Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2004 17:18:18

Can anyone tell me if there are errors in the following line of descent?

Generation 1
Karloman/Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor of
the Holy Roman Empire (742-813) + Hildegarde of Vinzgau (757- 782)
parents of Pepin (below).
Generation 2
Pepin, King of Italy (773-810) + Bertha de Toulouse parents of Bernhard
(below).
Generation 3
Bernhard, King of Italy (D 818) + Cunegonde parents of Pepin (below).
Generation 4
Pepin, Count Pepin II Quentin de Vermandois, Count of Perrone (B about 817)
+ Unknown parents of Beatrice (below).
Generation 5
Hubert de Senlis, Caroling de Vermandois, Lord de Perrone (D 902) &
Beatrice de Morvois/Vermandois (D 900) parents of Beatrice (below).
Generation 6
Robert of France, King of France, (D 923) + Beatrice de Vermandois parents
of Hugh (below).
Generation 7
Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia, Count of Paris (895-956) + Hedwige de
Sachsen/Edith of Saxony (915-965) parents of Hugh (below).
Generation 8
Hugh Capet, King of France (941-died 995)
Lineage of Hugh Capet through Agnes Harris is from “The Royal Descents of
500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were
Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History, by Gary
Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc, pages 444-45, found in the
Newberry Library, Chicago.
+ Adelaide de Poitou parents of Hedwige (below).
Generation 9
Raginerius/Rainier IV, Count of Hainault (B 955) + Hedwige/Edith Capet of
France parents of Beatrice (below).
Generation 10
Ebles de Roucy, Count + Beatrice de Hainault (B 988) parents of Alice
(below).
Generation 11
Hildouin de Montdidier, Count (B 1014) + Adela/Alice de Roucy (B 1040)
parents of Margaret (below).
Generation 12
Hugh de Clermont, Count + Margaret de Roucy (B 1040) parents of
Adeliza/Adele (below).
Generation 13
Gilbert de Clare (D 1114) + Adeliza de Clermont (1088-1128) parents of
Roger (below).
Generation 14
Roger de Clare (1116-1173) + Maud de St. Hilaire (1127-1193) parents of
Aveline (below).
Generation 15
Geoffrey FitzPiers + Aveline de Clare parents of Hawise (below).
Generation 16
Reynold II de Mohun, Sir + Hawise FitzGeoffrey/FitzPiers (D 1247) parents
of Alice (below).
Generation 17
Robert IV de Beauchamp, Lord of Hatch Beauchamp, Justice in Eyre.
(1231-1281) + Alice de Mohun (1230-1282) parents of Humphrey (below).
Generation 18
Humphrey de Beauchamp (1250-1316) + Sybil Oliver parents of John (below).
Generation 19
John de Beauchamp, Lord of Ryme, Dorset, Oburnford + Alice de Nonant
parents of John (below).
Generation 20
John de Beauchamp, Lord of Ryme, Obunford, Oilescombe, Teignhervy &
Oulescombe (died 1349) + Margaret Whalesburgh parents of Elizabeth
(below).
Generation 21
William Fortescue, Lord of Whympston + Elizabeth de Beauchamp (D 1409) –
parents of William (below).
Generation 22
William Fortescue, Lord of Whympston + Mabilla/Matilda Falwell parents of
John (below).
Generation 23
John Fortescue (died 1480) + Joan Prutteston (died 1501) parents of Joane
(below).
Generation 24
Thomas Hext (died 1470) + Joane Fortescue parents of Thomas (below).
Generation 25
Thomas Hext (1555) + Wilmot Poyntz (1487-1558) parents of Margery (below).
Generation 26
Henry Collarmore (died 1555) + Margery Hext (1510-about 1551) parents of
Henry (below).
Generation 27
Henry Collamore (1541-1625) + Margaret Blight (1545-1626) parents of
Elizabeth (below).
Generation 28
Bartholomew Harris (died 1615) + Elizabeth Collamore parents of Agnes
(below).
Generation 29
William Spencer + Agnes Harris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**********
The information contained in this communication is confidential, private, proprietary, or otherwise privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately at (312)653-6000 in Illinois; (972)766-6900 in Texas; or (800)835-8699 in New Mexico.
**********
==============================================================================

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 aug 2004 21:04:11

"Generation 13
Gilbert de Clare (D 1114) + Adeliza de Clermont (1088-1128) parents of
Roger (below).
Generation 14
Roger de Clare (1116-1173) + Maud de St. Hilaire (1127-1193) parents of
Aveline (below)."

It's a nice piece of work when a man can die in 1114 and yet have a son born in 1116.
Will

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 26 aug 2004 22:16:59

[appologies to those who got the first unaltered response.]

SCHMIDTM@BCBSIL.COM wrote:
Can anyone tell me if there are errors in the following line of descent?

Generation 2
Pepin, King of Italy (773-810) + Bertha de Toulouse parents of Bernhard
(below).

The name of his wife is not found in any source, and her being of the
family that held Toulouse is only one of several speculative solutions.

Generation 3
Bernhard, King of Italy (D 818) + Cunegonde parents of Pepin (below).
Generation 4
Pepin, Count Pepin II Quentin de Vermandois, Count of Perrone (B about 817)
+ Unknown parents of Beatrice (below).
Generation 5
Hubert de Senlis, Caroling de Vermandois, Lord de Perrone (D 902) &
Beatrice de Morvois/Vermandois (D 900) parents of Beatrice (below).

Pepin of generation 4 was father of Heribert, Count of Vermandois, the
husband of gen 5, not of his wife (perhaps named Beatrice, but again
this is not well documented).

Generation 7
Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia, Count of Paris (895-956) + Hedwige de
Sachsen/Edith of Saxony (915-965) parents of Hugh (below).

Edith is not a valid alternative name for the correct name, Hedwige.

Generation 8
Hugh Capet, King of France (941-died 995)
Lineage of Hugh Capet through Agnes Harris is from “The Royal Descents of
500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were
Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History, by Gary
Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc, pages 444-45, found in the
Newberry Library, Chicago.
+ Adelaide de Poitou parents of Hedwige (below).

She is also of Carolingian descent, although the precise details are
somewhat speculative.

taf

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 27 aug 2004 09:07:59

In a message dated 8/26/2004 6:19:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SCHMIDTM@BCBSIL.COM writes:

Generation 8
Hugh Capet, King of France (941-died 995)
Lineage of Hugh Capet through Agnes Harris is from “The Royal Descents of
500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were
Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History, by Gary
Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc, pages 444-45, found in the
Newberry Library, Chicago.
+ Adelaide de Poitou parents of Hedwige (below).


The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1995 edition, states that Hugh died 14 Oct 996

Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2004 10:30:26

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/26/2004 6:19:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
SCHMIDTM@BCBSIL.COM writes:


Generation 8
Hugh Capet, King of France (941-died 995)
Lineage of Hugh Capet through Agnes Harris is from â??The Royal Descents of
500 Immigrants to the American Colonies or the United States Who Were
Themselves Notable or Left Descendants Notable in American History, by Gary
Boyd Roberts, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc, pages 444-45, found in the
Newberry Library, Chicago.
+ Adelaide de Poitou parents of Hedwige (below).



The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1995 edition, states that Hugh died 14 Oct 996

The date generally accepted is 24 October 996.

However, as often happens with even the most important personages of his
time, the sources that ought to be most credible differ on the details,
and Hugo Capet _may_ have died a day earlier or later, and _possibly_ a
full year earlier or later though this is rather less doubtful.

According to the obituary of Saint-Denis abbey, compiled in the 13th
century from a records presumably contemporary with the event (Hugo was
buried there), he died on 24 October - see _Obituaires de la province de
Sens_, tome I, Diocèses de Sens et de Paris, edited by Auguste Molinier
(Paris, 1902) part 1, p 329: "VIIII kal. [novembris]...Hugo rex".

The second anonymous continuator of the chronicle of Ado, archbishop of
Vienne, in Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scripores II p 326, wrote
"Regnavit autem Hugo rex inclitus X annis, et moritur nono Kalend. Nobr.
anno incarnationis 997 (trans: The illustrious King Hugh reigned, then,
for 10 years, and died on 24 October in the year 997 of the
Incarnation); NB the tenth anniversary of his election as king was in
July 997. The annals of Fleury agree with the year, see 'Annales
Floriacenses', edited by Alexandre Vidier in _L'historiographie à
Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et les 'Miracles de Saint Benoît'_ (Paris, 1965),
p 219: "DCCCCXCVII hugo rex obiit" (trans: 997 King Hugh died).

Odorannus of Sens gave 998 - see _Opera omnia_, edited by Robert-Henri
Bautier, Monique Gilles et al (Paris, 1972), p 96: "Anno .D.CCCC.XCVIII,
obiit Hugo rex" (trans: 998, King Hugh died).

This is just a sampling of the plausible sources which are at odds - the
fifth appendix to Ferdinand Lot's _Études sur le règne de Hugues Capet
et la fin du Xe siècle_ (Paris, 1903), pp 298-303 discusses a good many
more.

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 27 aug 2004 10:44:48

<SCHMIDTM@BCBSIL.COM> a écrit dans le message de
news:OFCB45F567.164F9D4B-ON86256EFC.0048AB8D-86256EFC.00491DC7@hcsc.net...



Can anyone tell me if there are errors in the following line of descent?

Generation 1
Karloman/Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor of
the Holy Roman Empire (742-813) + Hildegarde of Vinzgau (757- 782)
parents of Pepin (below).

I know your interest is genealogical and not historical, but pay some
attention to the titles: Charles and Karloman are two different names;
Charles was not "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire".

<....>
Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia,

And Hugh the Great was not Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks.

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 aug 2004 01:43:45

"> Generation 1
Karloman/Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor of
the Holy Roman Empire (742-813) + Hildegarde of Vinzgau (757- 782)
parents of Pepin (below).

I know your interest is genealogical and not historical, but pay some
attention to the titles: Charles and Karloman are two different names;
Charles was not "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire".

<....>
Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia,

And Hugh the Great was not Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks.

Pierre"

In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1992, article on Eudes (Odo) the brother of Robert I, they state that he was "...King of France (or West Francia)..." 888-898.

His nephew Hugh is styled "Count of Paris"
Then his son Hugh Capet b c 938 is styled "King of France"

I'm not really sure what territory West Francia would have covered in Eudes time, but then his brother Robert I is styled "King of France" 922-3, a very short reign.

Will

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 11:17:47

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:5B5872B2.510A9EEB.007FA2F6@aol.com...
"> Generation 1
Karloman/Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor
of
the Holy Roman Empire (742-813) + Hildegarde of Vinzgau (757- 782)
parents of Pepin (below).

I know your interest is genealogical and not historical, but pay some
attention to the titles: Charles and Karloman are two different names;
Charles was not "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire".

....
Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia,

And Hugh the Great was not Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks.

Pierre"

In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1992, article on Eudes (Odo) the brother
of Robert I, they state that he was "...King of France (or West Francia)..."

888-898.
His nephew Hugh is styled "Count of Paris"
Then his son Hugh Capet b c 938 is styled "King of France"

I'm not really sure what territory West Francia would have covered in
Eudes time, but then his brother Robert I is styled "King of France" 922-3,

a very short reign.

West Francis is what will become France later, as opposed to East Francia
which will become Germany. But actually, the title used by king Robert I as
by king Eudes was simply "king of the Franks". Although it is traditional
and so perfectly proper to call them "king of France", all the kings before
Philip II August would be more correctly referred to as "king of the
Franks".



Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2004 12:34:48

Pierre Aronax wrote:
WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:5B5872B2.510A9EEB.007FA2F6@aol.com...

"> Generation 1

Karloman/Charlemagne, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Emperor

of

the Holy Roman Empire (742-813) + Hildegarde of Vinzgau (757- 782)
parents of Pepin (below).

I know your interest is genealogical and not historical, but pay some
attention to the titles: Charles and Karloman are two different names;
Charles was not "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire".

....

Hugh Magnus, Duke of Francia,

And Hugh the Great was not Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks.

Pierre"

In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1992, article on Eudes (Odo) the brother

of Robert I, they state that he was "...King of France (or West Francia)..."
888-898.

His nephew Hugh is styled "Count of Paris"
Then his son Hugh Capet b c 938 is styled "King of France"

I'm not really sure what territory West Francia would have covered in

Eudes time, but then his brother Robert I is styled "King of France" 922-3,
a very short reign.

West Francis is what will become France later, as opposed to East Francia
which will become Germany. But actually, the title used by king Robert I as
by king Eudes was simply "king of the Franks". Although it is traditional
and so perfectly proper to call them "king of France", all the kings before
Philip II August would be more correctly referred to as "king of the
Franks".

This is right, but as with practically all titles in the 10th and 11th
centuries there are a few exceptions - although "king of the Franks" was
by far the most common usage for the first Capetians, differing examples
can be found: for example, the second continuator of Ado of Vienne
described Hugo Capet before he became king in territorial terms as
"totius Francie, Burgundiae, Britanniae et Normanniae dux et princeps"
(duke and ruler of all Francia, Burgundy, Brittany and Normandy).

By the way (to save replying to another post in this thread) the
counting of indictions in Hugo's time was even messier than with
calendar & regnal years, and every possible anomaly occurs...plus a few
extra, that are quite unfathomable. There are circus animals that can
count better than some medieval monks.

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 13:24:09

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cdZXc.10922$D7.8438@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

<...>

West Francis is what will become France later, as opposed to East Francia
which will become Germany. But actually, the title used by king Robert I
as
by king Eudes was simply "king of the Franks". Although it is traditional
and so perfectly proper to call them "king of France", all the kings
before
Philip II August would be more correctly referred to as "king of the
Franks".

This is right, but as with practically all titles in the 10th and 11th
centuries there are a few exceptions - although "king of the Franks" was
by far the most common usage for the first Capetians, differing examples
can be found: for example, the second continuator of Ado of Vienne
described Hugo Capet before he became king in territorial terms as
"totius Francie, Burgundiae, Britanniae et Normanniae dux et princeps"
(duke and ruler of all Francia, Burgundy, Brittany and Normandy).

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries), and the
title "Franciae rex" (as opposed to "Francorum rex") appeared in narrative
sources before he was used in the royal chancery (although it never made is
way to reach the intitulatio of the king at the beginning of his acts, at
least not in Latin).


By the way (to save replying to another post in this thread) the
counting of indictions in Hugo's time was even messier than with
calendar & regnal years, and every possible anomaly occurs...plus a few
extra, that are quite unfathomable. There are circus animals that can
count better than some medieval monks.

But here the indiction could perfectly *not* be anomalous. Why supposing it
is? Some monks were certainly not at ease with the indiction, but probably
Abbon less than others: he was not exactly a circus donkey.

Pierre

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 aug 2004 13:57:14

In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the Channel
Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of England?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 14:22:33

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by
the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes
chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can
be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the Channel
Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of England?

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was since
Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course, one can call her
has one wants, but that has nothing to do with her actual title.

Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2004 14:33:15

Pierre Aronax wrote:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cdZXc.10922$D7.8438@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

...

West Francis is what will become France later, as opposed to East Francia
which will become Germany. But actually, the title used by king Robert I

as

by king Eudes was simply "king of the Franks". Although it is traditional
and so perfectly proper to call them "king of France", all the kings

before

Philip II August would be more correctly referred to as "king of the
Franks".


This is right, but as with practically all titles in the 10th and 11th
centuries there are a few exceptions - although "king of the Franks" was
by far the most common usage for the first Capetians, differing examples
can be found: for example, the second continuator of Ado of Vienne
described Hugo Capet before he became king in territorial terms as
"totius Francie, Burgundiae, Britanniae et Normanniae dux et princeps"
(duke and ruler of all Francia, Burgundy, Brittany and Normandy).


I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries), and the
title "Franciae rex" (as opposed to "Francorum rex") appeared in narrative
sources before he was used in the royal chancery (although it never made is
way to reach the intitulatio of the king at the beginning of his acts, at
least not in Latin).

SGM readers may wish to record both the official and informal usages,
and "king of Francia" was quite frequently preferred to "king of the
Franks - even in records such as Annales Bertiniani for instance.

By the way (to save replying to another post in this thread) the
counting of indictions in Hugo's time was even messier than with
calendar & regnal years, and every possible anomaly occurs...plus a few
extra, that are quite unfathomable. There are circus animals that can
count better than some medieval monks.


But here the indiction could perfectly *not* be anomalous. Why supposing it
is? Some monks were certainly not at ease with the indiction, but probably
Abbon less than others: he was not exactly a circus donkey.

I wasn't referring to that document, or to any person, in particular,
but rather making a general observation. Some editors of diplomata have
tended to rely on indications that appear to be right for correcting
dates when other elements seem likely to be wrong, but sometimes this
can be wishful and conclusions hazardous. A great many texts survive
only in copies made later, by scribes who occasionally could have
thought they were turning the ordinal numbering of years into cardinal,
or vice versa, twisting relative details in the process.

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 14:53:40

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:fY_Xc.11056$D7.6859@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by
the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes
chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries), and
the
title "Franciae rex" (as opposed to "Francorum rex") appeared in
narrative
sources before he was used in the royal chancery (although it never made
is
way to reach the intitulatio of the king at the beginning of his acts, at
least not in Latin).

SGM readers may wish to record both the official and informal usages,
and "king of Francia" was quite frequently preferred to "king of the
Franks - even in records such as Annales Bertiniani for instance.

Yes, certainly, that's why I said it was traditional
and so perfectly proper to call the sovereigns of that time "king of
France", although there official title was "king of the
Franks". I didn't say "you can not call them 'king of France'" or "Nobody at
the time called them 'king of France'".

By the way (to save replying to another post in this thread) the
counting of indictions in Hugo's time was even messier than with
calendar & regnal years, and every possible anomaly occurs...plus a few
extra, that are quite unfathomable. There are circus animals that can
count better than some medieval monks.


But here the indiction could perfectly *not* be anomalous. Why supposing
it
is? Some monks were certainly not at ease with the indiction, but
probably
Abbon less than others: he was not exactly a circus donkey.

I wasn't referring to that document, or to any person, in particular,
but rather making a general observation. Some editors of diplomata have
tended to rely on indications that appear to be right for correcting
dates when other elements seem likely to be wrong, but sometimes this
can be wishful and conclusions hazardous. A great many texts survive
only in copies made later, by scribes who occasionally could have
thought they were turning the ordinal numbering of years into cardinal,
or vice versa, twisting relative details in the process.

OK, but I was more concerned by this particular document and the date
proposed by Newman. Here the document is original and the indiction coherent
with the date, so I don't see why not using it to narrow the dating.

Pierre

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 aug 2004 15:12:03

In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used by
the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes
chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles can
be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England" in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the Channel
Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of England?

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was since
Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course, one can call her
has one wants, but that has nothing to do with her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

"Situated 10 to 30 miles off the north-west coast of France, the
Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. They are dependent
territories of the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of
Normandy; the Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy when Duke
William, following his conquest of England in 1066, became William I.

"In 1106, William's youngest son Henry I seized the Duchy of Normandy
from his brother Robert; since that time, the English Sovereign has
always held the title Duke of Normandy. By 1205, England had lost
most of its French lands, including Normandy. However, the Channel
Islands, part of the lost Duchy, remained a self-governing possession
of the English Crown; while the Islands today retain autonomy in
government, they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of
Normandy. The Islands' links to their Sovereign and their
independence are shown in the Islands' Loyal Toast to 'The Duke of
Normandy, our Queen'."

So she is definitely still the duke of Normandy over there. I wonder
about Queen of England. Might it be like a duke who is also an earl,
that the queen of UK is also queen of England? Note that the above two
paragraphs include the phrases "the English Sovereign" and "the English
Crown".

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2004 15:44:16

Pierre Aronax wrote:

Yes, certainly, that's why I said it was traditional
and so perfectly proper to call the sovereigns of that time "king of
France", although there official title was "king of the
Franks". I didn't say "you can not call them 'king of France'" or "Nobody at
the time called them 'king of France'".

You also wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "Hugh the Great was not
Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks". I merely pointed out that "duke
of Francia" _was_ a contemporary usage, and one that SGM readers may
quite properly repeat to their hearts' content since they are not
employed as scribes in a Capetian chancery.

OK, but I was more concerned by this particular document and the date
proposed by Newman. Here the document is original and the indiction coherent
with the date, so I don't see why not using it to narrow the dating.

By all means, indictions can be useful to fix or confirm the year,
especially where a document may be incomplete or damaged, but it's
important to bear in mind that these references were not always accurate
(even in original documents, apart from the one that interests you) &
that they _do_ at times simply add to the confusion.

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 16:29:16

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is titles used
by
the
sovereigns themselves to describe their power. Here the title was
always
"Francorum rex" at the time of the Capetians, despite the sometimes
chaotic
conditions of production of the documents. Of course, other titles
can
be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of England"
in
newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the Channel
Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of England?

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was since
Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course, one can call
her
has one wants, but that has nothing to do with her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online had any
particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a site is not in
anyway an official document.

"Situated 10 to 30 miles off the north-west coast of France, the
Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom. They are dependent
territories of the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of
Normandy; the Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy when Duke
William, following his conquest of England in 1066, became William I.

"In 1106, William's youngest son Henry I seized the Duchy of Normandy
from his brother Robert; since that time, the English Sovereign has
always held the title Duke of Normandy. By 1205, England had lost
most of its French lands, including Normandy. However, the Channel
Islands, part of the lost Duchy, remained a self-governing possession
of the English Crown; while the Islands today retain autonomy in
government, they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of
Normandy. The Islands' links to their Sovereign and their
independence are shown in the Islands' Loyal Toast to 'The Duke of
Normandy, our Queen'."

So she is definitely still the duke of Normandy over there.

Sorry, she is definitely *NOT*, whatever can say some website. The king of
England relinquished without conditions all his rights to the Duchy of
Normandy by a traty with the King of France on 20 May 1259. Since that date
and until the present day, no king of England, no king of Great-Britain and
no king of the United Kingdom has never assumed again the title of "Duke of
Normandy" (and on which ground would he have anyway). That is a *fact*. If
you desagree, then you will need to produce more than a website: any
official document where Elizabeth II is styled "Duke of Normandy". The
question has been discussed and examined at length on ATR: try a search in
the archive.

I wonder
about Queen of England. Might it be like a duke who is also an earl,
that the queen of UK is also queen of England?

You can wonder as you want of course, but you are wrong. In 1707, the
kingdoms and the Crowns of England and Scotland simply ceased to exist and
were repleaced by a single kingdom and a single crown of Great-Britain.
Again, I suggest you consult the archive of ATR or ask the question here if
you don't believe me.

Note that the above two
paragraphs include the phrases "the English Sovereign" and "the English
Crown".

Because it deals with a period partly anterior with the Union of 1707.
Anyway, the above paragraph contains other historical absurdities like "By
1205, England had lost most of its French lands, including Normandy": of
course, England had never lands in France, kings of England did.

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 16:44:22

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Q_%Xc.11114$D7.10888@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

Yes, certainly, that's why I said it was traditional
and so perfectly proper to call the sovereigns of that time "king of
France", although there official title was "king of the
Franks". I didn't say "you can not call them 'king of France'" or
"Nobody at
the time called them 'king of France'".

You also wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "Hugh the Great was not
Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks". I merely pointed out that "duke
of Francia" _was_ a contemporary usage,

As far as I can say, you spoke of "King of Francia", not of "Duke of
Francia". I quote you: "SGM readers may wish to record both the official and
informal usages,
and 'king of Francia' was quite frequently preferred to 'king of the
Franks' - even in records such as Annales Bertiniani for instance".
"Francorum rex" and "Francorum dux" are two quite different titles.

and one that SGM readers may
quite properly repeat to their hearts' content since they are not
employed as scribes in a Capetian chancery.

Contrary to "king of France" as a customary translation of "Francorum rex",
I think it is not correct to translate "Francorum dux" by "duke of France",
but that it must be rendered by "duke of the Franks": that this title as a
territorial meaning rather than an ethnical one is less than clear, it was
briefly in use, never at the time where there was also a documentation in
French, and to translate it so loosely can only introduce confusion by
implying there was something like a "duchy of France", which, if I am not
wrong, did not exist.

<...>
OK, but I was more concerned by this particular document and the date
proposed by Newman. Here the document is original and the indiction
coherent
with the date, so I don't see why not using it to narrow the dating.

By all means, indictions can be useful to fix or confirm the year,
especially where a document may be incomplete or damaged, but it's
important to bear in mind that these references were not always accurate
(even in original documents, apart from the one that interests you) &
that they _do_ at times simply add to the confusion.

Nevertheless, by dating the document between 3 July 993 to 24 or 31 March
994, Newman does exactly as if there was no mention of the indiction in the
document. Or does he suppose an indictional style aligned on the year style?
What would be interesting would be a comparision with other documents
produced at Fleury, to see if there are this kind of problems with the
indiction. Otherwise, I don't see why the terminus of the document would not
be fixed at 31 August 993 rather than 24/31 March 994.

Pierre

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 aug 2004 16:59:26

In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is
titles used by the sovereigns themselves to describe their
power. Here the title was always "Francorum rex" at the time
of the Capetians, despite the sometimes chaotic conditions of
production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of
England" in newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct
for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the
Channel Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of
England?

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was
since Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course,
one can call her has one wants, but that has nothing to do with
her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online
had any particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a
site is not in anyway an official document.

But this site calls itself "The official web site of the British
Monarchy". It is not a site by a punter but one whose credits say it
has "Crown copyright protection" and "Text provided by the Royal
Household". It is for these reasons that I thought, and still think, it
worth quoting.

Might I suggest you have a look at this particular site? It is rather
different to the average.

Can you then give reasons why this is not an "official document" or at
least as close to one as we are likely to get?

<snip>

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 17:21:40

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:b70e97e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:596086e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax"
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

I was considering titles in official documents, that is
titles used by the sovereigns themselves to describe their
power. Here the title was always "Francorum rex" at the time
of the Capetians, despite the sometimes chaotic conditions of
production of the documents. Of course, other titles can be
found in narrative sources (as today we can find "Queen of
England" in newspapers when in fact this animal is extinct
for three centuries),

Is not that lady still the duke of Normandy for some of the
Channel Islands? And if so, might she not still be queen of
England?

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was
since Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course,
one can call her has one wants, but that has nothing to do with
her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online
had any particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a
site is not in anyway an official document.

But this site calls itself "The official web site of the British
Monarchy". It is not a site by a punter but one whose credits say it
has "Crown copyright protection" and "Text provided by the Royal
Household". It is for these reasons that I thought, and still think, it
worth quoting.

Might I suggest you have a look at this particular site? It is rather
different to the average.

I know it already. What I mean is that a website is not an official
document, even with crown copyright. This site is knew by all curious of
British monarchy to be full of historical errors.

Can you then give reasons why this is not an "official document" or at
least as close to one as we are likely to get?

Why "at least as close to one as we are likely to get"? We have plainty of
real official documents produced by the British monarchy: in none of them
does the Queen take the title of "Duke of Normandy". All this story is only
a urban legend.
Listen: we have a treaty by which the King of England has renounced the
Duchy of Normandy, we have the fact that during the 750 next years until
today as far as I know (except if you have an official document saying the
contrary) his successors never took again this title. I think it is rather
conclusive. Your only objection is: "But I have find a website which says
the contrary". That is not an argument: this website can be wrong and has
demonstrated to be often wrong in the past.

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 28 aug 2004 18:48:03

Saturday, 28 August, 2004


Dear Tim, Pierre, et al.,

Thanks for some further insights into the general issue of
terminology (re: medieval titles/tenure), and as to the British
monarchy specifically.

Tim, I concur re: Elizabeth II's position as 'Duke' of Normandy -
although as the bulk of Normandy still is to be found a bit further
east, outside British control (since 1945 anyway), she should
accurately be described as "titular Duchess of Normandy".

The Royal website ought to be considered as authoritative, or at
least as authoritative as anything on the WWW will get. I would not
look to it for 100% factual accuracy, as I note the following:

from http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page13.asp

' Until 1603 the English and Scottish Crowns were separate,
although links between the two were always close - members of
the two Royal families intermarried on many occasions.
Following the Accession of King James VI of Scotland (I of
England) to the English Throne, a single monarch reigned in
the United Kingdom. '

While the last sentence is 'true' in its essence (speaking of
the United Kingdom in its geographic limits), in political fact
there was not a United Kingdom following James VI's accession to
the English throne in 1603: he was James VI, King of Scots and
separately James I, King of England. The Act of Union (1707)
unified the Crowns, but until then there were two monarchies:
England and Scotland (or Scotland and England as you may prefer).

Outside of that particular nit, I find the site a good
reference to those seeking an overview of the modern monarchy.

Cheers,

John

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 28 aug 2004 19:27:26

In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:b70e97e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
wrote:

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors was
since Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course,
one can call her has one wants, but that has nothing to do with
her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online
had any particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a
site is not in anyway an official document.

But this site calls itself "The official web site of the British
Monarchy". It is not a site by a punter but one whose credits say it
has "Crown copyright protection" and "Text provided by the Royal
Household". It is for these reasons that I thought, and still think, it
worth quoting.

Might I suggest you have a look at this particular site? It is rather
different to the average.

I know it already. What I mean is that a website is not an official
document, even with crown copyright. This site is knew by all curious of
British monarchy to be full of historical errors.

Can you then give reasons why this is not an "official document" or at
least as close to one as we are likely to get?

Why "at least as close to one as we are likely to get"? We have plainty of
real official documents produced by the British monarchy: in none of them
does the Queen take the title of "Duke of Normandy". All this story is only
a urban legend.

A tad exaggerated, do you not think? A statement on a site composed of
data from members of the royal household is just a little bit more than
an urban legend.

Listen: we have a treaty by which the King of England has renounced the
Duchy of Normandy, we have the fact that during the 750 next years until
today as far as I know (except if you have an official document saying the
contrary) his successors never took again this title.

What might have been renounced is the title of duke of Normandy within
the kingdon (now, state) of France. But what might not have been
renounced was an English title. Such jesuiticals are never far from a
diplomat's lips.

I think it is rather conclusive. Your only objection is: "But I have
find a website which says the contrary". That is not an argument:
this website can be wrong and has demonstrated to be often wrong in
the past.

I am not aware of such of the demonstrations of wrongness! But the
question is whether they are wrong or right in this case.

So I have tried to re-establish contact with the site to put a message
via the webmaster to the people of the household to put your point to
them. But the site is down and I go on holiday for a week very shortly.

Perhaps someone else can ask them the question about the duke of
Normandy when the site comes back up?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 20:24:25

"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:959ba4e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com> wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:b70e97e54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
wrote:


"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:d0398de54c.tim@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
In message of 28 Aug, "Pierre Aronax" <pierre_aronax@hotmail.com
wrote:

No, she is not duke of Normandy, and none of his predecessors
was
since Henry III, and no she is not Queen of England. Of course,
one can call her has one wants, but that has nothing to do with
her actual title.

Well, well. I thought I had better have a look to see what the
official line was and found it on this site:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page543.asp

In the first two paragraphs there are these words:

Excuse me but, have you asked yourself if this article find online
had any particular authority of any kind? I suppose you realise a
site is not in anyway an official document.

But this site calls itself "The official web site of the British
Monarchy". It is not a site by a punter but one whose credits say it
has "Crown copyright protection" and "Text provided by the Royal
Household". It is for these reasons that I thought, and still think,
it
worth quoting.

Might I suggest you have a look at this particular site? It is rather
different to the average.

I know it already. What I mean is that a website is not an official
document, even with crown copyright. This site is knew by all curious of
British monarchy to be full of historical errors.

Can you then give reasons why this is not an "official document" or at
least as close to one as we are likely to get?

Why "at least as close to one as we are likely to get"? We have plainty
of
real official documents produced by the British monarchy: in none of
them
does the Queen take the title of "Duke of Normandy". All this story is
only
a urban legend.

A tad exaggerated, do you not think? A statement on a site composed of
data from members of the royal household is just a little bit more than
an urban legend.

And much, much less than an official document.

Listen: we have a treaty by which the King of England has renounced the
Duchy of Normandy, we have the fact that during the 750 next years until
today as far as I know (except if you have an official document saying
the
contrary) his successors never took again this title.

What might have been renounced is the title of duke of Normandy within
the kingdon (now, state) of France. But what might not have been
renounced was an English title. Such jesuiticals are never far from
diplomat's lips.


Excuse me but have you any proof that an "English title" of "Duke of
Normandy" ever existed? For example, a document, just one, from 1259 until
today, where an English sovereign uses the title of "Duke of Normandy"? By
document, I mean of course an official act from the said sovereign, not a
text were somebody else uses the title.


I think it is rather conclusive. Your only objection is: "But I have
find a website which says the contrary". That is not an argument:
this website can be wrong and has demonstrated to be often wrong in
the past.

I am not aware of such of the demonstrations of wrongness!

Again, consult ATR archives, or as a begining read the post by John
(Therav3@aol.com)

But the
question is whether they are wrong or right in this case.

So I have tried to re-establish contact with the site to put a message
via the webmaster to the people of the household to put your point to
them. But the site is down and I go on holiday for a week very shortly.

Perhaps someone else can ask them the question about the duke of
Normandy when the site comes back up?

The question was already asked to them and their answer was incoherent. What
we need is not opinions from this people, but evidences. Have you any
evidence that the title, officialy renounced in 1259, was ever reassumed
since that date?

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 22:58:19

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:74.40cd1790.2e624995@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/28/2004 10:48:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The king of England relinquished without conditions all his rights to
the
Duchy of
Normandy by a traty with the King of France on 20 May 1259. Since that
date
and until the present day, no king of England, no king of Great-Britain
and
no king of the United Kingdom has never assumed again the title of "Duke
of
Normandy" (and on which ground would he have anyway). That is a *fact*.

The best chance for a reappearance of such a title would be by Henry V
1387-1422, King of England 1413-22. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica,1985 says
this "Not
content with a demand for possession of Aquitaine and other lands ceded by
the French at the Treaty of Calais (1360), he also laid claim to Normandy,
Touraine, and Maine, and to parts of France that had never been in English
hands....the gradual conquest of Normandy. Rouen, the capital of northern
France,


Rouen was never the capital "of Northern France": it is the capital of
Normandy.

surrendered in January 1419 ....Henry was recognized as heir to the French
throne
and regent of France."

So I would expect that if he "laid claim" to Normandy (note, not yet "laid
seige"), that he most likely included a styling of himself as "Duke" or
some
such thing at that time as well.

Not as far as I am aware: Henry V never used that title. One thing is to
claim territories or to control them, an other to use a title. Of course,
the title "Duke of Normandy" would have been anyway incompatible with the
claim to the throne of France which Henry V relinquished when he obtained to
be recognized as heir of France, but which is son Henry VI assumed after the
death of Charles VI: you can not both be the King of France *and* the Duke
of Normandy, otherwise the duchy merges in the crown.

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 23:40:40

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1ee.292f8cdb.2e625202@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The best chance for a reappearance of such a title would be by Henry V
1387-1422, King of England 1413-22. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica,1985
says
this "Not
content with a demand for possession of Aquitaine and other lands
ceded by
the French at the Treaty of Calais (1360), he also laid claim to
Normandy,
Touraine, and Maine, and to parts of France that had never been in
English
hands....the gradual conquest of Normandy. Rouen, the capital of
northern
France,

Rouen was never the capital "of Northern France": it is the capital of
Normandy.


The source for this is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
What is your source for opposing it?
Will

What would be the source for a negative? If I say: "Maddison is the capital
of the Northern USA", what will be the source for opposing it?
I'm French, I know relatively well French history, I don't even see what
"capital of Northern France" can mean. Is there also a "capital of Southern
France" and is this title also awarded by the redactors of Encyclopaedia
Brittanica? It seems that some people here don't understand well what a
source is.

Pierre

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 aug 2004 00:48:24

In a message dated 8/28/2004 10:48:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The king of England relinquished without conditions all his rights to the
Duchy of
Normandy by a traty with the King of France on 20 May 1259. Since that date
and until the present day, no king of England, no king of Great-Britain and
no king of the United Kingdom has never assumed again the title of "Duke of
Normandy" (and on which ground would he have anyway). That is a *fact*.

The best chance for a reappearance of such a title would be by Henry V
1387-1422, King of England 1413-22. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica,1985 says this "Not
content with a demand for possession of Aquitaine and other lands ceded by
the French at the Treaty of Calais (1360), he also laid claim to Normandy,
Touraine, and Maine, and to parts of France that had never been in English
hands....the gradual conquest of Normandy. Rouen, the capital of northern France,
surrendered in January 1419 ....Henry was recognized as heir to the French throne
and regent of France."

So I would expect that if he "laid claim" to Normandy (note, not yet "laid
seige"), that he most likely included a styling of himself as "Duke" or some
such thing at that time as well.

Will

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 aug 2004 01:32:48

In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:03:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The best chance for a reappearance of such a title would be by Henry V
1387-1422, King of England 1413-22. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica,1985 says
this "Not
content with a demand for possession of Aquitaine and other lands ceded by
the French at the Treaty of Calais (1360), he also laid claim to Normandy,
Touraine, and Maine, and to parts of France that had never been in English
hands....the gradual conquest of Normandy. Rouen, the capital of northern
France,

Rouen was never the capital "of Northern France": it is the capital of
Normandy.


The source for this is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
What is your source for opposing it?
Will

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2004 02:20:39

Pierre Aronax wrote:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Q_%Xc.11114$D7.10888@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

You also wrote, at the beginning of this thread, "Hugh the Great was not
Duke of Francia but Duke of the Franks". I merely pointed out that "duke
of Francia" _was_ a contemporary usage,


As far as I can say, you spoke of "King of Francia", not of "Duke of
Francia". I quote you: "SGM readers may wish to record both the official and
informal usages,
and 'king of Francia' was quite frequently preferred to 'king of the
Franks' - even in records such as Annales Bertiniani for instance".
"Francorum rex" and "Francorum dux" are two quite different titles.

In an earlier post, to which you replied, I quoted "totius
Francie...dux" to show that this form was used, in this case in a
narrative rather than diplomatic source - a point on which no-one, I
think, was likely to be confused before it was aelaborated. If every
issue in every post is to be treated literally and in forensic isolation
from the context in which it appears, useful and even sensible SGM
discussions will be impossible.

and one that SGM readers may
quite properly repeat to their hearts' content since they are not
employed as scribes in a Capetian chancery.


Contrary to "king of France" as a customary translation of "Francorum rex",
I think it is not correct to translate "Francorum dux" by "duke of France",
but that it must be rendered by "duke of the Franks": that this title as a
territorial meaning rather than an ethnical one is less than clear, it was
briefly in use, never at the time where there was also a documentation in
French, and to translate it so loosely can only introduce confusion by
implying there was something like a "duchy of France", which, if I am not
wrong, did not exist.

"Francia" and "France" are obviously distinguished by historians who use
the former term, and moreover I have not in any way suggested that "king
of France" is a correct translation of "Francorum rex".

...

OK, but I was more concerned by this particular document and the date
proposed by Newman. Here the document is original and the indiction

coherent

with the date, so I don't see why not using it to narrow the dating.

By all means, indictions can be useful to fix or confirm the year,
especially where a document may be incomplete or damaged, but it's
important to bear in mind that these references were not always accurate
(even in original documents, apart from the one that interests you) &
that they _do_ at times simply add to the confusion.


Nevertheless, by dating the document between 3 July 993 to 24 or 31 March
994, Newman does exactly as if there was no mention of the indiction in the
document. Or does he suppose an indictional style aligned on the year style?
What would be interesting would be a comparision with other documents
produced at Fleury, to see if there are this kind of problems with the
indiction. Otherwise, I don't see why the terminus of the document would not
be fixed at 31 August 993 rather than 24/31 March 994.

Given the shortage of similar documents from the same source for
comaraison, to ensure consistency in the matter using Greek indictions
starting from 1 September, it seems likely to me that Newman was not
prepared to place entire confidence in this element - that is why I made
general remarks on the subject: we simply don't know enough to draw
reliable conclusions about this one example. I wouldn't even assume that
variant indictions - Caesarean, counting from 24 September & often used
after Bede adopted this practice, or Roman from Christmas day which
became more common later - were not preferred at Fleury in the early
990s, without more information than I have, or probably more than may be
available.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2004 03:11:02

Pierre Aronax wrote:

Contrary to "king of France" as a customary translation of "Francorum rex",
I think it is not correct to translate "Francorum dux" by "duke of France",
but that it must be rendered by "duke of the Franks": that this title as a
territorial meaning rather than an ethnical one is less than clear, it was
briefly in use, never at the time where there was also a documentation in
French, and to translate it so loosely can only introduce confusion by
implying there was something like a "duchy of France", which, if I am not
wrong, did not exist.

Frankish princes in the 10th century are usually (but by no means
always) described in such forms as "count of the Angevins", "duke [or
count] of the Normans", "count of the Poitevins", etc, and only later do
their strictly territorial designations become the normal titles.

However, I don't think these older usages can be taken as "ethnic"
denominators - the meaning of "Andevagorum comes", for instance, was
more like count "of the vassals in Anjou" rather than "of the people of
Anjou", although his authority was not of course limited to the
feudatories & upper orders of society in his lands.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2004 03:14:34

Peter Stewart wrote:

"Andevagorum comes"

Very sloppy typing - I meant "Andegavorum comes".

Peter Stewart

Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 aug 2004 04:00:17

In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:48:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The source for this is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
What is your source for opposing it?
Will

What would be the source for a negative? If I say: "Maddison is the capital
of the Northern USA", what will be the source for opposing it?
I'm French, I know relatively well French history, I don't even see what
"capital of Northern France" can mean. Is there also a "capital of Southern
France" and is this title also awarded by the redactors of Encyclopaedia
Brittanica? It seems that some people here don't understand well what a
source is.

Pierre

Sorry hot air doesn't impress me.
If you have a source, then state it. If not then go away.
Will

Leo van de Pas

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 aug 2004 04:18:16

Dear Will,
You are discourteous to a very special person. You quoted that Rouen was
capital of Northern France, Encyclopeadia Britanica is not always right.
Rouen may have been the most important city in Northern France, but capital?
If you accept that Rouen is the capital of Northern France, you imply there
is a capital in southern or eastern France. I think Perre Aronax asked you a
pertinent question, a question worthy of replying to.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris


In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:48:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The source for this is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
What is your source for opposing it?
Will

What would be the source for a negative? If I say: "Maddison is the
capital
of the Northern USA", what will be the source for opposing it?
I'm French, I know relatively well French history, I don't even see what
"capital of Northern France" can mean. Is there also a "capital of
Southern
France" and is this title also awarded by the redactors of Encyclopaedia
Brittanica? It seems that some people here don't understand well what a
source is.

Pierre

Sorry hot air doesn't impress me.
If you have a source, then state it. If not then go away.
Will


Gjest

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Gjest » 29 aug 2004 05:08:45

In a message dated 8/28/2004 5:18:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:


Dear Will,
You are discourteous to a very special person. You quoted that Rouen was
capital of Northern France, Encyclopeadia Britanica is not always right.
Rouen may have been the most important city in Northern France, but capital?
If you accept that Rouen is the capital of Northern France, you imply there
is a capital in southern or eastern France. I think Perre Aronax asked you a
pertinent question, a question worthy of replying to.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

And did he not show me a discourtesy by saying I have no idea what a valid
source is? That is a slap in the face and I don't take it very well. Whether
or not the EB is incorrect or merely using a convenient phrasing isn't really
the point. THEIR mistake is not MY folly, so don't pin it on me.

A special person does not insult someone based on the errors of someone they
quote. Calling me ignorant is not fairplay. I have quoted a source that a
large number of people rely on. If Mr Aronax wants to correct it, he should
write to them, not insult me in a public forum.

Will

Leo van de Pas

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 29 aug 2004 05:13:21

Dear Will,
I think there is a difference between discourtesy and insult. Never mind
Encyclopeadia Brittanica, Pierre Aronax is an expert in French history and
genealogy, I take his word over the Encyclopeadia any time. He is definitely
not hot air--------
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris


In a message dated 8/28/2004 5:18:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:


Dear Will,
You are discourteous to a very special person. You quoted that Rouen was
capital of Northern France, Encyclopeadia Britanica is not always right.
Rouen may have been the most important city in Northern France, but
capital?
If you accept that Rouen is the capital of Northern France, you imply
there
is a capital in southern or eastern France. I think Perre Aronax asked
you a
pertinent question, a question worthy of replying to.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

And did he not show me a discourtesy by saying I have no idea what a valid
source is? That is a slap in the face and I don't take it very well.
Whether
or not the EB is incorrect or merely using a convenient phrasing isn't
really
the point. THEIR mistake is not MY folly, so don't pin it on me.

A special person does not insult someone based on the errors of someone
they
quote. Calling me ignorant is not fairplay. I have quoted a source that
a
large number of people rely on. If Mr Aronax wants to correct it, he
should
write to them, not insult me in a public forum.

Will


Denis Beauregard

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Denis Beauregard » 29 aug 2004 07:44:39

Le Sat, 28 Aug 2004 20:48:24 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@aol.com écrivait
dans soc.genealogy.medieval:

In a message dated 8/28/2004 10:48:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The king of England relinquished without conditions all his rights to the
Duchy of
Normandy by a traty with the King of France on 20 May 1259. Since that date
and until the present day, no king of England, no king of Great-Britain and
no king of the United Kingdom has never assumed again the title of "Duke of
Normandy" (and on which ground would he have anyway). That is a *fact*.

The best chance for a reappearance of such a title would be by Henry V
1387-1422, King of England 1413-22. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica,1985 says this "Not
content with a demand for possession of Aquitaine and other lands ceded by
the French at the Treaty of Calais (1360), he also laid claim to Normandy,
Touraine, and Maine, and to parts of France that had never been in English
hands....the gradual conquest of Normandy. Rouen, the capital of northern France,
surrendered in January 1419 ....Henry was recognized as heir to the French throne
and regent of France."

This must be a typo. It should read "Rouen, the capital of Normandy
in Northern France". Perhaps it was the capital for the British
crown in that area, so the capital of the British Northern France.
Just like there was a British Guyana, a British Honduras or a British
Columbia.

So I would expect that if he "laid claim" to Normandy (note, not yet "laid
seige"), that he most likely included a styling of himself as "Duke" or some
such thing at that time as well.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ http://www.francogene.com
|\ >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
/ | Société généalogique canadienne-française
oo oo Mon association a 60 ans en 2003 ! - http://www.sgcf.com

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 29 aug 2004 12:57:55

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:G2aYc.11491$D7.10870@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:

Contrary to "king of France" as a customary translation of "Francorum
rex",
I think it is not correct to translate "Francorum dux" by "duke of
France",
but that it must be rendered by "duke of the Franks": that this title as
a
territorial meaning rather than an ethnical one is less than clear, it
was
briefly in use, never at the time where there was also a documentation
in
French, and to translate it so loosely can only introduce confusion by
implying there was something like a "duchy of France", which, if I am
not
wrong, did not exist.

Frankish princes in the 10th century are usually (but by no means
always) described in such forms as "count of the Angevins", "duke [or
count] of the Normans", "count of the Poitevins", etc, and only later do
their strictly territorial designations become the normal titles.

However, I don't think these older usages can be taken as "ethnic"
denominators - the meaning of "Andevagorum comes", for instance, was
more like count "of the vassals in Anjou" rather than "of the people of
Anjou", although his authority was not of course limited to the
feudatories & upper orders of society in his lands.

No objection on that. My point was only that to translate "Andegavorum
comes" by "count of Anjou", particularly in a general discussion, is not a
problem since what is Anjou is not a big problem, same thing for calling a
"Francorum rex" a "king of France", since "king of France" is indeed the
correct translation of "Francorum rex" in the 13th century and after (so for
coherency why not calling the previous kings also "king of France"?). But
"Francorum dux" is a different animal: it does not mean "count of France" or
"count of the vassals in France", or at least that is not so clear that
"Francorum dux" here means only an authority over the people living in a spe
cific geographical aera rather than a dignity between all the Franks in all
the kingdom. There is a county of Anjou, but what would have been exactly a
duchy of France is less clear. That is way I think it is better to translate
"Francorum dux" by "duke of the Franks", and that is what French historians
generally do, even when the call Hugh Capet, for example, "king of France"
(and not "king of the Franks").

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 29 aug 2004 13:01:38

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:191.2d3e352b.2e627692@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/28/2004 2:48:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pierre_aronax@hotmail.com writes:


The source for this is the Encyclopaedia Brittanica.
What is your source for opposing it?
Will

What would be the source for a negative? If I say: "Maddison is the
capital
of the Northern USA", what will be the source for opposing it?
I'm French, I know relatively well French history, I don't even see what
"capital of Northern France" can mean. Is there also a "capital of
Southern
France" and is this title also awarded by the redactors of Encyclopaedia
Brittanica? It seems that some people here don't understand well what a
source is.

Pierre

Sorry hot air doesn't impress me.

Nothing seems to impress you.

If you have a source, then state it. If not then go away.
Will

A source for what? A source who says "Rouen is not the capital of Norther
France"? How can they be such source since there is nothing like a capital
of 'Northern France'?
You claim Rouen was "the capital of Northern France": what is your source
for that? An Encyclopedia is not a source.

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 29 aug 2004 13:07:04

<WJhonson@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:db.1324c041.2e62869d@aol.com...
In a message dated 8/28/2004 5:18:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:


Dear Will,
You are discourteous to a very special person. You quoted that Rouen was
capital of Northern France, Encyclopeadia Britanica is not always right.
Rouen may have been the most important city in Northern France, but
capital?
If you accept that Rouen is the capital of Northern France, you imply
there
is a capital in southern or eastern France. I think Perre Aronax asked
you a
pertinent question, a question worthy of replying to.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

And did he not show me a discourtesy by saying I have no idea what a valid
source is? That is a slap in the face and I don't take it very well.
Whether
or not the EB is incorrect or merely using a convenient phrasing isn't
really
the point. THEIR mistake is not MY folly, so don't pin it on me.

A special person does not insult someone based on the errors of someone
they
quote. Calling me ignorant is not fairplay. I have quoted a source that
a
large number of people rely on. If Mr Aronax wants to correct it, he
should
write to them, not insult me in a public forum.

EB is not a source. I said you it was wrong when sayint Rouen was the
"capital of Northern France", you then answered me, rather discourtesly,
that I have to produce a source to contradict your own alleged "source":
what can I do then if not pointing that I can not prove a negative by a
source and that your "source" was not one? I didn't insult you: I point to
your attention that you don't know what a source is: that is not an insult
but an observation.

Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 29 aug 2004 13:26:34

Pierre Aronax wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:G2aYc.11491$D7.10870@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

Frankish princes in the 10th century are usually (but by no means
always) described in such forms as "count of the Angevins", "duke [or
count] of the Normans", "count of the Poitevins", etc, and only later do
their strictly territorial designations become the normal titles.

However, I don't think these older usages can be taken as "ethnic"
denominators - the meaning of "Andevagorum comes", for instance, was
more like count "of the vassals in Anjou" rather than "of the people of
Anjou", although his authority was not of course limited to the
feudatories & upper orders of society in his lands.


No objection on that. My point was only that to translate "Andegavorum
comes" by "count of Anjou", particularly in a general discussion, is not a
problem since what is Anjou is not a big problem, same thing for calling a
"Francorum rex" a "king of France", since "king of France" is indeed the
correct translation of "Francorum rex" in the 13th century and after (so for
coherency why not calling the previous kings also "king of France"?). But
"Francorum dux" is a different animal: it does not mean "count of France" or
"count of the vassals in France", or at least that is not so clear that
"Francorum dux" here means only an authority over the people living in a spe
cific geographical aera rather than a dignity between all the Franks in all
the kingdom. There is a county of Anjou, but what would have been exactly a
duchy of France is less clear. That is way I think it is better to translate
"Francorum dux" by "duke of the Franks", and that is what French historians
generally do, even when the call Hugh Capet, for example, "king of France"
(and not "king of the Franks").

Without refuting your opinion, I think that (quite apart from the odd
informal use of "dux Francie") the title "Francorum dux" can be taken to
mean "duke of Francia" in the limited sense that the holder was uniquely
placed within Francia between the king and all the other territorial
rulers. In other words, there was a dukedom of France, but not a duchy.

In the case of Hugo Capet, the question is also complicated by the clout
he wielded as duke but not - at least so undeniably - later as king:
"duc puissant, roi faible". The puissance had been as "national" as was
the regnum.

Peter Stewart

Douglas Beahm

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Douglas Beahm » 29 aug 2004 13:43:59

Pierre Aronax wrote:

EB is not a source. I said you it was wrong when sayint Rouen was the
"capital of Northern France", you then answered me, rather discourtesly,
that I have to produce a source to contradict your own alleged "source":
what can I do then if not pointing that I can not prove a negative by a
source and that your "source" was not one? I didn't insult you: I point to
your attention that you don't know what a source is: that is not an insult
but an observation.

Pierre

Pardon my intrusion on this thread, however, the definition of SOURCE in all of
my dictionaries would definitely include Encyclopaedia Brittanica. For example:

Webster's Dictionary
SOURCE - a person, book, document, etc. that provides information

While EB is certainly not the "definitive" source on the matter under
discussion, it is definitely "a" source on this topic.

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 29 aug 2004 15:20:03

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:K3jYc.12259$D7.11332@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Pierre Aronax wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:G2aYc.11491$D7.10870@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

<snip>

No objection on that. My point was only that to translate "Andegavorum
comes" by "count of Anjou", particularly in a general discussion, is not
a
problem since what is Anjou is not a big problem, same thing for calling
a
"Francorum rex" a "king of France", since "king of France" is indeed the
correct translation of "Francorum rex" in the 13th century and after (so
for
coherency why not calling the previous kings also "king of France"?). But
"Francorum dux" is a different animal: it does not mean "count of France"
or
"count of the vassals in France", or at least that is not so clear that
"Francorum dux" here means only an authority over the people living in a
spe
cific geographical aera rather than a dignity between all the Franks in
all
the kingdom. There is a county of Anjou, but what would have been exactly
a
duchy of France is less clear. That is way I think it is better to
translate
"Francorum dux" by "duke of the Franks", and that is what French
historians
generally do, even when the call Hugh Capet, for example, "king of
France"
(and not "king of the Franks").

Without refuting your opinion, I think that (quite apart from the odd
informal use of "dux Francie") the title "Francorum dux" can be taken to
mean "duke of Francia" in the limited sense that the holder was uniquely
placed within Francia between the king and all the other territorial
rulers.

That's exactly how I understand the title. However, at least in French, "Duc
de France" looks to imply a territorial dukedom of France distinct from
France/Francia (the kingdom) and comprised inside it, which can be
confusing. At least, that's how I feel it.

In other words, there was a dukedom of France, but not a duchy.

Exactly. I would not have express that so well because of my poor English.
Nevertheless, I maintain that it is better, for the abovesaid reason and in
view of the short existence of the title and of the rarity of the word
"Francia" to designet it, to call the duchy "duchy of the Franks" rather
than "duchy of France".

Pierre

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 29 aug 2004 15:24:53

"Douglas Beahm" <dbeahm@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:4131C203.8A75A175@earthlink.net...
Pierre Aronax wrote:


EB is not a source. I said you it was wrong when sayint Rouen was the
"capital of Northern France", you then answered me, rather discourtesly,
that I have to produce a source to contradict your own alleged "source":
what can I do then if not pointing that I can not prove a negative by a
source and that your "source" was not one? I didn't insult you: I point
to
your attention that you don't know what a source is: that is not an
insult
but an observation.

Pierre

Pardon my intrusion on this thread, however, the definition of SOURCE in
all of
my dictionaries would definitely include Encyclopaedia Brittanica. For
example:

Webster's Dictionary
SOURCE - a person, book, document, etc. that provides information

While EB is certainly not the "definitive" source on the matter under
discussion, it is definitely "a" source on this topic.


I suggest you consult the FAQ, particularly the passage on the difference
between primary and secondary sources.
http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html

In an historical discussion, what counts and is intended as "sources" are
primary sources, not the factual sources of information of a particular
poster. According to your Webster's definition, what my grandmother said me
will also qualify as a source.

Pierre

Douglas Beahm

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Douglas Beahm » 29 aug 2004 21:14:33

Pierre Aronax wrote:

I suggest you consult the FAQ, particularly the passage on the difference
between primary and secondary sources.
http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html

In an historical discussion, what counts and is intended as "sources" are
primary sources, not the factual sources of information of a particular
poster. According to your Webster's definition, what my grandmother said me
will also qualify as a source.

Pierre

Mssr. Aronax,

I presume that most of the people who monitor or participate in
soc.genealogy.medieval are familiar with the difference
between primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, etc. You are free
to use "only" primary sources for your research if you wish. However, most
genealogists and historians that I have met are content to sometimes use
secondary sources of quality like _Complete Peerage_. My comment was in
reference to your statement that Encyclopaedia Brittanica is not "a" source. It
is most definitely "a" source by any accepted definition of the word in English,
however, I agree that it is not a "primary" source. By the way, information
provided by your grandmother is also be "a"source and might be a "primary"
source if she provided the information based on first-hand experience.

James Dow Allen

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av James Dow Allen » 05 sep 2004 10:29:11

Alice de Mohun is the 10-great grandmother of Agnes Harris,
who is my 9-great grandmother.

Descendants of Charlemagne who are ancestors of Alice de Mohun
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Charlemagne of the FRANKS
2. Louis I `the Pious' of AQUITAINE (778-840)
3. Lothar I of GERMANY
4. Lothar `the Saxon' II de LORRAINE (827-869)
5. Bertha de LORRAINE (-925)
6. Boso of ARLES (-936)
+ [1] Willa of BURGUNDY
7. [2] Willa of ARLES
4. Louis II `the Young' of GERMANY
5. Ermengarde of GERMANY
6. Willa/Gisele of VIENNE (-929)
7. [1] Willa of BURGUNDY
6. Kunigund of PROVENCE
(next link is suspect;
Perhaps Wigeric was Kunigund's brother-in-law not son)
7. [12] Wigeric of LUXEMBURG
4. Ermengarde/Helletrude de LORRAINE
5. Regnier I de HAINAULT (-916)
6. Regnier II of HAINAULT (-932)
7. Regnier III `Longhals' of HAINAULT (-973)
8. Lambert `the Bearded' of BRABANT (-1015)
+ [14] Gerberge of BRABANT
9. [4] Lambert `Baudry' of BRABANT (-1062)
9. Maud de LOUVAIN
+ [15] Eustace I of BOULOGNE
10. Lambert II of LENS von BOULOGNE (-1054)
+ [16] Adelaide of NORMANDY
11. Judith of LENS of NORMANDY
12. Judith/Alice of HUNTINGDON
13. [6] Roger III de TOENI
8. Regnier IV de LORRAINE of HAINAULT (-1013)
+ [17] Hedwige CAPET of FRANCE
9. Beatrix de LORRAINE of HAINAULT
10. Adelaide/Isabelle of ROUCY (-1063)
11. Marguerite de ROUCY
12. Adeliza CLAREMONT
13. Richard FitzGilbert de CLARE (-1136)
14. Roger `the Good' de CLARE (1116-1173)
15. Aveline de CLARE (-1225)
16. [8] Hawise FitzPIERS de MANDEVILLE
3. Charles `the Bald' of FRANCE (-877)
4. Louis II of FRANCE (846-879)
5. Charles III of FRANCE (879-929)
6. Louis IV `d' Outre-Mer' of FRANCE (921-954)
7. Charles of LAON (953-ca 994)
8. [14] Gerberge of BRABANT
5. Ermentrude of FRANCE
6. Kunigonde of FRANCE
+ [12] Wigeric of LUXEMBURG
7. Gozelon von BIDGAU (-943)
8. Godfrey `the Captive' of VERDUN (-1005)
9. [3] Gonzelon I of LOWER LORRAINE (-1044)
7. Luitgarde de TRIES of LUXEMBOURG
8. Hedwig of SAXONY/NORDGAU
9. Frederick I of LUXEMBORG (-1019)
10. Giselle of LUXEMBURG (-aft 1058)
11. Gilbert de GAUNT
12. Walter de GAUNT (-1139)
+ [13] Maud de BRITTANY
13. Agnes de GAUNT
14. [7] William III de MOHUN (-1176)
10. [10] Ogive of LUXEMBURG
4. Rothilde of the WEST FRANKS (-928)
5. Hugh I du MAINE
6. Hugh II du MAINE
7. Melisende de MAINE
8. Judith de NANTES
9. Agnes de CORNWALL
+ [18] Eudes de BRITTANY (-1079)
10. Stephen I de BRITTANY (-1136)
11. [13] Maud de BRITTANY
4. Judith of FRANCE
5. Baldwin II `the Bald' of FLANDERS
6. Arnold I de FLANDERS
+ [19] Alice de VERMANDOIS
7. Baldwin III de FLANDERS
8. [9] Arnulf II de FLANDERS (-987)
7. Hildegarde de FLANDERS
8. Arnulf I of WEST FRIESLAND (& HOLLAND)
9. Adele of GHENT/HOLLAND
10. [15] Eustace I of BOULOGNE
3. Gisele of FRANCE (-874)
4. Berenger I of ITALY (-924)
5. Gisela FRIULI of ITALY (-910)
6. Berenger II of IVERA (900-966)
+ [2] Willa of ARLES
7. Susanna/Rosala LOMBARD of IVREA (1003)
+ [9] Arnulf II de FLANDERS (-987)
8. Baldwin IV `Fair Beard' de LILLE (-1035)
+ [10] Ogive of LUXEMBURG
9. Baldwin de LILLE (-1067)
+ [11] Alice CAPET of FRANCE (1009-1079)
10. Baldwin VI de MONS (1030-1070)
11. [5] Baldwin II de HAINAULT
+ (Was Willa also Urraca's mother?)
7. Urraca LOMBARD of ITALY
+ [3] Gonzelon I of LOWER LORRAINE (-1044)
8. Oda de LORRAINE (-1044)
+ [4] Lambert `Baudry' of BRABANT (-1062)
9. Henry II of BRABANT (-1078)
10. Ida/Alix of LOVAINE (-1139)
+ [5] Baldwin II de HAINAULT
11. Baldwin III de HAINAULT (1086-1120)
12. Gertrude/Ida de HAINAULT
+ [6] Roger III de TOENI
13. Godeheut de TOENI
+ [7] William III de MOHUN (-1176)
14. William IV de MOHUN (-1193)
15. Reynold de MOHUN (1184-1213)
16. Reynold II de MOHUN (-1258)
+ [8] Hawise FitzPIERS de MANDEVILLE
17. Alice de MOHUN
2. Hugh (Abbott) of ST. QUENTIN (-844)
3. Petronille l' ABBE of AUXERRE
4. Ingelgar I de RENNES of ANJOU
5. Fulk I `the Red' of ANJOU
6. Fulk II `the Good' d' ANJOU (-958)
7. Geoffrey `Grisgonelle' d' ANJOU (-968)
+ [22] Adelaide of VERMANDOIS (-967)
8. Ermangarde d' ANJOU (-992)
9. Judith of BRITTANY (-1017)
+ [20] Richard II of NORMANDY
10. Robert II of NORMANDY (-1035)
11. [16] Adelaide of NORMANDY
7. Adelaide `Blanche' d' ANJOU (-1026)
8. Constance of ARLES/TOULOUSE
+ [21] Robert II CAPET of FRANCE
8. [11] Alice CAPET of FRANCE (1009-1079)
2. Pepin I of ITALY (-810)
3. Bernard of ITALY (797-818)
4. Pepin II de PERONNE
5. Herbert I de VERMANDOIS (-902)
6. Heribert II of VERMANDOIS (-943)
7. Robert de VERMANDOIS (-968)
8. [22] Adelaide of VERMANDOIS (-967)
7. Sporte de BRETAGNE
8. Richard I of NORMANDY (933-996)
9. [20] Richard II of NORMANDY
9. Hedwig of NORMANDY (-1034)
10. [18] Eudes de BRITTANY (-1079)
7. [19] Alice de VERMANDOIS
6. Beatrice de VERMANDOIS
7. Hugh `the Great' of FRANCE (-956)
8. Hugh CAPET of FRANCE (941-996)
9. [21] Robert II CAPET of FRANCE
9. [17] Hedwige CAPET of FRANCE (-aft 1013)

Corrections appreciated. (I've tried to eliminate links
which have been previously deprecated in this newsgroup.)

(BTW, our family records show Agnes coming to New England in 1630
on the ship "Mary and John", but a website dedicated to that
voyage doesn't show her. Anyone know?)

James D. Allen

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 07 sep 2004 06:46:32

James Dow Allen wrote:
Alice de Mohun is the 10-great grandmother of Agnes Harris,
who is my 9-great grandmother.

Descendants of Charlemagne who are ancestors of Alice de Mohun
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Charlemagne of the FRANKS
2. Louis I `the Pious' of AQUITAINE (778-840)
3. Lothar I of GERMANY

4. Louis II `the Young' of GERMANY
5. Ermengarde of GERMANY
6. Willa/Gisele of VIENNE (-929)
7. [1] Willa of BURGUNDY
6. Kunigund of PROVENCE
(next link is suspect;
Perhaps Wigeric was Kunigund's brother-in-law not son)
7. [12] Wigeric of LUXEMBURG

I don't think this is anything more than speculation.

3. Charles `the Bald' of FRANCE (-877)

4. Rothilde of the WEST FRANKS (-928)
5. Hugh I du MAINE
6. Hugh II du MAINE
7. Melisende de MAINE
8. Judith de NANTES
9. Agnes de CORNWALL
+ [18] Eudes de BRITTANY (-1079)

I know of no evidence for these last several generations.

3. Gisele of FRANCE (-874)
4. Berenger I of ITALY (-924)
5. Gisela FRIULI of ITALY (-910)
6. Berenger II of IVERA (900-966)
+ [2] Willa of ARLES

+ (Was Willa also Urraca's mother?)
7. Urraca LOMBARD of ITALY
+ [3] Gonzelon I of LOWER LORRAINE (-1044)

I recall seeing this speculation somewhere, but I just don't see
any way that Berenger and Willa would have a daughter named
Urraca, and don't think there is anything to directly support
this marriage

2. Hugh (Abbott) of ST. QUENTIN (-844)
3. Petronille l' ABBE of AUXERRE
4. Ingelgar I de RENNES of ANJOU

This ancestry of Ingelder is a late invention. Hugh had no known
children.

2. Pepin I of ITALY (-810)
3. Bernard of ITALY (797-818)
4. Pepin II de PERONNE
5. Herbert I de VERMANDOIS (-902)
6. Heribert II of VERMANDOIS (-943)

7. Sporte de BRETAGNE
8. Richard I of NORMANDY (933-996)

This is a confused attempt to explain the relationship between
Richard I and Bernard of Senlis. Such a relationship (if it was
not an oblique reference to Richard's step-mother) is not liekly
to go through Sprota. Note that she is called of Brittany, then
here made daughter of a Count with no sway there. Likewise, you
have to look at the history - Sprota was a conclubine captured in
a Breton raid, then put aside (married to a Norman nobleman) when
William arranged the marriage to Heribert's daughter, Liutgard,
which makes no sense of Sprota was his daughter as well.

taf

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 07 sep 2004 10:57:36

Todd A. Farmerie wrote:

James Dow Allen wrote:

Alice de Mohun is the 10-great grandmother of Agnes Harris,
who is my 9-great grandmother.

Descendants of Charlemagne who are ancestors of Alice de Mohun
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Charlemagne of the FRANKS
2. Louis I `the Pious' of AQUITAINE (778-840)

<snip>

3. Gisele of FRANCE (-874)
4. Berenger I of ITALY (-924)
5. Gisela FRIULI of ITALY (-910)
6. Berenger II of IVERA (900-966)
+ [2] Willa of ARLES


+ (Was Willa also Urraca's mother?)
7. Urraca LOMBARD of ITALY
+ [3] Gonzelon I of LOWER LORRAINE (-1044)


I recall seeing this speculation somewhere, but I just don't see any way
that Berenger and Willa would have a daughter named Urraca, and don't
think there is anything to directly support this marriage

The name of Duke Gozelo I's wife is unknown, but most unlikely to have
been "Urraca" whoever her parents were.

Berengar II (of Ivrea, not "Ivera") and his wife Willa certainly did not
have a daughter of this name - apart from the absence of other records,
Liutprand of Cremona would probably have mentioned the oddity if Willa,
whome he heartily despised, had given such an exotic name to one of her
children (he memorably called Willa the reason that her own mother was
not the most vile of all women).


2. Hugh (Abbott) of ST. QUENTIN (-844)
3. Petronille l' ABBE of AUXERRE
4. Ingelgar I de RENNES of ANJOU


This ancestry of Ingelder is a late invention. Hugh had no known children.

The only warrant for giving Ingelger a mother named Petronilla and
relating her in any way to Hugo l'Abbé is the vague and doubtful
statement in 'Gesta consulum Andegavorum' about his supposed father,
"Namque Tertullus nobilem duxerat uxorem, ducis Burgundie consanguineam,
nomine Petronillam, que hunc puerum peperit" (Tertulle married a noble
lady, a kinswoman of the duke of Burgundy, named Petronilla, who bore
this son [Ingelger]), see _Chroniques des comtes d'Anjou et des
seigneurs d'Amboise_, edited by Louis Halphen & René Poupardin (Paris,
1913) p. 29. Even if this is to be believed, she would hardly be called
"consanguinea" to the duke, Hugo or another, if she had actually been
his daughter. Naming her "Petronille l'Abbé" is some way beyond a joke.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»