Discussion:
Uncle/niece progeny (was "Eudoxia" of Montpellier - part 4/1 - title as "empress" and parentage)
Add Reply
taf
2020-03-08 06:22:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But Manuel was notoriously keen on self-indulgence, and one of his
several mistresses gave him at least one child: this was his own niece
Theodora. Despite this incestuous adultery, four successive patriarchs
of Constantinople during the full decade of their affair kept silent,
with no protest or criticism from that quarter on record.
A few weeks ago I almost posted this question regarding a different relationship, and here we have another example, so I will go ahead and ask it.

I am curious how many well-documented examples there are during the medieval period of uncle/niece (or aunt/nephew) relationships with documented children. (I say medieval to exclude the numerous well-documented Habsburg uncle-niece marriages, and the later one in the Portuguese royal family.) I am only aware of one other, and this I only am aware of second hand.

Miguel Garcia (d. 1301), bishop first of Calahorra, then Astorga, had been married and had children before he entered the church. In a settlement of his estate, one of the participants is described as his granddaughter, receiving the portion that would have fallen to her mother, while later the same woman receives another share as widow of his son and guardian of their children. (Unfortunately, I only have this from a modern Spanish summary, not the original document.)

I am aware of a second one that is generally accepted, but I am not happy with it. The chronicler Ibn Hayyan says that Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi was brother, by the mother, of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, and his brother Fortun ibn Wannaco. He later refers to the son of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco as Garcia ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, i.e. 'king' Garcia Iniguez, making the half-brother of Musa identical to Inigo Arista. The Codice de Roda reports that Musa ibn Musa married the daughter of Inigo Arista. This would make Musa and his wife half-uncle/niece, but I have often wondered if these two sources, rather than correctly representing their reported relationships, aren't actually both trying to make sense out of a less precise 'relationship through a woman', with one, the other, or both having jumped to the wrong conclusion about the true nature of the relationship.

I vaguely remember that Moriarty included among the corrections and additions to his Plantagenet Ancestry manuscript a pedigree that traced the Counts of St. Pol to an earlier comtal family through an uncle-niece marriage, but when it was mentioned here in the early days of the group, it was revealed to be based on a forged cartulary. There was also a period of time in the 20th century when it was broadly reported that the first wife of Vermudo II was his aunt, the daughter of Ramiro II. There was never really anything to this, it being based solely on her patronymic, as if the king was the only person named Ramiro at the time - she is now thought to have belonged to the same Galician nobility that supplied most of the other queens.

Is anyone aware of any other examples?

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 07:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
But Manuel was notoriously keen on self-indulgence, and one of his
several mistresses gave him at least one child: this was his own niece
Theodora. Despite this incestuous adultery, four successive patriarchs
of Constantinople during the full decade of their affair kept silent,
with no protest or criticism from that quarter on record.
A few weeks ago I almost posted this question regarding a different relationship, and here we have another example, so I will go ahead and ask it.
I am curious how many well-documented examples there are during the medieval period of uncle/niece (or aunt/nephew) relationships with documented children. (I say medieval to exclude the numerous well-documented Habsburg uncle-niece marriages, and the later one in the Portuguese royal family.) I am only aware of one other, and this I only am aware of second hand.
Miguel Garcia (d. 1301), bishop first of Calahorra, then Astorga, had been married and had children before he entered the church. In a settlement of his estate, one of the participants is described as his granddaughter, receiving the portion that would have fallen to her mother, while later the same woman receives another share as widow of his son and guardian of their children. (Unfortunately, I only have this from a modern Spanish summary, not the original document.)
I am aware of a second one that is generally accepted, but I am not happy with it. The chronicler Ibn Hayyan says that Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi was brother, by the mother, of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, and his brother Fortun ibn Wannaco. He later refers to the son of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco as Garcia ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, i.e. 'king' Garcia Iniguez, making the half-brother of Musa identical to Inigo Arista. The Codice de Roda reports that Musa ibn Musa married the daughter of Inigo Arista. This would make Musa and his wife half-uncle/niece, but I have often wondered if these two sources, rather than correctly representing their reported relationships, aren't actually both trying to make sense out of a less precise 'relationship through a woman', with one, the other, or both having jumped to the wrong conclusion about the true nature of the relationship.
I vaguely remember that Moriarty included among the corrections and additions to his Plantagenet Ancestry manuscript a pedigree that traced the Counts of St. Pol to an earlier comtal family through an uncle-niece marriage, but when it was mentioned here in the early days of the group, it was revealed to be based on a forged cartulary. There was also a period of time in the 20th century when it was broadly reported that the first wife of Vermudo II was his aunt, the daughter of Ramiro II. There was never really anything to this, it being based solely on her patronymic, as if the king was the only person named Ramiro at the time - she is now thought to have belonged to the same Galician nobility that supplied most of the other queens.
Is anyone aware of any other examples?
I can't think of another example - but I wouldn't put it past the
Komnenoi to have produced one. Manuel I's cousin Andronikos I had a son
and perhaps also a daughter with his first cousin once removed, who was
Manuel's niece. When mockingly upbraided for this incest (by Manuel
himself, of all people) he replied that as a subject should he was just
copying his sovereign, coming out of the same mould as him.

Every unhappy family is different from the rest, as Tolstoy wrote, but
the Komnenoi would take out some kind of award for erotic misbehaviour.
Their first traceable ancestor was actually named Erotikos, so it may
have been in their DNA.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 07:59:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
But Manuel was notoriously keen on self-indulgence, and one of his
several mistresses gave him at least one child: this was his own niece
Theodora. Despite this incestuous adultery, four successive patriarchs
of Constantinople during the full decade of their affair kept silent,
with no protest or criticism from that quarter on record.
A few weeks ago I almost posted this question regarding a different relationship, and here we have another example, so I will go ahead and ask it.
I am curious how many well-documented examples there are during the medieval period of uncle/niece (or aunt/nephew) relationships with documented children. (I say medieval to exclude the numerous well-documented Habsburg uncle-niece marriages, and the later one in the Portuguese royal family.) I am only aware of one other, and this I only am aware of second hand.
Miguel Garcia (d. 1301), bishop first of Calahorra, then Astorga, had been married and had children before he entered the church. In a settlement of his estate, one of the participants is described as his granddaughter, receiving the portion that would have fallen to her mother, while later the same woman receives another share as widow of his son and guardian of their children. (Unfortunately, I only have this from a modern Spanish summary, not the original document.)
I am aware of a second one that is generally accepted, but I am not happy with it. The chronicler Ibn Hayyan says that Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi was brother, by the mother, of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, and his brother Fortun ibn Wannaco. He later refers to the son of the 'barbarian' ibn Wannaco as Garcia ibn Wannaco, lord of the Basques, i.e. 'king' Garcia Iniguez, making the half-brother of Musa identical to Inigo Arista. The Codice de Roda reports that Musa ibn Musa married the daughter of Inigo Arista. This would make Musa and his wife half-uncle/niece, but I have often wondered if these two sources, rather than correctly representing their reported relationships, aren't actually both trying to make sense out of a less precise 'relationship through a woman', with one, the other, or both having jumped to the wrong conclusion about the true nature of the relationship.
I vaguely remember that Moriarty included among the corrections and additions to his Plantagenet Ancestry manuscript a pedigree that traced the Counts of St. Pol to an earlier comtal family through an uncle-niece marriage, but when it was mentioned here in the early days of the group, it was revealed to be based on a forged cartulary. There was also a period of time in the 20th century when it was broadly reported that the first wife of Vermudo II was his aunt, the daughter of Ramiro II. There was never really anything to this, it being based solely on her patronymic, as if the king was the only person named Ramiro at the time - she is now thought to have belonged to the same Galician nobility that supplied most of the other queens.
Is anyone aware of any other examples?
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-03-08 14:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks. I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X situation. I was unaware of the others.

taf
j***@gmail.com
2020-03-08 16:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks. I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X situation. I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon, although I thought this was disproved that they were related.

There was discussion of this here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o

I had thought that a descent of Jeanne des Roches from Isabelle de Meulan was not considered valid, and her ancestry was thusly:

1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany

--Joe C
taf
2020-03-08 17:31:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon, although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
At least as I am reading it in that thread, the descent of Jeanne de Roches from Isabelle de Meulan was simply proclaimed impossible _because_ it would have made Amaury the half-great-uncle of Jeanne. For the purposes of this discussion, that is begging the question. (Not that I am questioning the likelihood of the conclusion, but let's be clear what it is.) Proclaiming it false on its face is not really a disproof.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 22:15:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks. I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X situation. I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon, although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany
Todd is correct that the negative about the parentage of #7 has not been
disproved, but then the positive case in question was never proved in
the first place.

As far as I can recall (NB only off the top of my head), the earliest
source for the marriage between #14 and #15 was written in the
early-16th century. I can't recall any source earlier than this
substituting Isabelle de Meulan as #15, and no matter where the
information came from this seems overwhelmingly implausible to me.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 22:22:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks.  I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X
situation.  I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon,
although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
I had thought that a descent of Jeanne des Roches from Isabelle de
1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany
Todd is correct that the negative about the parentage of #7 has not been
disproved, but then the positive case in question was never proved in
the first place.
As far as I can recall (NB only off the top of my head), the earliest
source for the marriage between #14 and #15 was written in the
early-16th century. I can't recall any source earlier than this
substituting Isabelle de Meulan as #15, and no matter where the
information came from this seems overwhelmingly implausible to me.
Something else has stirred in the recesses of my memory, though I don't
have time at present to verify it - that is, #7 was not the daughter of
#14 but his sister, daughter of Juhel of Mayenne (died 1161) by Clemence
of Ponthieu.

Peter Stewart
j***@gmail.com
2020-03-08 22:45:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks.  I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X
situation.  I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon,
although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
I had thought that a descent of Jeanne des Roches from Isabelle de
1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany
Todd is correct that the negative about the parentage of #7 has not been
disproved, but then the positive case in question was never proved in
the first place.
As far as I can recall (NB only off the top of my head), the earliest
source for the marriage between #14 and #15 was written in the
early-16th century. I can't recall any source earlier than this
substituting Isabelle de Meulan as #15, and no matter where the
information came from this seems overwhelmingly implausible to me.
Something else has stirred in the recesses of my memory, though I don't
have time at present to verify it - that is, #7 was not the daughter of
#14 but his sister, daughter of Juhel of Mayenne (died 1161) by Clemence
of Ponthieu.
You may be right, but this is not the typical reconstruction... here is a charter of Clemence's daughter Marguerite dated 1205 and some discussion on the relationships therein.

https://books.google.com/books?id=47cDAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA36&ots=K1ROA3M79l&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q=%22avunculi%20mei%20domini%20Juhelli%22&f=false

--Joe C
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 22:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks.  I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X
situation.  I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon,
although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
I had thought that a descent of Jeanne des Roches from Isabelle de
1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany
Todd is correct that the negative about the parentage of #7 has not been
disproved, but then the positive case in question was never proved in
the first place.
As far as I can recall (NB only off the top of my head), the earliest
source for the marriage between #14 and #15 was written in the
early-16th century. I can't recall any source earlier than this
substituting Isabelle de Meulan as #15, and no matter where the
information came from this seems overwhelmingly implausible to me.
Something else has stirred in the recesses of my memory, though I don't
have time at present to verify it - that is, #7 was not the daughter of
#14 but his sister, daughter of Juhel of Mayenne (died 1161) by Clemence
of Ponthieu.
You may be right, but this is not the typical reconstruction... here is a charter of Clemence's daughter Marguerite dated 1205 and some discussion on the relationships therein.
https://books.google.com/books?id=47cDAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA36&ots=K1ROA3M79l&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q=%22avunculi%20mei%20domini%20Juhelli%22&f=false
My memory was not clear enough to tell where it came from, but probably
based on this doctoral thesis from 2012 (see the table on p. 207 and
some discussion around it):

https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00724925

If I ever looked into this further I have blissfully forgotten it.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-03-08 23:47:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Did you see the list in this Wikipedia page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avunculate_marriage.
No, thanks.  I had been aware of, but had forgotten, the Alfonso X
situation.  I was unaware of the others.
And one that sticks out here is Jeanne des Roche and Amaury de Craon,
although I thought this was disproved that they were related.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/8V2F88pQr-o
I had thought that a descent of Jeanne des Roches from Isabelle de
1. Jeanne des Roches
2. Guillaume des Roches
3. Marguerite de Sable'
4. Baudoin des Roches
5. Alice de Chatellerault
6. Robert de Sable'
7. Clemence de Mayenne
8. Herbert des Roches
9-11. "
12. Robert de Sable'
13. Hersende
14. Geoffroi de Mayenne
15. Constance of Brittany
Todd is correct that the negative about the parentage of #7 has not been
disproved, but then the positive case in question was never proved in
the first place.
As far as I can recall (NB only off the top of my head), the earliest
source for the marriage between #14 and #15 was written in the
early-16th century. I can't recall any source earlier than this
substituting Isabelle de Meulan as #15, and no matter where the
information came from this seems overwhelmingly implausible to me.
Something else has stirred in the recesses of my memory, though I don't
have time at present to verify it - that is, #7 was not the daughter of
#14 but his sister, daughter of Juhel of Mayenne (died 1161) by Clemence
of Ponthieu.
You may be right, but this is not the typical reconstruction... here
is a charter of Clemence's daughter Marguerite dated 1205 and some
discussion on the relationships therein.
https://books.google.com/books?id=47cDAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA36&ots=K1ROA3M79l&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q=%22avunculi%20mei%20domini%20Juhelli%22&f=false
My memory was not clear enough to tell where it came from, but probably
based on this doctoral thesis from 2012 (see the table on p. 207 and
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00724925
If I ever looked into this further I have blissfully forgotten it.
And now that I do take a look, it appears that Fabrice Lachaud went
wrong in 2012 - he was trying to account for the marriage of #7's
granddaughter #1 without a prohibitive relationship to Amaury of Craon,
but evidently missed the charter of #3 dated April 1205 describing as
her 'avunculus' Juhel of Mayenne (died 1220 in the Albigensian crusade)
who was in process of founding Fontaine-Daniel abbey at the time.

O well, jury members can't be expected to catch every lapse like this in
a doctoral thesis. If only ...

Peter Stewart

Loading...