I should correct myself more explicitly, since the following old post
was dragged out. I realize I painted a rosier idea of David Kelley's
Geoffrey=Godfrey theory than is warranted. At the time I posted what's
below, my experience in onomastics was mostly in Languedoc and
Catalonia. There, I had seen forms of both 'Geoffrey' and 'Godfrey'
usually used by scribes (incorrectly) to refer to the same name (in
fact, both were used for the name normally rendered 'Guifredus'). But I
am now aware that all these names not only derive from distinct Germanic
roots but were understood as distinct in the population relevant to the
fitz-Eustace question (Anglo-Norman-Flemish-Lotharingian nobility, 11th
c.). I do suspect that one could find occasional scribal misuse of
non-equivalent names there or elsewhere, similar to what I've found in
Catalan/Occitan charters or texts.
In this case, I have been satisfied since shortly after making this
post, that Geoffrey fitz Eustace is more likely an illegitimate brother
of the Worthy, Godfrey, and bore what was understood as a distinct name.
I think Peter has been a bit too pointed in his reaction to David
Kelley. Kelley has long thought creatively about medieval genealogical
questions and, in conversation, freely admits when his speculations
carry him into areas where more specialised knowledge is necessary to
test (or discard) a theory. Certain of Kelley's theories have been laid
to rest when subjected to a systematic background check, but I don't
grudge him the right to produce more of them. The two pages of AR7
which include Kelley's discussion of this particular question
incorporate a number of related onomastic and socialogical contentions;
I think the text should be transcribed and made available here for
further comment. To do so may not violate fair use as far as the 'AR'
series is concerned; and I bet Dave wouldn't mind.
One problem we see illustrated in this whole Geoffrey fitz Eustace
shouting match lies in the whole system of shoehorning genealogical
arguments and analyses into 'lines' in books such as _Ancestral Roots_
or _Plantagenet Ancestry_. Theories need a more appropriate airing
among an audience qualified to test them, in the first place by quickly
identifying the scholarly literature necessary to contextualize the
theory. The readers of lineage compilations are usually genealogical
consumers without specialized pre-modern knowledge, and too often take
these lines as gospel with no appreciation of the nuances. Untested
ideas have a right to exist, but lineage-based compilations broadcast
them to the wrong community. This group steps into such a void, and
has proved a rapid clearinghouse for connecting theories--which
heretofore and otherwise would be broadcast to consumers without any
critical review--with a small global community of people with the skills
to evaluate them appropriately. I suppose it's too much to hope that
this critical work can continue without so much spleen.
Nat Taylor
a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/
Post by D. Spencer HinesNewsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1998/11/15
Subject: Godfrey de Bouillon: English family?
1 Godfrey de Boulogne [i.e. de Bouillon]
2 William de Boulogne
3 Pharamus de Boulogne
4 Sibyl de Boulogne
5 William de Fiennes ...
(citing Weiss' _Ancestral Roots_, 7th ed., Line 158a).
I have never seen a remark that Godfrey of Bouillon was married, and
that
was the reason that his brother took over in Jerusalem.
Leo cites Schwennicke's ES NF 3:621, to show that this Guillaume de
Boulogne is actually son of a Godefroy, illegitimate half-brother to the
Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre (not King of Jerusalem) Godefroy de
Bouillon.
A "Goisfrid", son of Count Eustace [of Boulogne] is mentioned in
Domesday
Book as an English landholder, married to Beatrice de Mandeville (aunt
of
the first earl of Essex). Round (whom Schwennicke cites) and later Sir
Anthony R. Wagner (in _Pedigree and Progress_, pp. 159 & 253) were
convinced that this man was a separate person from the Crusader Godfrey
(and was thus necessarily illegitimate, because Count Eustace's
[legitimate] sons were known and did not include a "Goisfrid/Geoffrey").
However, The brief by David H. Kelley inserted in Weiss' _Ancestral
Roots_, 7th ed., presents compelling arguments to show that the two men
may have been the same. He points out that Goisfrid was onomastically
equivalent to Godfrey (something Round ignored as the modern
derivations,
Geoffrey and Godfrey, are distinct but not their medieval equivalents),
and that there is no evidence that the known data on the English
landholder with a wife and heir in England and the leader of the first
crusade cannot apply to one and the same person. This identity has
indeed
been on the table, as a query, since Round's day: Kelley mentions the
work
of Felix Liebermann, Joseph Armitage Robinson, and H. W. C. Davis as
"pro".
One significant counterargument, raised by Wagner, is that none of the
rather they tout his chastity. This is less compelling when it is
understood that contemporary writings of the first crusade don't talk
much
about the crusaders' home lives, and many of them left families behind.
Thereafter much of the surviving historiography of the Crusades (from
the
twelfth century onward) is tainted with the themes of moral fitness for
possession of the Holy Land. Godfrey succeeded in an enterprise which
others, later, could not sustain: therefore in retrospect his virtue
must
have been beyond theirs. Think of Tasso's oberblown moral epic
_Gierusalemme liberata_.
While this is not a proven descent (as Mr. Mann's database dump
suggests),
nor is it a fruitless and closed case as Mr. van de Pas thought. It is
an
intriguing hypothesis which deserves more complete scrutiny, and in a
different forum, than it has yet had. Kelley, at least, suggests that
determined digging may turn up more English records which will help tip
the scales one way or the other. Any takers?