Discussion:
Richilde and Herman of Hainaut
Add Reply
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-20 18:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.

But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)

His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-20 23:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
You are not likely to catch a fish by dangling a whale - it's surprising
how often questions are raised here without specific focus, and in this
case without even direction beyond the name of an author. I don't expect
anyone is going to drop whatever else they were doing in order to read
through every article by Van Droogenbroek posted to Academia.edu and
then write a "balanced" consideration of opinions across all of them.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 08:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
You are not likely to catch a fish by dangling a whale - it's surprising
how often questions are raised here without specific focus, and in this
case without even direction beyond the name of an author. I don't expect
anyone is going to drop whatever else they were doing in order to read
through every article by Van Droogenbroek posted to Academia.edu and
then write a "balanced" consideration of opinions across all of them.
Peter Stewart
Peter I don't think it is quite what I asked. New attempt: is anyone aware of anything that has been published ABOUT Van Droogenbroeck's proposals?
Peter Stewart
2020-06-21 08:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
You are not likely to catch a fish by dangling a whale - it's surprising
how often questions are raised here without specific focus, and in this
case without even direction beyond the name of an author. I don't expect
anyone is going to drop whatever else they were doing in order to read
through every article by Van Droogenbroek posted to Academia.edu and
then write a "balanced" consideration of opinions across all of them.
Peter Stewart
Peter I don't think it is quite what I asked. New attempt: is anyone aware of anything that has been published ABOUT Van Droogenbroeck's proposals?
Aologies, I wasn't sure what to make of "if anyone has see criticisms or
complements" - I took this to mean "if anyone has criticisms or
compliments" rather than "has seen..."

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-21 22:54:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which
summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements
concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears
in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has
published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have
proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut
heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made
unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not
showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At
first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I
fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for
balanced judgements.
You are not likely to catch a fish by dangling a whale - it's surprising
how often questions are raised here without specific focus, and in this
case without even direction beyond the name of an author. I don't expect
anyone is going to drop whatever else they were doing in order to read
through every article by Van Droogenbroek posted to Academia.edu and
then write a "balanced" consideration of opinions across all of them.
Peter Stewart
Peter I don't think it is quite what I asked. New attempt: is anyone
aware of anything that has been published ABOUT Van Droogenbroeck's
proposals?
Aologies, I wasn't sure what to make of "if anyone has see criticisms or
complements" - I took this to mean "if anyone has criticisms or
compliments" rather than "has seen..."
A search for citations of Frans Van Droogenbroek's work doesn't turn up
much, but this is hardly unexpected given that it is all fairly recent
and not of very widespread interest.

Lisa Demets made a rather telling critical comment on a basic proposal
in his 'Het landgraafschap Brabant (1085-1183) en zijn paltsgrafelijke
voorgeschiedenis' in *Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire* (2017),
p. 199 note 31 here:
https://www.academia.edu/36696460/In_omni_terra_potestatis_mei._Discours_macht_en_legitieme_autoriteit_in_de_oorkonden_van_de_hertogen_van_Brabant_1106-1248_Revue_Belge_de_Philologie_et_dHistoire_95_2017_2_pp._193-218.

Peter Stewart
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-22 05:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which
summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements
concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears
in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has
published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have
proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut
heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made
unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not
showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At
first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I
fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for
balanced judgements.
You are not likely to catch a fish by dangling a whale - it's surprising
how often questions are raised here without specific focus, and in this
case without even direction beyond the name of an author. I don't expect
anyone is going to drop whatever else they were doing in order to read
through every article by Van Droogenbroek posted to Academia.edu and
then write a "balanced" consideration of opinions across all of them.
Peter Stewart
Peter I don't think it is quite what I asked. New attempt: is anyone
aware of anything that has been published ABOUT Van Droogenbroeck's
proposals?
Aologies, I wasn't sure what to make of "if anyone has see criticisms or
complements" - I took this to mean "if anyone has criticisms or
compliments" rather than "has seen..."
A search for citations of Frans Van Droogenbroek's work doesn't turn up
much, but this is hardly unexpected given that it is all fairly recent
and not of very widespread interest.
Lisa Demets made a rather telling critical comment on a basic proposal
in his 'Het landgraafschap Brabant (1085-1183) en zijn paltsgrafelijke
voorgeschiedenis' in *Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire* (2017),
https://www.academia.edu/36696460/In_omni_terra_potestatis_mei._Discours_macht_en_legitieme_autoriteit_in_de_oorkonden_van_de_hertogen_van_Brabant_1106-1248_Revue_Belge_de_Philologie_et_dHistoire_95_2017_2_pp._193-218.
Peter Stewart
Thanks Peter, I had not seen her article and it looks quite interesting (not only because it mentions Van Droogenbroeck).
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 07:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.

This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.

So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.

Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 07:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
To illustrate the last remark:
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)

The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.

Hans Vogels
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 09:15:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)
The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.
Hans Vogels
I see I am missing something: what is the connection with Florennes-Rumigny and why would they be connected to Nevelung?
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 10:12:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)
The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.
Hans Vogels
I see I am missing something: what is the connection with Florennes-Rumigny and why would they be connected to Nevelung?
Hello Andrew,

Are you familiar with the paper of Hein Jongbloed on De Flamenses in de elfde eeuw. Oorsprong en ontplooiing van het Gelderse gravenhuis, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen. Historisch jaarboek voor Gelderland, deel XCIX (2008), 27-90. ?
Or with the other papers he wrote? I can send them to you in PDF.
https://groups.io/g/MiddeleeuwseGenealogie/message/10899

As you are up to date on the counts of Loon you know of the 'Balderik' factor. Count Nevelung was a brother of bishop Balderik of Utrecht. This bishop is somehow related to bishop Balderik of Loon who was related to the counts of Cambrai/Valenciennes. Arnulf of Cambrai (-967) was married to Berta a daughter of count Nivelung. They had several sons, among others a Odo and a Regnier.
Odo could possibly be the count Otto father of count Giselbert and bishop Balderik.
Brother Regnier could be the Regnier Longicolli, grandfather of countess Richilde.

From memory, I gathered that there was a connection as well between them and the Florennes-Rumigny family.

Groeten,
Hans
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 10:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)
The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.
Hans Vogels
I see I am missing something: what is the connection with Florennes-Rumigny and why would they be connected to Nevelung?
Hello Andrew,
Are you familiar with the paper of Hein Jongbloed on De Flamenses in de elfde eeuw. Oorsprong en ontplooiing van het Gelderse gravenhuis, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen. Historisch jaarboek voor Gelderland, deel XCIX (2008), 27-90. ?
Or with the other papers he wrote? I can send them to you in PDF.
https://groups.io/g/MiddeleeuwseGenealogie/message/10899
As you are up to date on the counts of Loon you know of the 'Balderik' factor. Count Nevelung was a brother of bishop Balderik of Utrecht. This bishop is somehow related to bishop Balderik of Loon who was related to the counts of Cambrai/Valenciennes. Arnulf of Cambrai (-967) was married to Berta a daughter of count Nivelung. They had several sons, among others a Odo and a Regnier.
Odo could possibly be the count Otto father of count Giselbert and bishop Balderik.
Brother Regnier could be the Regnier Longicolli, grandfather of countess Richilde.
From memory, I gathered that there was a connection as well between them and the Florennes-Rumigny family.
Groeten,
Hans
OK, now I understand part of what you are saying, but I still don't see the link with Richilde and Herman. Perhaps you are assuming that Richilde is a relative of Arnulf of Valenciennes? (I think this was proposed by Pirenne in his National Biographie article for Richilde.)

I think you are referring to the fact that Jongbloed proposes that Arnulf of Florennes' mother Alpaidis is a sister of Arnulf of Valenciennes. (And he accepts the assertion of Vanderkindere that the latter's mother was a daughter of Nevelung.)

There are a lot of strings attached to Jongbloed's construction (and of course Vanderkindere's which it is built upon), and I'm still trying to get my more detailed ideas about this out into the world. :)

In terms of the way Jongbloed connects Arnulf of Florennes to the "Verdun" families this of course involves some of the bigger public debates he was involved in. He would make Arnulf the second cousin of his wife.
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 11:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)
The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.
Hans Vogels
I see I am missing something: what is the connection with Florennes-Rumigny and why would they be connected to Nevelung?
Hello Andrew,
Are you familiar with the paper of Hein Jongbloed on De Flamenses in de elfde eeuw. Oorsprong en ontplooiing van het Gelderse gravenhuis, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen. Historisch jaarboek voor Gelderland, deel XCIX (2008), 27-90. ?
Or with the other papers he wrote? I can send them to you in PDF.
https://groups.io/g/MiddeleeuwseGenealogie/message/10899
As you are up to date on the counts of Loon you know of the 'Balderik' factor. Count Nevelung was a brother of bishop Balderik of Utrecht. This bishop is somehow related to bishop Balderik of Loon who was related to the counts of Cambrai/Valenciennes. Arnulf of Cambrai (-967) was married to Berta a daughter of count Nivelung. They had several sons, among others a Odo and a Regnier.
Odo could possibly be the count Otto father of count Giselbert and bishop Balderik.
Brother Regnier could be the Regnier Longicolli, grandfather of countess Richilde.
From memory, I gathered that there was a connection as well between them and the Florennes-Rumigny family.
Groeten,
Hans
OK, now I understand part of what you are saying, but I still don't see the link with Richilde and Herman. Perhaps you are assuming that Richilde is a relative of Arnulf of Valenciennes? (I think this was proposed by Pirenne in his National Biographie article for Richilde.)
I think you are referring to the fact that Jongbloed proposes that Arnulf of Florennes' mother Alpaidis is a sister of Arnulf of Valenciennes. (And he accepts the assertion of Vanderkindere that the latter's mother was a daughter of Nevelung.)
There are a lot of strings attached to Jongbloed's construction (and of course Vanderkindere's which it is built upon), and I'm still trying to get my more detailed ideas about this out into the world. :)
In terms of the way Jongbloed connects Arnulf of Florennes to the "Verdun" families this of course involves some of the bigger public debates he was involved in. He would make Arnulf the second cousin of his wife.
My answer about Richilde's grandfather Regnier Longicolli was more an alternative for what Frans Van Droogenbroeck came up with (the unlikely Louvain road).

Yes, there is somehow a family connection but I doubt if the Jongbloed suggestion is viable. It would mean a lot of generations in a short time if I recall correctly. Perhaps the reconstruction would be better if Alpaidis was a sister of Berta instead of a daughter.

Addition
943: Bishop Balderik of Utrecht gives certain properties in lifetime use to the widow of count Nevelung and her sons Rudolf en Balderik (future bisschop of Liege/Luik 956-959); Assclon, Rura, Liethorp, Linne, Suletheim, Flothorp, Malica, Nieol en Curnilo = Asselt, Roer, Lerop, Linne, Suiltheym (omg. Heinsberg), Vlodrop, Melick, Maasniel en verm. Curla (onder Doveren).

These are all properties in the Middle Limburg that borders and overlaps the later county of Loon. This puts the children of count Nevelung already in the near surrounding of the later known county of Loon. It would not be strange to see a descendant of Nevelung popping up as an ancestor of the counts of Loon.

Groeten,
Hans
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 21:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Regnier I Longicolli - Regnier II - Regnier III Longicolli of Hainaut.
Regnier Longicolli - Regnier - Richilde (x Herman of Hainaut)
The lords of Florennes could also belong to the offspring of count Nevelung.
Hans Vogels
I see I am missing something: what is the connection with Florennes-Rumigny and why would they be connected to Nevelung?
Hello Andrew,
Are you familiar with the paper of Hein Jongbloed on De Flamenses in de elfde eeuw. Oorsprong en ontplooiing van het Gelderse gravenhuis, in: Bijdragen en Mededelingen. Historisch jaarboek voor Gelderland, deel XCIX (2008), 27-90. ?
Or with the other papers he wrote? I can send them to you in PDF.
https://groups.io/g/MiddeleeuwseGenealogie/message/10899
As you are up to date on the counts of Loon you know of the 'Balderik' factor. Count Nevelung was a brother of bishop Balderik of Utrecht. This bishop is somehow related to bishop Balderik of Loon who was related to the counts of Cambrai/Valenciennes. Arnulf of Cambrai (-967) was married to Berta a daughter of count Nivelung. They had several sons, among others a Odo and a Regnier.
Odo could possibly be the count Otto father of count Giselbert and bishop Balderik.
Brother Regnier could be the Regnier Longicolli, grandfather of countess Richilde.
From memory, I gathered that there was a connection as well between them and the Florennes-Rumigny family.
Groeten,
Hans
OK, now I understand part of what you are saying, but I still don't see the link with Richilde and Herman. Perhaps you are assuming that Richilde is a relative of Arnulf of Valenciennes? (I think this was proposed by Pirenne in his National Biographie article for Richilde.)
I think you are referring to the fact that Jongbloed proposes that Arnulf of Florennes' mother Alpaidis is a sister of Arnulf of Valenciennes. (And he accepts the assertion of Vanderkindere that the latter's mother was a daughter of Nevelung.)
There are a lot of strings attached to Jongbloed's construction (and of course Vanderkindere's which it is built upon), and I'm still trying to get my more detailed ideas about this out into the world. :)
In terms of the way Jongbloed connects Arnulf of Florennes to the "Verdun" families this of course involves some of the bigger public debates he was involved in. He would make Arnulf the second cousin of his wife.
My answer about Richilde's grandfather Regnier Longicolli was more an alternative for what Frans Van Droogenbroeck came up with (the unlikely Louvain road).
Yes, there is somehow a family connection but I doubt if the Jongbloed suggestion is viable. It would mean a lot of generations in a short time if I recall correctly. Perhaps the reconstruction would be better if Alpaidis was a sister of Berta instead of a daughter.
Addition
943: Bishop Balderik of Utrecht gives certain properties in lifetime use to the widow of count Nevelung and her sons Rudolf en Balderik (future bisschop of Liege/Luik 956-959); Assclon, Rura, Liethorp, Linne, Suletheim, Flothorp, Malica, Nieol en Curnilo = Asselt, Roer, Lerop, Linne, Suiltheym (omg. Heinsberg), Vlodrop, Melick, Maasniel en verm. Curla (onder Doveren).
These are all properties in the Middle Limburg that borders and overlaps the later county of Loon. This puts the children of count Nevelung already in the near surrounding of the later known county of Loon. It would not be strange to see a descendant of Nevelung popping up as an ancestor of the counts of Loon.
Groeten,
Hans
I think all of the identified ones are what is now Dutch Limburg, and not near Loon.

...Also Bertha died a few years after those two little boys were mentioned, supposedly her brothers, already an old lady with adult sons (multiple as argued by Aarts). Rudolf was never mentioned again until Daris (and then Vanderkindere) proposed that he had survived and created the Loon county.

The only interesting argument to connect Bertha with Arnulf of Valenciennes involves their connection to the same little pagus of Caribant in France, very far from Nevelung. Baerten avoided mentioning that this was the evidence. Bas who thought Baerten was the latest and best defense missed it, and denied any connection between Bertha and Arnulf. I think it is reasonable evidence, but it shows NO connection to Loon.

I agree with Bas and others that many of the Nevelung connections proposed by Vanderkindere, reinforced by Baerten, and universally assumed, need to be strongly questioned. I think Jongbloed agrees with that basic principle, though he and Aarts looked at different bits of it, and were in both cases always writing about this topic as an aside while looking at other families.
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 08:33:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Hi Hans

My first reading was that he is in fact insisting on the possibility you raise? He sees Richilde's grandfather as a different Reginar Longneck, from the Louvain branch of the family, and living in the 10th century?

Still, as Peter points out, that is still a pretty close relationship given how sensitive the clerical authorities were about consanguinity in this period. Strange that I have not seen Van Droogenbroeck address that concern.
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 08:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Hi Hans
My first reading was that he is in fact insisting on the possibility you raise? He sees Richilde's grandfather as a different Reginar Longneck, from the Louvain branch of the family, and living in the 10th century?
Still, as Peter points out, that is still a pretty close relationship given how sensitive the clerical authorities were about consanguinity in this period. Strange that I have not seen Van Droogenbroeck address that concern.
His recent reconstruction through the Lovain branch looks to me at odds with chronology. From memory, Van Droogenbroeck tells us of the consanguinity of this branch with a count of Flanders. His suggestion does not provide an answer for the 'streugut' possession of Adela of Louvain of an allodium in Weert (in Dutch Limburg close to Noord Brabant close to the Belgian border).


Van Droogenbroecks first reconstruction of the junior Lovain branch looks realistic to me. It also provides windows for further possibilities.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=xUjRU7oapZsC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=Frans+van+Droogenbroeck+affligem&source=bl&ots=NjS0kyaiu2&sig=ACfU3U0xF2j_iDaDZKgQudSKXM2bs0VG6g&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv-IWOwZLqAhXOnKQKHS6uDJoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Frans%20van%20Droogenbroeck%20affligem&f=false

Hans Vogels
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 09:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Hi Hans
My first reading was that he is in fact insisting on the possibility you raise? He sees Richilde's grandfather as a different Reginar Longneck, from the Louvain branch of the family, and living in the 10th century?
Still, as Peter points out, that is still a pretty close relationship given how sensitive the clerical authorities were about consanguinity in this period. Strange that I have not seen Van Droogenbroeck address that concern.
His recent reconstruction through the Lovain branch looks to me at odds with chronology. From memory, Van Droogenbroeck tells us of the consanguinity of this branch with a count of Flanders. His suggestion does not provide an answer for the 'streugut' possession of Adela of Louvain of an allodium in Weert (in Dutch Limburg close to Noord Brabant close to the Belgian border).
Van Droogenbroecks first reconstruction of the junior Lovain branch looks realistic to me. It also provides windows for further possibilities.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=xUjRU7oapZsC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=Frans+van+Droogenbroeck+affligem&source=bl&ots=NjS0kyaiu2&sig=ACfU3U0xF2j_iDaDZKgQudSKXM2bs0VG6g&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv-IWOwZLqAhXOnKQKHS6uDJoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Frans%20van%20Droogenbroeck%20affligem&f=false
Hans Vogels
Thanks Hans, yes I have the impression that some of the threads he is following are likely to be real. A connection between Louvain and Thuringen is another theme he spends a lot of time on. There is then a complicated theory about Herman II of the Ezzonids and his involvement in Brabant.
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 09:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Hi Hans
My first reading was that he is in fact insisting on the possibility you raise? He sees Richilde's grandfather as a different Reginar Longneck, from the Louvain branch of the family, and living in the 10th century?
Still, as Peter points out, that is still a pretty close relationship given how sensitive the clerical authorities were about consanguinity in this period. Strange that I have not seen Van Droogenbroeck address that concern.
His recent reconstruction through the Lovain branch looks to me at odds with chronology. From memory, Van Droogenbroeck tells us of the consanguinity of this branch with a count of Flanders. His suggestion does not provide an answer for the 'streugut' possession of Adela of Louvain of an allodium in Weert (in Dutch Limburg close to Noord Brabant close to the Belgian border).
Van Droogenbroecks first reconstruction of the junior Lovain branch looks realistic to me. It also provides windows for further possibilities.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=xUjRU7oapZsC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=Frans+van+Droogenbroeck+affligem&source=bl&ots=NjS0kyaiu2&sig=ACfU3U0xF2j_iDaDZKgQudSKXM2bs0VG6g&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv-IWOwZLqAhXOnKQKHS6uDJoQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Frans%20van%20Droogenbroeck%20affligem&f=false
Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
His recent reconstruction through the Lovain branch looks to me at odds with chronology. <<
Simply put, not likely. But if one realizes that other 'Regnier' descendants of Regnier I Longicolli could have been around the search for a better proposal could continue.

Hans Vogels
Hans Vogels
2020-06-21 09:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Concerning this famous couple, I see some old discussions which summarize the main things known and not known.
But I wanted to ask if anyone has see criticisms or complements concerning the proposals of Frans Droogenbroeck. In fact, he appears in some of the old discussions on this list, but the articles he has published since then, which can mostly be seen on academia.edu, have proposed a new tree for Richilde. (The idea that she was the Hainaut heiress instead of her husband seems to have been effectively made unconvincing by Vanderkindere in 1899, although MEDLANDS is not showing that.)
His ideas have started being placed into Wikipedia articles etc. At first sight they look at least as good as older proposals, but I fear they won't be seen as "proven" by everyone. So I am looking for balanced judgements.
From what I read he is unaware or sufficiently aware that near the end of the 10th century we see a 'new' phenomena of grandchildren accidentally being named with the first name and the nickname of a grandfather. In the case of the counts of Hainaut I mean the name combination Reinier langhals (Regnier Longicollus). This combination can be noticed with a Hainaut grandson Regnier III but could easily have been used for other grandsons. Van Droogenbroeck struggles with this nickname that was given to the grandfather of Richilde, in combination with the fact that Richilde married a direct Hainaut descendant.
This grandfather-grandson naming (first name + nickname) is something that is a known fact in the Low Countries in later (13th century) ages up until around 1500. The first name + nickname was also transferred from uncle to nephew and could point to a conscious awareness of descent from a (then) well-known ancestor. Regnier Longicollus is known to have a daughter who married a count Nevelung. This couple had offspring. The range of their offspring has not yet been mapped sufficiently. The counts of Valenciennes for instance and the counts of Loon could belong to their offspring.
So simply said there are Regniers en Regnier Longicollis. Every Regnier descending of Regnier I could be a longicolli but not otherwise. Van Droogenbroecks view in trying to explain the name of the supposed grandfather of countes Richilde is to limited.
Hans Vogels
Hi Hans
My first reading was that he is in fact insisting on the possibility you raise? He sees Richilde's grandfather as a different Reginar Longneck, from the Louvain branch of the family, and living in the 10th century?
Still, as Peter points out, that is still a pretty close relationship given how sensitive the clerical authorities were about consanguinity in this period. Strange that I have not seen Van Droogenbroeck address that concern.
His paper was an eye-opener to me for the Regnier Longicolli example that he pointed to. Previously it had gone unnoticed. Now I saw the 'first' example of a naming custom that becomes apparent in the 13th century.

You can look differently at what Van Droogenbroeck writes. He brings the attention back to the 11th-century history of the border between Flanders and Brabant. See also:

https://www.academia.edu/36736769/De_11e-eeuwse_graaf_Otto_van_Leuven_mythe_of_werkelijkheid


That in itself is good though not every genealogical reconstruction is successful.

Hans Vogels
Loading...