Amauberge la Dangereuse

[Margaret]

I wonder if anyone would have any comment on a proposition made in a
French website on the Châtellerault family

http://poitou.ifrance.com/chatel.htm

(original in French below) that I translate as follows:
"A. Richard noted that the viscountess [Amauberge, wife of Aimery I de
Châtellerault], could be the daughter of Barthélémy, seigneur de l'Ile-
Bouchard. She was also known as "la Dangereuse" and lived at the same
time. A. Hérault accepted this theory and noted that Barthélémy was
related to [? ally of] viscount Boson II. For our part we tried to
find a Montfort connection, because Raoul, youngest son of Aimery I
and Dangereuse was known as Raoul de Faye but was originally called
Raoul de Montfort (101). We followed up A. Hérault's discovery of an
"Aimeri de Châtellerault" among the witnesses [?subscribers] to a
donation made by Alain Fergent, duke of Britanny, to the abbey of
Saint-Georges de Rennes when his sister Adèle was made abbess of this
establishment in 1084 or 1086 (102). In fact the first witness to the
deed is none other than "le comte Raoul", that is Raoul de Gaël or de
Montfort, who dom Lobineau puts at the head of the list of the
renowned Breton lords of the time. According to him, Raoul de Montfort
participated in the conquest of England and William the Bastard gave
him several lordships across the Channel. He married the daughter of
Roger de Breteuil, earl of Hereford (103).

"It is possible that the "Hailericus de Castro Airaut" who also
witnessed the aforementioned deed, is the future viscount Aimery I and
was visiting his father-in-law, or future father-in-law, Raoul de
Montfort. If so Raoul, his youngest son would have been named for his
maternal grandfather. This .... marriage could have been arranged by
Aimery's grandfather, Aimery IV, viscount de Thouars, renowned for his
part in the conquest of England and who only died in 1093 (104)."

(101) Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Noyers, n° CDLXVI, dans Mémoires de la
Soc. Archéol. de Touraine, t. XXII, 1872, p. 498-499
(102) A. Hérault, op. cit., t. 1er, p 55 note 1, d'après Dom Morice,
Preuves à l'histoire de Bretagne, t. 1er, 1713, colonne 453.
(103) Dom Lobineau, Histoire de Bretagne, t. 1er, 1707, p. 98-106.
(104) E.-R. Labande, "Situation de l'Aquitaine en 1066", dans BSAO 4e
série, t. VIII, 1966, p. 354-355.

"A. Richard a signalé dans une note que la vicomtesse pouvait être
identifiée avec une Dangereuse, fille de Barthélémy, seigneur de l'Ile-
Bouchard, qui vivait à la même époque (99). A. Hérault a été séduit
par cette hypothèse en remarquant que Barthélémy avait été l'allié du
vicomte Boson II (100). De notre côté, nous avons cherché à identifier
une famille de Montfort, parce que Raoul, fils cadet d'Aimeri I et
Dangereuse, bien connu sous le nom de Raoul de Faye, a d'abord été
appelé Raoul de Montfort (101). Nous avons été guidé par A. Hérault
qui a trouvé un " Aimeri de Châtellerault " parmi les souscripteurs
d'une donation du duc de Bretagne Alain Fergent à l'abbaye de Saint-
Georges de Rennes, à l'occasion de l'installation de sa soeur Adèle
comme abbesse de cet établissement, en 1084 ou 1086 (102). En effet,
le premier souscripteur de cet acte n'est autre que " le comte Raoul
", c'est-à-dire Raoul de Gaël ou de Montfort, que dom Lobineau désigne
en tête des seigneurs bretons illustres de son temps. Selon cet
auteur, Raoul de Montfort a participé à la conquête de l'Angleterre et
a reçu de Guillaume le Bâtard plusieurs seigneuries outre Manche. Il a
épousé la fille de Roger de Breteuil, comte de Hereford (103).

"Il est probable que le Haimericus de Castro Airaut qui souscrit en sa
compagnie l'acte précité, est le futur vicomte Aimeri I qui séjourne
chez son beau-père ou futur beau-père, Raoul de Montfort. Ainsi Raoul,
son fils cadet, aurait reçu le nom et le surnom de son grand-père
maternel. Cette alliance lointaine a pu être préparée par le grand-
père d'Aimeri, le vicomte de Thouars Aimeri IV, qui s'est illustré
lors de la conquête de l'Angleterre et qui n'est décédé qu'en 1093
(104)."

Yours
Margaret

[Hickory]

Thank you so much for this posting, both for the elegant English
translation and the original French with which to compare. This does
not fall within the scope of my own research to date, so I cannot
comment on whether the conclusions made coincide or not with relevant
research done by scholars who publish in English. I would like to
comment, though, that the first of the sources mentioned could
certainly be considered a primary source and the last seems to
represent at least one strand of current scholarly opinion. The other
two sources would appear, judging from the titles and publication
dates, to be "classics", much in the nature of Nichol's or Omerod for
the English counties of Leicestershire and Cheshire, respectively. If
a rebuttal is to be made by anyone based on English language sources,
it would need to be carefully done.

[Margaret]

Hello Hickory
For some mysterious reason, since posting my original question, no sgm
digest has landed on my computer so I've only just come across your
response online - belated thanks.

Thanks too for your analysis of the sources. From what I can see the
suggestion that Amauberge came from the Isle Bouchard family has
always been a cautious one precisely because there's no primary
evidence for it. That said, the article makes it clear that a de
Montfort connection is only a possibility based on the intriguing
mention in the cartulary of the abbey of Noyer - as reported by the
Touraine archeological society in 1872, coupled with what looks like a
de Châtellerault presence in Rennes in 1084/6.

Still, even though, from what I can see, it has at least as much, if
not more, validity than the Bouchard theory, we're not out of the
woods yet.
yours
Margaret


On Dec 19, 10:33 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you so much for this posting, both for the elegant English
translation and the original French with which to compare. This does
not fall within the scope of my own research to date, so I cannot
comment on whether the conclusions made coincide or not with relevant
research done by scholars who publish in English. I would like to
comment, though, that the first of the sources mentioned could
certainly be considered a primary source and the last seems to
represent at least one strand of current scholarly opinion. The other
two sources would appear, judging from the titles and publication
dates, to be "classics", much in the nature of Nichol's or Omerod for
the English counties of Leicestershire and Cheshire, respectively. If
a rebuttal is to be made by anyone based on English language sources,
it would need to be carefully done.

[Margaret]

Hello again
The arrival of my reply to Hickory arriving in the same sgm digest
this morning as my latest reply to Leo has puzzled me. I know I sent
this message to Hickory at least the day before yesterday the 21st,
possibly 2 days before. I also know I sent my latest reply to Leo last
night, the 21st but they're both dated the 21st. Normally I'd not
bother, but the loss of chronology makes it look (to me at least) as
if I'd fibbed about not finding Hickory's message earlier. I've
already noticed and remarked on one of my messages being marked up as
having changed the title of the thread. I don't suppose it's worth
bothing about, it's just that it's weird and misrepresents what I've
done and written.

This message sent 10h06 French time Saturday 22 December 2007. Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year.
yours
Margaret

On Dec 21, 9:45 am, Margaret <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Hickory
For some mysterious reason, since posting my original question, no sgm
digest has landed on my computer so I've only just come across your
response online - belated thanks.

Thanks too for your analysis of the sources. From what I can see the
suggestion that Amauberge came from the Isle Bouchard family has
always been a cautious one precisely because there's no primary
evidence for it. That said, the article makes it clear that a de
Montfort connection is only a possibility based on the intriguing
mention in the cartulary of the abbey of Noyer - as reported by the
Touraine archeological society in 1872, coupled with what looks like a
de Châtellerault presence in Rennes in 1084/6.

Still, even though, from what I can see, it has at least as much, if
not more, validity than the Bouchard theory, we're not out of the
woods yet.
yours
Margaret

On Dec 19, 10:33 pm, Hickory <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you so much for this posting, both for the elegant English
translation and the original French with which to compare. This does
not fall within the scope of my own research to date, so I cannot
comment on whether the conclusions made coincide or not with relevant
research done by scholars who publish in English. I would like to
comment, though, that the first of the sources mentioned could
certainly be considered a primary source and the last seems to
represent at least one strand of current scholarly opinion. The other
two sources would appear, judging from the titles and publication
dates, to be "classics", much in the nature of Nichol's or Omerod for
the English counties of Leicestershire and Cheshire, respectively. If
a rebuttal is to be made by anyone based on English language sources,
it would need to be carefully done.