hello. I was reading aboutt de Lusignan in the archives. i saw Adrian
Channing's suggestion that there was an extra Hugh, Hugh VIIIIa, but not
many people took part in the thread, and I normally look for comments by
people like Leo van de Pas, Peter Stewart etc before being sure that the
information in a thread represents the most educated viewpoint available. Do
people in this newsgroup generally believe there to have been an additional
view?
Hugh VIIIa de Lusignan
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Hugh VIIIa de Lusignan
In article <Hlg3d.29459$U04.12699@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
This is the conventional wisdom now, reflected in such standard lookups
as ES (new ser.) 3:815-816 (where it uses the old numbering of Hughs,
leaving the extra unnumbered) and 3:564 (where it omits the Hugh numbers
altogether; this chart focuses on the Cypriot branch anyhow).
Hugh 'IX' (d. at Damietta, 1219) was grandson of Hugh 'VIII' (who d. in
Outremer in 1173) -- the Hugh in between, elder brother of Guy, King of
Jerusalem and Amalric, King of Cyprus, having died v.p. in 1169 (ES
3:564 puts death on 11 Apr; ES 3:816 says 16 Mar: any arbiters?).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
hello. I was reading aboutt de Lusignan in the archives. i saw Adrian
Channing's suggestion that there was an extra Hugh, Hugh VIIIIa, but not
many people took part in the thread, and I normally look for comments by
people like Leo van de Pas, Peter Stewart etc before being sure that the
information in a thread represents the most educated viewpoint available. Do
people in this newsgroup generally believe there to have been an additional
view?
This is the conventional wisdom now, reflected in such standard lookups
as ES (new ser.) 3:815-816 (where it uses the old numbering of Hughs,
leaving the extra unnumbered) and 3:564 (where it omits the Hugh numbers
altogether; this chart focuses on the Cypriot branch anyhow).
Hugh 'IX' (d. at Damietta, 1219) was grandson of Hugh 'VIII' (who d. in
Outremer in 1173) -- the Hugh in between, elder brother of Guy, King of
Jerusalem and Amalric, King of Cyprus, having died v.p. in 1169 (ES
3:564 puts death on 11 Apr; ES 3:816 says 16 Mar: any arbiters?).
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
-
Gjest
Re: Hugh VIIIa de Lusignan
In a message dated 19/09/04 15:15:34 GMT Daylight Time,
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
My inclusion of Hugh VIIIa follows the work of Painter, and was based purely
on other messages sent to Gen-Med. It was commented upon that this was just
one possible solution which Painter put forward to solve previous
inconsistencies in the Lusignan genealogy, but it seems to be the one most accepted.
There is another problem with Hugh VIIIa brothers (in this scenario) Geoffrey
brother of Guy de Lusignan (some say Geoffrey and his brother Guy de
Lusignan, but this is apparently a miss-translation) were responsible for the 1168
ambush of William Marshal and the death of Earl Patrick of Salisbury. However,
if this is the same Geoffrey and Guy, brothers of Hugh VIIIa, Guy would have
only been around 6 years old and it would be strange to mentions him as
Geoffrey's brother.
Adrian
djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
hello. I was reading aboutt de Lusignan in the archives. i saw Adrian
Channing's suggestion that there was an extra Hugh, Hugh VIIIIa, but not
many people took part in the thread, and I normally look for comments by
people like Leo van de Pas, Peter Stewart etc before being sure that the
information in a thread represents the most educated viewpoint available. Do
people in this newsgroup generally believe there to have been an additional
view?
My inclusion of Hugh VIIIa follows the work of Painter, and was based purely
on other messages sent to Gen-Med. It was commented upon that this was just
one possible solution which Painter put forward to solve previous
inconsistencies in the Lusignan genealogy, but it seems to be the one most accepted.
There is another problem with Hugh VIIIa brothers (in this scenario) Geoffrey
brother of Guy de Lusignan (some say Geoffrey and his brother Guy de
Lusignan, but this is apparently a miss-translation) were responsible for the 1168
ambush of William Marshal and the death of Earl Patrick of Salisbury. However,
if this is the same Geoffrey and Guy, brothers of Hugh VIIIa, Guy would have
only been around 6 years old and it would be strange to mentions him as
Geoffrey's brother.
Adrian
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Hugh VIIIa de Lusignan
Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
He was entombed on 15 March 1169, so both dates must be wrong for his
actual death unless he was a victim of the ghastly burying alive that
was feared by morbid Victorians.
As to the existence of this Hugo de Lusignan between 'VIII' and 'IX',
I'm not sure that other plausible solutions can be advanced as Adrian
said had been remarked here before.
The usually accpeted interpretation of the evidence was given by Charles
Farcinet, not by Sidney Painter.
This is based on several charters, mainly from 'Cartulaire de l'abbaye
des Chatelliers' edited by L Duval (Niort, 1872) and one from
'Cartulaire de l'Absie', Archives historiques de Poitou 25. I haven't
seen any of these documents, and the following is summarised from
Farcinet's 'Hugues IX de Lusignan et les comtes de la Marche', extract
from 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' (Vannes, 1896):
In 1171 Hugo VIII made gifts to Chatelliers abbey while confirming
earlier gifts of his father Hugo (VII) and his mother Saracena; in 1218
another Hugo (IX), on the point of departing for Jerusalem, confirmed
the gifts that his grandfather (avi mei) had made (i.e. Hugo VIII in
1171); and in 1248 another Hugo (X) reconfirmed these gifts of his
great-grandfather ("Hugonis de Lezigniaco proavi mei") and his father
("Hugonis Bruni...patris mei").
The charter of Absie was given by the intervening Hugo's younger brother
Geoffroy I known as Big-tooth, seigneur of Moncontour: "ego Gaufridus de
Lizigniaco pro salute anime mee fratrisque mei Hugonis...Hoc factum est
apud Lizigniacum primo die post sepulturam Hugonis fratris mei laudante
et concedente Burgondia matris mea. Anno Domini MCLXVIIII, XVII kal.
april." (I Geoffroy de Lusignan for the benefit of my soul and of my
brother Hugo...transacted at Lusignan on the day following the burial of
my brother Hugo with the approval and concession of my mother Burgundia
[the wife of Hugo VIII]. AD 1169, 16 March).
Farcinet's article as printed in 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' confused the
issue with an odd blunder or misprint, stating that this Hugo had died
on 16 April 1169, but it's quite clear from the above that even in the
worst of misadventures this was not the case, since he had been buried a
month and a day beforehand and he would surely have run out of air &
given up clawing at his coffin lid well within that lapse of time.
Peter Stewart
In article <Hlg3d.29459$U04.12699@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"David Webb" <djwebb2002@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
hello. I was reading aboutt de Lusignan in the archives. i saw Adrian
Channing's suggestion that there was an extra Hugh, Hugh VIIIIa, but not
many people took part in the thread, and I normally look for comments by
people like Leo van de Pas, Peter Stewart etc before being sure that the
information in a thread represents the most educated viewpoint available. Do
people in this newsgroup generally believe there to have been an additional
view?
This is the conventional wisdom now, reflected in such standard lookups
as ES (new ser.) 3:815-816 (where it uses the old numbering of Hughs,
leaving the extra unnumbered) and 3:564 (where it omits the Hugh numbers
altogether; this chart focuses on the Cypriot branch anyhow).
Hugh 'IX' (d. at Damietta, 1219) was grandson of Hugh 'VIII' (who d. in
Outremer in 1173) -- the Hugh in between, elder brother of Guy, King of
Jerusalem and Amalric, King of Cyprus, having died v.p. in 1169 (ES
3:564 puts death on 11 Apr; ES 3:816 says 16 Mar: any arbiters?).
He was entombed on 15 March 1169, so both dates must be wrong for his
actual death unless he was a victim of the ghastly burying alive that
was feared by morbid Victorians.
As to the existence of this Hugo de Lusignan between 'VIII' and 'IX',
I'm not sure that other plausible solutions can be advanced as Adrian
said had been remarked here before.
The usually accpeted interpretation of the evidence was given by Charles
Farcinet, not by Sidney Painter.
This is based on several charters, mainly from 'Cartulaire de l'abbaye
des Chatelliers' edited by L Duval (Niort, 1872) and one from
'Cartulaire de l'Absie', Archives historiques de Poitou 25. I haven't
seen any of these documents, and the following is summarised from
Farcinet's 'Hugues IX de Lusignan et les comtes de la Marche', extract
from 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' (Vannes, 1896):
In 1171 Hugo VIII made gifts to Chatelliers abbey while confirming
earlier gifts of his father Hugo (VII) and his mother Saracena; in 1218
another Hugo (IX), on the point of departing for Jerusalem, confirmed
the gifts that his grandfather (avi mei) had made (i.e. Hugo VIII in
1171); and in 1248 another Hugo (X) reconfirmed these gifts of his
great-grandfather ("Hugonis de Lezigniaco proavi mei") and his father
("Hugonis Bruni...patris mei").
The charter of Absie was given by the intervening Hugo's younger brother
Geoffroy I known as Big-tooth, seigneur of Moncontour: "ego Gaufridus de
Lizigniaco pro salute anime mee fratrisque mei Hugonis...Hoc factum est
apud Lizigniacum primo die post sepulturam Hugonis fratris mei laudante
et concedente Burgondia matris mea. Anno Domini MCLXVIIII, XVII kal.
april." (I Geoffroy de Lusignan for the benefit of my soul and of my
brother Hugo...transacted at Lusignan on the day following the burial of
my brother Hugo with the approval and concession of my mother Burgundia
[the wife of Hugo VIII]. AD 1169, 16 March).
Farcinet's article as printed in 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' confused the
issue with an odd blunder or misprint, stating that this Hugo had died
on 16 April 1169, but it's quite clear from the above that even in the
worst of misadventures this was not the case, since he had been buried a
month and a day beforehand and he would surely have run out of air &
given up clawing at his coffin lid well within that lapse of time.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Hugh VIIIa de Lusignan
Peter,
Thanks very much for your elucidation re the additional Hugh de Lusignan.
From what you say, it would seem that Hugh VIII -> Hugh -> Hugh is the only
possible solution.
regards,
Adrian
Peter Stewart wrote:
Thanks very much for your elucidation re the additional Hugh de Lusignan.
From what you say, it would seem that Hugh VIII -> Hugh -> Hugh is the only
possible solution.
regards,
Adrian
Peter Stewart wrote:
He was entombed on 15 March 1169, so both dates must be wrong for his
actual death unless he was a victim of the ghastly burying alive that
was feared by morbid Victorians.
As to the existence of this Hugo de Lusignan between 'VIII' and 'IX',
I'm not sure that other plausible solutions can be advanced as Adrian
said had been remarked here before.
The usually accpeted interpretation of the evidence was given by Charles
Farcinet, not by Sidney Painter.
This is based on several charters, mainly from 'Cartulaire de l'abbaye
des Chatelliers' edited by L Duval (Niort, 1872) and one from
'Cartulaire de l'Absie', Archives historiques de Poitou 25. I haven't
seen any of these documents, and the following is summarised from
Farcinet's 'Hugues IX de Lusignan et les comtes de la Marche', extract
from 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' (Vannes, 1896):
In 1171 Hugo VIII made gifts to Chatelliers abbey while confirming
earlier gifts of his father Hugo (VII) and his mother Saracena; in 1218
another Hugo (IX), on the point of departing for Jerusalem, confirmed
the gifts that his grandfather (avi mei) had made (i.e. Hugo VIII in
1171); and in 1248 another Hugo (X) reconfirmed these gifts of his
great-grandfather ("Hugonis de Lezigniaco proavi mei") and his father
("Hugonis Bruni...patris mei").
The charter of Absie was given by the intervening Hugo's younger brother
Geoffroy I known as Big-tooth, seigneur of Moncontour: "ego Gaufridus de
Lizigniaco pro salute anime mee fratrisque mei Hugonis...Hoc factum est
apud Lizigniacum primo die post sepulturam Hugonis fratris mei laudante
et concedente Burgondia matris mea. Anno Domini MCLXVIIII, XVII kal.
april." (I Geoffroy de Lusignan for the benefit of my soul and of my
brother Hugo...transacted at Lusignan on the day following the burial of
my brother Hugo with the approval and concession of my mother Burgundia
[the wife of Hugo VIII]. AD 1169, 16 March).
Farcinet's article as printed in 'Revue du Bas-Poitou' confused the
issue with an odd blunder or misprint, stating that this Hugo had died
on 16 April 1169, but it's quite clear from the above that even in the
worst of misadventures this was not the case, since he had been buried a
month and a day beforehand and he would surely have run out of air &
given up clawing at his coffin lid well within that lapse of time.