Discussion:
Another Agatha sidelight - the birthdate of Empress Gisela
(too old to reply)
Peter Stewart
2017-05-03 04:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A good photograph of the famous plaque found in Gisela's grave in 1900,
giving her birthdate as 11 November 999, can be seen here:

http://www.pfalz-express.de/speyer-historisches-museum-der-pfalz-bleitafel-aus-grab-von-kaiserin-gisela-entziffert/

The inscription has a total of 14 lines, but only the first three lines
and the beginning of the fourth were clearly engraved. The subsequent
text was simply scratched onto the surface, probably as a guide for the
engraver who didn't finish the work.

A transcription of all 14 lines was published by Hermann Grauert in
1900, and this had been the basis used by others since. In the summer of
2016 a close study was made using a strip-light scanner, confirming most
of the text as given by Grauert.

As is clear from the photo, the birthdate is fairly easy to read but not
carefully engraved ('IDVS' is apparently spelled 'IOVS' with the last
two letters combined). In any case the year can't be correct, as Gisela
must have been born well before 11 November 999 ('ANNO. DOM. INCARN. D.
CCCC. XCVIIII. III. IDVS NOV.')

In 1952 Hans Jürgen Rieckenberg proposed that the correct birthdate is
13 November 990, so that the inscription should have been 'ANNO. DOM.
INCARN. D. CCCC. XC IND. III. IDVS NOV.' (the third indiction was
correct for 990 until 24 or 31 December in Germany, not following
Byzantine practice only to 31 August).

This emendation makes sense, though it can't be considered certain.
Birthdays were marked in the imperial court, so 11 (or 13) November was
probably well-known as Gisela's. However, the year may have been
engraved correctly according to her reputed age - she may simply have
fibbed about this in order to have seemed younger than her third
husband, Konrad II, who was born ca 990. Her tell-tale eldest son
Liudolf of Brunswick, who must have been born within the first few years
of the 11th century, may not have been around her much when he was of an
age to draw attention to the discrepancy.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-03 17:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
A good photograph of the famous plaque found in Gisela's grave in 1900,
http://www.pfalz-express.de/speyer-historisches-museum-der-pfalz-bleitafel-aus-grab-von-kaiserin-gisela-entziffert/
The inscription has a total of 14 lines, but only the first three lines
and the beginning of the fourth were clearly engraved. The subsequent
text was simply scratched onto the surface, probably as a guide for the
engraver who didn't finish the work.
A transcription of all 14 lines was published by Hermann Grauert in
1900, and this had been the basis used by others since. In the summer of
2016 a close study was made using a strip-light scanner, confirming most
of the text as given by Grauert.
As is clear from the photo, the birthdate is fairly easy to read but not
carefully engraved ('IDVS' is apparently spelled 'IOVS' with the last
two letters combined). In any case the year can't be correct, as Gisela
must have been born well before 11 November 999 ('ANNO. DOM. INCARN. D.
CCCC. XCVIIII. III. IDVS NOV.')
In 1952 Hans Jürgen Rieckenberg proposed that the correct birthdate is
13 November 990, so that the inscription should have been 'ANNO. DOM.
INCARN. D. CCCC. XC IND. III. IDVS NOV.' (the third indiction was
correct for 990 until 24 or 31 December in Germany, not following
Byzantine practice only to 31 August).
This emendation makes sense, though it can't be considered certain.
Birthdays were marked in the imperial court, so 11 (or 13) November was
probably well-known as Gisela's. However, the year may have been
engraved correctly according to her reputed age - she may simply have
fibbed about this in order to have seemed younger than her third
husband, Konrad II, who was born ca 990. Her tell-tale eldest son
Liudolf of Brunswick, who must have been born within the first few years
of the 11th century, may not have been around her much when he was of an
age to draw attention to the discrepancy.
Peter Stewart
It seems more likely that the plaque was just bad done since it seems it was made fast.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-03 22:47:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
A good photograph of the famous plaque found in Gisela's grave in 1900,
http://www.pfalz-express.de/speyer-historisches-museum-der-pfalz-bleitafel-aus-grab-von-kaiserin-gisela-entziffert/
The inscription has a total of 14 lines, but only the first three lines
and the beginning of the fourth were clearly engraved. The subsequent
text was simply scratched onto the surface, probably as a guide for the
engraver who didn't finish the work.
A transcription of all 14 lines was published by Hermann Grauert in
1900, and this had been the basis used by others since. In the summer of
2016 a close study was made using a strip-light scanner, confirming most
of the text as given by Grauert.
As is clear from the photo, the birthdate is fairly easy to read but not
carefully engraved ('IDVS' is apparently spelled 'IOVS' with the last
two letters combined). In any case the year can't be correct, as Gisela
must have been born well before 11 November 999 ('ANNO. DOM. INCARN. D.
CCCC. XCVIIII. III. IDVS NOV.')
In 1952 Hans Jürgen Rieckenberg proposed that the correct birthdate is
13 November 990, so that the inscription should have been 'ANNO. DOM.
INCARN. D. CCCC. XC IND. III. IDVS NOV.' (the third indiction was
correct for 990 until 24 or 31 December in Germany, not following
Byzantine practice only to 31 August).
This emendation makes sense, though it can't be considered certain.
Birthdays were marked in the imperial court, so 11 (or 13) November was
probably well-known as Gisela's. However, the year may have been
engraved correctly according to her reputed age - she may simply have
fibbed about this in order to have seemed younger than her third
husband, Konrad II, who was born ca 990. Her tell-tale eldest son
Liudolf of Brunswick, who must have been born within the first few years
of the 11th century, may not have been around her much when he was of an
age to draw attention to the discrepancy.
Peter Stewart
It seems more likely that the plaque was just bad done since it seems it was made fast.
If you are saying that Rieckenberg's proposal is more likely than
Gisela's having fibbed about her age then I agree, but of course
plausibility is not conclusive.

The job was probably rushed - according to the inscription she died on
15 February 1043 and was buried on 11 March, so there was an interval of
24 days. Her body had to be transported from Goslar, but the plaque was
presumably made in Speyer within the last day/s before 11 March as it
also names the prelates attending Gisela's funeral, who came from
different parts of Germany. (They may have been travelling to Speyer
anyway, for the dedication of the new cathedral building that probably
took place two days later.)

Even if the plaque was made in a hurry, that does not necessarily
account for changing 'IND' into 'VIIII' if that is what happened. Poor
legibility of the scratched text and/or the ignorance of the engraver
who changed D to O in "IDVS" probably had more to do with it.

Rieckenberg's proposal of dating her birthday with the indiction is
consistent with the same form used for the date of her death in the
scratched portion ("anno dominicae incarnat. MXLIII indictione XI Kal.
XV. Mart. felicius ad dominum migravit").

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-04 15:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
A good photograph of the famous plaque found in Gisela's grave in 1900,
http://www.pfalz-express.de/speyer-historisches-museum-der-pfalz-bleitafel-aus-grab-von-kaiserin-gisela-entziffert/
The inscription has a total of 14 lines, but only the first three lines
and the beginning of the fourth were clearly engraved. The subsequent
text was simply scratched onto the surface, probably as a guide for the
engraver who didn't finish the work.
A transcription of all 14 lines was published by Hermann Grauert in
1900, and this had been the basis used by others since. In the summer of
2016 a close study was made using a strip-light scanner, confirming most
of the text as given by Grauert.
As is clear from the photo, the birthdate is fairly easy to read but not
carefully engraved ('IDVS' is apparently spelled 'IOVS' with the last
two letters combined). In any case the year can't be correct, as Gisela
must have been born well before 11 November 999 ('ANNO. DOM. INCARN. D.
CCCC. XCVIIII. III. IDVS NOV.')
In 1952 Hans Jürgen Rieckenberg proposed that the correct birthdate is
13 November 990, so that the inscription should have been 'ANNO. DOM.
INCARN. D. CCCC. XC IND. III. IDVS NOV.' (the third indiction was
correct for 990 until 24 or 31 December in Germany, not following
Byzantine practice only to 31 August).
This emendation makes sense, though it can't be considered certain.
Birthdays were marked in the imperial court, so 11 (or 13) November was
probably well-known as Gisela's. However, the year may have been
engraved correctly according to her reputed age - she may simply have
fibbed about this in order to have seemed younger than her third
husband, Konrad II, who was born ca 990. Her tell-tale eldest son
Liudolf of Brunswick, who must have been born within the first few years
of the 11th century, may not have been around her much when he was of an
age to draw attention to the discrepancy.
Peter Stewart
It seems more likely that the plaque was just bad done since it seems it was made fast.
If you are saying that Rieckenberg's proposal is more likely than
Gisela's having fibbed about her age then I agree, but of course
plausibility is not conclusive.
The job was probably rushed - according to the inscription she died on
15 February 1043 and was buried on 11 March, so there was an interval of
24 days. Her body had to be transported from Goslar, but the plaque was
presumably made in Speyer within the last day/s before 11 March as it
also names the prelates attending Gisela's funeral, who came from
different parts of Germany. (They may have been travelling to Speyer
anyway, for the dedication of the new cathedral building that probably
took place two days later.)
Even if the plaque was made in a hurry, that does not necessarily
account for changing 'IND' into 'VIIII' if that is what happened. Poor
legibility of the scratched text and/or the ignorance of the engraver
who changed D to O in "IDVS" probably had more to do with it.
Rieckenberg's proposal of dating her birthday with the indiction is
consistent with the same form used for the date of her death in the
scratched portion ("anno dominicae incarnat. MXLIII indictione XI Kal.
XV. Mart. felicius ad dominum migravit").
Peter Stewart
Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-04 23:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989.
What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for that
matter, why not 988 or earlier?

Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
2017-05-05 01:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989.
What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for
that matter, why not 988 or earlier?
If the error was one of simple arithmetic based on a calculation from
her age, then this ten year error (forgetting to subtract the digit)
would be one of the more likely explanations. Of course, that does not
necessarily mean that it is the correct date.

Stewart Baldwin
Peter Stewart
2017-05-05 03:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Another year that would make sense for Gisela to have born is 989.
What evidence or reasoning gives sense to this conjecture? And for
that matter, why not 988 or earlier?
If the error was one of simple arithmetic based on a calculation from
her age, then this ten year error (forgetting to subtract the digit)
would be one of the more likely explanations. Of course, that does
not necessarily mean that it is the correct date.
This would not be a likely explanation in my view - firstly it would be
the mistake of whoever wrote the text, not of the engraver. They were
presumably not the same person, as if so it would have been a waste of
his time to scratch the text onto the plaque.

The writer gave another full date, that of Gisela's death, and included
the indiction - this makes Rieckenberg's suggested emendation to include
the indiction in the dating of her birth fairly persuasive.

The writer also calculated durations for Gisela's widowhood and imperial
consortship. The duration of 3 years, 8 months and 10 days for her
widowhood is arguably correct (actually 12 days, though 10 if only whole
days are counted excluding the days on which both deaths happened).
However, the duration of 14 years 9 months and 17 days for her
consortship is not accurate by any reckoning: the span from Konrad's
coronation as emperor on 26 March 1027 to his death on 4 June 1039 was
only 12 years, 2 months and 10 days; from his coronation as king on 8
September 1024 it was 14 years, 8 months and 28 days; and from her own
coronation as queen on 21 September 1024 it was 14 years, 8 months and
15 days.

In both cases the calculations were made between two known dates, and
the easier way to do this is by counting on from the earlier date rather
than subtracting from the later. If by some chance the writer knew only
the day and month of Gisela's birth and had to work out the year from
her known age, an error of 10 years would be fairly striking - knowing
her to have passed her 53rd or 54th birthday and yet coming up with a
year only 44 years before the present would have twigged even my poor
brain for arithmetic.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-08 21:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short chronology
Stewart Baldwin
2017-05-09 14:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues über
Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. Most
scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted occasional
followers.

Stewart Baldwin
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-09 18:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues über
Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67. Most
scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted occasional
followers.
Stewart Baldwin
As seen in your Henry II Project Hlawitschka presented a very good series of arguments that show that Gisela must have born before 999 and that Bruno was the first husband.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-09 21:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since
placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short
chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues
über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67.
Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted
occasional followers.
This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram)
as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-15 01:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since
placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short
chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues
über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67.
Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted
occasional followers.
This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram)
as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it.
This ascription to Herwig Wolfram was wrong, it was Hermann Jakobs in *Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien* (1968), p. 184: 'Wer die Frage nach Idas Herkunft anpackt, greift aber gleichsam in ein Wespennest der Forschung, das zwar erst vor kurzem von H. Dobbertin zur Ruhe gebracht worden ist, in dem es aber immer noch recht unruhig summt.'

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-15 05:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since
placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short
chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues
über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67.
Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted
occasional followers.
This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram)
as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it.
This ascription to Herwig Wolfram was wrong, it was Hermann Jakobs in *Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien* (1968), p. 184: 'Wer die Frage nach Idas Herkunft anpackt, greift aber gleichsam in ein Wespennest der Forschung, das zwar erst vor kurzem von H. Dobbertin zur Ruhe gebracht worden ist, in dem es aber immer noch recht unruhig summt.'
Peter Stewart
H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some topics continue to buzz.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2017-05-15 06:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Paulo Canedo
One thing we can be pretty surge of, Gisela was born before 999 since
placing her birthdate on 999 would lead to an unbeliavable short
chronology
That hasn't stopped everybody from proposing that the 999 date be
accepted. Biologically, the date could be described as "not quite
impossible" and Hans Dobbertin argued in two papers that the date was
correct, using "Annalista Saxo" to claim that Ernst was Gisela's first
husband and Bruno the second. See Hans Dobbertin, "Das
Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum
Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX.
(+1054)," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76; and "Neues
über Ida von Elsdorf," Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67.
Most scholars have rejected his arguments, but he has attracted
occasional followers.
This controversy has been neatly described (I think by Herwig Wolfram)
as a wasps' nest, with Hans Dobbertin indefatigably buzzing around it.
This ascription to Herwig Wolfram was wrong, it was Hermann Jakobs in *Der Adel in der Klosterreform von St. Blasien* (1968), p. 184: 'Wer die Frage nach Idas Herkunft anpackt, greift aber gleichsam in ein Wespennest der Forschung, das zwar erst vor kurzem von H. Dobbertin zur Ruhe gebracht worden ist, in dem es aber immer noch recht unruhig summt.'
Peter Stewart
H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some topics continue to buzz.
Yes, I didn't recall Jakobs remark precisely.

I just came across an amusing sidelight on this sidelight, showing how
far some scholars have bent over backwards to take seriously Albert of
Stade's story about Ida: in 1836, Anton Christian Wedekind cited "a
similar case of this rare kind", an account from 1818 of a Chippewa
warrior's widow ritually accepting her only son's killer in his place.
Golly.

Peter Stewart
Stewart Baldwin
2017-05-15 14:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as
Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here
on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some
topics continue to buzz.
The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being
stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places
Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent with
what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and
Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should be
reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many pieces
of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined weight
is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However, when
considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence
qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already
made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very
well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence
individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems
likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an
appearance from time to time.

Stewart Baldwin
Peter Stewart
2017-05-30 02:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Hans Vogels
H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as
Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here
on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore some
topics continue to buzz.
The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being
stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places
Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent with
what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and
Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should be
reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many pieces
of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined weight
is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However, when
considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence
qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already
made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very
well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence
individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems
likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an
appearance from time to time.
A further argument against Dobbertin's preferred order of Gisela's marriages is implicit in an article published last year about the birth date of her son Heinrich III (Gerhard Lubich & Dirk Jäckel, Das Geburtsjahr Heinrichs III.: 1016, in *Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters* 72 pp 581-592).

They made a strong case that Heinrich's birth on 28 October was in 1016, not in 1017 as has been almost universally accepted since the 17th century.

If this is correct, then Gisela must have married Konrad II by January 1016 at the latest - and since her previous husband Ernst was killed on 31 May 1015, it would be impossible for her to have married Bruno of Brunswick and to have given birth to a son by him in the interval.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2017-05-15 22:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Stewart Baldwin
Post by Hans Vogels
H. Dobbertin's self-admitted starting point was the plaque and 999 as
Gisela's birthyear. Published research, as well as contributions here
on the newsgroup, has proven him wrong on this account, therefore
some topics continue to buzz.
The other piece of evidence which keeps Dobbertin's theory from being
stopped dead in its tracks is Annalista Saxo, which incorrectly places
Gisela's marriage to Ernst before her marriage to Bruno, consistent
with what it necessary for Dobbertin's theory to work. The plaque and
Annalista Saxo are both reasonable pieces of evidence that one should
be reluctant to set aside without good reason, but there are so many
pieces of evidence pointing in the other direction that their combined
weight is sufficient to overturn the plaque and Annalista. However,
when considered individually, none of these other pieces of evidence
qualifies as a "smoking gun" by itself. Thus, someone who has already
made up their mind based on the plaque and Annalista Saxo might very
well believe that they could argue away the other pieces of evidence
individually without considering their combined weight. So, it seems
likely that some version of Dobbertin's theory will be making an
appearance from time to time.
I'm sure you are right that Dobbertin's theory won't go away - as with
the Chippewa warrior analogy for Ida's alleged behaviour, some
historians will try to find any angle that allows them to accept any
source as true.

There are compelling reasons to conclude that the plaque text is
actually much weaker evidence than its provenance suggests. It is also
reasonable to suppose that Annalista Saxo in the mid-12th century most
probably assumed in error that Ernst's sons were older than Bruno's son
Liudolf, since the latter did not inherit their mother's rights to the
duchy of Swabia. However, when Gisela's brother died, Ernst was her
husband while Liudolf was only a boy not more than 10 years old. There
are other examples of inheritance bypassing a half-blood claimant in
similar circumstances.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-16 05:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
There are other examples of inheritance bypassing a half-blood
claimant in similar circumstances.
I should have written "a half-blood potential claimant ..." in order to
avoid the implication that Liudolf of Brunswick actually tried to claim
the duchy of Swabia as his mother's heir.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-08 21:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-09 00:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.

Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014, and her son by him must have been been born in the first
few years of the 11th century, for reasons set out in the Henry Project
Agatha page.

Gisela's sister Mathilde was married by April 1005, probably by January
1003 (the dating of the synod at which her marriage was denounced by
Heinrich II is uncertain). Mathilde has usually been thought the elder
of the two sisters, but this is most probably a specious hold-over from
a time when historians had the order of Gisela's marriages confused.
When their brother died in 1012 his duchy of Swabia was given to
Gisela's second husband - Mathilde was a widow at the time, but she had
two sons. There is no evidence that Heinrich II passed them over for the
inheritance as sons of the eldest daughter, and in any case by 1019
Gisela's third husband Konrad II (then duke of Franconia) was in
alliance with Mathilde's elder son in strife against the husband of her
younger sister Beatrix - the latter was evidently compensated for the
loss of her inheritance in Swabia with property in Styria. Neither
Mathilde or Beatrix (or their husbands) seem to have contested with
Gisela over the duchy of Swabia. When it was taken from one of Gisela's
sons in 1030 it was given to another, not to the elder son of Mathilde
(who subsequently became duke of Carinthia).

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-09 05:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.
Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014,
Would logic not suggest that Gisela was already a remarried widow at the time. That she remarried before or in 1012 with her second husband as he received the duchy of Swabia.

Hans Vogels


and her son by him must have been been born in the first
Post by Peter Stewart
few years of the 11th century, for reasons set out in the Henry Project
Agatha page.
Gisela's sister Mathilde was married by April 1005, probably by January
1003 (the dating of the synod at which her marriage was denounced by
Heinrich II is uncertain). Mathilde has usually been thought the elder
of the two sisters, but this is most probably a specious hold-over from
a time when historians had the order of Gisela's marriages confused.
When their brother died in 1012 his duchy of Swabia was given to
Gisela's second husband - Mathilde was a widow at the time, but she had
two sons. There is no evidence that Heinrich II passed them over for the
inheritance as sons of the eldest daughter, and in any case by 1019
Gisela's third husband Konrad II (then duke of Franconia) was in
alliance with Mathilde's elder son in strife against the husband of her
younger sister Beatrix - the latter was evidently compensated for the
loss of her inheritance in Swabia with property in Styria. Neither
Mathilde or Beatrix (or their husbands) seem to have contested with
Gisela over the duchy of Swabia. When it was taken from one of Gisela's
sons in 1030 it was given to another, not to the elder son of Mathilde
(who subsequently became duke of Carinthia).
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-09 07:05:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.
Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014,
Would logic not suggest that Gisela was already a remarried widow at the time. That she remarried before or in 1012 with her second husband as he received the duchy of Swabia.
Yes it would - I was not thinking connectedly about this. Hermann of
Reichenau explicitly stated that Gisela was married to her brother's
successor (her second husband, Ernest of Babenberg), under the year 1012
("Herimannus quoque iunior dux Alemanniae defunctus, Ernustum, sororis
suae Giselae maritum, successorem accepit").

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-09 18:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.
Hermann von Reichenau seems to be the source of the knowledge that duke Hermann II had three daughters and one son. The duke had only daughters and went on a pilgrimage for a son, one that thereafter indeed was born.

That would mean that at least 2 daughters have to be born before the son Hermann III. The son was named parvulus in 1003 when his father died, adhuc puerulus in 1004 and died on 1 April 1012 as a puer/adolescentulus.

Hermann III functioned in 1007 as dux (rechtsfähig) that could mean
a. he was born no later than January 992 (15 years) or
b. he was born in/before January 995 (full 12 years).

Paul Friedrich von Stälin, "Geschichte Württembergs", 1882, seite 194.
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012_konradiner/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012.html

From this can be concluded that the two eldest (perhaps all three) sisters were born before 992 (most likely).

Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014, and her son by him must have been been born in the first
few years of the 11th century, for reasons set out in the Henry Project
Agatha page.
Gisela's sister Mathilde was married by April 1005, probably by January
1003 (the dating of the synod at which her marriage was denounced by
Heinrich II is uncertain). Mathilde has usually been thought the elder
of the two sisters, but this is most probably a specious hold-over from
a time when historians had the order of Gisela's marriages confused.
When their brother died in 1012 his duchy of Swabia was given to
Gisela's second husband - Mathilde was a widow at the time, but she had
two sons. There is no evidence that Heinrich II passed them over for the
inheritance as sons of the eldest daughter, and in any case by 1019
Gisela's third husband Konrad II (then duke of Franconia) was in
alliance with Mathilde's elder son in strife against the husband of her
younger sister Beatrix - the latter was evidently compensated for the
loss of her inheritance in Swabia with property in Styria. Neither
Mathilde or Beatrix (or their husbands) seem to have contested with
Gisela over the duchy of Swabia. When it was taken from one of Gisela's
sons in 1030 it was given to another, not to the elder son of Mathilde
(who subsequently became duke of Carinthia).
Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-09 19:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Op dinsdag 9 mei 2017 20:51:49 UTC+2 schreef Hans Vogels:

Count Bruno was one of the pretenders in July 1002 when king Heinrich II was chosen. That seems to be his last mentioning.

Dr. Wilhelm Wegener, "Genealogische Tafeln zur Mitteleuropäischen Geschichte", blz.196

http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_1039_babenberger/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_+_1038.html

suggests that Ernst I, husband (married before 1012) of Gisela, was already married before Christmas 1004 when he appears as (Schwäbischer) Pfalzgraf, which can only be explained through his marriage.

If we accept count Bruno as the first husband of Gisela, he must have died early 1004 at the latest. His son Liudolf could have been born 1003/1004.

From the other side, nothing is certain of the marriage year of Gisela's parents. It varies from 986 to 988. With a Gisela as their eldest daughter, one can be certain that Gisela's first marriage must be in or around 1002, with Liudolf as her only child with count Bruno.

Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.
Hermann von Reichenau seems to be the source of the knowledge that duke Hermann II had three daughters and one son. The duke had only daughters and went on a pilgrimage for a son, one that thereafter indeed was born.
That would mean that at least 2 daughters have to be born before the son Hermann III. The son was named parvulus in 1003 when his father died, adhuc puerulus in 1004 and died on 1 April 1012 as a puer/adolescentulus.
Hermann III functioned in 1007 as dux (rechtsfähig) that could mean
a. he was born no later than January 992 (15 years) or
b. he was born in/before January 995 (full 12 years).
Paul Friedrich von Stälin, "Geschichte Württembergs", 1882, seite 194.
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012_konradiner/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012.html
From this can be concluded that the two eldest (perhaps all three) sisters were born before 992 (most likely).
Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014, and her son by him must have been been born in the first
few years of the 11th century, for reasons set out in the Henry Project
Agatha page.
Gisela's sister Mathilde was married by April 1005, probably by January
1003 (the dating of the synod at which her marriage was denounced by
Heinrich II is uncertain). Mathilde has usually been thought the elder
of the two sisters, but this is most probably a specious hold-over from
a time when historians had the order of Gisela's marriages confused.
When their brother died in 1012 his duchy of Swabia was given to
Gisela's second husband - Mathilde was a widow at the time, but she had
two sons. There is no evidence that Heinrich II passed them over for the
inheritance as sons of the eldest daughter, and in any case by 1019
Gisela's third husband Konrad II (then duke of Franconia) was in
alliance with Mathilde's elder son in strife against the husband of her
younger sister Beatrix - the latter was evidently compensated for the
loss of her inheritance in Swabia with property in Styria. Neither
Mathilde or Beatrix (or their husbands) seem to have contested with
Gisela over the duchy of Swabia. When it was taken from one of Gisela's
sons in 1030 it was given to another, not to the elder son of Mathilde
(who subsequently became duke of Carinthia).
Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-09 20:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Count Bruno was one of the pretenders in July 1002 when king Heinrich II was chosen. That seems to be his last mentioning.
Dr. Wilhelm Wegener, "Genealogische Tafeln zur Mitteleuropäischen Geschichte", blz.196
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_1039_babenberger/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_+_1038.html
suggests that Ernst I, husband (married before 1012) of Gisela, was already married before Christmas 1004 when he appears as (Schwäbischer) Pfalzgraf, which can only be explained through his marriage.
If we accept count Bruno as the first husband of Gisela, he must have died early 1004 at the latest. His son Liudolf could have been born 1003/1004.
From the other side, nothing is certain of the marriage year of Gisela's parents. It varies from 986 to 988. With a Gisela as their eldest daughter, one can be certain that Gisela's first marriage must be in or around 1002, with Liudolf as her only child with count Bruno.
Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Canedo
Onde thing we can be pretty sure of, Gisela was born before 999 since placing her birth in 999 leads to an unbeliveable short chronology.
I would say impossibly short, and in conflict with a good deal of
circumstantial evidence.
Hermann von Reichenau seems to be the source of the knowledge that duke Hermann II had three daughters and one son. The duke had only daughters and went on a pilgrimage for a son, one that thereafter indeed was born.
That would mean that at least 2 daughters have to be born before the son Hermann III. The son was named parvulus in 1003 when his father died, adhuc puerulus in 1004 and died on 1 April 1012 as a puer/adolescentulus.
Hermann III functioned in 1007 as dux (rechtsfähig) that could mean
a. he was born no later than January 992 (15 years) or
b. he was born in/before January 995 (full 12 years).
Paul Friedrich von Stälin, "Geschichte Württembergs", 1882, seite 194.
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012_konradiner/hermann_3_herzog_von_schwaben_1012.html
From this can be concluded that the two eldest (perhaps all three) sisters were born before 992 (most likely).
Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Gisela's first husband had apparently been murdered some while before
November 1014, and her son by him must have been been born in the first
few years of the 11th century, for reasons set out in the Henry Project
Agatha page.
Gisela's sister Mathilde was married by April 1005, probably by January
1003 (the dating of the synod at which her marriage was denounced by
Heinrich II is uncertain). Mathilde has usually been thought the elder
of the two sisters, but this is most probably a specious hold-over from
a time when historians had the order of Gisela's marriages confused.
When their brother died in 1012 his duchy of Swabia was given to
Gisela's second husband - Mathilde was a widow at the time, but she had
two sons. There is no evidence that Heinrich II passed them over for the
inheritance as sons of the eldest daughter, and in any case by 1019
Gisela's third husband Konrad II (then duke of Franconia) was in
alliance with Mathilde's elder son in strife against the husband of her
younger sister Beatrix - the latter was evidently compensated for the
loss of her inheritance in Swabia with property in Styria. Neither
Mathilde or Beatrix (or their husbands) seem to have contested with
Gisela over the duchy of Swabia. When it was taken from one of Gisela's
sons in 1030 it was given to another, not to the elder son of Mathilde
(who subsequently became duke of Carinthia).
Peter Stewart
It seems very unlikely that she was already married with her econd husband Ernest in 1004 since she would only have 14-15 years old she probably only married in 1009 or so.
Hans Vogels
2017-05-10 04:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was 14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the '80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the latest known mentioning of count Bruno.

As Peter remarked, the remarriage end 1004 was a conclusion based on an inauthentic charter. It need not be that early. When in 1015 duke Ernst I died his eldest son was still a minor. Eduard Hlawitschka assumes that Ernst and Gisela married around 1009 as in his opinion their eldest son Ernst II was born 1009/1010. Ernst II appears firstly in 1025.

http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/ernst_1_herzog_von_schwaben_1015_babenberger/hlawitschka.html

If we accept a birth year < Jan. 992 for brother Hermann III. His eldest sister (he had 3) could easily have been born ca.988. That would make her 14 years in 1002.

Hans Vogels
Post by Paulo Canedo
It seems very unlikely that she was already married with her econd husband Ernest in 1004 since she would only have 14-15 years old she probably only married in 1009 or so.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-10 05:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was 14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the '80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the latest known mentioning of count Bruno.
The timing of Bruno's death is a vexed issue - he is usually identified
as the Bruno whose murder in his own home some time before was brought
up in the context of a crime committed by Thietmar of Merseberg's nephew
Werner in November 1014. Thietmar himself was present on 14 November
1014 when Heinrich II was tasking counsel on the matter. Perhaps Bruno's
murder had taken place more than 5 years earlier, but I doubt if it
would still have been at the front of people's minds if it was much
longer ago than that.

Funnily enough, the standard MGH edition of Thietmar's chronicle makes a
strange blunder over this - the editor agreed that Bruno of Brunswick
was the man murdered before November 1014, yet the index placed his
death in 1016. Maybe he, like Banquo's ghost, needed to be dispatched a
second time.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-10 05:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Assuming that the German scholars are right in their linking count Bruno of Brunswick to the murdered Bruno (+ <14-11-1014), it would mean that count Bruno was the first husband of Gisela since her second husband, duke Ernst I died 31 (March or May) 1015.

Hans Vogels
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was 14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the '80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the latest known mentioning of count Bruno.
The timing of Bruno's death is a vexed issue - he is usually identified
as the Bruno whose murder in his own home some time before was brought
up in the context of a crime committed by Thietmar of Merseberg's nephew
Werner in November 1014. Thietmar himself was present on 14 November
1014 when Heinrich II was tasking counsel on the matter. Perhaps Bruno's
murder had taken place more than 5 years earlier, but I doubt if it
would still have been at the front of people's minds if it was much
longer ago than that.
Funnily enough, the standard MGH edition of Thietmar's chronicle makes a
strange blunder over this - the editor agreed that Bruno of Brunswick
was the man murdered before November 1014, yet the index placed his
death in 1016. Maybe he, like Banquo's ghost, needed to be dispatched a
second time.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-10 06:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Assuming that the German scholars are right in their linking count Bruno of Brunswick to the murdered Bruno (+ <14-11-1014), it would mean that count Bruno was the first husband of Gisela since her second husband, duke Ernst I died 31 (March or May) 1015.
Yes, I think the order of Gisela's marriages (1. Bruno, 2. Ernest, 3.
Konrad) is widely agreed now.

Ernest was killed in a hunting mishap on 31 May 1015 - Thietmar of
Merseburg gave the date, here:
http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000689.html?pageNo=414
("Ernost, inclitus Alemanniae dux ... cum in silva quadam illicite
venaretur, ab uno militum suimet plus ignorantia quam voluntate
spontanea, ut cervam sagittare debuit, pro dolor! vulneratur ... et mox
vero de luce hac II. Kal. Iunii discessit").

The year is given by Hermann of Reichenau under 1015, here:
http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000872.html?pageNo=119
("Ernust dux Alemanniae in venatu ab Adalberone comite, feram appetente,
sagitta vulneratus interiit").

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-13 00:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
The minimum marriage age for girls by medieval Canon law was 12 years with
the restriction that the girl in question reached puberty. If Gisela was
14/15 at the time of her first marriage and being born at the end of the
'80, a first marriage ca.1002 is not troublesome, being the year of the
latest known mentioning of count Bruno.
The timing of Bruno's death is a vexed issue - he is usually identified
as the Bruno whose murder in his own home some time before was brought
up in the context of a crime committed by Thietmar of Merseberg's nephew
Werner in November 1014. Thietmar himself was present on 14 November
1014 when Heinrich II was tasking counsel on the matter.
I should have checked the details - Werner was a cousin, not nephew, of Thietmar (who called him his 'nepos'), and the date on which Thietmar was present with Heinrich II was 10 November, the day before Werner died (from his injuries in trying to abduct a second wife) on 11 November 1014.

And I should have added, directly to the point made by Hans, that Werner's mother Godila was aged 12 (in her 13th year) when he was born. Thietmar states this in his chronicle, here: http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000689.html?pageNo=176 ("Liutharius ... quandam matronam Godilam nomine ... sibi in coniugem desponsavit et acquisivit, quae peperit ei in tertio decimo aetatis suae anno
primogenitum, patris sui nomine appellans Wirinharium").

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-09 22:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Count Bruno was one of the pretenders in July 1002 when king Heinrich II was chosen. That seems to be his last mentioning.
Dr. Wilhelm Wegener, "Genealogische Tafeln zur Mitteleuropäischen Geschichte", blz.196
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_1039_babenberger/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_+_1038.html
suggests that Ernst I, husband (married before 1012) of Gisela, was already married before Christmas 1004 when he appears as (Schwäbischer) Pfalzgraf, which can only be explained through his marriage.
This is based on an inauthentic charter from St Stephan abbey in
Strasbourg, and the dating is one of the give-away elements (the charter
states 1005, but with other details indicating 1004).

By the way, it is unfortunate that the citation on
Genealogie-Mittelalter is to Wilhelm Wegener, who was the editor,
instead of Franz Tyroller who was the author.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-11 05:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Hans Vogels
Count Bruno was one of the pretenders in July 1002 when king Heinrich II was chosen. That seems to be his last mentioning.
Dr. Wilhelm Wegener, "Genealogische Tafeln zur Mitteleuropäischen Geschichte", blz.196
http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/schwaben/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_1039_babenberger/hermann_4_herzog_von_schwaben_+_1038.html
suggests that Ernst I, husband (married before 1012) of Gisela, was already married before Christmas 1004 when he appears as (Schwäbischer) Pfalzgraf, which can only be explained through his marriage.
This is based on an inauthentic charter from St Stephan abbey in
Strasbourg, and the dating is one of the give-away elements (the charter
states 1005, but with other details indicating 1004).
By the way, it is unfortunate that the citation on
Genealogie-Mittelalter is to Wilhelm Wegener, who was the editor,
instead of Franz Tyroller who was the author.
I had forgotten the details of this - Tyroller was misrepresenting the evidence in the forged charter anyway, since it claims that Werner, bishop of Strasbourg, had received authority over St Stephan abbey "mediantibus hoc principibus Hermanno duce, Ernesto palatino ...", i.e. if true Ernest must have been palatine in Swabia some time before the date of the charter that the forger placed in 1005 with indiction, concurrent and epact corresponding to 1004 (Tyroller sought to resolve the contradiction by placing it on 25 December 1004, the first day of 1005 Christmas style).

However, we know from authentic sources that Werner was given the abbey by Heinrich II on 15 January 1003, after duke Hermann had ceded it on 1 October 1002 in reparation for damage he had caused in Strasbourg during his opposition to Heinrich - so if relying on this spurious document to conclude that Ernest was palatine while his father-in-law (who died on 4 May 1003) was duke, the marriage of Gisela to Ernest would have to be placed before January 1003 rather than by Christmas 1004.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2017-05-04 09:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Even if the plaque was made in a hurry, that does not necessarily
account for changing 'IND' into 'VIIII' if that is what happened.
This was sloppy on my part - I should have written "changing 'IND III'
into 'VIIII' if that is what happened".

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-13 17:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mr. Stewart, in one post at the thread The Bad Logics of Geni's Agatha page you mentioned Ida of Elsterdof tradionally believed to be granddaughter of Empress Gisela and daughter of Liudolf however I must say that the chronology making her Gisela's granddaughter and Liudolf's daughter is very tight what do you think.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-13 22:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart, in one post at the thread The Bad Logics of Geni's Agatha page you mentioned Ida of Elsterdof tradionally believed to be granddaughter of Empress Gisela and daughter of Liudolf however I must say that the chronology making her Gisela's granddaughter and Liudolf's daughter is very tight what do you think.
This relationship of Ida to Gisela relies on the peculiar account given
by Albert of Stade, which I think is probably wrong.

That Liudolf was Gisela's son is proven by imperial charters where he is
called step-son of Konrad II and (half-)brother of Heinrich III, but we
don't have nearly such compelling evidence that Ida was a daughter of
Liudolf.

Despite the charter evidence, Albrecht von Finckenstein in 1978
questioned whether Liudolf was actually Gisela's son or perhaps was
really her step-son - this seems unreasonable to me, as 'privignus' and
'frater' were not loose terms in imperial diplomatic.

However, the connection to Ida is based on a source that seems equally
unreasonable to me. Her son and heir is supposed to have been killed,
whereupon she trekked to Rome to consult with her alleged uncle Pope Leo
IX and on returning home adopted her son's killer as her heir despite
having other biological offspring of her own. To me this narrative has a
surreal quality, like an incidental story from 1,001 Nights.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-14 10:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Albert of Stade doesn't say which brother of Henry III was Ida's father but since Ernest II and Hermann IV are unlikely candidates she has generally been placed as daughter of Liudolf.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-14 11:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Albert of Stade doesn't say which brother of Henry III was Ida's father but since Ernest II and Hermann IV are unlikely candidates she has generally been placed as daughter of Liudolf.
Not just unlikely candidates, they are impossible ones. Both of them
were born too late, Ernest was evidently unmarried, and Hermann's wife
was heiress of Turin.

In any case, it is hardly worthwhile trying to find a way to retrieve
some vestige of possible fact out of Albert of Stade's account - even
if you can satisfy yourself with this biologically, as to Ida's origin
that is problematic on both sides, there remains the biographic problem
of her weird story. Albert was probably without a reliable source,
stitching together some odd patches of local legend to make a crude sort
of narrative quilt.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-14 12:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ida's son Ekbert was at least a teen when he was killed which happened before 1054 so making Ida daughter of a man born in the 1000s is difficult although not impossible.
Paulo Canedo
2017-05-14 12:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ida's son Ekbert was at least a teen when he was killed before 1054 so making Ida daughter of man bon in the 1000s is a bit tight but possible. However as you indicated there are good reasons for doubting Albert's narrative.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-14 23:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Ida's son Ekbert was at least a teen when he was killed before 1054 so making Ida daughter of man bon in the 1000s is a bit tight but possible. However as you indicated there are good reasons for doubting Albert's narrative.
I think the assumption that Ida's son Ekbert (if he existed at all) must
have been at least an active youth when he was killed is not a weighty
objection - little children can be murdered.

The story is that Ekbert was killed near Elstorp by his kinsman the
marquis Udo - however, Udo was only count of Stade until 1056/57 when he
became a marquis shortly before he died, well after the death of Pope
Leo IX to whom Ida is supposed to have gone for advice following the
murder of her son by "marquis" Udo.

Ida was supposed to be bereft of heirs by the act, yet Albert says she
had other children. He also says she was born in Swabia, whereas
Liutpold of Brunswick's homeland was in Saxony. Either way she could
scarcely have known her alleged maternal uncle Leo IX, who was bishop of
Toul from 1026 and pope from 1049. Presumably Ida would have had
spiritual advisers wherever she lived, sparing her the trouble of going
to Rome in order to receive advice that, in her response to it anyway,
was outside the moral teaching of the Church - it may be required to
forgive a wrongdoer, but not to reward him by adopting him into the
place of his victim.

It seems likely to me that the Stade family had a distorted idea of how
they came by some part of their inheritance, and Ida's story was
Albert's very unconvincing attempt to make sense of this.

Peter Stewart
Hans Vogels
2017-05-14 08:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paulo Canedo
Mr. Stewart, in one post at the thread The Bad Logics of Geni's Agatha page you mentioned Ida of Elsterdof tradionally believed to be granddaughter of Empress Gisela and daughter of Liudolf however I must say that the chronology making her Gisela's granddaughter and Liudolf's daughter is very tight what do you think.
From what I read on Ida of Elsdorp, a later suggestion was that she was a stepdaughter of Liudolf, a daughter from a previous marriage of his wife Gertrud [of Egisheim or as a daughter of an Egbert).

Even Liudolf could have married twice as well, an option that might explain that Ida was related to the counts of Egisheim (thus to pope Leo), to emperor Heinrich III (as [step-]daughter of his halfbrother), and otherwise were the name Egbert of Liudolfs son came from.

http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/brunonen_sippe/familie_der_brunonen.html

http://www.manfred-hiebl.de/genealogie-mittelalter/richenza_von_northeim_erbin_von_harsefeld.html

Hans Vogels
Loading...