Post by Peter Stewart Post by Peter Stewart Post by Peter Stewart Post by Hans Vogels Post by Hans Vogels
It is a nice read but I wonder if it is trustworthy or if wishfull
thinking and out of date literature plays a factor.
It's outside of my field of interest but there might be fellow
researchers who have a St. John in their pedigree chart.
Looking clooser I see on page 52 a remark that Ralph married a
daughter of Robert Guiscard with no footnote.
A fast search on wikipedia shows no such daughter present under the
known children of Robert.
As Robert Guiscard married firstly in 1051 it is doubtful that he
already had a son in law by 1066, thus the reasoning on page 52 etc.
shows a flaw.
The information on p 52 is as confused as it is vague.
Rodolfo I de Mulisio, whom the author arbitrarily identifies as "Ralph
of St. John, also known as Ralph de Moulins", was count of Boiano in
the mid-11th century but never of Molise - there is a very entrenched
mistake about this going back to Pietro Diacono in the 12th century.
Rodolfo I's wife is unknown: their daughter married Robert Guiscard's
nephew Serlo, and of course first cousin marriages were not permitted
in Apulia at this time.
Alferada was not a daughter of Robert Guiscard, as Hans pointed out.
This was the name of the wife of Rodolfo II of Boiano, who was
probably a grandson of Rodolfo I.
Apologies, I should have written that Rodolfo II was probably a nephew
of Rodolfo I.
Rodolfo II was son of Guimondo 'de Mulisio' (i.e. Wimond of
Moulins-la-Marche in Normandy, not of Molise), who succeeded Rodolfo I
(Ralph of Moulins) as count of Boiano. It is not known definitely how
Guimondo was related to Rodolfo I, but on chronological grounds he was
more probably his brother than his son.
The wife of Rodolfo I was evidently a daughter of Rofredo, lord of
Guardia, as William of Apulia mentioned ("Molinensisque Rodulfi /
Rofredus socer - huius castrum Gardia nomen - / et plures alii")
There is a problem with the chronology and relationships of Rodolfo I of
Boiano in the work of Léon-Robert Ménager, 'Inventaire des familles
normandes et franques émigrées en Italie méridionale et en Sicilie'
(1975), that is deservedly a standard reference for its subject.
Ménager accepted without question the authenticity of two charters that
led to his identifying Rodolfo I, who first appears in Italy in May
1053, as occurring in 1088 (although with inconsistent dating elements
that he overlooked) and 1092. The person named in the 1088 document is
represented as husband of Emma, father of Hugo and paternal uncle of
Roger and Robert (sons of his brother Robert). In 1092 he is represented
with 5 sons and 2 daughters, a deceased grandson, parents named Guimond
and Emma, 6 brothers (one of them rejoicing in the name Strostraynus)
and a deceased wife Alferada (NB the name of Rodolfo II's wife).
Ménager relied for the 1088 document on a summary by Giovanni Mongelli
published in 1956 (*Abbazia di Montevergine: Regesto delle pergamene*,
vol I pp. 42-43 no. 82), and for the 1092 document on an edition by
Erasmo Gattola published in 1734 as well as a summary by Mongelli (op.
cit. p. 44 no. 86).
However, a few years after Ménager's work a massive edition of the
charters of Montevergine was begun by Placido Mario Tropeano, including
both of these charters in *Codice diplomatico verginiano* vol. I (1977).
Tropeano described the first, his no. 83 of 1088, as a pseudo-original
and the second, his no. 87 of March 1092, as a pseudo-authentic copy. It
certainly makes for an easier time in compiling a genealogy of the
Moulins-la-Marche/Boiano/Molise family to set aside the misleading
relationships in these forgeries.
I'd like to be clear, I have no desire for "wishful thinking" on any of these topics. I'm simply following what I believe to be primary record sources. If the primary records are unreliable, then that's "wishful thinking" on the record creator and not me. I have no desire to document fiction.
The digital copies of the original charters I have were sent to me by Oreste Gentile who maintains the Molise2000 Blog. I then found them published:
My conclusions are based not solely on the Italian charters but with the records of Normandy too. While I appreciate the conclusions of these authors you mention, if they were unable to identify them in the Normandy records (Mont St-Michel & St. Pere, Chartres), and match them up, then in my opinion, their conclusions are the ones that are suspect. Here is a summary of the family structure:
Wimund d'Avranches (Wimund I) m. [Jeanne _______] (Du Motey gives Wimund (I) a wife named Jeanne; but he cites no source) was at Moulins-le-Marche and he probably died before 1040 because he was in Mont-St. Michel charters as Wimund vicecomes. He first appears at Mont-St.-Michel in Gunnor's charter circa 1015 and then as Vicecomes in Richard II's charter there circa 1025. Moulins was named in entries among fine records that show the castle was within the jurisdiction of Exmes (his father Ansfrid II was count of Exmes and his mother was Wymarche de Normandy]. The Wimund in 1040 had no such title. (Cartul. du Mont-Saint-Michel, f. 20. Conf. Mem. de la Societe des antiq. de Normandie, 2* serie, II, 109) Histoire du château et des sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte suivie de ... By Léopold Delisle. pg. 6-7. https://archive.org/details/histoireduchate00deligoog/page/n333/mode/2up/search/guimundus
In a charter of Saint-Pere de Chartres, he is Guimundus parvus (1033 AD). This is the last record I could find for him.
Wimund Felix de la Haye-Paynel (Wimund II) m. Emma was at Moulins-le-Marche when William the Conqueror was betrayed during William of Talou's (Arques) rebellion 1052-1054. Some allege he was banished to Italy because of this but I find this doubtful.
."Guidmundus et mea uxor Emma cum nostre prole" donated property "in Rislo et in Moira et in Itone" and "de Molinis…meo castro, decimam" to Chartres Saint-Père by charter dated to before 1067 signed by "…Rodulfi. filii eius, Rodberti filii eius, Antonii filii eius, Guimundi filii eius [Wimund III], Hugonis filii eius, Alanni filii eius, Guillelmi filii eius, Toresgaudi filii eius…" . This charter for Saint-Pere names the children of this Wimund and his wife Emma [probably the daughter of Alan, Duke of Brittany] and this family structure is nearly identical to Ralph's 1088 charter with the exception of 1 brother. Here we find Ralph 1 as the son of Wimund 2. This Ralph de Moulins/di Molise is Ralph of St. John and Ralph Paynel. This Ralph was at the Battle of Civatate in 1053. In a charter for William de Falaise names his wife as Alberada (daughter of Wimund Felix) who is the son of an earlier Wimund with a brother named William de Fay. William de Falaise and his wife take over Moulins Castle and he becomes then known as William de Moulins.
During the Battle of Hastings Wimund (II) was the man of Ivos Tallesbois and Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (records at National Archive). After the Battle of Hastings, Wimund II built La Haye-Paynel 'castle'/'manor' and the family began adopting the la Haye and Paynel surnames. In 1087, Ralph of St. John took 4 saltworks and land belonging to Serlon (his son in law) from Mont. St. Michel. Then, in 1088, Ralph of St. John was known as Ralph Paynel following the 1087 death of his brother William Paynel and this is how he appeared in Domesday. We can confirm this by following Domesday's West Rasen property: Tenant in chief, Odo Bishop of Bayeux and lord in 1086 Wimund (II) --> Ralph St. John/Paynel --> William Paynel --> Hugh Paynel. Farer and Clay document the property of West Rasen well except make Ralph Paynel the son of his brother William instead of son of Wimund. They also incorrectly merge Ralph St. John-Paynel with his son Ralph Paynel (II) that married Maud de Sourdeval.
The confusion I believe with the Italian charter evaluations is that there are two Wimunds (Wimund II and Wimund III) with wives named Emma (Emma [de Brittany] and Emma fitz Geoffrey d'Hauteville. And to make it worse, Ralph's 2nd wife was also an Emma. Emily Zack Tabuteau's 1992 paper "The Family of Moulins-la-Marche in the Eleventh Century," does a good job of explaining this. Unfortunately she doesn't match them up to their Norman counterparts and family beyond Moulins-la-Marche.
And while I understand consanguinity was not formally allowed, I believe it happened frequently, regardless.
Suzanne St. John