Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av John Parsons » 27 aug 2004 02:31:04

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 identification of Hugh Capet's wife Adelaide as "of Aquitaine" or "of
Poitou" is erroneous. Her parentage is unknown.

She was identified as "of Aquitaine" solely on the basis of a charter, which
survives only in a 14th-century *vidimus*, in which a woman of Aquitaine,
named Adela, appears with a husband whose name is actually given as Ebles.
Louis Halphen and Ferdinand Lot, the editors of the *vidimus*, assumed that
this Adela must be Hugh Capet's wife and arbitrarily, with no foundation
whatever, changed "Ebles" to "Hugo."

See Constance Bouchard, "Eleanor's Divorce from Louis VII: The Uses of
Consanguinity," in *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady*, eds. Bonnie
Wheeler and John Parsons (New York: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 223-235, esp. p.
226 and n. 9.

John P.

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 27 aug 2004 10:42:06

""John Parsons"" <carmi47@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:BAY11-F8K9W1IpMKX9s000014ca@hotmail.com...
Generation 8 Hugh Capet, King of France (941-died 995) Lineage of Hugh
Capet through Agnes Harris is from â?oThe 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 identification of Hugh Capet's wife Adelaide as "of Aquitaine" or "of
Poitou" is erroneous.

No, it is not erroneous: it is hypothetical. And this hypothesis has other
arguments for it than the charter you mentionned.

Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2004 11:31:01

John Parsons wrote:

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 identification of Hugh Capet's wife Adelaide as "of Aquitaine" or
"of Poitou" is erroneous. Her parentage is unknown.

She was identified as "of Aquitaine" solely on the basis of a charter,
which survives only in a 14th-century *vidimus*, in which a woman of
Aquitaine, named Adela, appears with a husband whose name is actually
given as Ebles. Louis Halphen and Ferdinand Lot, the editors of the
*vidimus*, assumed that this Adela must be Hugh Capet's wife and
arbitrarily, with no foundation whatever, changed "Ebles" to "Hugo."

See Constance Bouchard, "Eleanor's Divorce from Louis VII: The Uses of
Consanguinity," in *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady*, eds. Bonnie
Wheeler and John Parsons (New York: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 223-235, esp.
p. 226 and n. 9.

"Solely" is not quite right, there are other sources in support of this
apart from the vidimus cited, but I agree that Adelaide's family origin
should be considered highly questionable.

She is usually given as the daughter of William III & I, duke of
Aquitaine & count of Poitou. The rationale for this is based on indirect
and somewhat unsatisfactory evidence: first, a brief note by Richer
which was written in the present tense after his revised narrative. The
exact meaning and accuracy of his statement are open to question - see
_Historiarum libri IIII_, edited by Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH Scriptores 38
(Hanover, 2000), p. 308: "Rotbertus rex in Aquitania ob nepotem suum
Uuilelmum, obsidione Hildebertum premit" (trans: King Robert besieges
Hildebert [Audebert I, count of Perigord] in Aquitaine, for the sake of
his [her ?] cousin [nephew ?] William).

Ferdinand Lot took "nepos suus" in this context to mean that William
III, count of Poitou (William V as duke of Aquitaine) was cousin to
Robert, a relationship which could have come about only through
Adelaide. However, Lot failed to consider the possibility that Richer
was thinking loosely in this note of a connection through Robert's new
wife Bertha, who had been mentioned in the two preceding sentences and
because of whom the relevant alliances had changed so as to bring about
this particular intervention: William III was a nephew of Bertha's first
husband, Eudes of Blois, so that the words quoted might be taken to mean
"her nephew" (by marriage, although Richer might not have known this)
instead of "his cousin" (by blood). Constance Bouchard pointed out this
possible reading in 'Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries', _Speculum_ 56 (1981), p. 274 n. 17.

The source questioned by John Parsons above is in _Recueil des actes de
Lothaire et de Louis V, rois de France (954-987)_, edited by Louis
Halphen with Ferdinand Lot (Paris, 1908), p. 109, no. 48, diploma of
King Lothaire IV dated 982, original lost, text known from a vidimus of
3 February 1378 (new style): "consobrini ducisque nostri potentissimi
Eblonis [sic, emended by the editors to Hugonis] conjux illustrix, Adela
vocabulo" (trans: "the illustrious wife, named Adela, of our very mighty
cousin and duke Eblo [or Hugo]" in regard to Holy Trinity abbey in
Poitiers, founded "ab inclita genitrice sua per assensum marchionis
Willelmi, sui videlicet filii (trans: by her illustrious mother with the
assent of Marquis William, who was of course her son).

Bouchard suggested this might be a confirmation of an earlier charter,
see 'Patterns of Women's Names in Royal Lineages, Ninth-Eleventh
Centuries', _Medieval Prosopography_ 9 (1988), p. 17 n. 28. It seems
more likely to be an inaccurate transcription from a genuine document,
with the name Eblo substituted for Hugo, i.e. Hugo Capet who was a
powerful duke and realtive of King Lothar. However, this and the fact
that a woman named Adela, the foundress in question, was the wife of
William III & I, does not prove that she was Adela (Gerloc) of Normandy
who is usually stated to have been the mother of Queen Adelaide. But
this is a different topic, for another thread that I don't have time for
now.

_If_ this vidimus is to be accepted as transmitting a text about Hugo
Capet's wife, I think the evidence better supports that her mother was a
woman named Adela who perhaps married successively Queen Adelaide's
unknown father and a count of Poitou, that is to say the mother of
Adelaide and William by different husbands.

The first direct statement about Adelaide's parentage is found in an
interpolation by an unknown writer in an early twelfth-century work -
see 'Auctarium Maglorianum' in René Merlet's 'Les origines du monastère
de Saint-Magloire de Paris', _Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_ 56
(1895), p. 247: "Qui [Hugo Capet] etiam cum sua venerabili conjuge,
Adelaide nomine, filia Pictavorum comitis, de progenie Karoli magni
imperatoris" (trans: [Hugo Capet] together with his esteemed wife, named
Adelaide, daughter of the count of the Poitevins, a descendant of
Emperor Charlemagne). This text may have been copied from a late
tenth-century account of the translation of Saint Magloire's relics to
Paris [op cit, pp. 254-255 n. 4].

Saint Bernard later reproached King Louis VII for living with his
relative Alienor of Aquitaine, and their relationship was supposed to
have been traced through Adelaide. Christian Pfister & other historians
considered this a fabrication, but in any case it would only be
misplaced evidence since Louis VII and Alienor were more closely related
through her great-grandmother Hildegarde of Burgundy, a granddaughter of
Robert II.

This is a complex matter, that is overdue for a thorough study -
however, the only recent theories that I have seen to counter the
suppositions of Ferdinand Lot have been unconvincing to say the least. I
think Queen Adelaide was possibly from a cadet line of the Carolingian
dynasty, and a very considerable heiress in her own right: I hope
eventually to compete an article setting out this speculation properly,
but this won't be done any time soon.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 27 aug 2004 12:28:50

Peter Stewart wrote:

I hope eventually to compete an article setting out this
speculation properly, but this won't be done any time soon.

I meant to write "I hope to complete an article...", for which I have
made extensive notes already, in "competion" only with the passing of
time (present due to more pressing commitments & past in the centuries
that have gobbled up evidence for the facts).

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 27 aug 2004 22:33:15

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:pbDXc.9574$D7.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

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.

But did he really count his years of reign like that? I have under the eyes
the edition of a charter of Hugh and Robert which puzzles me by his date:

"Actum Parisius civitate publice, anno dominice Incarnationis DCCCCXCIII,
indictione VI, anno VII regnante gloriosissimo Hugone et inclito filio ejus
Rotberto."

Counting the years of reign in a logical way, this date is almost certainly
impossible: Hugh was crowned 3rd July 987, Robert II 25 December 987, so the
period belonging to the seven year of *both* kings wants from 25 December
993 to 3 July 994 and, since the style used at the time was most frequently
the style of Christmas, is entirely in the year 994 (25-31 December 993 n.s.
being in 994 v.s.), without a single day in 993. Anyway, considering the
indiction, the charter must be between 1st September 992 and 31 August 993.
So, there is a problem with the years of reign of Hugh, or at least with
this charter. Have we to understand here that the seventh year of reign is
only of the reign of Hugh, not of Robert? (and so the charter would be from
between 3 July and 31 August 993).

The editor doesn't seem to see any difficulty here and pretends that the
charter is from between 25 December 992 and 3 July 993: if I'm not wrong,
that would be correct of a charter with the same date but from the *sixth*
(and not seventh) year of Hugh and Robert.

I would be curious to have your opinion on that.

Pierre

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 28 aug 2004 01:46:43

Comments interspersed:

Pierre Aronax wrote:

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:pbDXc.9574$D7.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...


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.


But did he really count his years of reign like that? I have under the eyes
the edition of a charter of Hugh and Robert which puzzles me by his date:

From the very few extant documents of Hugo Capet, we can't be sure that
he counted his reign accurately & consistently by our understanding of
chronology, much less that any fixed discipline in this respect ever
spread from his court to the monastic scriptoria around Francia.

As a general observation, the fairly reliable regnal and calendar dating
practice of earlier Carolingian chanceries fell into chaos through the
tenth century, under the shadow of the millennium, and this didn't
recover under the Capetians until late in the reign of Hugo Capet's
grandson Henri I. This was perhaps due in part to the uncertainty of
monks who couldn't agree on when a new year started or how to count from
the Incarnation, and evidently got confused between ordinal & cardinal
numbers in this & other contexts as a result. We saw a vestige of this
problem in controversies about the millennial new year in 2000/2001.

For interest, I once analysed the documents in _Catalogue des actes
d'Henri Ier, roi de France (1031-1060)_ by Frédéric Soehnée, BEHE 161
(Paris, 1907), of which 41 are dated with both calendar and regnal year;
of these twenty-four are consistent with his known succession on 20 July
1031; a further eleven apparently indicate succession in 1030 but may be
equally consistent with 1031 depending on which date was counted locally
as the first of a calendar year (usually 25 December or 1 March in
different places at that time), or if King Henri's second regnal year is
counted as starting from the first day of the calendar year following
his father's death, a probable variant practice; one definitely
indicates succession in 1029; three just as positively indicate 1032;
and two others indicate 1033.

"Actum Parisius civitate publice, anno dominice Incarnationis DCCCCXCIII,
indictione VI, anno VII regnante gloriosissimo Hugone et inclito filio ejus
Rotberto."

This is presumably the diploma for Abbo of Fleury regarding Yèvre. This
was dated at Paris, where the calendar year at that time might be
counted from 25 March or 1 April (Easter day in 994). William Mendel
Newman explained this, stating that that style in this instance was
unknown, in _Catalogue des actes de Robert II, roi de France_ (Paris,
1937) p. 6, no. 6.

Counting the years of reign in a logical way, this date is almost certainly
impossible: Hugh was crowned 3rd July 987, Robert II 25 December 987, so the
period belonging to the seven year of *both* kings wants from 25 December
993 to 3 July 994 and, since the style used at the time was most frequently
the style of Christmas, is entirely in the year 994 (25-31 December 993 n.s.
being in 994 v.s.), without a single day in 993. Anyway, considering the
indiction, the charter must be between 1st September 992 and 31 August 993.
So, there is a problem with the years of reign of Hugh, or at least with
this charter. Have we to understand here that the seventh year of reign is
only of the reign of Hugh, not of Robert? (and so the charter would be from
between 3 July and 31 August 993).

The editor doesn't seem to see any difficulty here and pretends that the
charter is from between 25 December 992 and 3 July 993: if I'm not wrong,
that would be correct of a charter with the same date but from the *sixth*
(and not seventh) year of Hugh and Robert.

Newman, loc cit, gave a range of 3 July 993 to 24 or 31 March 994.
Applying logic to such questions may be necessary, but can't be
conclusive unless the same was done on the same premises at the time of
composition.

Did you find the dating of 25 December 992 to 3 July 993 in tome I of
_Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de St-Benoît-sur-Loire_ edited by
Maurice Prou & Alexandre Vidier (1900)? I don't have this to check - but
I suppose that any edition published after Newman's catalogue would at
least take account of his remarks.

Peter Stewart

Pierre Aronax

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Pierre Aronax » 28 aug 2004 10:41:24

"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:DJPXc.10257$D7.8198@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Comments interspersed:

Pierre Aronax wrote:

<...>

But did he really count his years of reign like that? I have under the
eyes
the edition of a charter of Hugh and Robert which puzzles me by his date:

From the very few extant documents of Hugo Capet, we can't be sure that
he counted his reign accurately & consistently by our understanding of
chronology, much less that any fixed discipline in this respect ever
spread from his court to the monastic scriptoria around Francia.

As a general observation, the fairly reliable regnal and calendar dating
practice of earlier Carolingian chanceries fell into chaos through the
tenth century, under the shadow of the millennium, and this didn't
recover under the Capetians until late in the reign of Hugo Capet's
grandson Henri I. This was perhaps due in part to the uncertainty of
monks who couldn't agree on when a new year started or how to count from
the Incarnation, and evidently got confused between ordinal & cardinal
numbers in this & other contexts as a result. We saw a vestige of this
problem in controversies about the millennial new year in 2000/2001.

For interest, I once analysed the documents in _Catalogue des actes
d'Henri Ier, roi de France (1031-1060)_ by Frédéric Soehnée, BEHE 161
(Paris, 1907), of which 41 are dated with both calendar and regnal year;
of these twenty-four are consistent with his known succession on 20 July
1031; a further eleven apparently indicate succession in 1030 but may be
equally consistent with 1031 depending on which date was counted locally
as the first of a calendar year (usually 25 December or 1 March in
different places at that time), or if King Henri's second regnal year is
counted as starting from the first day of the calendar year following
his father's death, a probable variant practice; one definitely
indicates succession in 1029; three just as positively indicate 1032;
and two others indicate 1033.


"Actum Parisius civitate publice, anno dominice Incarnationis DCCCCXCIII,
indictione VI, anno VII regnante gloriosissimo Hugone et inclito filio
ejus
Rotberto."

This is presumably the diploma for Abbo of Fleury regarding Yèvre.

Absolutely.

This
was dated at Paris, where the calendar year at that time might be
counted from 25 March or 1 April (Easter day in 994). William Mendel
Newman explained this, stating that that style in this instance was
unknown, in _Catalogue des actes de Robert II, roi de France_ (Paris,
1937) p. 6, no. 6.

Thanks. The editor is so wrong assuming the style of Christmas must be
preferred.

Counting the years of reign in a logical way, this date is almost
certainly
impossible: Hugh was crowned 3rd July 987, Robert II 25 December 987, so
the
period belonging to the seven year of *both* kings wants from 25 December
993 to 3 July 994 and, since the style used at the time was most
frequently
the style of Christmas, is entirely in the year 994 (25-31 December 993
n.s.
being in 994 v.s.), without a single day in 993. Anyway, considering the
indiction, the charter must be between 1st September 992 and 31 August
993.
So, there is a problem with the years of reign of Hugh, or at least with
this charter. Have we to understand here that the seventh year of reign
is
only of the reign of Hugh, not of Robert? (and so the charter would be
from
between 3 July and 31 August 993).

The editor doesn't seem to see any difficulty here and pretends that the
charter is from between 25 December 992 and 3 July 993: if I'm not wrong,
that would be correct of a charter with the same date but from the
*sixth*
(and not seventh) year of Hugh and Robert.

Newman, loc cit, gave a range of 3 July 993 to 24 or 31 March 994.

How that? What about the indiction then? Or the indiction is erroneous, or
the charter is from before 1st Septembre 993.
At least Newman understand, as I do, that it is the seventh year of Hugh,
and not the seventh year of Hugh and Robert.

Applying logic to such questions may be necessary, but can't be
conclusive unless the same was done on the same premises at the time of
composition.

Did you find the dating of 25 December 992 to 3 July 993 in tome I of
_Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de St-Benoît-sur-Loire_ edited by
Maurice Prou & Alexandre Vidier (1900)? I don't have this to check - but
I suppose that any edition published after Newman's catalogue would at
least take account of his remarks.


No, I find it in a beautiful album of facsimiles of documents, with
translations and commentaries, published by the Ecole des Chartes in 1996.
The commentaries are rather erudite, or at least look like, but this error
with the date puzzles me. It is perhaps not as well made as it looks like.
The bibliography mentions Prou and Vidier edition and other more recent
studies, but not Newman.



A possibility I see now to date the charter from both Hugh and Robert
seventh year would be if their years of reign are dated here not from their
actual beginning but from the beginning of the year during which their
coronations happened, Hugh and Robert reigns being then counted not from 3
July and 25 December 987 respectively, but both from 25 December 986 (or 25
April or 1st March 987 according to the local style). Other sovereigns used
this kind of years of reign, but I don't know if the Capetians ever did.



Pierre

Stewart Baldwin

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Stewart Baldwin » 31 aug 2004 20:36:02

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:31:01 GMT, Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com>
wrote:

John Parsons wrote:


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 identification of Hugh Capet's wife Adelaide as "of Aquitaine" or
"of Poitou" is erroneous. Her parentage is unknown.

She was identified as "of Aquitaine" solely on the basis of a charter,
which survives only in a 14th-century *vidimus*, in which a woman of
Aquitaine, named Adela, appears with a husband whose name is actually
given as Ebles. Louis Halphen and Ferdinand Lot, the editors of the
*vidimus*, assumed that this Adela must be Hugh Capet's wife and
arbitrarily, with no foundation whatever, changed "Ebles" to "Hugo."

See Constance Bouchard, "Eleanor's Divorce from Louis VII: The Uses of
Consanguinity," in *Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady*, eds. Bonnie
Wheeler and John Parsons (New York: Palgrave, 2002), pp. 223-235, esp.
p. 226 and n. 9.

"Solely" is not quite right, there are other sources in support of this
apart from the vidimus cited, but I agree that Adelaide's family origin
should be considered highly questionable.

She is usually given as the daughter of William III & I, duke of
Aquitaine & count of Poitou. The rationale for this is based on indirect
and somewhat unsatisfactory evidence: first, a brief note by Richer
which was written in the present tense after his revised narrative. The
exact meaning and accuracy of his statement are open to question - see
_Historiarum libri IIII_, edited by Hartmut Hoffmann, MGH Scriptores 38
(Hanover, 2000), p. 308: "Rotbertus rex in Aquitania ob nepotem suum
Uuilelmum, obsidione Hildebertum premit" (trans: King Robert besieges
Hildebert [Audebert I, count of Perigord] in Aquitaine, for the sake of
his [her ?] cousin [nephew ?] William).

Ferdinand Lot took "nepos suus" in this context to mean that William
III, count of Poitou (William V as duke of Aquitaine) was cousin to
Robert, a relationship which could have come about only through
Adelaide. However, Lot failed to consider the possibility that Richer
was thinking loosely in this note of a connection through Robert's new
wife Bertha, who had been mentioned in the two preceding sentences and
because of whom the relevant alliances had changed so as to bring about
this particular intervention: William III was a nephew of Bertha's first
husband, Eudes of Blois, so that the words quoted might be taken to mean
"her nephew" (by marriage, although Richer might not have known this)
instead of "his cousin" (by blood). Constance Bouchard pointed out this
possible reading in 'Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries', _Speculum_ 56 (1981), p. 274 n. 17.

The source questioned by John Parsons above is in _Recueil des actes de
Lothaire et de Louis V, rois de France (954-987)_, edited by Louis
Halphen with Ferdinand Lot (Paris, 1908), p. 109, no. 48, diploma of
King Lothaire IV dated 982, original lost, text known from a vidimus of
3 February 1378 (new style): "consobrini ducisque nostri potentissimi
Eblonis [sic, emended by the editors to Hugonis] conjux illustrix, Adela
vocabulo" (trans: "the illustrious wife, named Adela, of our very mighty
cousin and duke Eblo [or Hugo]" in regard to Holy Trinity abbey in
Poitiers, founded "ab inclita genitrice sua per assensum marchionis
Willelmi, sui videlicet filii (trans: by her illustrious mother with the
assent of Marquis William, who was of course her son).

Bouchard suggested this might be a confirmation of an earlier charter,
see 'Patterns of Women's Names in Royal Lineages, Ninth-Eleventh
Centuries', _Medieval Prosopography_ 9 (1988), p. 17 n. 28. It seems
more likely to be an inaccurate transcription from a genuine document,
with the name Eblo substituted for Hugo, i.e. Hugo Capet who was a
powerful duke and realtive of King Lothar. However, this and the fact
that a woman named Adela, the foundress in question, was the wife of
William III & I, does not prove that she was Adela (Gerloc) of Normandy
who is usually stated to have been the mother of Queen Adelaide. But
this is a different topic, for another thread that I don't have time for
now.

_If_ this vidimus is to be accepted as transmitting a text about Hugo
Capet's wife, I think the evidence better supports that her mother was a
woman named Adela who perhaps married successively Queen Adelaide's
unknown father and a count of Poitou, that is to say the mother of
Adelaide and William by different husbands.

The first direct statement about Adelaide's parentage is found in an
interpolation by an unknown writer in an early twelfth-century work -
see 'Auctarium Maglorianum' in René Merlet's 'Les origines du monastère
de Saint-Magloire de Paris', _Bibliothèque de l'École des chartes_ 56
(1895), p. 247: "Qui [Hugo Capet] etiam cum sua venerabili conjuge,
Adelaide nomine, filia Pictavorum comitis, de progenie Karoli magni
imperatoris" (trans: [Hugo Capet] together with his esteemed wife, named
Adelaide, daughter of the count of the Poitevins, a descendant of
Emperor Charlemagne). This text may have been copied from a late
tenth-century account of the translation of Saint Magloire's relics to
Paris [op cit, pp. 254-255 n. 4].

Saint Bernard later reproached King Louis VII for living with his
relative Alienor of Aquitaine, and their relationship was supposed to
have been traced through Adelaide. Christian Pfister & other historians
considered this a fabrication, but in any case it would only be
misplaced evidence since Louis VII and Alienor were more closely related
through her great-grandmother Hildegarde of Burgundy, a granddaughter of
Robert II.

This is a complex matter, that is overdue for a thorough study -
however, the only recent theories that I have seen to counter the
suppositions of Ferdinand Lot have been unconvincing to say the least. I
think Queen Adelaide was possibly from a cadet line of the Carolingian
dynasty, and a very considerable heiress in her own right: I hope
eventually to compete an article setting out this speculation properly,
but this won't be done any time soon.

When I checked the additions to Gallica for the month of August today,
I noticed that it included volume 1 of Alfred Richard's "Histoire des
comtes de Poitou 778-1204" (volume 2 had already been available).
Checking it out, I noticed that on page 199 of volume 1 there is a
footnote mentioning a charter in which William of Aquitaine is called
a "consobrinus" of Robert of France. The footnote reads as follows:

(1) Une charte de Bourgueil (Besly, Hist. des comtes, preuves, p. 365)
de l'an 1028 ou 1029 se termine ainsi: "regnante rege Rotberto in
Francia et ejus consobrino Guillelmo in Aquitania".

If the charter mentioned here is genuine, it would be important
additional evidence.

Stewart Baldwin

Peter Stewart

Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 sep 2004 05:58:06

Stewart Baldwin wrote:

When I checked the additions to Gallica for the month of August today,
I noticed that it included volume 1 of Alfred Richard's "Histoire des
comtes de Poitou 778-1204" (volume 2 had already been available).
Checking it out, I noticed that on page 199 of volume 1 there is a
footnote mentioning a charter in which William of Aquitaine is called
a "consobrinus" of Robert of France. The footnote reads as follows:

(1) Une charte de Bourgueil (Besly, Hist. des comtes, preuves, p. 365)
de l'an 1028 ou 1029 se termine ainsi: "regnante rege Rotberto in
Francia et ejus consobrino Guillelmo in Aquitania".

If the charter mentioned here is genuine, it would be important
additional evidence.

Yes, there may be little doubt that Robert II was related, plausibly as
first cousin, to Guilhem V of Aquitaine - but whether this necessarily
means that the king's mother was a full-sister of the duke's father is
open to question, as is the usual placement of Adela (Gerloc) of
Normandy as the mother of these probable (half-)siblings.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»