
respects, it seems highly unlikely to me that Dudo could have overlooked the
relationship of someone so prominent and recent to his own time of writing
as this, and left him out of the ducal family altogether, if he really
belonged in it.

However, I can see no good reason why the Robert appearing as a witness
along with other sons of Richard I should not have been Robert the Dane. If
so, we can extend his life to June 990 at least, though he must have died
not long after that if he was the "puer" buried at Chartres.

The charter is no. 4 in Fauroux's edition, pp. 73-74, and the relevant
subscriptions are: "Signum Ricardi comitis [Richard I of Normandy], Signum
Willelmi comitis [presumably Richard's cousin William Ironarm, count of
Poitou], Signum Godefridi [the eldest bastard son of Richard I, and later
count of Brionne], Signum item Willelmi [the second bastard son of Richard
I, and later count of Eu], Signum Madelgeri [the third son of Richard I by
Gunnor], Signum Rotberti [possibly Robert the Dane].

The duke's heir Richard II does not appear, and Gunnor's son Robert did not
subscribe but assented in his capacity as archbishop of Rouen ("donante,
concedente atque laudante Rotberto Rotomagensi archiepiscopo"), so that
unless this is a later interpolation he was already consecrated not long
after the death of Hugo in November 989.

Since two of Richard I's known bastard sons subscribed before Mauger, to
whom they were definitely senior in age but less definitely in rank, it
could be argued that the Robert following him was more likely his younger
full brother, i.e. a second namesake son of Gunnor, rather than another
older bastard half-brother. But the extant copy of the charter raises enough
doubts for separate reasons that I wouldn't set much store by the apparent
order of precedence.

Peter Stewart

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8qMBi.28754$4A1.5862@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"taf" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:1188528370.954176.59950@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 30, 6:05 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:

snip

[I had written:]
Richard I's son Robert the Dane was probably older than his children
(or,
perhaps, other children) by Gunnor, in order to be noted in this way by
name
while they are not,

Yes, I think he would have been the oldest one who was present. How
old were Richard's other children by those other than Gunnor?

According to Dudo (the "intellectual nullity" as Lucien Musset justly
called him) Richard I had two sons and two daughters born to
concubines_after_ the death of his first wife, Emma daughter of Duke Hugo
Magnus. This is plausible, unlike much else that he relates, and would
mean that these children were born from approximately 969 onwards - Emma
last occurs in March 968.

One of these illegitimate daughters was Beatrix, married perhaps ca 985 to
Ebles of Comborn who was apparently born ca 960. The elder of the sons
named by Dudo was Godfrey, who became count of Brionne. There's not much
to pin down his chronology precisely, but he could have been born in the
970s for all we know. The second of these sons, again according to Dudo,
was William, count of Eu, maybe born by the mid-970s. My guess is that
both were away from their father's household in Rouen by the time of the
ceremonies in 985/89, and were not mentioned because they were not
present.

Gunnor's son Robert supposedly became archbishop of Rouen following the
death of his predecessor Hugo in November of 989 or 990. If this is true
and took place without a very long vacancy in the see, then he must have
been under-age at the time as he could not have been born as early as 964
to have reached the canonical age of 26 for election (30 for consecration)
as a bishop.

Like his elder full brother Duke Richard II, he was probably born in the
970s before their parents' marriage. Dudo says that Richard and Gunnor had
five sons and three daughters, representing their births as taking place
in the course of time ("processu temporis") after the parents were duly
married, that is after 968 and probably not soon after. We can only
account with certainty for three of their sons, Duke Richard II,
Count/Archbishop Robert, and Count Mauger of Corbeil. The daughters are
all known - Havisa, who married (ca 996/1000) Geoffrey I of Brittany,
Emma, who married Kings Æthelred II (ca April 1002) and later Cnut, and
Mathilda who married (ca 1003) Count Odo II of Blois: all of these girls
may well have been born in the 980s.

Robert the Dane _could_ have been one of the two sons of Richard I and
Gunnor whose names are not recorded, as Elisabeth van Houts and others
have assumed, but that leads to several difficulties: if he was the
eldest, standing out to be the only one named amongst the brood in 985/89,
he would have been notable in other contexts as the heir to his father at
that time, yet we don't hear of this. If he was younger than Richard II,
there is not only the mystery of why two sons of the same union would be
named Robert without - for instance - a William after Richard's highly
esteemed father, but also why a middle son would be noted above the rest
and given a byname, suggesting a special link to Denmark (although this
might just mean, say, that he had been taught to speak the old language),
that was never attached to any other child of Gunnor.

I think it's more plausible that Dudo left out a third son by another
concubine, older than Gunnor's children, because Robert the Dane had made
little mark before he died in boyhood, well before Dudo was writing in the
1020s.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I of Normandy

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 31 aug 2007 11:32:50

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mGOBi.28834$4A1.15257@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Further to the points discussed below, there is a charter of Richard I for
Fécamp - undated but evidently given on the day of the church's
dedication, known to be 15 June 990 - surviving only in a 12th-century
copy of questionable accuracy, that was possibly subscribed by Robert the
Dane.

David Douglas, in The Earliest Norman Counts, EHR 61 (1946), argued that
the Robert appearing as next witness after Godfrey, William and Mauger,
whom he reasonably took to be the sons of Richard I, was the same as a
count of Mortain living until after ca 1015, and in his opinion probably
another son of Richard I by a concubine in addition to the two mentioned
by Dudo.

Leaving aside questions about this putative count of Mortain in other
respects, it seems highly unlikely to me that Dudo could have overlooked
the relationship of someone so prominent and recent to his own time of
writing as this, and left him out of the ducal family altogether, if he
really belonged in it.

However, I can see no good reason why the Robert appearing as a witness
along with other sons of Richard I should not have been Robert the Dane.
If so, we can extend his life to June 990 at least, though he must have
died not long after that if he was the "puer" buried at Chartres.

The charter is no. 4 in Fauroux's edition, pp. 73-74, and the relevant
subscriptions are: "Signum Ricardi comitis [Richard I of Normandy], Signum
Willelmi comitis [presumably Richard's cousin William Ironarm, count of
Poitou], Signum Godefridi [the eldest bastard son of Richard I, and later
count of Brionne], Signum item Willelmi [the second bastard son of Richard
I, and later count of Eu], Signum Madelgeri [the third son of Richard I by
Gunnor], Signum Rotberti [possibly Robert the Dane].

The duke's heir Richard II does not appear, and Gunnor's son Robert did
not subscribe but assented in his capacity as archbishop of Rouen
("donante, concedente atque laudante Rotberto Rotomagensi archiepiscopo"),
so that unless this is a later interpolation he was already consecrated
not long after the death of Hugo in November 989.

Since two of Richard I's known bastard sons subscribed before Mauger, to
whom they were definitely senior in age but less definitely in rank, it
could be argued that the Robert following him was more likely his younger
full brother, i.e. a second namesake son of Gunnor, rather than another
older bastard half-brother. But the extant copy of the charter raises
enough doubts for separate reasons that I wouldn't set much store by the
apparent order of precedence.

My apologies, a good reason for doubt over this does indeed occur.

I have now read the analysis of this charter by Jean-François Lemarignier in
_Étude sur les privilèges d'exemption et de juridiction ecclésiastique des
abbayes normandes depuis les origines jusqu'en 1140_, Archives de la France
monastique 44 (Paris, 1937), and a different conclusion seems warranted from
mine suggested above or that of David Douglas.

Marignier argued, convincingly to me, that the clause in which Robert,
Richard I's second son by Gunnor, is named as archbishop of Rouen was indeed
interpolated afterwards, as I suspected. He thought it was put in by the
monks of Fécamp after 1025, probably between 1068 and 1076, to benefit their
church and its dependencies with exemption from episcopal authority. This
sort of rewriting of genuine charters with forged additions was pretty
common.

So there is no proof in this document that Gunnor's son Robert was actually
elect or consecrated at the time, exercising a precocious authority as
archbishop in mid-990; this in turn leaves a strong probability that he -
and not Robert the Dane or a Robert, count of Mortain - was the witness
attesting next after his full brother Mauger.

Peter Stewart

TJ Booth

Identity of Dionisia m(1) Sothill m(2) Markenfield

Legg inn av TJ Booth » 01 sep 2007 01:19:18

John Ravilious and Rosie Bevans have documented that Joan Fitzwilliam who m.
Henry Sothill was the dau of Sir William Fitzwilliam (d. 8 Apr 1398) and
Maud Cromwell (d. aft 1415). This ended much confusion, since many placed
them several generations earlier. They also identified Henry's gr-father as
Sir Henry Sothill (d. bef 1376), who m. Dionisia ? (d. aft 1398). She m.(2)
Sir Thomas Markenfield (d. bef 1385/86), but her parents were unknown.

Dionisia is identified as the dau of Sir William Fitzwilliam of Elmley in a
uniquely long description of Sir Thomas Markenfield's tomb in Ripon
Cathedral (from Walbran's 1856 'Guide to Ripon, Harrogate, Fountains Abbey
etc') http://books.google.com/books?id=tLYHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA40. It is unclear
if his identification was based on more than Markenfield's arms :

"In the aisle of the north transept - the groining of which, still lingering
with the square bay and flat dividing arch, merits notice, on account of its
early character - was formerly the chantry of Saint Andrews: the piscina, a
roundly trifoliated aperture, with a projecting basin, remaining in the
south wall. This chapel was also the burial-place of the Markenfields, of
Markenfield, near this city; but no other memorial of them now remains in
it, except a fine altar-tomb of Sir Thomas Markenfield, a warrior in the
time of Richard II, and Dionisia his wife, daughter of Sir William
Fitzwilliam, of Elmley. He is vested in a complete suit of armor, and wears
a collar, which exhibits the design of a park-pale and a stag couchant,
above the elongated, but depressed, pales in front. His arms '(argent) on a
bend (sable) 3 bezants' are sculptured on his breast, and on the hilt of his
richly decorated sword; as well as repeated, impaling Fitzwilliam [last
wife] and Miniot [1st wife], in a series of 15 shields, graven round the
tomb, commemorative of the alliances of his powerful and chivalrous race."

Dionisia 'relicta' is on a 9 Mar 1399 Nomination to Chantry (see JT Fowler's
'Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon' Vol 4 page 177-8
http://books.google.com/books?id=vTSsM- ... 2-PA177,M1).
Several documents in earlier SGM posts indicate that Henry Sothill's father
(identified as Henry Esq., d.aft 1410) paid rent to Dionisia aft she
remarried Markenfield abt 1376. In 1410 Henry Sothill's father granted land
back to the Fitzwilliams prior to the m. of Joan and Henry, indicating
Dionisia was d. by then. If Dionysia was a Fitzwilliam, it might explain
some of the transactions.

The earliest evidence of Dionisia's son Henry Esq. suggests he was b. bef
1349, making it likely Dionisia was b. bef 1330. (see PRO website FILE - [no
title] - ref. DD/SR/209/321 - date: 1369 Contents Grant: Thomas de Roos,
Lord of Hamelak, to Henry de Sothill, rent of 10 marks. Manor of ?, Yorks).
The only person named Sir William of Elmsley of father age near Dionisia's
birthdate, was executed at Pontrefact 22 Mar 1322, with any family for him
previously unknown. If this Sir William is Dionisia's father and his mother
was Isabel Deincourt, Henry and Joan were 3rd cousins. But since Dionisia is
not named in Isabel's extensive will, this suggests that Sir William - if it
is he - was by a different mother albeit the same father as Isabel's son Sir
John.

Terry Booth
Chicago, Illinois

Roger LeBlanc

Robert d'Evreux (was Re: Robert the Dane, son of RIchard I o

Legg inn av Roger LeBlanc » 11 sep 2007 20:01:13

I was reviewing this thread and a couple of questions come to mind. Is
there a date by which it is known for certain that Robert was acting as
Archbishop of Rouen? Likewise is it possible to fix a date for his
marriage or children's births?
Also would one assume Robert were younger than Mauger, noting he
witnessed the act of 990 after him. I suppose that presumes the Robert
who witnessed was truly the future count of Evreux.

Roger LeBlanc

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»