The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Covent

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
M.Sjostrom

The Longespée parentage of Roger de Meulan, Bishop of Covent

Legg inn av M.Sjostrom » 10 des 2007 02:20:03

In my view, chronology of bishop Roger being son of
Maurice IV de Nevers, lord of Craon, and his wife
Isabella of Lusignan, half-sister of king Henry III
and earl Richard, fits fairly well and is no
impediment.

Isabella's father married her mother in c1217.

There are good estimates when Maurice IV and
Isabella
at least lived in marriage: from at least early
1240s
to c1250, Maurice's death.

There can easily be a son, born c1245, who would be
12
years old when becoming bishop in 1257, and because
of
his age, in need of that master taking his place as
administrator of bishopric.

Consecration, if it was in 1259, was possibly
performed when the young bishop was still underage.
Yes, there could be canonical impediments against
such - ? but were they always observed, in reality
rather than in breach. When a royal relative is in
question.

However, stretching the chronology to its possible
extremes, a son of Isabella could even reach his
majority in 1259. But I do not see a real need to
delay consecration to him reaching canonical age.

ancestry of children of Isabella of Lusignan and
Maurice IV of Craon, from genealogics:

http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?per ... 6&tree=LEO
- various dates seem to be available there.




Stewart:
"There are several problems with this - we have
charters of the family (see Bertrand de Broussillon,
_La maison de Craon_) and no Roger is named; the
name indeed was not used in the family of either
Maurice or Isabella at all; Roger was not a child when
elected bishop, already a canon of Lichfield at
that time (NB called "magister"); and the eldest son &
heir of Maurice V (not IV) of Craon by Isabella of
Lusignan was much younger than Roger, not marrying
until 1277.
_____________________________________________________


As purely chronological exercise, they still can fit.
Either Roger was underage yet in 1259 and the
chronology has no problem. Or, alternatively, Roger
was somehow something like 20 years old in 1259, and
the chronology makes a tight stretch but can yet fit.

This view was, from the beginning, purely
chronological, and has no attempt to address those
problems of other kinds.

Whether the possible father is enumerated as IV or V,
there seems to be differences between sources.
Genealogics uses IV for him. I believe those ordinals
were not contemporary and thus not authentic, whereby
it is not very productive to argue about their
correctness.

I find the argument that a man who married in 1277
must have been much younger than a possible brother
who thus must have himself been born in late 1230s or
in 1240s, a weak one. Medieval male magnates married
sometimes first time in their thirties or even in
their forties.
That marriage seems to have taken place in c1275, and
not as late as in 1277. Which difference however is
not important to this chronology.
Thus the heir would have easily been the elder of the
sons, the date of his marriage not ruining the
chronology.
By necessity, the guy who married in c1275, was
himself born in 1240s, at latest (because the father
died c1250, and there existed some younger full
siblings). And he was thus anyway around thirty when
he married in c1275.
It really is not a good presumption that male nobles
married when around twenty.

The charters are outside the chronological view I have
taken. They offer evidence possibly to the contrary,
and that is for those to decide who will make
conclusions from the entire matter, and not only about
chronology as I did.
However, absence from charters is not necessarily a
decisive proof of absence of kinship.
Only if the charters are such that all members of the
family, even those who had presumably renounced
inheritance after having become ecclesiastics, are
expected to be listed, or the charter explicitly
mentions that all are listed, then it would be a
candidate for conclusive proof. Or if the sheer number
of charters is so big that anyone would expect a
family member to get mentioned at least once - this
goes to the criteria "what is so big a number of
charters..."

The age of Roger at the election: someone messaged in
the list that there was some indication he was
underage and another, a Magister, took care of the
position for a while. Another man, not Roger himself.
I took that possibility into attention when checking
the chronology.
How convincing is the evidence that it was Roger who
was called magister, and not another man?
For chronology, him being underage helps a lot; but a
tight fit can exist where he is already 20 or so.
If he were born of the marriage of Isabella and
Maurice. Who married c1240, possibly some years
earlier (and possibly some years later)/ timing of the
spot of time when Isabella was capable of having
successful pregnancies. Assuming Isabella could have
been born as early as in c1220.

It may well be that bishop Roger was not son of that
family, the Craon. I am not making any conclusion
about a larger matter, when I am saying that the
chronology can fit.




____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62s ... o8Wcj9tAcJ

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»