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