Paternity of Judith, wife of Earl Waltheof (was re: Adelaide...)
//www.gstatic.com/images/branding/product/1x/groups_32dp.png
In article <KmW8a.190132$K71....@news1.central.cox.net>,

"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> quoted an earlier message from Peter

Stewart:

>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:11:23 +1000

>From: "Stewart, Peter" <Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au>

>To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com

>Subject: RE: Guy I de Ponthieu

>

>By the way, a later edition of the *Carmen de Hastingae Proelio* by Frank

>Barlow (Oxford, 1999) ... reverts to the earlier general opinion that Judith,

>the wife of Earl Waltheof, was her daughter by a second marriage to Lambert

>of Lens rather than a posthumous daughter of her first husband Enguerrand of

>Ponthieu, as argued by Morton & Muntz [p 127, note 2]...

Just to follow this up, I looked at Barlow. This is briefly covered at

p. xlv of his introduction, note 128 (and in the chart opposite, on p.

xliv). He notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert

count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly

identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as

Lambert's daughter. While admittedly not quite contemporary, this

account certainly drew on a fund of familial knowledge of Earl Waltheof

and his family, and should not be rejected out of hand if there does not

seem to have been any reason to funge the parentage of Judith, or if

there are no aspersions cast on the Vita's general veracity.

The apparent chronological difficulty with Lambert is that Adelaide's

first husband, Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu, died 25 October 1053,

while Lambert of Lens died in the following summer of 1054. I can't

remember in detail, but wasn't this tight chronology the basis for

Morton & Muntz's doubt that Adelaide could have married Lambert and had

Judith by him in this period? I don't remember if Morton & Muntz even

discussed the _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_. The remaining problem

that Morton & Muntz dwell on is that there doesn't seem to be any

independent confirmation that Adelaide ever was actually married to

Lambert, and Barlow still begins his note with "Adelaide... *may* have

married ... Lambert."

Barlow illuminates us on one apparent solution to the tight chronology:

Adelaide's and Enguerrand's marriage had been condemned in October 1049

at the Council of Rheims, so she could have been married to Lambert

before Enguerrand's death (i.e. anytime from the end of 1049 onward),

which gives a larger window of opportunity. Barlow also seems to be

suggesting that Adelaide and Lambert need not have been *married* for

her to have had a child by Lambert. If her marriage to Enguerrand had

been dissolved in such a high-profile council, there would have been

less stigma attached to this than one would otherwise expect:

fornication was little commented on, while adultery would be beyond the

pale (though in 11th-century aristocratic France, we see it all).

Either way, Lambert's paternity seems perfectly plausible.

BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as

the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid

narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti

Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the

Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd

like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow

for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.

And finally, if someone has Morton & Muntz's _Carmen_ handy and I have

misrepresented their arguments against Lambert's paternity, by all means

speak up.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

Twaddle.

Richardson proves yet again that his knowledge of English Mediaeval History is

non-existent.

Matilda, daughter of King Henry I of England, *was* her father's heiress.

Henry had 22-24 bastards and a legitimate son, William The Aetheling, who was

drowned in the Wreck of the White Ship on 25 November 1125 ---- ten years

before Henry's death.

So, Henry I had no surviving legitimate son to succeed to the throne.

Matilda, his legitimate daughter, had married Henry V, The Holy Roman Emperor

and was styled as The Empress Matilda in English, as she preferred. Her

husband, Henry V died in 1125 of cancer. The couple had no issue.

Matilda returned to England after the death of her husband and Henry I began

to groom her for succession to the throne. She was widowed and childless as

well as pretty well Germanised [read arrogant and pretentious, in English

eyes], having first gone to the Continent when she was eight years old and

having married Henry V when she was 11.

The British nobles and bishops did not particularly cotton to this

Jennie-foreigner as their future queen ---- but Henry I did his best to secure

their oaths of support that they would loyally defend her claims if she

outlived her father and he left no legitimate son.

Matilda married Geoffrey 'le Bel' comte d'Anjou, Touraine et Maine in 1127.

Now she was Brunhilde with a frog husband in the minds of many of the stalwart

British nobles and bishops.

Henry I died in 1135 without fathering a legitimate son. His death led to a

disputed succession just as had the deaths of the two previous Norman kings of

England, William I 'The Conqueror' and William II 'Rufus'.

When Henry I died on 1 Dec 1135, of a surfeit of lampreys as some say, Matilda

was out of pocket on the Continent.

Stephen, a grandson of William The Conqueror, quickly seized the initiative

and crossed to England to seize the crown where he was accepted as King by the

worthies of London, whose trading connections with Stephen's lands in Boulogne

helped to win them to his side.

Stephen pressed on to Winchester, where his brother, Bishop Henry of

Winchester, persuaded an initially reluctant Archbishop of Canterbury to crown

Stephen as King, the custodian of the treasure to hand over the keys, and the

magnates who were present to accept him as monarch.

Some of the nobles and clerics seem to have abandoned Matilda because they

construed their oath to Henry I to have held only if Henry did not give his

daughter Matilda in marriage to anyone outside the Kingdom without consulting

them.

A Great Civil War ensued when Matilda tried to fight back and reclaim the

throne in 1139. This Civil War lasted until 1153 when Stephen finally agreed

to allow Matilda's son Henry to succeed him on the throne as Henry II

'Curtmantle'. Yes, the one who was married to Eleanor of Aquitaine,

Richardson. Henry II also inherited his father Geoffrey's lands and titles.

Geoffrey was quite a dashing figure, the Antonio Banderas of his day.

So, once again, we see that Richardson is simply grossly ignorant of the

historical and biographical facts and is no more fit to write this book that

he is attempting, PA3, than would be an eager pimply-faced, ignorant, naïve

adolescent boy ---- presented with the excellent Faris manuscript for PA2.

Most Amusing....

Richardson does not know even the most BASIC facts about the period ---- and

consistently falls into error and pratfall:

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

FURTHER, Richardson makes three ADDITIONAL outrageous gaffes:

1. Matilda DID inherit some of Henry I's lands. Richardson demonstrates he

does NOT even know what they were.

2. Stephen never had firm control as Duke of Normandy. He completely lost

control in 1144 when Geoffrey captured Rouen.

3. Richardson has ignorantly misread the passage I quoted from Morton &

Muntz.

KAWHOMP!!!

KERSPLAT!!!

Deus Vult.

"I pass with relief from the tossing sea of Cause and Theory to the firm

ground of Result and Fact."

Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill [1874-1965] ---- The Malakand Field

Force [1898]

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the

author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an

attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly

given, in writing.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

Fortuna et Gloria

"Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message

news:5cf47a19.03030...@posting.google.com...

| "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote in message

news:<m45aa.804$l5.1...@eagle.america.net>...

| > Catherine Morton & Hope Muntz find the _Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis_ to

| > be "late and untrustworthy".

| >

| > They hold that both Adelaide and Judith are daughters of Enguerrand II,

| > who died in 1053, and Adelaide of Normandy.

| >

| > They present stronger arguments than Nat Taylor gives them credit for,

| > infra.

| >

| > Vide Morton & Muntz p. 127, note 2.

| >

| > One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,

| > Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an

| > heiress normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property,

| > (as Adelaide the younger [child ---- DSH] did, if not the whole

| > (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu and Matilda of Boulogne did)."

| >

|

| > But if Judith was "illegitimate"...

| >

| > All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you.

| >

| > D. Spencer Hines

|

| It appears Morton and Muntz never heard of King Henry I's daughter,

| Empress Maud, who was deprived of both England and Normandy by her

| male cousin, King Stephen. Morton and Muntz withstanding, [sic ---- DSH]



In article <m45aa.804$l5.1...@eagle.america.net>,

"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spenc...@usa.yale.edu> wrote:

>"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message

>news:ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...

>

>| Just to follow this up, I looked at Barlow. This is briefly covered at

>| p. xlv of his introduction, note 128 (and in the chart opposite, on p.

>| xliv). He notes that Adelaide "may have married, secondly, Lambert

>| count of Lens," but then goes on to point out that Judith "is expressly

>| identified" in the 12th-century _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_ as

>| Lambert's daughter. While admittedly not quite contemporary, this

>| account certainly drew on a fund of familial knowledge of Earl Waltheof

>| and his family, and should not be rejected out of hand if there does not

>| seem to have been any reason to funge the parentage of Judith, or if there

>| are no aspersions cast on the Vita's general veracity.

>| ... I don't remember if Morton & Muntz even

>| discussed the _Vita et passio Waldevi comitis_. ...

>| ... [i]f someone has Morton & Muntz's _Carmen_ handy and I have

>| misrepresented their arguments against Lambert's paternity, by all means

>| speak up.

>Catherine Morton & Hope Muntz find the _Vita et Passio Waldevi Comitis_ to be

>"late and untrustworthy". ... They present stronger arguments than Nat

>Taylor gives them credit for.

This on-topic and useful contribution (!) corrects my recollection of

Morton and Muntz; and I will pull Morton & Muntz off the shelf this week

to look it over again. Since they do discuss the _Vita_ and claim it to

be untrustworthy, it is disappointing that Barlow simply cites the text,

without any defense of it or refutation of Morton & Muntz: this is the

lazy historian indulging in bad genealogy.

> One point they make is that "Lambert's lands passed to his older brother,

> Eustace II of Boulogne, and none were assigned to Judith, although an heiress

> normally inherited at least a portion of her father's property, (as Adelaide

> the younger did, if not the whole (as Agnes/Anna of Ponthieu and Matilda of

> Boulogne did)."

I am not sure how strongly to weigh this point. If the 'assignment' is

made prescriptively (in some sort of testament, for example), then that

makes it considerably less likely that Judith is Lambert's legitimate

daughter. If this statement of M&M is based only on the known

reabsorbtion of the Lens appanage by Eustace II, and not by some

prescriptive assignment, then it is certainly possible that we are

dealing with an uncle usurping his niece's rights.

The bottom line is that the question appears still unresolved. Barlow

neglected to defend the text he offers as evidence but which had

previously been impugned; nor does he respond to this negative argument

about the descent of property. I would like to know more about the

_Vita Waldevi_ and about the documentation of Eustace II being successor

to his brother (and about that Melrose pedigree, though I doubt it has

independent probative value here). I am inclined to applaud Dave

Greene's caution in only following maternal ancestry for Judith when

presenting the most proximal royal descent for her in the TG piece.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:

> BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as

> the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid

> narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti

> Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the

> Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd

> like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow

> for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.

PLM: Thank you for this information from Barlow, Nat; although you did

neglect to discuss his opinion of Adelaide's mother:-) I find it

fascinating, yet perplexing that the Church would condemn this marriage at

the Council of Rheims c. 1049; so I will be anxious to learn what

justification the church had in interfering in this marriage.

This is about the time that the church interjected itself between King Swein

Estridsson and his first spouse Gunnhild Sweinsdotter, presumably on the

basis of consanguinity, but I see no problem of consanguinity between

Ponthieu and the Dukes of Normandy, as we can safely rule out Adelaide's

maternal ancestry from the equation. If someone more knowledgeable can

illustrate a consanguineous relationship between the Dukes of Normandy, and

the Counts of Ponthieu, I would appreciate the clarification.

I think you are judging Barlow to harshly, when you compare his effort to

other genealogical works. I have never seen a copy of CP, but I do have the

entry for AUMALE from the condensed edition; so lets see what a genealogist

has to say about the matter at hand, shall we:-)

"1. Adelaide (a) or Adeliz, sister of William the Conqueror,(b) being

illegit. da. of Robert, Duke of the Normans, by Herleve or Harlotte, da. of

Fulbert or Robert, a pelliparius of Falaise, is mentioned in Domesday as

Comitissa de Albamarla, and as holding some manors in Essex and Suffolk. In

1082, William, King of the English, and Maud, his wife, gave to the Abbey of

La Trinité at Caen the bourg of Le Homme (de Hulmo) in the Côtentin, "sed et

Comitissa A. de Albamarla concedente eo videlicet pacto ut ipsa teneret in

vita sua."(c) Adelaide m., 1stly, Enguerrand II, Count of Ponthieu, who d.

s.p.m., being slain in 1053.(d)

(a) For some discussion on mediæval English names, see vol. iii, Appendix C.

V.G.

(b) The pedigree of the earlier possessors of Aumale has been investigated

by T. Stapleton in _Archaeologia_, vol. xxvi, pp. 349-360. There he supposed

he had proved that Orderic was wrong in stating that the wife of Count Eudes

of Champagne was da. Of Duke Robert, and, that she was really the Duke's

grand-daughter. Later on, he discovered his own error. His amended

conclusions are in _Coll. Top. et Gen._, vol. Vi, p. 265, and, at greater

length, in _Rot. Scacc. Norm._, vol. ii, pp. xxix-xxxi. He had, however, in

the mean time misled Poulson (_Holderness_, vol. i, p. 24 sqq.).

(c) _Gallia Christ._, vol. xi, instr., c. 68-72. Stapleton always misdates

this charter.

(d) A charter of the Church of St. Martin, at Auchy (now Aumale), narrates

its foundation "a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum

quod Albamarla nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod

Augus dicitur," this charter being drawn up "jussu Enguerrani consulis qui

filius fuit Berte supradicti Guerinfridi filie et Adelidis comitisse uxoris

sue sororis scilicet Willelmi Regis Anglorum," and mentioning "Addelidis

comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis filia que post obitum

illorum in imperio successit," and also "Judita comitissa domine supradicte

filia." (Archaeologia, ibid., pp. 358-360). As to Judith, in the _Vita et

passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie_ (an MS.

of the 13th century in the Douai library), printed by F. Michel, _Chron.

Anglo-Normandes_, vol. ii. It is stated, p. 112, that King William gave to

Waltheof "in uxorem neptem suam Ivettam, filliam comitis Lamberti de Lens,

sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia." EQ

The passeo is the sole reference CP uses to assert that Judith is the

daughter of Lambert of Lens. I would be very interested in reading Thomas

Stapleton's (1805-1849) article in Archaeologia, but I have had no luck

searching the web sources. Perhaps someone with CP can provide a fuller

citation?

I have located the _Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ_

opera T. Stapleton, published London 1840, 1844, but it will do little good

without the fuller Archaeologia piece.

Best Wishes,

Phil

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message

news:ntaylor-0ED69F...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...



In article <sMSaa.17583$WA....@news1.central.cox.net>,

"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> wrote:

>"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:

>

>> BTW, I know from other contexts that the council of Rheims is famous as

>> the premiere stage of the papal reforms of Leo IX, and there is a vivid

>> narrative account in the _Historia dedicationis ecclesiae Sancti

>> Remigii_ (PL 142:1417-40), retold by Southern in _The Making of the

>> Middle Ages_ (pp. 125-127): a passage I like to have students read. I'd

>> like to check this narrative as well as Mansi & Bouquet (cited by Barlow

>> for the council) to see what detail exists on the specific condemnation.

>

>PLM: Thank you for this information from Barlow, Nat; although you did

>neglect to discuss his opinion of Adelaide's mother:-) I find it

>fascinating, yet perplexing that the Church would condemn this marriage at

>the Council of Rheims c. 1049; so I will be anxious to learn what

>justification the church had in interfering in this marriage.

>

>This is about the time that the church interjected itself between King Swein

>Estridsson and his first spouse Gunnhild Sweinsdotter, presumably on the

>basis of consanguinity, but I see no problem of consanguinity between

>Ponthieu and the Dukes of Normandy, as we can safely rule out Adelaide's

>maternal ancestry from the equation. If someone more knowledgeable can

>illustrate a consanguineous relationship between the Dukes of Normandy, and

>the Counts of Ponthieu, I would appreciate the clarification.

The conflict was apparently over a prior affinity, not consanguinity:

Barlow states that it was because Enguerrand's sister (whose name is not

known) was married to Adelaide's uncle, William of Talou. This affinity

would apparently be sufficient to preclude a marriage, though I've

always found the rules of affinity confusing, as we don't think that

way, in a society where we assume some sort of genetic, not spiritual,

basis for incest prohibitions.

>I think you are judging Barlow to harshly, when you compare his effort to

>other genealogical works.

Well, in this specific instance, Barlow published a text edition to

supersede a previous edition and study of the same text. In this

particular detail he contradicted the previous edition, and the onus lay

on him to explain himself--his explanations do not counter the

discussion in Morton & Muntz. He apparently didn't think the Judith

question worth going over carefully, which is an unfortunate lapse from

a genealogical point of view.

>I have never seen a copy of CP, but I do have the

>entry for AUMALE from the condensed edition; so lets see what a genealogist

>has to say about the matter at hand, shall we:-)

I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?

If you mean the microprint reprint of the 2d ed., this does not differ

from the folio edition at all in the text. Or are you referring to the

first, rather than the second, edition?

<snip>

>The passeo is the sole reference CP uses to assert that Judith is the

>daughter of Lambert of Lens. I would be very interested in reading Thomas

>Stapleton's (1805-1849) article in Archaeologia, but I have had no luck

>searching the web sources. Perhaps someone with CP can provide a fuller

>citation?

This is doubtless the journal _Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous tracts

relating to antiquity_, published by the Society of Antiquaries (London)

since 1770. I don't know what year vol. 26 would be.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

Phil Moody wrote:

> (d) A charter of the Church of St. Martin, at Auchy (now Aumale), narrates

> its foundation "a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum

> quod Albamarla nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod

> Augus dicitur," this charter being drawn up "jussu Enguerrani consulis qui

> filius fuit Berte supradicti Guerinfridi filie et Adelidis comitisse

uxoris

> sue sororis scilicet Willelmi Regis Anglorum," and mentioning "Addelidis

> comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis filia que post

obitum

> illorum in imperio successit," and also "Judita comitissa domine

supradicte

> filia." (Archaeologia, ibid., pp. 358-360). As to Judith, in the _Vita et

> passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie_ (an

MS.

> of the 13th century in the Douai library), printed by F. Michel, _Chron.

> Anglo-Normandes_, vol. ii. It is stated, p. 112, that King William gave to

> Waltheof "in uxorem neptem suam Ivettam, filliam comitis Lamberti de Lens,

> sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia." EQ

There is a bit more on the following page (p. 352), note d:

"It is here assumed that it was the sister of the Conqueror, and not her da.

of the same name, who is mentioned in Domesday. Stapleton says of the former

that "she did not long survive her br., King William", but there is nothing

definite

known beyond that she was living in 1082 and dead in 1090. There seems to be

no charter in which the younger Adelaide is called Countess. The charter of

her

half-brother, Stephen, dated 14 July 1096, is "consensu simul et

corroboratione

sororis mee Adelidis," showing that she had some rights on Aumale. It is not

very clear

what they were, though she is said in the charter quoted above to have

succeeded

"in imperio." Nothing further seems to be known about her, but Count Stephen

had eventually the whole inheritance."

From what's said there, it does seem to be the younger Adelaide who had

inherited rights of some sort to Aumale, not Judith. It seems odd to

question - as apparently Morton and Muntz did - whether Judith was Lambert's

daughter on the basis that she inherited nothing from him, and to suggest

that she was Enguerrand's daughter instead - in which case the same

difficulty would apply.

I was surprised to find an online paper (in French) by Elisabeth van Houts

which includes an extended discussion of the succession to the county of

Aumale about this time, in which she suggests - on the basis of the St

martin of Auchy charters - that the younger Adelaide not only claimed the

county as her father's heir, but may actually have made her claim good

during her half-brother Stephen's absence on the first crusade:

http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/crahm/revue/tabularia/vanhoutst2.html#pgfId-70013

6

(Incidentally, this is on the website of "Tabularia", an online journal

focusing on medieval written sources of Normandy. It looks as though there

may be a lot more useful information there, but I haven't cracked the

navigation system yet.)

Van Houts points out that the younger Adelaide is called countess in the

charter quoted by CP - "Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et

supradicte Adelidis filia, que post obitum illorum in inperio successit"

(despite the odd statement by CP, quoted above, that there is no charter in

which she is called countess).

All this does seem to suggest that Judith was not Enguerrand's daughter,

although van Houts acknowledges that the only evidence for the identity of

the elder Adelaide's second husband is the Vita Waldevi.

Incidentally, van Houts also believes that the elder Adelaide was a paternal

half-sister of William I, quoting the evidence that's already been discussed

here, but oddly interpreting Robert de Torigny's description of her as his

"uterine sister" to mean "paternal half-sister" - "Elle a été identifiée

comme sour utérine ( soror uterina ) - dans le sens de demi-sour

paternelle - par Robert de Torigni ( GND , II, p. 272). "

(She backs this up, if I've understood correctly, by reference to a use of

the same phrase by the same author to describe William of Eu - "Cf. aussi

Robert de Torigni sur Guillaume d'Eu, frère utérin de Richard II par leur

père, Richard I ( GND , II, p. 128)." But I'm confused by that - am I wrong

in thinking that William was a full brother of Richard II?)

Chris Phillips

"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:

> The conflict was apparently over a prior affinity, not consanguinity:

> Barlow states that it was because Enguerrand's sister (whose name is not

> known) was married to Adelaide's uncle, William of Talou. This affinity

> would apparently be sufficient to preclude a marriage, though I've

> always found the rules of affinity confusing, as we don't think that

> way, in a society where we assume some sort of genetic, not spiritual,

> basis for incest prohibitions.

PLM: I was unaware of this "affinity" loophole devised by the Church. Would

this condemnation for affinity have the same force as an annulment, and

would Enguerrand and Adelaide be obliged to seperate? What effect would this

have on the legitamacy of their daughter Adelaide? I feel certain that all

parties knew this affinity was present prior to the marriage; so why would a

priest complete a marriage ceremony, that he knew was not going to be

sanctioned by the church.

It is curious you mention William of Talou, because until two days ago, I

did not know William I and Adelaide had an Uncle named William:-) In C. T.

Clay's _The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families_, while refreshing my

reading of Aumale, I came across the entry for Arques. Knowing Enguerrand

died at the battle of Arques, I read the entry and was instructed not to

confuse the English Arques family with that of William, Count of Arques, the

Uncle of William the Conqueror. This left me perplexed, but it seems you

have solved that problem for me. So, did the Uncle of William the Conqueror

also die at the battle of Arques, along with his brother-in-law Enguerrand?

Aumale was on the northern boundary of Normandy, and Mr. Clay asserts that

part of the Comte lay outside the territory of Normandy, and therefore it

may not have been a comte of Normandy, strictly speaking. Ponthieu being the

territory on the north, Hugh II's marriage to Bertha de Aumale gave Ponthieu

a legitimate claim to territory within Normandy itself, and this potential

threat to Normandy appears to have been nullified with mariage alliances.

Note (d) has this quote, which I sent yesterday; which I'm curious about:

"a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum quod Albamarla

nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod Augus dicitur,"

i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that part

of Aumale was in Norman territory?

ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference to

Arques?

> Well, in this specific instance, Barlow published a text edition to

> supersede a previous edition and study of the same text. In this

> particular detail he contradicted the previous edition, and the onus lay

> on him to explain himself--his explanations do not counter the

> discussion in Morton & Muntz. He apparently didn't think the Judith

> question worth going over carefully, which is an unfortunate lapse from

> a genealogical point of view.

PLM: From that perspective, your comment was fair enough:-)

> I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?

> If you mean the microprint reprint of the 2d ed., this does not differ

> from the folio edition at all in the text. Or are you referring to the

> first, rather than the second, edition?

PLM: The mate who sent it to me from London did not include the title page;

so I had to e-mail him and request these particulars, that my pedantic

nature demanded. Two pages are on one, and I had to have them enlarged on a

photocopier; so I could read them witthout becoming totally blind:-) I was

pressed for time when writting the last e-mail; so I put of digging of the

full citation for the edition of CP, but will include it now (I had actually

typed the entire Aumale entry prior to wirk, and just as I was closing my

Outlook Express locked up, and I lost the entire post; so I spent my free

time at work doing it again)

"The Complete Peerage of England Scotland Ireland Great Britain and the

United Kingdom Extant Extinct or Dormant, by G. E C.

This Microprint (R) edition first published in 1982 by

Alan Sutton Publishing Limited, Gloucester

Reprinted in 2000 by

Sutton Publishing Limited - Phoenix Mill

Thrupp - Stroud - Gloucestershire - GL5 2BU

(C) Pitman Periodicals Limited

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0-904387-82-8"

> This is doubtless the journal _Archaeologia, or, Miscellaneous tracts

> relating to antiquity_, published by the Society of Antiquaries (London)

> since 1770. I don't know what year vol. 26 would be.

PLM: I suspected as much, but I could not discern which would contain volume

26 either. I use Oxford's OLIS search engine for English authors. When I

actually created a Word.doc of all 61 entries for "The Society of

antiquaries of London", because many looked quite fascinating, and valuable

resources.

C. T. Clay actually cites Stapleton in the previously mention reference, and

it to is in Archaeologia:

"Stapleton, T., _Observations upon the succession to the barony of William

of Arques_ (Archaeologia, xxxi, 1846)"

Here we have volume 31 published in 1846; so when do you suppose volume 26

was published? Does Van Houts give anymore detail in her reference to

Stapleton's work?

Best Wishes,

Phil

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message

news:ntaylor-B54AAE...@nnrp06.earthlink.net...



In article <Fecba.47550$WA.2...@news1.central.cox.net>,

"Phil Moody" <moody...@cox.net> wrote:



Affinity is not a loophole; it is merely the other way of calculating

close 'kinship', which to us is entirely distinct from blood kinship,

but in the Middle Ages was seen as just as close and non-transgressible.

The question 'why did they do it if they knew it was going to jeopardize

the marriage' is a general one about medieval marriages within

prohibited degrees, and it can never be answered definitively. I this

case, we are dealing with a time (1049) in which church authorities

(indeed the papacy itself, in the person of Leo IX) were just beginning

to launch an unprecedented campaign of enforcement of various

traditional rules among both the clergy and laity. Some people may have

been caught genuinely unawares at this time (cf. the famous case of the

archbishop of Narbonne at this time, who was busted at the same time

because his parents had bought the office of archbishop for him at age

10). Others, certainly in later generations, left open the possibility

of using a precondition to attempt to dissolve the union. We've

discussed this before.

>So, did the Uncle of William the Conqueror also die at the battle of

>Arques, along with his brother-in-law Enguerrand?

Barlow and ES don't assign death date for him.

>Note (d) has this quote, which I sent yesterday; which I'm curious about:

>

>"a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum quod Albamarla

>nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod Augus dicitur,"

>

>i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that part

>of Aumale was in Norman territory?

I think so. Literally, 'in parts (in a place) external to Normandy

(externis partibus ablative, Normanni[a]e dative).

>ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference to

>Arques?

Well, it says it's what the river that Albemarle (Aumale) is on is

called. I don't know about the geographic names in use then in that

neighborhood. Aumale lies on what's now called the Bresle. The Arques,

in my atlas, is distinct: a little river flowing out through Dieppe, a

ways down the coast. But some Normanist can tell you more about the

places than I can.

>> I don't understand this. What do you mean by the 'condensed edition'?

>

>This Microprint (R) edition first published in 1982...

Yes, this is the full (2d) edition, in the 6-volume microprint format

(still on my wish list). There is no 'extended' discussion of this in

any other version.

Nat Taylor

http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/

"Chris Phillips" wrote:

> There is a bit more on the following page (p. 352), note d:

PLM: Of course, but I was primarily concerned with the references used at

the time, and not the additional conjecture:-)

> "It is here assumed that it was the sister of the Conqueror, and not her

da. of the same name, who is mentioned in Domesday. Stapleton says of the

former that "she did not long survive her br., King William", but there is

nothing definite known beyond that she was living in 1082 and dead in 1090.

There seems to be no charter in which the younger Adelaide is called

Countess. The charter of her half-brother, Stephen, dated 14 July 1096, is

"consensu simul et corroboratione sororis mee Adelidis," showing that she

had some rights on Aumale. It is not very clear what they were, though she

is said in the charter quoted above to have succeeded "in imperio." Nothing

further seems to be known about her, but Count Stephen

> had eventually the whole inheritance."

PLM: Well, I believe it is firmly established that the contributor of the

Aumale is in error when he asserts that Adelaide the younger is never called

Comtissa in anf charter, since the "Foundation Charter" of St. Martin

contradicts that statement. So, what of this assumption the the Countess of

Albamarla was William's sister; instead of his niece? How long can one

reasonably assert that the mother held Aumale, before surrendering to her

daughter, her patrimony. Surely the younger Adelaide was of legal age at the

time of Domesday; Wouldn't the daughters claim to Aumale supercede her

mother's, who only held by right of her former Husband?

> From what's said there, it does seem to be the younger Adelaide who had

> inherited rights of some sort to Aumale, not Judith. It seems odd to

> question - as apparently Morton and Muntz did - whether Judith was

Lambert's

> daughter on the basis that she inherited nothing from him, and to suggest

> that she was Enguerrand's daughter instead - in which case the same

> difficulty would apply.

PLM: I see no chronological difficulty with Judith being Lambert's daughter

either. It should also be noted that Judith did not need to push her claim

to Lens after her marriage to Waltheof; and she did not Lackland even after

his death. Does anyone one know where Lambert's lands were, and who did

acquire them?

> I was surprised to find an online paper (in French) by Elisabeth van Houts

> which includes an extended discussion of the succession to the county of

> Aumale about this time, in which she suggests - on the basis of the St

> martin of Auchy charters - that the younger Adelaide not only claimed the

> county as her father's heir, but may actually have made her claim good

> during her half-brother Stephen's absence on the first crusade:

>

http://www.unicaen.fr/mrsh/crahm/revue/tabularia/vanhoutst2.html#pgfId-70013

> 6

PLM: This sounds fascinating, but my translation software is not good enough

for an accurate translation. Is there any reference there to an English copy

of this essay by Ms. Van Houts in print?

> Incidentally, van Houts also believes that the elder Adelaide was a

paternal

> half-sister of William I, quoting the evidence that's already been

discussed

> here, but oddly interpreting Robert de Torigny's description of her as his

> "uterine sister" to mean "paternal half-sister" - "Elle a été identifiée

> comme sour utérine ( soror uterina ) - dans le sens de demi-sour

> paternelle - par Robert de Torigni ( GND , II, p. 272). "

PLM: I believe she is being to literal in her interpretaton. When it is

understood, or common knowledge that a brother and sister have the same

father, the addition of them being uterine siblings merely illustrates the

fact that they shared the same parents. It has been suggested that Barlow

believes they were full brother and sister, but I have yet to hear how he

adduces this conclusion. CP supports this as well citing Stapleton, but not

merely his flawed Archaeologia piece, but also his amended conclusion in

Rot. Scacc. Norm., previously cited.

Since you and Nat are fluent in French, perhaps this will be of use.

Stapleton's Rot. Scacc. Norm. is also available in French, and it would be

interesting to see if they add anything substantial to Stapleton's work, or

it is altogether different.

Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ [ed. Léchaudé D' Anisy]

(Paris 1846). (This is part of vol. xv of the _mémoires_ of the Soc. Antiq.

Norm.)

Magni rotuli scaccarii Normannie sub regibus Angliæ; pars secunda, ed.

Léchaudé D' Anisy and A. Charma (Caen 1852). (This is part of vol. xvi of

the _mémoires_ of the Soc. Antiq. Norm.)

Both French editions post date Stapleton's 1840, 1844 publications; which is

why I suspect they are following his work, but they may have a different

perspective on the St. Martin records found in vol. ii/pars secunda?

Best Wishes,

Phil

"Chris Phillips" <c...@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message

news:b4hst0$jou$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...



"Nathaniel Taylor" wrote:

> Affinity is not a loophole; it is merely the other way of calculating

> close 'kinship', which to us is entirely distinct from blood kinship,

> but in the Middle Ages was seen as just as close and non-transgressible.

> The question 'why did they do it if they knew it was going to jeopardize

> the marriage' is a general one about medieval marriages within

> prohibited degrees, and it can never be answered definitively. I this

> case, we are dealing with a time (1049) in which church authorities

> (indeed the papacy itself, in the person of Leo IX) were just beginning

> to launch an unprecedented campaign of enforcement of various

> traditional rules among both the clergy and laity. Some people may have

> been caught genuinely unawares at this time (cf. the famous case of the

> archbishop of Narbonne at this time, who was busted at the same time

> because his parents had bought the office of archbishop for him at age

> 10). Others, certainly in later generations, left open the possibility

> of using a precondition to attempt to dissolve the union. We've

> discussed this before.

PLM: Thanks for the clarification, Nat. You did leave the question of

legitimacy untouched, but no matter. I see no indication that Adelaide the

younger was seen as being illegitimate; so I will infer that the

condemnation of Rheims had no bearing on her legitimacy.

> >i.) When it says "externis partibus Normannie"; is this suggesting that

part

> >of Aumale was in Norman territory?

>

> I think so. Literally, 'in parts (in a place) external to Normandy

> (externis partibus ablative, Normanni[a]e dative).

PLM: Thanks again. It seems the Comté of Aumale was not wholly in one

territory or the other, and that is what I wanted to establish with

certainty. I must be picking up some Latin through osmosis:-)

> >ii.) I note the word "Augus" is capitalized; so could this be a reference

to

> >Arques?

>

> Well, it says it's what the river that Albemarle (Aumale) is on is

> called. I don't know about the geographic names in use then in that

> neighborhood. Aumale lies on what's now called the Bresle. The Arques,

> in my atlas, is distinct: a little river flowing out through Dieppe, a

> ways down the coast. But some Normanist can tell you more about the

> places than I can.

PLM: I suppose Augus could be how CP asserts that Aumale was called Auchy at

one time.

> Yes, this is the full (2d) edition, in the 6-volume microprint format

> (still on my wish list). There is no 'extended' discussion of this in

> any other version.

PLM: A local University does have a first edition of CP, but I have not

bothered to reference it yet. I prefer to have the most accurate information

available. The friend who sent the Aumale entry from his edition, mentioned

that he nearly broke the spine trying to obtain good photo-copies; so I will

not risk damaging his prized possession again:-)

I wonder if there are any "corrections" to the Aumale entry anyone?

Best wishes,

Phil

"Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message

news:ntaylor-54A7F1...@nnrp03.earthlink.net...



"Todd A. Farmerie"

> > PLM: Thanks for this, Todd. So, Lens is in Artois, and this was

originally

> > Boulogne territory?

>

> Not original. Tanner had it probably coming into the clan in the

generation of the grandfather of Lambert and Eustace.

PLM: Thanks for this. After a trawl of the archives, I suppose you are

referring to Heather J. Tanner, The Expansion of the Power and Influence of

the Counts of Boulogne under Eustace II, in Anglo Norman Studies XIV (1992)

pp. 251-86.?

> > Perhaps you can help answer this question, Todd. I am reading in a few

late sources that Eustace I of Boulogne married Godgifu, a daughter of

Athelred II and Emma. Is there any truth to this?

>

> No. It was Eustace II. The marriage took place after the death of her

first husband, Drogo in 1035. It is uncertain if she was the same wife as

Eustace had in 1049. In that year, Pope Leo IX excommunicated Counts

Eustace and Engelrand for incest ("Excommunicavit etiam Comites Angelrai et

Eustacium proptrer incestum"), and these are usually taken to be Eustace II

of Boulogne and Engelrand II of Ponthieu. Now, curiously, if this was

Godgifu, then the wives of both would be descended from Richard I of

Normandy (Godgifu granddaughter, Adelaide great-granddaughter), and if (and

I know this has just been

> questioned) Engelrand and Eustace are half first cousins through their

paternal grandmother, then perhaps that woman was kin to the Norman house,

to Gunnora, or to Sprota's Ivry descendants.Murray even suggests the

possibility that the divorce that certainly followed may have rendered

illegitimate a possible son of the couple, Geoffrey, the Domesday tennant.

PLM: Mike Ashley had written that it was Eustace II that married Godgifu,

but he also had Eustace dead in 1093, and due to the chronology, I assumed

Ashley had confused Eustace I with his son:-) He adds that Eustace II may of

had a daughter by Godgifu, for what it's worth. However, there may be a

blood relationship between them all.

After trawling the archives, I noted Hines was curious ES had to say about

Hugh I's wife Gisela's descent from Hugh Capet; so I went to Paul Theroff's

site, because I know he relies heavily on ES, and I downloaded his zip file

on the Capetians and printed it out. Big mistake here, as I was not

expecting it to be 144 pages in length! Duke Hugh, father of Hugh Capet has

his own section, but to show his parentage, I will re-number the data

Theroff has supplied. After displaying all the dat, I will the edit the

material to eliminate the nonessential offspring, and flesh this out from my

gleanings of the archived material, with a few comments.

King Robert I of France (866-k.a.nr Soissons 15 Jun 923); m.1st Aelis ___;

m.2d ca 890 Beatrix (d.after Mar 931) dau.of Cte Heribert de Vermandois

1.) [by 1st m.] Hildebrante=Liegarde, d. after 931; m.before 907 Cte

Heribert II de Vermandois

2.).[by 1st m.] Emma, d.935; m.910 Raoul of Burgundy, King of France (d.936)

3.) [by 2d m.] Duke Hugues I of France, Cte de Paris (d.956; see Part 1);

m.1st 922 Judith ___ (d.925); m.2d 926/7 Edhild (d.937) dau.of King Edward I

of England; m.3d 938 Hedwig (d.after 965) dau.of Duke Heinrich I of Saxony.

He had issue by his 3d wife:

3.1.) Hugues Capet, King of France (Winter 941-Les Juifs, nr Chartres 24 Oct

996, bur St.Denis); m.Summer 968 Alice (950-15 Jun 1006) probably dau.of

Duke William of Aquitaine by Adele of Normandy)

3.1.1) .King Robert II (Orléans 27 Mar 972-Melun 20 Jul 1031, bur St.Denis);

m.1st 988 (div 992) Rozela=Susana (d.1003, bur Ghent) dau.of King Berengar

of Italy; m.2d 997 (div 1003/5) Bertha (d.after 1017) dau.of King Conrad III

of Burgundy; m.3d Constance (ca 986-Melun 25 Jul 1032, bur St.Denis) dau. of

William II of Provence

3.1.1.1) Adelaide (ca 1009-Messines 8 Jan 1079); m.1st Jan 1027 Duke Richard

III of Normandy (d.1027); m.2d Paris 1028 Ct Baldwin V of Flanders (d.1067)

3.1.1.2.) (6 other children omitted here -- PLM).

3.1.2.) Hedwig, b.ca 969, d.after 1013; m.ca 996 Ct Reginar IV of Hainaut

(d.1013)

3.1.3.) Gisela, b.ca 970; m.before 987 Hugues de Montreuil, Cte de Ponthieu

(d.ca 1000)

3.1.4.) Adelaide, b.ca 973

3.1.5.) [illegitimate] Gauzlin, Archbp of Bourges, d.1030.

3.2.) Eudes, Duke of Lower Burgundy (ca 944-22/23 Feb 965); m.955 Luitgard,

dau.of Cte Gilbert d'Autun by Ermengarde, heiress of Lower Burgundy

3.3.) Henri, Cte de Nevers, Duke of Lower Burgundy (ca 946-Château

Pouilly-sur-Saone 15 Oct 1002, bur St-Germain-d'Auxerre); m.1st ca 972

Gerberga (d.986/91) dau.of Othon de Macon; m.2d before Jun 992 (div 996)

Gersende, dau.of Duke Guillaume of Gascony; m.3d 998 Matilda, dau.of Cte

Lambert de Chalon

3.4.) Beatrix, d.after 987; m.954/5 Duke Frederick I of Upper Lorraine

(d.978)

3.5.) Emma, b.ca 943, d.after 19 Mar 968; m.Duke Richard I of Normandy

(d.996)

3.6.) [illegitimate]Heribert, Bp of Auxerre, d.964

EDIT

King Robert I of France (866-k.a.nr Soissons 15 Jun 923); m.2d ca 890

Beatrix (d.after Mar 931) dau.of Cte Heribert de Vermandois

1.) Duke Hugues I of France, Cte de Paris (d.956); m.3d 938 Hedwig (d.after

965) dau.of Duke Heinrich I of Saxony. He had issue by his 3d wife:

1.1.) Hugues Capet, King of France (Winter 941-Les Juifs, nr Chartres 24 Oct

996, bur St.Denis); m. Summer 968 Alice (950-15 Jun 1006) probably dau.of

Duke William of Aquitaine by Adele of Normandy) [If Adele of Normandy was

the mother of Hugh's wife, then this would provide a blood relationship

between Normandy and Ponthieu.}

1.2.) Emma, b.ca 943, d.after 19 Mar 968; m.Duke Richard I of Normandy

(d.996) [As we saw in the fuller genealogy by Theroff, Duke Hugh did have a

sister named Emma (Queen of France), and it would be logical that he named

one of his children after his sister. Furthermore, Richard I did have a

daughter named Emma, and this is consistent with the onamastics and the

chronology. Additionally , if this relationship is reasonable, then Richard

II of Normandy and Robert II of France would have been 1st cousins, and this

could very well be why Richard II named a son Robert, the 1st Norman Duke to

bear this name].

1.1.1) King Robert II (Orléans 27 Mar 972-Melun 20 Jul 1031, bur St.Denis);

m.3d Constance (ca 986-Melun 25 Jul 1032, bur St.Denis) dau. of William II

of Provence.

1.1.1.1) Adelaide (ca 1009-Messines 8 Jan 1079); m.1st Jan 1027 Duke Richard

III of Normandy (d.1027); m.2d Paris 1028 Ct Baldwin V of Flanders (d.1067).

1.1.2.) Gisela, b.ca 970; m.before 987 Hugues de Montreuil, Cte de Ponthieu

(d.ca 1000).

1.1.2.1.) Enguerrand I, Ct. of Ponthieu, (b. c.987- d.1046). He may have

married Adelvie (Adelaide) of Guines (The mother of Eustace I of Boulogne d.

1047).

1.1.2.1.1.) Hugh II (c.1013-1052), Ct. of Ponthieu, m. Bertha, dau of

Geurenfroi of Aumale.

1.1.2.1.1.1.) Enguerrand II (c. 1033-1053), Ct. of Ponthieu. He married

Adelaide, the daughter of Robert I of Normandy. She married 2ndly, Lambert

of Lens, and this marriage should have been prohibited if Lambert and

Enguerrand II share a common descent from Adelvie of Guines.

1.1.2.1.1.1.1.) Adelaide, Countess of Aumale, and perhaps Judith.

1.1.2.1.2.) Gui, Bishop of Amiens, ( c. 1014 - 1074/5) and presumably Ct. of

Ponthieu after the death of Enguerrand II in 1053, and believed author of

the ( _The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy Bishop of Amiens_, Frank

Barlow, Oxford, 1999). He may have married Ade d'Amiens. [I am finding

conflicting information on the identity of Guy, some name him son of Hugh

II, and others Enguerrand I. The chronology of Guy, the Bishop of Amiens

supports Enguerrand I being his father; so if Hugh II had a son named Guy,

Count of Ponthieu, then I believe we have two distinct Guy's of Ponthieu (no

pun intended).]

1.1.2.1.3.) ?Beatrix married William of Arques, son of Richard II of

Normandy. [This may be the daughter of Hugh II; instead of sister. I have

placed her here because I am following one of your old posts Todd from 2001

[Message-ID: <3AADEB16...@interfold.com>].

I would chart these lines out, but I'm afraid it would not get through as

written; so I will leave it to your power to visualize these possible common

lines.

Best Wishes,

Phil

----- Original Message -----

From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>

To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:21 AM

Subject: Re: Paternity of Judith, wife of Earl Waltheof (was re:

Adelaide...)