New pages have just been uploaded to the Henry Project for the following
individuals:
Roger, count of Maine
Rothilde his wife
Hugues I, count of Maine
Hugues II, count of Maine
Hugues III, count of Maine
Hugues IV, count of Maine
Herbert I, count of Maine
Landry de Baugency
Landry/Lancelin de Baugency
Jean de La Flèche
Paula his wife
A revised page has been uploaded for Hélie de La Flèche.
The URL for the index page is:
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproj ... /index.htm
As usual, comments are welcome.
Stewart Baldwin
New Henry Project pages - Maine
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
On Jan 10, 10:05 am, "Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote:
The situation regarding his second wife is in need of revision.
Specifically, Pedro of Aragon's Agnes of Aquitaine disappears between
9 May and 16 August 1097, and he remarried Berta, who would then
become his widow. While divorce is a formal possibility, there is a
memorial recorded in the 'Anales Compostelanos' (thanks to Peter
Stewart who posted this a few years back):
"Era MCXXXV (año 1097) regina Agens VII Idus Iunii".
As this lies smack between the last charter in which Agnes appears and
the first in which she fails to appear, I think there can be little
doubt that Agnes died, rather than divorcing and surviving Peter, and
hence Richard, in calling the wife of Helias widow of Peter was far
afield.
I see only three possible solutions: 1) Helias really did marry Agnes,
who had been divorced by Alfonso and somehow managed to pass decades
undetected (perhaps married to someone so obscure as to avoid notice)
to then be the celebrated bride of Helias; 2) Orderic is completely
confused and no such marriage even took place; or 3) that Orderic is
partially confused - that Helias married a daughter of William named
Agnes, (which would be a third Agnes) but Orderic was confused as to
her being identical with the former wife of Alfonso, or that he
married a widow of Alfonso (who had only just died, i.e. Beatrice),
but was confused about her being identical to Alfonso's earlier wife
Agnes.
I used to favor the first solution, but a significant plank in that
solution, the evidence of the supposed divorce of Alfonso and Agnes
due to consanguinity, seems to have been applied to the wrong
marriage, i.e. it appears from both revised chronology and internal
elements that it was the marriage to Constance that was being
condemned, because of her relationship to former wife Agnes. This
militates against the marriage to Agnes having been annulled, and
suggests that it in fact ended in death. I now am more positively
disposed to the latter, that it was Alfonso's widow who Helias
married. It is perhaps noteworthy that Vajay suggests Beatrice as a
daughter of William IX of Aquitaine, which would mean Orderic was only
erroneous concerning the name itself, but the evidence Vajay brings
forward for this suggestion is, frankly, nonexistent.
(Again, thanks to Peter, whose 2004 discussion on this led many of the
disparate pieces to resolve in my mind.)
Would it be useful for me to write a discussion of this for the Helias
page, at least so far as I can with what I have available to me?
taf
A revised page has been uploaded for Hélie de La Flèche.
As usual, comments are welcome.
The situation regarding his second wife is in need of revision.
Specifically, Pedro of Aragon's Agnes of Aquitaine disappears between
9 May and 16 August 1097, and he remarried Berta, who would then
become his widow. While divorce is a formal possibility, there is a
memorial recorded in the 'Anales Compostelanos' (thanks to Peter
Stewart who posted this a few years back):
"Era MCXXXV (año 1097) regina Agens VII Idus Iunii".
As this lies smack between the last charter in which Agnes appears and
the first in which she fails to appear, I think there can be little
doubt that Agnes died, rather than divorcing and surviving Peter, and
hence Richard, in calling the wife of Helias widow of Peter was far
afield.
I see only three possible solutions: 1) Helias really did marry Agnes,
who had been divorced by Alfonso and somehow managed to pass decades
undetected (perhaps married to someone so obscure as to avoid notice)
to then be the celebrated bride of Helias; 2) Orderic is completely
confused and no such marriage even took place; or 3) that Orderic is
partially confused - that Helias married a daughter of William named
Agnes, (which would be a third Agnes) but Orderic was confused as to
her being identical with the former wife of Alfonso, or that he
married a widow of Alfonso (who had only just died, i.e. Beatrice),
but was confused about her being identical to Alfonso's earlier wife
Agnes.
I used to favor the first solution, but a significant plank in that
solution, the evidence of the supposed divorce of Alfonso and Agnes
due to consanguinity, seems to have been applied to the wrong
marriage, i.e. it appears from both revised chronology and internal
elements that it was the marriage to Constance that was being
condemned, because of her relationship to former wife Agnes. This
militates against the marriage to Agnes having been annulled, and
suggests that it in fact ended in death. I now am more positively
disposed to the latter, that it was Alfonso's widow who Helias
married. It is perhaps noteworthy that Vajay suggests Beatrice as a
daughter of William IX of Aquitaine, which would mean Orderic was only
erroneous concerning the name itself, but the evidence Vajay brings
forward for this suggestion is, frankly, nonexistent.
(Again, thanks to Peter, whose 2004 discussion on this led many of the
disparate pieces to resolve in my mind.)
Would it be useful for me to write a discussion of this for the Helias
page, at least so far as I can with what I have available to me?
taf
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles the
Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and Auguste
Molinier along with others have done.
From Flodoard's references to the daughter of Charles the Bald as a
mother-in-law as well as the possessor of an abbey and allods, without
calling her abbess, it appears that she was not a religious, whereas the
abbess who died on 22 March was described as a nun and also as daughter of
"the great" king Charles (a term not normally used for Charles the Bald) in
the earliest obituary of Saint-Germain des Prés ("XI kal. [aprilis] Dep.
Rothildis, abbatisse et monache, filie regis magni Karoli"). This record was
alsmost certainly not for an abbess of Chelles but for the abbess of
Faremoutiers, who was commemorated in the surviving obituary of that house
on 24 March ("IX kal. apr. Commemoratio domne Rotildis, abbatisse hujus
ecclesie" - NB "IX" here may be a slip by the 13th-century compiler in
transcribing an original record of death that gave "IX" instead, like the
obituaries of Saint-Germain des Prés, Saint-Denis and Argenteuil that you
have quoted, or it may be correct for the date of her burial, two days after
she died, given that the notice says "commemoratio" rather than "obiit").
A variance of two days is very common in medieval obituaries anyway, even
where several records did state "obiit" on different dates for the same
person. There was only one abbess of Faremoutiers from the royal family
named Rothilde, a daughter of Charlemagne (who was normally distinguished as
"magnus" from his own lifetime onwards). She was abbess by the autumn of 840
and died in 852. Some confusion over her career has come about from a
diploma of Charles the Bald ostensibly dated 842 referring to Bertrada as
abbess of Faremoutiers, but the dating of this document is suspect for other
reasons, if not the entire text.
The coincidence of two Carolingian abbesses both named Rothilde and dying on
22 and 24 March respectively is hard to credit without direct and clear
evidence.
I look forward to reading through the new Maine pages when I can find time,
and thanks once again for making these available online. By the way, if you
need copies of any sources that are hard for you to obtain, please let me
know.
Peter Stewart
news:[email protected]...
New pages have just been uploaded to the Henry Project for the following
individuals:
Roger, count of Maine
Rothilde his wife
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles the
Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and Auguste
Molinier along with others have done.
From Flodoard's references to the daughter of Charles the Bald as a
mother-in-law as well as the possessor of an abbey and allods, without
calling her abbess, it appears that she was not a religious, whereas the
abbess who died on 22 March was described as a nun and also as daughter of
"the great" king Charles (a term not normally used for Charles the Bald) in
the earliest obituary of Saint-Germain des Prés ("XI kal. [aprilis] Dep.
Rothildis, abbatisse et monache, filie regis magni Karoli"). This record was
alsmost certainly not for an abbess of Chelles but for the abbess of
Faremoutiers, who was commemorated in the surviving obituary of that house
on 24 March ("IX kal. apr. Commemoratio domne Rotildis, abbatisse hujus
ecclesie" - NB "IX" here may be a slip by the 13th-century compiler in
transcribing an original record of death that gave "IX" instead, like the
obituaries of Saint-Germain des Prés, Saint-Denis and Argenteuil that you
have quoted, or it may be correct for the date of her burial, two days after
she died, given that the notice says "commemoratio" rather than "obiit").
A variance of two days is very common in medieval obituaries anyway, even
where several records did state "obiit" on different dates for the same
person. There was only one abbess of Faremoutiers from the royal family
named Rothilde, a daughter of Charlemagne (who was normally distinguished as
"magnus" from his own lifetime onwards). She was abbess by the autumn of 840
and died in 852. Some confusion over her career has come about from a
diploma of Charles the Bald ostensibly dated 842 referring to Bertrada as
abbess of Faremoutiers, but the dating of this document is suspect for other
reasons, if not the entire text.
The coincidence of two Carolingian abbesses both named Rothilde and dying on
22 and 24 March respectively is hard to credit without direct and clear
evidence.
I look forward to reading through the new Maine pages when I can find time,
and thanks once again for making these available online. By the way, if you
need copies of any sources that are hard for you to obtain, please let me
know.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Apologies for the nonsensical typo - this should read:
NB "IX" here may be a slip by the 13th-century compiler in transcribing an
original record of death that gave "XI" instead, like the obituaries of
Saint-Germain des Prés, Saint-Denis and Argenteuil...".
Peter Stewart
news:[email protected]...
"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
New pages have just been uploaded to the Henry Project for the following
individuals:
Roger, count of Maine
Rothilde his wife
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles the
Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and Auguste
Molinier along with others have done.
From Flodoard's references to the daughter of Charles the Bald as a
mother-in-law as well as the possessor of an abbey and allods, without
calling her abbess, it appears that she was not a religious, whereas the
abbess who died on 22 March was described as a nun and also as daughter of
"the great" king Charles (a term not normally used for Charles the Bald)
in the earliest obituary of Saint-Germain des Prés ("XI kal. [aprilis]
Dep. Rothildis, abbatisse et monache, filie regis magni Karoli"). This
record was alsmost certainly not for an abbess of Chelles but for the
abbess of Faremoutiers, who was commemorated in the surviving obituary of
that house on 24 March ("IX kal. apr. Commemoratio domne Rotildis,
abbatisse hujus ecclesie" - NB "IX" here may be a slip by the 13th-century
compiler in transcribing an original record of death that gave "IX"
instead, like the obituaries of Saint-Germain des Prés, Saint-Denis and
Argenteuil
Apologies for the nonsensical typo - this should read:
NB "IX" here may be a slip by the 13th-century compiler in transcribing an
original record of death that gave "XI" instead, like the obituaries of
Saint-Germain des Prés, Saint-Denis and Argenteuil...".
Peter Stewart
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
You are right, I should not have picked up that error, and I am annoyed at
myself for not carefully checking what should have been an obvious "red
flag" ("filie regis magni Karoli").
I have now modified Rothilde's page accordingly, and I also added a brief
comment about the confusion under the other Rothilde on Charlemagne's page.
Stewart Baldwin
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles the
Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and Auguste
Molinier along with others have done.
[snip]
You are right, I should not have picked up that error, and I am annoyed at
myself for not carefully checking what should have been an obvious "red
flag" ("filie regis magni Karoli").
I have now modified Rothilde's page accordingly, and I also added a brief
comment about the confusion under the other Rothilde on Charlemagne's page.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It puzzles me that Karl Ferdinand Werner accepted the identification of
Charles the Bald's daughter Rothilde with the abbess who died on 22 (or 24)
March, but like Molinier and Lauer he presumably thought that "magnus
Karolus" in this context could indicate Charlemagne's namesake grandson.
However, given that the lady who died on 22 (or 24) March was abbess of
Faremoutiers, as we know that Charlemagne's daughter Rothilde was by 840, I
can see no good reason to doubt that the notices were for her.
By the way, I think it would be worth adding that Werner pointed out other
reasons apart from the chronology (which is in any case tight) for supposing
Rothilde to be Charles the Bald's daughter by his second wife Richilde
rather than from his prior marriage - first, the reference by Charles to his
unnamed little daughter ("parvulae nostrae filiae") in the capitulary of
Quierzy in 877, and secondly the seizure of Rothilde's allodial properties
soon after she died by King Raoul's brother Boso, that evidently places
these in Upper Burgundy, homeland of the brothers (Richilde was most
probably their paternal aunt, so that Rothilde would have been their first
cousin).
Without these indications, the chronology would be dubious - Rothilde's son
Hugo was apparently acting independently as count when he sought approval
from Charles the Simple in October 900 for a donation that he had made
jointly with his mother. Although vague, it would appear from this that she
was most likely born around 30 years beforehand if her son was, say, around
15 at the time. This would place her birth close to the earliest possible
time for a daughter of Richilde, whose liaison with Charles started in
October 869 (they were married in January 870, when she might have been
already pregnant).
Peter Stewart
news:[email protected]...
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles
the Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and
Auguste Molinier along with others have done.
[snip]
You are right, I should not have picked up that error, and I am annoyed at
myself for not carefully checking what should have been an obvious "red
flag" ("filie regis magni Karoli").
I have now modified Rothilde's page accordingly, and I also added a brief
comment about the confusion under the other Rothilde on Charlemagne's
page.
It puzzles me that Karl Ferdinand Werner accepted the identification of
Charles the Bald's daughter Rothilde with the abbess who died on 22 (or 24)
March, but like Molinier and Lauer he presumably thought that "magnus
Karolus" in this context could indicate Charlemagne's namesake grandson.
However, given that the lady who died on 22 (or 24) March was abbess of
Faremoutiers, as we know that Charlemagne's daughter Rothilde was by 840, I
can see no good reason to doubt that the notices were for her.
By the way, I think it would be worth adding that Werner pointed out other
reasons apart from the chronology (which is in any case tight) for supposing
Rothilde to be Charles the Bald's daughter by his second wife Richilde
rather than from his prior marriage - first, the reference by Charles to his
unnamed little daughter ("parvulae nostrae filiae") in the capitulary of
Quierzy in 877, and secondly the seizure of Rothilde's allodial properties
soon after she died by King Raoul's brother Boso, that evidently places
these in Upper Burgundy, homeland of the brothers (Richilde was most
probably their paternal aunt, so that Rothilde would have been their first
cousin).
Without these indications, the chronology would be dubious - Rothilde's son
Hugo was apparently acting independently as count when he sought approval
from Charles the Simple in October 900 for a donation that he had made
jointly with his mother. Although vague, it would appear from this that she
was most likely born around 30 years beforehand if her son was, say, around
15 at the time. This would place her birth close to the earliest possible
time for a daughter of Richilde, whose liaison with Charles started in
October 869 (they were married in January 870, when she might have been
already pregnant).
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: New Henry Project pages - Maine
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I reread Werner on this subject - he acknowledged the difficulty but
accepted the close co-incidence, considering that the notice on 24 March in
the Faremoutiers obituary was for Charlemagne's daughter while the three
other notices on 22 March were for Charles the Bald's daughter, despite one
of these describing her father as "magnus rex".
He didn't discuss the points that persuade me otherwise, that the
Faremoutiers notice says "commemoratio" rather than "obiit", and that such
discrepancies of a day or more are common between medieval necrologies for
the same person anyway, or that the Saint-Germain notice described Rothilde
on 22 March a nun as well as abbess.
Peter Stewart
news:[email protected]...
"Stewart Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
"Peter Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote:
I think it is a mistake to identify this Rothilde, daughter of Charles
the Bald, with the abbess who died on 22 March, as Philippe Lauer and
Auguste Molinier along with others have done.
[snip]
You are right, I should not have picked up that error, and I am annoyed
at myself for not carefully checking what should have been an obvious
"red flag" ("filie regis magni Karoli").
I have now modified Rothilde's page accordingly, and I also added a brief
comment about the confusion under the other Rothilde on Charlemagne's
page.
It puzzles me that Karl Ferdinand Werner accepted the identification of
Charles the Bald's daughter Rothilde with the abbess who died on 22 (or
24) March, but like Molinier and Lauer he presumably thought that "magnus
Karolus" in this context could indicate Charlemagne's namesake grandson.
However, given that the lady who died on 22 (or 24) March was abbess of
Faremoutiers, as we know that Charlemagne's daughter Rothilde was by 840,
I can see no good reason to doubt that the notices were for her.
I reread Werner on this subject - he acknowledged the difficulty but
accepted the close co-incidence, considering that the notice on 24 March in
the Faremoutiers obituary was for Charlemagne's daughter while the three
other notices on 22 March were for Charles the Bald's daughter, despite one
of these describing her father as "magnus rex".
He didn't discuss the points that persuade me otherwise, that the
Faremoutiers notice says "commemoratio" rather than "obiit", and that such
discrepancies of a day or more are common between medieval necrologies for
the same person anyway, or that the Saint-Germain notice described Rothilde
on 22 March a nun as well as abbess.
Peter Stewart