Post by taf Post by Paulo Canedo
To clarify as said in Agatha's page in the Henry II Project the genealogical
appendix says Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III.
As we have been discussing, the 'preface' (not appendix) says "filiam germani imperatoris Henrici tertii"
Post by Paulo Canedo
So he is clearly identifying the emperator as Henry III undermining any
attempt to use his testimony in favor of the Hungarian Hyphotesis as was
It is a bit more complex than this: how did the pedigrees and genealogies vs the chronicle, come to be recorded as part of the same collection? Do they represent a single body of knowledge recorded two different ways, or were they two independent works that were combined, or most importantly, were the genealogies extracted from the chronicle (or vice versa). And just to be clear what I am suggesting, if some clerical genealogist decided to extract (and enhance) the relevant material from an earlier version of the chronicle he was about to copy, as a useful guide, might that person have assumed which Henry was being referred to, without knowing anything more than what is written in the chronicle?
The Oxford manuscript is the source of the others that are extant (both
directly and indirectly for the Cambridge copy), so that is the starting
point to consider this question.
In it, the same scribe (C1 as identified by Darlington and McGurk)
compiled the genealogies placed at the start of the manuscript and the
relevant passage in the chronicle proper. The two passages ("Eaduuardus
uero Agatham ... clitonem Eadgarum suscepit") were clearly written by
the same hand, and are the same except for the following details:
1. The name 'Eaduuardus' has a capital E in the genealogy but not in the
2. The emperor's name is spelled 'Heanrici' in the genealogy and
'Heinrici' in the chronicle
3. He is given the ordinal 'tertii' in the genealogy but this is omitted
in the chronicle
4. The words 'reginam' and 'scottorum' after Margaret's name in the
genealogy are reversed in the chronicle
5. The word 'sanctimonialem' is interpolated in the chronicle between
the words 'Cristina uirginem'.
From this it appears that the scribe was either inaccurate in copying
once from himself or inconsistent in copying twice from another source.
In any case he was not concentrating very well when he spelled Heinrici
(a name he wrote in this form frequently) as Heanrici in the genealogy.
Perhaps he was nodding when he added the ordinal 'tertii' at the same
time - at least this is a bit more likely than that it was a lapse when
he omitted it later, while yet picking up 'sanctimonialem' that had been
omitted earlier for Cristina. This additional word suggests that he was
not copying from himself but used another source on both occasions.
We can't be certain that 'tertii' was not an ad hoc assumption of his
own at the first time of writing that the scribe was not confident
enough to repeat at the second.
By the way, the question of Agatha's parentage was examined recently by
Maria Havrylyshyn in her 2015 Lviv University dissertation on the
political and marriage connections between British and Rurikid dynasties
from the 9th to 11th centuries. Not surprisingly, from a Ukrainian
perspective, she is inclined towards the Slavic solution that fits best
with her thesis, but she concludes that the puzzle can't be definitively