Discussion:
House of Wessex
Add Reply
Max Stenner
2021-03-11 19:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been studying the House of Wessex and are trying to find out if the dynasty continued beyond the 1120s with the death of Edgar Ætheling. There are quite a few people named ‘Ætheling’ in pipe rolls and other legal records long after Edgar died. With Ætheling meaning prince and was commonly used by Anglo-Saxon princes, it is possible that they could be descended from Edgar but they could have also been descended from the House of Godwin or the Knytlingas.

There are also multiple claims of parentage of Edgar, these being

1. Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo (b. 1071. d. 1148), supposedly an illegitimate son fathered in Italy in 1071, though around this time Edgar was occupied in Britain, the main source for this claim are dodgy Maltese genealogy websites based on poorly documented lines. Edgar did go to Italy, but around 15 years later in 1086.
2. Matilda (d. 1146/47), wife of Guiges III, Count of Albon, she is referred to as the ‘Queen of England’ in chronicles, which has caused many to speculate that she was a daughter of Edgar, but now the common belief is that she was a daughter of Roger I of Sicily with his second wife. I honestly don’t see the link between Sicily and England at that time except the fact that they were both ruled by Normans. Matilda wasn’t an Anglo-Saxon name, and rather a name more popular with the Normans, which has led me to speculate that she was an illegitimate daughter of William the Conqueror.
3. Margaret, wife of Ralph Lovel II of Castle Carey and Thomas de Londres. The source for this claim is a Huntingdon Chronicle mentioned in the article ‘Companions of the Atheling’ by Geoffrey Barlow, which states that Margaret was the daughter of Edgar.

Did he have any children? This question has been asked a couple of times here
but with no straight answer.
taf
2021-03-11 21:18:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
I have been studying the House of Wessex and are trying to find out if the dynasty
continued beyond the 1120s with the death of Edgar Ætheling. There are quite a
few people named ‘Ætheling’ in pipe rolls and other legal records long after Edgar
died. With Ætheling meaning prince and was commonly used by Anglo-Saxon princes,
it is possible that they could be descended from Edgar but they could have also been
descended from the House of Godwin or the Knytlingas.
As was mentioned last time this came up, they could also not have been related to any royal at all, just as not everyone with the surname Prince is descended from a prince, nor anyone named King descended from a king. They could have been a retainer, serf or slave of someone with the title, or it could even be more removed than that.
Post by Max Stenner
There are also multiple claims of parentage of Edgar, these being
1. Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo (b. 1071. d. 1148), supposedly
an illegitimate son fathered in Italy in 1071, though around this time Edgar was occupied
in Britain, the main source for this claim are dodgy Maltese genealogy websites based
on poorly documented lines. Edgar did go to Italy, but around 15 years later in 1086.
What is the earliest record that this person even existed?
Post by Max Stenner
2. Matilda (d. 1146/47), wife of Guiges III, Count of Albon, she is referred to as the ‘Queen
of England’ in chronicles, which has caused many to speculate that she was a daughter of
Edgar, but now the common belief is that she was a daughter of Roger I of Sicily with his
second wife. I honestly don’t see the link between Sicily and England at that time except the
fact that they were both ruled by Normans. Matilda wasn’t an Anglo-Saxon name, and rather
a name more popular with the Normans, which has led me to speculate that she was an
illegitimate daughter of William the Conqueror.
That Matilda was daughter of Edgar was just wild speculation by Vajay, and there is equally wild speculation that she was daughter of Robert Guiscard (IIRC). I don't think there is any resolution to who this woman was or why she was referred to as she was (if she was - what is the precise quote?), and as such it is extremely rash to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with her.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-03-11 22:09:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
I have been studying the House of Wessex and are trying to find out if the dynasty
continued beyond the 1120s with the death of Edgar Ætheling. There are quite a
few people named ‘Ætheling’ in pipe rolls and other legal records long after Edgar
died. With Ætheling meaning prince and was commonly used by Anglo-Saxon princes,
it is possible that they could be descended from Edgar but they could have also been
descended from the House of Godwin or the Knytlingas.
As was mentioned last time this came up, they could also not have been related to any royal at all, just as not everyone with the surname Prince is descended from a prince, nor anyone named King descended from a king. They could have been a retainer, serf or slave of someone with the title, or it could even be more removed than that.
Post by Max Stenner
There are also multiple claims of parentage of Edgar, these being
1. Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo (b. 1071. d. 1148), supposedly
an illegitimate son fathered in Italy in 1071, though around this time Edgar was occupied
in Britain, the main source for this claim are dodgy Maltese genealogy websites based
on poorly documented lines. Edgar did go to Italy, but around 15 years later in 1086.
What is the earliest record that this person even existed?
Post by Max Stenner
2. Matilda (d. 1146/47), wife of Guiges III, Count of Albon, she is referred to as the ‘Queen
of England’ in chronicles, which has caused many to speculate that she was a daughter of
Edgar, but now the common belief is that she was a daughter of Roger I of Sicily with his
second wife. I honestly don’t see the link between Sicily and England at that time except the
fact that they were both ruled by Normans. Matilda wasn’t an Anglo-Saxon name, and rather
a name more popular with the Normans, which has led me to speculate that she was an
illegitimate daughter of William the Conqueror.
That Matilda was daughter of Edgar was just wild speculation by Vajay, and there is equally wild speculation that she was daughter of Robert Guiscard (IIRC). I don't think there is any resolution to who this woman was or why she was referred to as she was (if she was - what is the precise quote?), and as such it is extremely rash to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with her.
taf
Silvestro is supposedly the ancestor of the minor di Lorenzo family of Sicily[1], the family does exist, they currently own a large estate and are partners in a wine company.[2] The specific phrases in chronicles for Matilda referring to her as Queen are ‘ Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia’, ‘Regina nominate Maheldis’ and ‘uxor domini comitis domina Regina et soror eiusdem comitis domina Adelaida’, both are from charters.[3]

The Malta genealogy website also speculates that their ancestors may have come during the crusades[1]. The earliest source for the family I can find is a 1418 militia list. I might contact the Malta genealogy owner

[1] - Malta Genealogy page for the Lorenzos- https://www.maltagenealogy.com/de-lorenzo
[2] - Blog post about the family - https://www.thegiftofoil.co.uk/the-di-lorenzo-family/
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Peter Stewart
2021-03-11 23:05:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Post by Max Stenner
I have been studying the House of Wessex and are trying to find out if the dynasty
continued beyond the 1120s with the death of Edgar Ætheling. There are quite a
few people named ‘Ætheling’ in pipe rolls and other legal records long after Edgar
died. With Ætheling meaning prince and was commonly used by Anglo-Saxon princes,
it is possible that they could be descended from Edgar but they could have also been
descended from the House of Godwin or the Knytlingas.
As was mentioned last time this came up, they could also not have been related to any royal at all, just as not everyone with the surname Prince is descended from a prince, nor anyone named King descended from a king. They could have been a retainer, serf or slave of someone with the title, or it could even be more removed than that.
Post by Max Stenner
There are also multiple claims of parentage of Edgar, these being
1. Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo (b. 1071. d. 1148), supposedly
an illegitimate son fathered in Italy in 1071, though around this time Edgar was occupied
in Britain, the main source for this claim are dodgy Maltese genealogy websites based
on poorly documented lines. Edgar did go to Italy, but around 15 years later in 1086.
What is the earliest record that this person even existed?
Post by Max Stenner
2. Matilda (d. 1146/47), wife of Guiges III, Count of Albon, she is referred to as the ‘Queen
of England’ in chronicles, which has caused many to speculate that she was a daughter of
Edgar, but now the common belief is that she was a daughter of Roger I of Sicily with his
second wife. I honestly don’t see the link between Sicily and England at that time except the
fact that they were both ruled by Normans. Matilda wasn’t an Anglo-Saxon name, and rather
a name more popular with the Normans, which has led me to speculate that she was an
illegitimate daughter of William the Conqueror.
That Matilda was daughter of Edgar was just wild speculation by Vajay, and there is equally wild speculation that she was daughter of Robert Guiscard (IIRC). I don't think there is any resolution to who this woman was or why she was referred to as she was (if she was - what is the precise quote?), and as such it is extremely rash to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with her.
taf
Silvestro is supposedly the ancestor of the minor di Lorenzo family of Sicily[1], the family does exist, they currently own a large estate and are partners in a wine company.[2] The specific phrases in chronicles for Matilda referring to her as Queen are ‘ Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia’, ‘Regina nominate Maheldis’ and ‘uxor domini comitis domina Regina et soror eiusdem comitis domina Adelaida’, both are from charters.[3]
The Malta genealogy website also speculates that their ancestors may have come during the crusades[1]. The earliest source for the family I can find is a 1418 militia list. I might contact the Malta genealogy owner
[1] - Malta Genealogy page for the Lorenzos- https://www.maltagenealogy.com/de-lorenzo
[2] - Blog post about the family - https://www.thegiftofoil.co.uk/the-di-lorenzo-family/
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
The Malta genealogy page is far from reliable and you may save yourself
trouble by ignoring it completely. The Hauteville page (linked from
"Sofia de Molisio di Boiano" the purported wife of "Silvestro Aetheling"
is so full of BS that it would take a month of Sundays to unravel all
the errors, fantasy and fiction. This couple, for a start, are invented.

As for Matilda the second wife of Guigues III of Albon, although I don't
agree with Szabolcs de Vajay about her I don't think his speculation in
this instance is quite "wild" but rather "untamed". It has lived around
the house of reason for a bit anyway, despite never getting inside to
foul the carpets.

Peter Stewart
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-11 23:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
pj.ev...@gmail.com
2021-03-12 00:40:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-12 00:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
The phrase from the 1106 charter as quoted in Medlands is "Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia" (i.e., "Regina" is not a parenthetical modifying a "Mathilda") This to me seems like it could be translated as "Lord Guiges the count and his wife Queenie who was from England."
Peter Stewart
2021-03-12 02:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
The phrase from the 1106 charter as quoted in Medlands is "Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia" (i.e., "Regina" is not a parenthetical modifying a "Mathilda") This to me seems like it could be translated as "Lord Guiges the count and his wife Queenie who was from England."
The closest we can come to the usage of 'regina' for her is probably
this original charter of her husband for Chalais abbey dated 31 October
1110:

http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3757/

Unfortunately much of the facsimile is not very clear and the
transciption is less than satisfactory ("Ego Guigo comes et uxor mea
Regina [note that the R is capitalised in the orignial though not in the
transcription] nomine Maheldis ... [omitted in transcription: Signum
Guigonis comitis qui hanc donationem fecit.] Signum Maheldis reginȩ que
hanc donationem fieri [jussit et] laudavit ... Hanc donationem quam
fecerunt Guigo comes et Maheldis regina uxor sua donaverunt et
laudaverunt similiter filii eorum Guigo Dalfinus et Umbertus.")

In another extant original charter for Chalais, undated but written
around the same time, Guigues named her without referring to 'regina':

http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3756/

("Ego uuigo comes & uxor mea nomine mahiot").

In a suspect confirmation by Pope Honorius II of the founding of Chalais
she is called Queen Mathilde ("comes Guigo de Albione, concessione
uxoris Mathildis regine").

In a charter of their great-great-grandson dated 1210 she is called 'the
queen ... named Mathilde' ("Guigo comes de Albione peravus meus et
regina uxor illius nomine Maltiltis"), and in a charter of his dated
1232 she is referred to first without 'regina' and secondly with this
("Guigo comes et Matildis uxor ejusdem ... in presentia Matildis regine").

Whether it should be considered a nickname or a putative title is not at
all clear to me from these sources.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-03-14 10:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Even if Matilda Regina was the daughter of Edgar or a Norman king, why would that explain
her title of queen? Perhaps she might regard herself as a princess although I believe Edgar
was never crowned [?], but this seems a very odd argument. Kings daughters surely wernt
normally so entitled, and Henry I had to go to great lengths to get his Matilda recognised
as heir to the throne. Didnt contemporaries call her Empress long after the
death of her husband? If so this suggests to me that if Matilda was a queen she was
the widow of a king.

Didnt Manteyer have another theory on this, that she that she came from Northumbria and so
introduced the name Dolfin/ Dauphin into the Rhone family, but unless she was a widow of a
scottish king, it doesnt explain regina. I'm unsure whether we know the names of wives of the
sons of Malcolm III, but coincidentally I think it was Edgar Aetheling who led a norman army
to place his ?nephew Edgar on the scottish throne in 1097.

The theory that Matilda regina wife of Guigo, was the widow of Conrad of Germany
king of Italy 1093-1101 seems believable but as quoted above, his wife was probably
the dau of Roger of Sicily. It would make sense for the rebel Conrad to marry a
daughter of his fathers enemy, if he wanted to maintain himself in Italy. And Roger I seems
to have had 3 daus called Matilda. Sure was a popular name in the west. Who was the first
Matilda who started it off I wonder, Matilda of Flanders?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
The phrase from the 1106 charter as quoted in Medlands is "Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia" (i.e., "Regina" is not a parenthetical modifying a "Mathilda") This to me seems like it could be translated as "Lord Guiges the count and his wife Queenie who was from England."
The closest we can come to the usage of 'regina' for her is probably
this original charter of her husband for Chalais abbey dated 31 October
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3757/
Unfortunately much of the facsimile is not very clear and the
transciption is less than satisfactory ("Ego Guigo comes et uxor mea
Regina [note that the R is capitalised in the orignial though not in the
transcription] nomine Maheldis ... [omitted in transcription: Signum
Guigonis comitis qui hanc donationem fecit.] Signum Maheldis reginȩ que
hanc donationem fieri [jussit et] laudavit ... Hanc donationem quam
fecerunt Guigo comes et Maheldis regina uxor sua donaverunt et
laudaverunt similiter filii eorum Guigo Dalfinus et Umbertus.")
In another extant original charter for Chalais, undated but written
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3756/
("Ego uuigo comes & uxor mea nomine mahiot").
In a suspect confirmation by Pope Honorius II of the founding of Chalais
she is called Queen Mathilde ("comes Guigo de Albione, concessione
uxoris Mathildis regine").
In a charter of their great-great-grandson dated 1210 she is called 'the
queen ... named Mathilde' ("Guigo comes de Albione peravus meus et
regina uxor illius nomine Maltiltis"), and in a charter of his dated
1232 she is referred to first without 'regina' and secondly with this
("Guigo comes et Matildis uxor ejusdem ... in presentia Matildis regine").
Whether it should be considered a nickname or a putative title is not at
all clear to me from these sources.
Peter Stewart
I suppose it might be just another name not a title although some of these
charters do suggest t it was rather a title, but I think Matilda wife of the conqueror
was called regina before her husband became king, so perhaps it could be a
title Guigo gave her, although this doesnt sound very satisfactory.

Are the charters original? Is there a possibility that a lady who perhaps had
2 names, later copyists or scribes thought one was her title?

Kerica
Max Stenner
2021-03-14 11:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Even if Matilda Regina was the daughter of Edgar or a Norman king, why would that explain
her title of queen? Perhaps she might regard herself as a princess although I believe Edgar
was never crowned [?], but this seems a very odd argument. Kings daughters surely wernt
normally so entitled, and Henry I had to go to great lengths to get his Matilda recognised
as heir to the throne. Didnt contemporaries call her Empress long after the
death of her husband? If so this suggests to me that if Matilda was a queen she was
the widow of a king.
Didnt Manteyer have another theory on this, that she that she came from Northumbria and so
introduced the name Dolfin/ Dauphin into the Rhone family, but unless she was a widow of a
scottish king, it doesnt explain regina. I'm unsure whether we know the names of wives of the
sons of Malcolm III, but coincidentally I think it was Edgar Aetheling who led a norman army
to place his ?nephew Edgar on the scottish throne in 1097.
The theory that Matilda regina wife of Guigo, was the widow of Conrad of Germany
king of Italy 1093-1101 seems believable but as quoted above, his wife was probably
the dau of Roger of Sicily. It would make sense for the rebel Conrad to marry a
daughter of his fathers enemy, if he wanted to maintain himself in Italy. And Roger I seems
to have had 3 daus called Matilda. Sure was a popular name in the west. Who was the first
Matilda who started it off I wonder, Matilda of Flanders?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
The phrase from the 1106 charter as quoted in Medlands is "Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia" (i.e., "Regina" is not a parenthetical modifying a "Mathilda") This to me seems like it could be translated as "Lord Guiges the count and his wife Queenie who was from England."
The closest we can come to the usage of 'regina' for her is probably
this original charter of her husband for Chalais abbey dated 31 October
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3757/
Unfortunately much of the facsimile is not very clear and the
transciption is less than satisfactory ("Ego Guigo comes et uxor mea
Regina [note that the R is capitalised in the orignial though not in the
transcription] nomine Maheldis ... [omitted in transcription: Signum
Guigonis comitis qui hanc donationem fecit.] Signum Maheldis reginȩ que
hanc donationem fieri [jussit et] laudavit ... Hanc donationem quam
fecerunt Guigo comes et Maheldis regina uxor sua donaverunt et
laudaverunt similiter filii eorum Guigo Dalfinus et Umbertus.")
In another extant original charter for Chalais, undated but written
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3756/
("Ego uuigo comes & uxor mea nomine mahiot").
In a suspect confirmation by Pope Honorius II of the founding of Chalais
she is called Queen Mathilde ("comes Guigo de Albione, concessione
uxoris Mathildis regine").
In a charter of their great-great-grandson dated 1210 she is called 'the
queen ... named Mathilde' ("Guigo comes de Albione peravus meus et
regina uxor illius nomine Maltiltis"), and in a charter of his dated
1232 she is referred to first without 'regina' and secondly with this
("Guigo comes et Matildis uxor ejusdem ... in presentia Matildis regine").
Whether it should be considered a nickname or a putative title is not at
all clear to me from these sources.
Peter Stewart
I suppose it might be just another name not a title although some of these
charters do suggest t it was rather a title, but I think Matilda wife of the conqueror
was called regina before her husband became king, so perhaps it could be a
title Guigo gave her, although this doesnt sound very satisfactory.
Are the charters original? Is there a possibility that a lady who perhaps had
2 names, later copyists or scribes thought one was her title?
Kerica
What I don’t get is the charter that England is specified in the charter ‘ Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia’. Where did that come from? It’s all a mystery to me. I’m going to side with Keri’s theory on copyists/scribes.

Maybe she’s Matilda, the daughter of William the Conqueror that appears in the Doomesday Book? That would explain the ‘of Anglia’ and maybe ‘Regina’ is a mistranslation for just general royalty.
Peter Stewart
2021-03-15 00:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Post by keri CA
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Even if Matilda Regina was the daughter of Edgar or a Norman king, why would that explain
her title of queen? Perhaps she might regard herself as a princess although I believe Edgar
was never crowned [?], but this seems a very odd argument. Kings daughters surely wernt
normally so entitled, and Henry I had to go to great lengths to get his Matilda recognised
as heir to the throne. Didnt contemporaries call her Empress long after the
death of her husband? If so this suggests to me that if Matilda was a queen she was
the widow of a king.
Didnt Manteyer have another theory on this, that she that she came from Northumbria and so
introduced the name Dolfin/ Dauphin into the Rhone family, but unless she was a widow of a
scottish king, it doesnt explain regina. I'm unsure whether we know the names of wives of the
sons of Malcolm III, but coincidentally I think it was Edgar Aetheling who led a norman army
to place his ?nephew Edgar on the scottish throne in 1097.
The theory that Matilda regina wife of Guigo, was the widow of Conrad of Germany
king of Italy 1093-1101 seems believable but as quoted above, his wife was probably
the dau of Roger of Sicily. It would make sense for the rebel Conrad to marry a
daughter of his fathers enemy, if he wanted to maintain himself in Italy. And Roger I seems
to have had 3 daus called Matilda. Sure was a popular name in the west. Who was the first
Matilda who started it off I wonder, Matilda of Flanders?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
The phrase from the 1106 charter as quoted in Medlands is "Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia" (i.e., "Regina" is not a parenthetical modifying a "Mathilda") This to me seems like it could be translated as "Lord Guiges the count and his wife Queenie who was from England."
The closest we can come to the usage of 'regina' for her is probably
this original charter of her husband for Chalais abbey dated 31 October
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3757/
Unfortunately much of the facsimile is not very clear and the
transciption is less than satisfactory ("Ego Guigo comes et uxor mea
Regina [note that the R is capitalised in the orignial though not in the
transcription] nomine Maheldis ... [omitted in transcription: Signum
Guigonis comitis qui hanc donationem fecit.] Signum Maheldis reginȩ que
hanc donationem fieri [jussit et] laudavit ... Hanc donationem quam
fecerunt Guigo comes et Maheldis regina uxor sua donaverunt et
laudaverunt similiter filii eorum Guigo Dalfinus et Umbertus.")
In another extant original charter for Chalais, undated but written
http://www.cn-telma.fr/originaux/charte3756/
("Ego uuigo comes & uxor mea nomine mahiot").
In a suspect confirmation by Pope Honorius II of the founding of Chalais
she is called Queen Mathilde ("comes Guigo de Albione, concessione
uxoris Mathildis regine").
In a charter of their great-great-grandson dated 1210 she is called 'the
queen ... named Mathilde' ("Guigo comes de Albione peravus meus et
regina uxor illius nomine Maltiltis"), and in a charter of his dated
1232 she is referred to first without 'regina' and secondly with this
("Guigo comes et Matildis uxor ejusdem ... in presentia Matildis regine").
Whether it should be considered a nickname or a putative title is not at
all clear to me from these sources.
Peter Stewart
I suppose it might be just another name not a title although some of these
charters do suggest t it was rather a title, but I think Matilda wife of the conqueror
was called regina before her husband became king, so perhaps it could be a
title Guigo gave her, although this doesnt sound very satisfactory.
Are the charters original? Is there a possibility that a lady who perhaps had
2 names, later copyists or scribes thought one was her title?
Kerica
What I don’t get is the charter that England is specified in the charter ‘ Dominus Vuigo comes et uxor eius Regina quæ fuit de Anglia’. Where did that come from?
It is in an undated charter copied in the cartulary of Domnène priory,
where a donation by a vassal is said to have been approved by Guiges and
his wife Regina who was from England.

The two charters I linked to are the original documents, not cartulary
versions. In the first, by her husband, she is called "uxor mea Regina
nomine Maheldis". This presumably means "my wife the queen named
Mathilde", though it could conceivably be a clumsy way of saying "my
wife named Regina aka Mathilde". However, the latter does not seem as
consistent with their great-great-grandson's "regina uxor illius nomine
Maltiltis" (the queen his wife named Mathilde).

There are instances of women called "regina" who were not either queens
in their own right or married to kings. The earliest of these I can
think of who reportedly insisted on being titled "regina" because her
father was a king was Mafalda of Portugal, countess of Flanders in the
late-12th century. Unlike others, including William the Conqueror's wife
briefly in Normandy before he became king, Mafalda wanted to be called
"regina" and was indulged in this before she became a proxy ruler,
effectively regent - of a "regnum", which did not necessarily mean a
kingdom - only after her husband's death.

The most mysterious example that comes to mind is that of Rozala Susanna
who was regent of Flanders in the late-10th century, daughter of a king
of Italy and briefly wife of Robert II of France when he was associate
king to his father Hugo Capet. She called herself (or was called)
"regina" in an original or (more probably) pseudo-original charter
written (if original) far too soon after her first husband's death for
her second marriage or even betrothal negotiations to have taken place.
However, she was definitely ruling Flanders at the time on behalf of her
young son, so "regina" could have mean "regent" rather than literally
"queen". This is a possibility also with Mathilde in Albon, but not a
very likely one.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-19 11:43:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
There are instances of women called "regina" who were not either queens
in their own right or married to kings. The earliest of these I can
think of who reportedly insisted on being titled "regina" because her
father was a king was Mafalda of Portugal, countess of Flanders in the
late-12th century. Unlike others, including William the Conqueror's wife
briefly in Normandy before he became king, Mafalda wanted to be called
"regina" and was indulged in this before she became a proxy ruler,
effectively regent - of a "regnum", which did not necessarily mean a
kingdom - only after her husband's death.
This needs correcting in two respects:

1. Matilda was regent of Flanders in the lifetime of her husband
Philippe of Alsace, while he was away on crusade; and more remarkably

2. She had been titled queen in Portugal by her father, when she was
still called Teresa, well before she was married (evidently at around
the age of 32) and took her mother's name instead (Matilda, inherited
directly from Matilda 'regina', countess of Albon, whom we have been
discussing).

Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-19 13:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-19 22:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.
This strikes me as plausible, but then you could barely fill a
nano-thimble with my knowledge of Iberian linguistics. It does seem odd
that a transition from f > h in a common word should at around the same
time go also from h > f in an uncommon name, but speakers can move sound
patterns very rapidly in unpredictable ways.

Recently I heard old recordings of two women who had been at school in
New Zealand in the early days of the education system there, i.e. before
the modern "Kiwi" accent should have been anywhere near fully-formed.
They sounded exactly like old people in Australia in the 1950s, whose
accents traced to the 1870s when they might be expected to sound more
like British counterparts than present-day descendants. However, they
sounded instead like fairly heavily-accented compatriots today. The
theory apparently is that school-children imitating each other and
caricaturing their elders have more to do with developing accents
overall than adults who tend more to standard speech, trying to sound
cultivated.

That is maybe a round-about way of wondering if "Mafalda" could have
come about from a child's mispronunciation. Ditto "Majes" for Mafalda of
Savoy's mother Matilda of Albon, daughter of the countess Matilda Regina.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-19 23:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.
This strikes me as plausible, but then you could barely fill a
nano-thimble with my knowledge of Iberian linguistics. It does seem odd
that a transition from f > h in a common word should at around the same
time go also from h > f in an uncommon name, but speakers can move sound
patterns very rapidly in unpredictable ways.
When viewed from historical perspective we see a direction to a shift, but during that transition, there had to be a period in time when the two were interchangeable and the direction it would end up going would not have been evident. To add to the complexity, while Castile went from 'filio' to 'hijo', Portugal went from 'filio' to 'filho', but of course in Afonso's time speaking of Castilian and Portuguese as separate languages is a bit anachronistic. Though I don't remember the details, I can recall noticing 'f' and 'h' used in the same word at different places in the same document from this period.

One problematical example of this interchangeability is seen in the earliest surviving manuscript copy of the so-called 'Arbol de la Casa de Ayala', which lists successive daughters of author Fernan Perez de Ayala as Aldonza Fernandez and Sancha Hernandez. Unfortunately, the surviving manuscript is the product of at least two separate rounds of copying, most recently in the late 17th century, and so we can't be sure if it was this way in the original 14th century manuscript, or if one of the copyists correctly reproduced the first but then substituted his own contemporary vernacular 'H' name form for the second instance.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-03-20 12:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have also noticed claims of Edgars parentage with 'Gerald Longsword' who he supposedly fathered on crusade with a cousin of Alexios I Kommenos. Sounds like utter nonsense to me.
taf
2021-03-20 13:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
I have also noticed claims of Edgars parentage with 'Gerald Longsword' who he supposedly fathered on crusade with a cousin of Alexios I Kommenos. Sounds like utter nonsense to me.
I (via Google) am not finding a "Gerald Longsword" anywhere (nor Gerald Longespee, for good measure). Any idea where you saw this?

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-20 23:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
I have also noticed claims of Edgars parentage with 'Gerald Longsword' who he supposedly fathered on crusade with a cousin of Alexios I Kommenos. Sounds like utter nonsense to me.
I (via Google) am not finding a "Gerald Longsword" anywhere (nor Gerald Longespee, for good measure). Any idea where you saw this?
"Longsword" is the problem - the internet story, worthless either way,
is that Edgar fathered a son named Gerald Longstride.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-21 00:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
I have also noticed claims of Edgars parentage with 'Gerald Longsword' who
he supposedly fathered on crusade with a cousin of Alexios I Kommenos.
Sounds like utter nonsense to me.
I (via Google) am not finding a "Gerald Longsword" anywhere (nor Gerald
Longespee, for good measure). Any idea where you saw this?
"Longsword" is the problem - the internet story, worthless either way,
is that Edgar fathered a son named Gerald Longstride.
Google search turns up 7 instances of 'Gerald Longstride'. Of these seven, two of them are Wikipedia mirrors (copies of the site from when the information was on the Wikipedia page), and one of them is a person asking a question after having seen it on Wikipedia. Checking the history of Edgar's page, we find that it was added in October 2007, and not noticed and removed until a year later. Then, one of the Google hits is Edgar's Wikipedia article Talk page, where a few months after it was removed, someone is asking about it because they saw 'several references online' (probably the Wikipedia mirror sites), and there is also a mirror of the Talk page. The sixth Google result, from 2010, just makes passing reference to 'if you discount the existence of Gerald Longstride' as child of Edgar. Regarding these six, there is no indication now online that the claim that Edgar had such a son predates the addition to Wikipedia in late 2007 by an IP-address editor who was warned a dozen times over two years for vandalizing pages before finally being blocked. Unless someone is aware of it existing previously, this has every appearance of being a hoax created by a Wikipedia vandal in 2007.

Then there is the seventh Google result. A pedigree at myheritage.com names Gerald Longstride the son of 'Hereward - Earl of Mercia Bourne' a ridiculous rendering of Hereward the Wake, given four wives including the equally absurd ' Thurfrida Mercia BOURNE (born d'Arles)'.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-21 01:31:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
I have also noticed claims of Edgars parentage with 'Gerald Longsword' who
he supposedly fathered on crusade with a cousin of Alexios I Kommenos.
Sounds like utter nonsense to me.
I (via Google) am not finding a "Gerald Longsword" anywhere (nor Gerald
Longespee, for good measure). Any idea where you saw this?
"Longsword" is the problem - the internet story, worthless either way,
is that Edgar fathered a son named Gerald Longstride.
Google search turns up 7 instances of 'Gerald Longstride'. Of these seven, two of them are Wikipedia mirrors (copies of the site from when the information was on the Wikipedia page), and one of them is a person asking a question after having seen it on Wikipedia. Checking the history of Edgar's page, we find that it was added in October 2007, and not noticed and removed until a year later. Then, one of the Google hits is Edgar's Wikipedia article Talk page, where a few months after it was removed, someone is asking about it because they saw 'several references online' (probably the Wikipedia mirror sites), and there is also a mirror of the Talk page. The sixth Google result, from 2010, just makes passing reference to 'if you discount the existence of Gerald Longstride' as child of Edgar. Regarding these six, there is no indication now online that the claim that Edgar had such a son predates the addition to Wikipedia in late 2007 by an IP-address editor who was warned a dozen times over two years for vandalizing pages before finally being blocked. Unless someone is aware of it existing previously, this has every appearance of being a hoax created by a Wikipedia vandal in 2007.
Then there is the seventh Google result. A pedigree at myheritage.com names Gerald Longstride the son of 'Hereward - Earl of Mercia Bourne' a ridiculous rendering of Hereward the Wake, given four wives including the equally absurd ' Thurfrida Mercia BOURNE (born d'Arles)'.
Is the byname "Longstride" part of the Robin Hood legend? The character
as played by Russell Crowe in a 2010 movie was called "Robin Longstride"
for some reason (or for none, given the fanciful propensities of
Hollywood film
taf
2021-03-21 01:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Is the byname "Longstride" part of the Robin Hood legend? The character
as played by Russell Crowe in a 2010 movie was called "Robin Longstride"
for some reason (or for none, given the fanciful propensities of
Hollywood filmmakers).
If this had any history, one would expect to turn it up in at least one book prior to the 2010 movie. A Google Books search only returns two entires, and neither of them actually have the word longstride in them. Looks like they just made it up.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-21 02:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Is the byname "Longstride" part of the Robin Hood legend? The character
as played by Russell Crowe in a 2010 movie was called "Robin Longstride"
for some reason (or for none, given the fanciful propensities of
Hollywood filmmakers).
If this had any history, one would expect to turn it up in at least one book prior to the 2010 movie. A Google Books search only returns two entires, and neither of them actually have the word longstride in them. Looks like they just made it up.
Maybe Ridley Scott - and the Wikipedia hoaxer for that matter - had read
a children's book published in the 1970s, *The Delikon* by Helen Hoover,
in which Darkhood and Longstride are magical objects, a helmet and boots
respectively, given to the hero.

Peter Stewart
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-03-21 13:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.
This strikes me as plausible, but then you could barely fill a
nano-thimble with my knowledge of Iberian linguistics. It does seem odd
that a transition from f > h in a common word should at around the same
time go also from h > f in an uncommon name, but speakers can move sound
patterns very rapidly in unpredictable ways.
Recently I heard old recordings of two women who had been at school in
New Zealand in the early days of the education system there, i.e. before
the modern "Kiwi" accent should have been anywhere near fully-formed.
They sounded exactly like old people in Australia in the 1950s, whose
accents traced to the 1870s when they might be expected to sound more
like British counterparts than present-day descendants. However, they
sounded instead like fairly heavily-accented compatriots today. The
theory apparently is that school-children imitating each other and
caricaturing their elders have more to do with developing accents
overall than adults who tend more to standard speech, trying to sound
cultivated.
That is maybe a round-about way of wondering if "Mafalda" could have
come about from a child's mispronunciation. Ditto "Majes" for Mafalda of
Savoy's mother Matilda of Albon, daughter of the countess Matilda Regina.
Peter Stewart
Peter and Todd, showing my ignorance here but I was wondering if this "f" might have even been an attempt to reproduce a "th" sound in a nothern European name. I have not double checked but I was assuming Mathilde once had a Germanic "th" sound in the Benelux region because the consonant was dropped or became an "h" sound in medieval French. I must say that I don't immediately recognize the etymological parts of the name though, and the fact that Dutch doesn't seem to have dropped this intervocalic "th" consonant (like it often does, similar in effect to old French, as in the words for leather and weather, leer and weer) makes me doubt my first thoughts on this. OTOH modern versions of Mathilde in northern Dutch could come from German, which has Leder and Wetter. In Flanders Maude is much more common I think.
lancast...@gmail.com
2021-03-21 16:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.
This strikes me as plausible, but then you could barely fill a
nano-thimble with my knowledge of Iberian linguistics. It does seem odd
that a transition from f > h in a common word should at around the same
time go also from h > f in an uncommon name, but speakers can move sound
patterns very rapidly in unpredictable ways.
Recently I heard old recordings of two women who had been at school in
New Zealand in the early days of the education system there, i.e. before
the modern "Kiwi" accent should have been anywhere near fully-formed.
They sounded exactly like old people in Australia in the 1950s, whose
accents traced to the 1870s when they might be expected to sound more
like British counterparts than present-day descendants. However, they
sounded instead like fairly heavily-accented compatriots today. The
theory apparently is that school-children imitating each other and
caricaturing their elders have more to do with developing accents
overall than adults who tend more to standard speech, trying to sound
cultivated.
That is maybe a round-about way of wondering if "Mafalda" could have
come about from a child's mispronunciation. Ditto "Majes" for Mafalda of
Savoy's mother Matilda of Albon, daughter of the countess Matilda Regina.
Peter Stewart
Peter and Todd, showing my ignorance here but I was wondering if this "f" might have even been an attempt to reproduce a "th" sound in a nothern European name. I have not double checked but I was assuming Mathilde once had a Germanic "th" sound in the Benelux region because the consonant was dropped or became an "h" sound in medieval French. I must say that I don't immediately recognize the etymological parts of the name though, and the fact that Dutch doesn't seem to have dropped this intervocalic "th" consonant (like it often does, similar in effect to old French, as in the words for leather and weather, leer and weer) makes me doubt my first thoughts on this. OTOH modern versions of Mathilde in northern Dutch could come from German, which has Leder and Wetter. In Flanders Maude is much more common I think.
Of course I should have thought a bit longer and realized the oldest forms start with Macht-, which has a clear Germanic meaning. Fricative "ch" sounds also sometimes for some reason ended up being "f" sounds (cough, trough), though that seems a long shot in this case.
Peter Stewart
2021-03-21 22:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Her mother, from Savoy, was known as Mafalda in Portugal but since
Teresa did not change her name until after leaving her homeland it makes
little sense to use that particular form for her.
Curious form indeed, and I wonder if it doesn't relate to the linguistic blurring of 'f' and 'h' that was beginning to occur in Iberia at this time, with filio (from filius) transitioning into hijo in Castilian, and Fernan and Hernan coming to be used interchangeably, such that Mafalda is a representation of Mahalda/Mahaud.
This strikes me as plausible, but then you could barely fill a
nano-thimble with my knowledge of Iberian linguistics. It does seem odd
that a transition from f > h in a common word should at around the same
time go also from h > f in an uncommon name, but speakers can move sound
patterns very rapidly in unpredictable ways.
Recently I heard old recordings of two women who had been at school in
New Zealand in the early days of the education system there, i.e. before
the modern "Kiwi" accent should have been anywhere near fully-formed.
They sounded exactly like old people in Australia in the 1950s, whose
accents traced to the 1870s when they might be expected to sound more
like British counterparts than present-day descendants. However, they
sounded instead like fairly heavily-accented compatriots today. The
theory apparently is that school-children imitating each other and
caricaturing their elders have more to do with developing accents
overall than adults who tend more to standard speech, trying to sound
cultivated.
That is maybe a round-about way of wondering if "Mafalda" could have
come about from a child's mispronunciation. Ditto "Majes" for Mafalda of
Savoy's mother Matilda of Albon, daughter of the countess Matilda Regina.
Peter Stewart
Peter and Todd, showing my ignorance here but I was wondering if this "f" might have even been an attempt to reproduce a "th" sound in a nothern European name. I have not double checked but I was assuming Mathilde once had a Germanic "th" sound in the Benelux region because the consonant was dropped or became an "h" sound in medieval French. I must say that I don't immediately recognize the etymological parts of the name though, and the fact that Dutch doesn't seem to have dropped this intervocalic "th" consonant (like it often does, similar in effect to old French, as in the words for leather and weather, leer and weer) makes me doubt my first thoughts on this. OTOH modern versions of Mathilde in northern Dutch could come from German, which has Leder and Wetter. In Flanders Maude is much more common I think.
Of course I should have thought a bit longer and realized the oldest forms start with Macht-, which has a clear Germanic meaning. Fricative "ch" sounds also sometimes for some reason ended up being "f" sounds (cough, trough), though that seems a long shot in this case.
The elements from which the name Matilda is derived are thought to be
Maht (= power) and Hild (= combat). The masculine name Matfred also used
Maht-, and no doubt morphed at some point into variants Machtfred and
Maffred.

However, in Portugal the name arrived with a princess from Savoy where
the forms in writing were usually Matilda and Matildis - her mother
occurs once as Majes, mentioned upthread. It seems unlikely to me that a
pronunciation with "th" came with her.

Peter Stewart
Max Stenner
2021-04-23 20:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Also, some genealogies give Edgar’s wife as ‘Margaret von Allerdale', a daughter of Maldred, Earl of Dunbar.
taf
2021-04-23 21:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Also, some genealogies give Edgar’s wife as ‘Margaret von Allerdale', a daughter of Maldred, Earl of Dunbar.
With such online claims, one can never be sure if they have intentionally done so, having convinced themselves that she must have been a generation younger and arbitrarily selected this son of Earl Gospatric to be her father, if they found a scholar reaching this conclusion, or if this isn't just someone making a mistake and placing her in the wrong generation in their database. And of course, once it gets uploaded wrong, it gets copied, reuploaded, recopied, etc., so that even if an initial mistake was corrected, it never goes away.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-07-17 13:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
As this is a general House of Wessex thread, I’m going to add my hypothesis on Ealhmund, father of King Ecgberht.

I would like to suggest the idea that Ecgberht II of Kent is Ealhmund’s father, this is for mainly 3 reasons
1. The use of the name Ecgberht in Ealhmund’s family, Ealhmund’s son was named Ecgberht.
2. Both Ecgberht II and Ealhmund were Kings of Kent. Ecgberht’s last charter was in 779, and Ealhmund’s only charter is from 784. Offa seems to be ruling directly after this.
1. Under this hypothesis, Ecgberht would have died or abdicated (but most likely died) between 779 and 784
3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives a shady pedigree from Ealhmund to Ingild, brother of King Ine of Wessex. This would have been made to please King Alfred, the great grandson of Ealhmund, and to prove his West Saxon heritage. In a marginal note on the F version of the chronicle, he is identified with the King of Kent.
1. Ealhmund isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the chronicle, maybe this could be a coverup of his Kentish ancestry.
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
I think it’s possible that Ealhmund’s wife was of West Saxon royal descent because Ecgberht (Ealhmunds son) swept up the West Saxon throne after Beorhtric’s death in 802. There is no reason that someone who had lived in exile in France for most of his life and related to former Kentish kings would suddenly become King of Wessex.
1. It would be unknown to prove which king she was related to, but my best guess would be as a daughter or sister of Cynewulf. Cynewulf was a successful king that asserted Wessex independence. A relative of his would be exiled by Offa and Beorhtric as a threat to Mercian dominance.
taf
2021-07-17 14:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
As this is a general House of Wessex thread, I’m going to add my hypothesis on Ealhmund, father of King Ecgberht.
To play devil's advocate . . . .
Post by Max Stenner
I would like to suggest the idea that Ecgberht II of Kent is Ealhmund’s father, this is for mainly 3 reasons
1. The use of the name Ecgberht in Ealhmund’s family, Ealhmund’s son was named Ecgberht.
This is actually not as strong as it looks. We are used to different onomastic systems than the Anglo-Saxons practiced. They tended to reuse name elements in successive generations, but examples of people being named directly for immediate ancestors (father, grandfather) are the exception, rather than the rule.
Post by Max Stenner
2. Both Ecgberht II and Ealhmund were Kings of Kent. Ecgberht’s last charter was in 779, and Ealhmund’s only charter is from 784. Offa seems to be ruling directly after this.
[I'll come back to this.]
Post by Max Stenner
1. Under this hypothesis, Ecgberht would have died or abdicated (but most likely died) between 779 and 784
3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives a shady pedigree from Ealhmund to Ingild, brother of King Ine of Wessex.
Shady, in the sense that the individuals given are 'in the shade' of history, they are otherwise unknown. Not shady in terms of 'obviously doctored'. There is nothing inherently shady, in a kingdom in which 'normal' succession had become frayed over the preceding century, to have to resort to a claimant with a remote link to the ruling dynasty (e.g. Henry Tudor, Garcia Ramirez), and that is even in kingdoms with systems a lot closer to primogeniture than in the Anglo-Saxon ones.
Post by Max Stenner
This would have been made to please King Alfred, the great grandson of Ealhmund, and to prove his West Saxon heritage.
This is, to a degree, post hoc rationalization, basically turning the question 'if you have a forgery, then who would benefit' into 'someone benefited so there must have been a forgery'. It would also have pleased Alfred for the chronicle to record an authentic pedigree from the brother of a respected predecessor, Ine, to show that he had a fully authentic descent from Cerdic.
Post by Max Stenner
In a marginal note on the F version of the chronicle, he is identified with the King of Kent.
What does this marginal note represent? Is it authentic local knowledge by the owner of the manuscript, or is it some reader making connections based on their own insight? 'So Ecgberht was son of someone named Eahlmund - wait, I remember that name from somewhere. Ah, here it is, an Eahlmund, king of Kent, so I will just make a note here in the margin.' Just as we see this as an obvious conclusion, so the author of the marginalia might have thought, rather than it being based on actual knowledge of it as a historical fact. As such, you rarely see careful historians making the identification without at least some qualification like 'probably' or 'apparently' or 'seems to have been'.
Post by Max Stenner
1. Ealhmund isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the chronicle, maybe this could be a coverup of his Kentish ancestry.
There was an entire kingdom, Lindsey, for which there is not a single king mentioned in the chronicle. Does this mean there was an anti-Lindsey coverup? The Chronicle was compiled at regional centers, with different amounts of information available to them at different times on their neighbors. Particularly when many of the historical kingdoms were in the process of being subsumed, with a significant period of instability to follow, it wouldn't be surprising at all if some particular short-lived person calling themselves king was overlooked. There may be any number of them, and we only think Eahlmund is noteworthy because the same name appears in the pedigree for Ecgberht's father.

Using the same kind of post-hoc rationalization as above, had King Eahlmund really been the great-grandfather of Alfred, then wouldn't they have gone out of their way to shoehorn him into the chronicle? Couldn't we argue that his absence from the chronicle is evidence he was NOT Ecgberht's father?
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
Post by Max Stenner
I think it’s possible that Ealhmund’s wife was of West Saxon royal descent because Ecgberht (Ealhmunds son) swept up the West Saxon throne after Beorhtric’s death in 802. There is no reason that someone who had lived in exile in France for most of his life and related to former Kentish kings would suddenly become King of Wessex.
This works just as well flipped. If Ecgberht, from the Kent royal family, had a maternal link that qualified him to rule Wessex, then it could just as well be that Eahlmund of Wessex had a maternal connection that allowed him to rule Kent.
Post by Max Stenner
1. It would be unknown to prove which king she was related to, but my best guess would be as a daughter or sister of Cynewulf. Cynewulf was a successful king that asserted Wessex independence. A relative of his would be exiled by Offa and Beorhtric as a threat to Mercian dominance.
OK, now you need to just stop. If you have concluded the only surviving evidence is bogus, then there is literally no basis from which to draw a conclusion. One can build pretty much any scenario one wants, toward whichever former king your whims lead you, based on whatever ad hoc motivations one cares to envision.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-07-18 17:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
As this is a general House of Wessex thread, I’m going to add my hypothesis on Ealhmund, father of King Ecgberht.
To play devil's advocate . . . .
Post by Max Stenner
I would like to suggest the idea that Ecgberht II of Kent is Ealhmund’s father, this is for mainly 3 reasons
1. The use of the name Ecgberht in Ealhmund’s family, Ealhmund’s son was named Ecgberht.
This is actually not as strong as it looks. We are used to different onomastic systems than the Anglo-Saxons practiced. They tended to reuse name elements in successive generations, but examples of people being named directly for immediate ancestors (father, grandfather) are the exception, rather than the rule.
I see your point here, but naming after immediate ancestors wasn’t really rare, all of Æthelred the Unready’s sons were named after past kings for an example.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. Both Ecgberht II and Ealhmund were Kings of Kent. Ecgberht’s last charter was in 779, and Ealhmund’s only charter is from 784. Offa seems to be ruling directly after this.
[I'll come back to this.]
Post by Max Stenner
1. Under this hypothesis, Ecgberht would have died or abdicated (but most likely died) between 779 and 784
3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives a shady pedigree from Ealhmund to Ingild, brother of King Ine of Wessex.
Shady, in the sense that the individuals given are 'in the shade' of history, they are otherwise unknown. Not shady in terms of 'obviously doctored'. There is nothing inherently shady, in a kingdom in which 'normal' succession had become frayed over the preceding century, to have to resort to a claimant with a remote link to the ruling dynasty (e.g. Henry Tudor, Garcia Ramirez), and that is even in kingdoms with systems a lot closer to primogeniture than in the Anglo-Saxon ones.
That’s what I mean.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
This would have been made to please King Alfred, the great grandson of Ealhmund, and to prove his West Saxon heritage.
This is, to a degree, post hoc rationalization, basically turning the question 'if you have a forgery, then who would benefit' into 'someone benefited so there must have been a forgery'. It would also have pleased Alfred for the chronicle to record an authentic pedigree from the brother of a respected predecessor, Ine, to show that he had a fully authentic descent from Cerdic.
My argument on the forgery idea is that, why isn’t there any contemporary mention to Ingild, Eoppa and Eafa in surviving contemporary sources? If they were important enough that their descendant Ecgberht shows up and is made King in 802, then why weren’t they recorded as Æthelings? I agree with you that I should have brought up some more questions and not gone to conclusions so quickly. If they weren’t important enough to be recorded often, then Ecgberht couldn’t have gotten the throne in 802 on that one descent.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
In a marginal note on the F version of the chronicle, he is identified with the King of Kent.
What does this marginal note represent? Is it authentic local knowledge by the owner of the manuscript, or is it some reader making connections based on their own insight? 'So Ecgberht was son of someone named Eahlmund - wait, I remember that name from somewhere. Ah, here it is, an Eahlmund, king of Kent, so I will just make a note here in the margin.' Just as we see this as an obvious conclusion, so the author of the marginalia might have thought, rather than it being based on actual knowledge of it as a historical fact. As such, you rarely see careful historians making the identification without at least some qualification like 'probably' or 'apparently' or 'seems to have been'.
I brought this up to counter the idea that this Ealhmund is a different Ealhmund.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
1. Ealhmund isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the chronicle, maybe this could be a coverup of his Kentish ancestry.
There was an entire kingdom, Lindsey, for which there is not a single king mentioned in the chronicle. Does this mean there was an anti-Lindsey coverup? The Chronicle was compiled at regional centers, with different amounts of information available to them at different times on their neighbors. Particularly when many of the historical kingdoms were in the process of being subsumed, with a significant period of instability to follow, it wouldn't be surprising at all if some particular short-lived person calling themselves king was overlooked. There may be any number of them, and we only think Eahlmund is noteworthy because the same name appears in the pedigree for Ecgberht's father.
No, Lindsey may have not been seen as important enough to be recorded, it’s neighbours of Mercia and Northumbria would have been more important to the contemporary chroniclers (of the ASC) and written about instead. I see them just looking over Lindsey.

Ealhmund on the other hand was a King only about a century or so before the chronicle was written and was the great-grandfather of the man who commissioned it.
Post by taf
Using the same kind of post-hoc rationalization as above, had King Eahlmund really been the great-grandfather of Alfred, then wouldn't they have gone out of their way to shoehorn him into the chronicle? Couldn't we argue that his absence from the chronicle is evidence he was NOT Ecgberht's father?
Again, It would have been too recent for them to be able to shoehorn him in. It would be common knowledge among nobles that Ecgberht was the son of Ealhmund, earlier stuff is easier to forge.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
I think it’s possible that Ealhmund’s wife was of West Saxon royal descent because Ecgberht (Ealhmunds son) swept up the West Saxon throne after Beorhtric’s death in 802. There is no reason that someone who had lived in exile in France for most of his life and related to former Kentish kings would suddenly become King of Wessex.
This works just as well flipped. If Ecgberht, from the Kent royal family, had a maternal link that qualified him to rule Wessex, then it could just as well be that Eahlmund of Wessex had a maternal connection that allowed him to rule Kent.
I completely agree that it could work flipped, but my hypothesis of Ecgberht II kind of rules out the idea of it being on the paternal line unless Ecgberht happened to be apart of the House of Wessex (something I’ll look into)
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
1. It would be unknown to prove which king she was related to, but my best guess would be as a daughter or sister of Cynewulf. Cynewulf was a successful king that asserted Wessex independence. A relative of his would be exiled by Offa and Beorhtric as a threat to Mercian dominance.
OK, now you need to just stop. If you have concluded the only surviving evidence is bogus, then there is literally no basis from which to draw a conclusion. One can build pretty much any scenario one wants, toward whichever former king your whims lead you, based on whatever ad hoc motivations one cares to envision.
This is kind of unnecessary on my part and I wish to improve on that. I’m only trying to explain why in my hypothesis, Ecgberht got the throne in 802. There is no need to be rude about it.
Post by taf
taf
Hans Vogels
2021-07-18 18:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
As this is a general House of Wessex thread, I’m going to add my hypothesis on Ealhmund, father of King Ecgberht.
To play devil's advocate . . . .
Post by Max Stenner
I would like to suggest the idea that Ecgberht II of Kent is Ealhmund’s father, this is for mainly 3 reasons
1. The use of the name Ecgberht in Ealhmund’s family, Ealhmund’s son was named Ecgberht.
This is actually not as strong as it looks. We are used to different onomastic systems than the Anglo-Saxons practiced. They tended to reuse name elements in successive generations, but examples of people being named directly for immediate ancestors (father, grandfather) are the exception, rather than the rule.
I see your point here, but naming after immediate ancestors wasn’t really rare, all of Æthelred the Unready’s sons were named after past kings for an example.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. Both Ecgberht II and Ealhmund were Kings of Kent. Ecgberht’s last charter was in 779, and Ealhmund’s only charter is from 784. Offa seems to be ruling directly after this.
[I'll come back to this.]
Post by Max Stenner
1. Under this hypothesis, Ecgberht would have died or abdicated (but most likely died) between 779 and 784
3. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gives a shady pedigree from Ealhmund to Ingild, brother of King Ine of Wessex.
Shady, in the sense that the individuals given are 'in the shade' of history, they are otherwise unknown. Not shady in terms of 'obviously doctored'. There is nothing inherently shady, in a kingdom in which 'normal' succession had become frayed over the preceding century, to have to resort to a claimant with a remote link to the ruling dynasty (e.g. Henry Tudor, Garcia Ramirez), and that is even in kingdoms with systems a lot closer to primogeniture than in the Anglo-Saxon ones.
That’s what I mean.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
This would have been made to please King Alfred, the great grandson of Ealhmund, and to prove his West Saxon heritage.
This is, to a degree, post hoc rationalization, basically turning the question 'if you have a forgery, then who would benefit' into 'someone benefited so there must have been a forgery'. It would also have pleased Alfred for the chronicle to record an authentic pedigree from the brother of a respected predecessor, Ine, to show that he had a fully authentic descent from Cerdic.
My argument on the forgery idea is that, why isn’t there any contemporary mention to Ingild, Eoppa and Eafa in surviving contemporary sources? If they were important enough that their descendant Ecgberht shows up and is made King in 802, then why weren’t they recorded as Æthelings? I agree with you that I should have brought up some more questions and not gone to conclusions so quickly. If they weren’t important enough to be recorded often, then Ecgberht couldn’t have gotten the throne in 802 on that one descent.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
In a marginal note on the F version of the chronicle, he is identified with the King of Kent.
What does this marginal note represent? Is it authentic local knowledge by the owner of the manuscript, or is it some reader making connections based on their own insight? 'So Ecgberht was son of someone named Eahlmund - wait, I remember that name from somewhere. Ah, here it is, an Eahlmund, king of Kent, so I will just make a note here in the margin.' Just as we see this as an obvious conclusion, so the author of the marginalia might have thought, rather than it being based on actual knowledge of it as a historical fact. As such, you rarely see careful historians making the identification without at least some qualification like 'probably' or 'apparently' or 'seems to have been'.
I brought this up to counter the idea that this Ealhmund is a different Ealhmund.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
1. Ealhmund isn’t mentioned anywhere else in the chronicle, maybe this could be a coverup of his Kentish ancestry.
There was an entire kingdom, Lindsey, for which there is not a single king mentioned in the chronicle. Does this mean there was an anti-Lindsey coverup? The Chronicle was compiled at regional centers, with different amounts of information available to them at different times on their neighbors. Particularly when many of the historical kingdoms were in the process of being subsumed, with a significant period of instability to follow, it wouldn't be surprising at all if some particular short-lived person calling themselves king was overlooked. There may be any number of them, and we only think Eahlmund is noteworthy because the same name appears in the pedigree for Ecgberht's father.
No, Lindsey may have not been seen as important enough to be recorded, it’s neighbours of Mercia and Northumbria would have been more important to the contemporary chroniclers (of the ASC) and written about instead. I see them just looking over Lindsey.
Ealhmund on the other hand was a King only about a century or so before the chronicle was written and was the great-grandfather of the man who commissioned it.
Post by taf
Using the same kind of post-hoc rationalization as above, had King Eahlmund really been the great-grandfather of Alfred, then wouldn't they have gone out of their way to shoehorn him into the chronicle? Couldn't we argue that his absence from the chronicle is evidence he was NOT Ecgberht's father?
Again, It would have been too recent for them to be able to shoehorn him in. It would be common knowledge among nobles that Ecgberht was the son of Ealhmund, earlier stuff is easier to forge.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
I think it’s possible that Ealhmund’s wife was of West Saxon royal descent because Ecgberht (Ealhmunds son) swept up the West Saxon throne after Beorhtric’s death in 802. There is no reason that someone who had lived in exile in France for most of his life and related to former Kentish kings would suddenly become King of Wessex.
This works just as well flipped. If Ecgberht, from the Kent royal family, had a maternal link that qualified him to rule Wessex, then it could just as well be that Eahlmund of Wessex had a maternal connection that allowed him to rule Kent.
I completely agree that it could work flipped, but my hypothesis of Ecgberht II kind of rules out the idea of it being on the paternal line unless Ecgberht happened to be apart of the House of Wessex (something I’ll look into)
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
1. It would be unknown to prove which king she was related to, but my best guess would be as a daughter or sister of Cynewulf. Cynewulf was a successful king that asserted Wessex independence. A relative of his would be exiled by Offa and Beorhtric as a threat to Mercian dominance.
OK, now you need to just stop. If you have concluded the only surviving evidence is bogus, then there is literally no basis from which to draw a conclusion. One can build pretty much any scenario one wants, toward whichever former king your whims lead you, based on whatever ad hoc motivations one cares to envision.
This is kind of unnecessary on my part and I wish to improve on that. I’m only trying to explain why in my hypothesis, Ecgberht got the throne in 802. There is no need to be rude about it.
Post by taf
taf
Two years back in June 2019 a similar discussion was started by Hovite: The ancestry of Ecgbeorht III.

Hans Vogels
Peter Stewart
2021-07-18 23:08:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
This is a bit like saying Bonaparte must have been related somehow to
the Bourbons in order to become emperor of France - and, of course, some
did say precisely that. Veneration of royal descent as the primary cause
for political outcomes is not very far from superstition. It may just as
well be that a court faction had their eye on Ecgberht as a potential
agnatic successor for the Wessex dynasty while he was in France, so that
he came back to benefit from a ready-prepared coup.

Also, suspicion of forgery or fabrication is not a strong basis for
conclusions without actual evidence for the purported falsehood.
Whatever an authentic contemporary source says that is not contradicted
by another, and/or circumstantially implausible, is prima facie
preferable to whatever doubts may enter a modern reader's mind. Imagined
lies of presumed flatterers are a kind of conspiracy theory that history
is better off without.

Peter Stewart
Geoffrey RD Tobin
2021-07-19 02:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
JH Round observed that some Breton charters dated over a couple of decades in the mid-800s have as a witness an Alfred who is a government official in Brittany. Taken in date sequence, assuming these are one person, not several, he appears to be a rising star. A few decades later, King Alfred issued an edict welcoming Bretons into Wessex.

What do people think of these? Coincidence?
Peter Stewart
2021-07-19 05:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey RD Tobin
JH Round observed that some Breton charters dated over a couple of decades in the mid-800s have as a witness an Alfred who is a government official in Brittany. Taken in date sequence, assuming these are one person, not several, he appears to be a rising star. A few decades later, King Alfred issued an edict welcoming Bretons into Wessex.
What do people think of these? Coincidence?
It would be helpful to tel us where you find this observationi by Round
- if you mean in *Feudal England* p. 327, he wrote:

"Mr. Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of
Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the 9th
century", noting "About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus tyrannus,
871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879."

If these are the mid-800s occurrences of the name Alfred in Brittany you
are referring to, what is there to suggest they may be one person rather
than several?

Peter Stewart
Geoffrey RD Tobin
2021-07-21 05:01:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
It would be helpful to tell us where you find this observation by Round
"Mr. Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of
Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the 9th
century", noting "About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus tyrannus,
871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879."
If these are the mid-800s occurrences of the name Alfred in Brittany you
are referring to, what is there to suggest they may be one person rather
than several?
Peter Stewart
Yes, that footnote is the text to which I was referring.

Suppose these references are to five distinct individuals.
That's a remarkable number of Bretons named Alfred to be recorded during one generation in the 800s.

I'd understand it if these references postdated the reign of Edward the Elder, who sheltered Breton refugees, or that of Athelstan, who aided Duke Alan II in recovering Brittany from the Loire Vikings.

But two references to grown men named Alfred before Alfred of Wessex became king, then two more before his victory at Edington? (Not to mention the 'son of Alfred' in 879.)

How many Alfreds were recorded in Anglo-Saxon history prior to the reign of the king?
Peter Stewart
2021-07-21 06:39:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey RD Tobin
It would be helpful to tell us where you find this observation by Round
"Mr. Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of
Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the 9th
century", noting "About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus tyrannus,
871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879."
If these are the mid-800s occurrences of the name Alfred in Brittany you
are referring to, what is there to suggest they may be one person rather
than several?
Peter Stewart
Yes, that footnote is the text to which I was referring.
Suppose these references are to five distinct individuals.
That's a remarkable number of Bretons named Alfred to be recorded during one generation in the 800s.
I'd understand it if these references postdated the reign of Edward the Elder, who sheltered Breton refugees, or that of Athelstan, who aided Duke Alan II in recovering Brittany from the Loire Vikings.
But two references to grown men named Alfred before Alfred of Wessex became king, then two more before his victory at Edington? (Not to mention the 'son of Alfred' in 879.)
Of the five occurrences listed by Round, just two (the machtiern Alfret
in 868 and the tyrant Alfritus in 871) appear to me at all likely to be
the same person. The man in 849, the cleric Alfrit in 872 and the father
of Alurit's son in 879 could be three different people all distinct from
each other and from the namesake local official of 868/71. Since Round
thought this name "enjoyed peculiar favour" in Brittany, he presumably
did not think there was only one person involved, and I still don't see
where the idea comes from that they were perhaps all one.
Post by Geoffrey RD Tobin
How many Alfreds were recorded in Anglo-Saxon history prior to the reign of the king?
Try Searle's *Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum*, here:
https://archive.org/details/cu31924029805664/page/n78/mode/1up.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-07-22 01:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey RD Tobin
It would be helpful to tell us where you find this observation by Round
"Mr. Freeman seems to have been unaware that in Britanny the name of
Alfred enjoyed peculiar favour. I find it there as early as the 9th
century", noting "About 849; Alfret Machtiern, 868; Alfritus tyrannus,
871; Alfrit presbyter, 872; filius Alurit, 879."
If these are the mid-800s occurrences of the name Alfred in Brittany you
are referring to, what is there to suggest they may be one person rather
than several?
Peter Stewart
Yes, that footnote is the text to which I was referring.
Suppose these references are to five distinct individuals.
That's a remarkable number of Bretons named Alfred to be recorded during one generation in the 800s.
I'd understand it if these references postdated the reign of Edward the Elder, who sheltered Breton refugees, or that of Athelstan, who aided Duke Alan II in recovering Brittany from the Loire Vikings.
But two references to grown men named Alfred before Alfred of Wessex became king, then two more before his victory at Edington? (Not to mention the 'son of Alfred' in 879.)
How many Alfreds were recorded in Anglo-Saxon history prior to the reign of the king?
I don't know what kind of connection you are suggesting may have existed
between these Breton Alfreds and their English namesakes, but the man
occurring as machtiern on 14 September 868 was the son of Jostin, see here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=V6zionuFEyEC&pg=PA18

Machtierns were semi-independent local officials, roughly equivalent to
provosts. In Latin they were sometimes called "tyranni", without any
perjorative meaning, but in the case of Alfred he was titled tyrant and
described as "truly a tyrant" in the adverse sense on 9 July 871, see here:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=V6zionuFEyEC&pg=PA198

According to Wendy Davies in 'Brittany in the mid-ninth century',
*Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom*, second edition (1990) p. 114:
"They had an economic and social power which permitted arbitrary
exploitation: some machtierns were literally tiranni as one charter
wryly noted - 'Alfritum tyrannum et vere tyrannum'. Their power was
transmitted hereditarily, and they were not ex officio answerable to any
superior authority, though they might have contracted a personal
relationship with such a powerful man."

Alfrit was evidently the machtiern at Médréac, north-west of Rennes.

Peter Stewart
Max Stenner
2021-07-19 15:51:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
JH Round observed that some Breton charters dated over a couple of decades in the mid-800s have as a witness an Alfred who is a government official in Brittany. Taken in date sequence, assuming these are one person, not several, he appears to be a rising star. A few decades later, King Alfred issued an edict welcoming Bretons into Wessex.
What do people think of these? Coincidence?
As someone else said previously, Alfred wasn’t an uncommon name in Brittany and if it was Alfred of Wessex, he would have been very young at the time. Not old enough to be a government official!
taf
2021-07-22 02:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
JH Round observed that some Breton charters dated over a couple of decades in the mid-800s have as a witness an Alfred who is a government official in Brittany. Taken in date sequence, assuming these are one person, not several, he appears to be a rising star. A few decades later, King Alfred issued an edict welcoming Bretons into Wessex.
What do people think of these? Coincidence?
Yes, coincidence. What do you think of them?

taf

Max Stenner
2021-07-19 15:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
This is a bit like saying Bonaparte must have been related somehow to
the Bourbons in order to become emperor of France - and, of course, some
did say precisely that. Veneration of royal descent as the primary cause
for political outcomes is not very far from superstition. It may just as
well be that a court faction had their eye on Ecgberht as a potential
agnatic successor for the Wessex dynasty while he was in France, so that
he came back to benefit from a ready-prepared coup.
Well, in the case of Napoleon, he had built up military and political influence which he used to become Emperor. To our knowledge, Ecgberht had lived in France for most of his life and had no contact with Wessex.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, suspicion of forgery or fabrication is not a strong basis for
conclusions without actual evidence for the purported falsehood.
Whatever an authentic contemporary source says that is not contradicted
by another, and/or circumstantially implausible, is prima facie
preferable to whatever doubts may enter a modern reader's mind. Imagined
lies of presumed flatterers are a kind of conspiracy theory that history
is better off without.
I wouldn’t describe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Asser as contemporary sources for Ecgberht, they aren’t really late sources either and the theory that the pedigree to Cerdic was a forgery is supported by quite a few historians. Except Charters, Legal records and a few writings, not many contemporary sources for the era survive.
Post by Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-07-19 23:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
This is a bit like saying Bonaparte must have been related somehow to
the Bourbons in order to become emperor of France - and, of course, some
did say precisely that. Veneration of royal descent as the primary cause
for political outcomes is not very far from superstition. It may just as
well be that a court faction had their eye on Ecgberht as a potential
agnatic successor for the Wessex dynasty while he was in France, so that
he came back to benefit from a ready-prepared coup.
Well, in the case of Napoleon, he had built up military and political influence which he used to become Emperor. To our knowledge, Ecgberht had lived in France for most of his life and had no contact with Wessex.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, suspicion of forgery or fabrication is not a strong basis for
conclusions without actual evidence for the purported falsehood.
Whatever an authentic contemporary source says that is not contradicted
by another, and/or circumstantially implausible, is prima facie
preferable to whatever doubts may enter a modern reader's mind. Imagined
lies of presumed flatterers are a kind of conspiracy theory that history
is better off without.
I wouldn’t describe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Asser as contemporary sources for Ecgberht, they aren’t really late sources either and the theory that the pedigree to Cerdic was a forgery is supported by quite a few historians. Except Charters, Legal records and a few writings, not many contemporary sources for the era survive.
"Quite a few historians" apparently share your view that a modern
sceptical sensibility is some kind of evidence for medieval genealogy.
The fact (or in this case the assumption) that Alfred might have liked
something to be written about his ancestry is not evidence that it was
false.

Quibbling that documentation contemporary with living memory about
someone was not literally contemporary with the life of that person is
another unhelpful modern conceit.

As for the Napoleon comparison, I wrote "a bit like" and yet you seem to
have undestood "exactly like". I hope you read Asser with more careful
attention.

Peter Stewart
Max Stenner
2021-07-20 22:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Max Stenner
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
2. This genealogy also appears in the Alfred-sponsored Life of Alfred by Asser, maybe this is also evidence of a coverup as both genealogies giving this line were commissioned by Alfred
So you have two sources that are entirely consistent with each other, and this is evidence that they must both be wrong?
If it was also commissioned by Alfred, It doesn’t have any more credibility on it being real. If there was a contemporary, yet-not commissioned by Alfred source, then I would be inclined to believe it. And it isn’t that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Asser aren’t reliable, but it needs to be taken into account that these would be at least somewhat biased towards who commissioned it. In my opinion, if Ecgberht really had that genealogy, then he couldn’t quickly sweep up the Wessex throne after Beorhtric’s death after living in France for most of his life without a connection to a close previous king.
This is a bit like saying Bonaparte must have been related somehow to
the Bourbons in order to become emperor of France - and, of course, some
did say precisely that. Veneration of royal descent as the primary cause
for political outcomes is not very far from superstition. It may just as
well be that a court faction had their eye on Ecgberht as a potential
agnatic successor for the Wessex dynasty while he was in France, so that
he came back to benefit from a ready-prepared coup.
Well, in the case of Napoleon, he had built up military and political influence which he used to become Emperor. To our knowledge, Ecgberht had lived in France for most of his life and had no contact with Wessex.
Post by Peter Stewart
Also, suspicion of forgery or fabrication is not a strong basis for
conclusions without actual evidence for the purported falsehood.
Whatever an authentic contemporary source says that is not contradicted
by another, and/or circumstantially implausible, is prima facie
preferable to whatever doubts may enter a modern reader's mind. Imagined
lies of presumed flatterers are a kind of conspiracy theory that history
is better off without.
I wouldn’t describe the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or Asser as contemporary sources for Ecgberht, they aren’t really late sources either and the theory that the pedigree to Cerdic was a forgery is supported by quite a few historians. Except Charters, Legal records and a few writings, not many contemporary sources for the era survive.
"Quite a few historians" apparently share your view that a modern
sceptical sensibility is some kind of evidence for medieval genealogy.
The fact (or in this case the assumption) that Alfred might have liked
something to be written about his ancestry is not evidence that it was
false.
Quibbling that documentation contemporary with living memory about
someone was not literally contemporary with the life of that person is
another unhelpful modern conceit.
As for the Napoleon comparison, I wrote "a bit like" and yet you seem to
have undestood "exactly like". I hope you read Asser with more careful
attention.
Peter Stewart
Thank you, I understand a lot of what you said and will look at Asser more carefully
Peter Stewart
2021-07-21 00:24:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Thank you, I understand a lot of what you said and will look at Asser more carefully
What I am saying boils down to this: the mindset of a medieval writer
should not be lightly set aside by readers today on the basis that "we
moderns understand better than he did".

Asser made a less clear distinction than we might between what he knew
or deduced to be true and what he believed or hoped to be so. Tracing
the descent of Alfred from Adam obviously has a grey area or definite
cut-off point where empirical reality and logical plausibility switch or
shade into legend and wishful thinking. The notion that we can pin this
down merely by subjective impression without specific evidence is often
risky and usually a waste of time.

Medieval authors and their readers were not all overgrown credulous
infants - many were thinking and sophisticated adults as well adapted to
their intellectual environment as we are to ours. If what they tell us
is possible and not contradicted by another account or by known
circumstances then simply saying "yet I doubt it anyway" is not much use.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-19 23:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
There are instances of women called "regina" who were not either
queens in their own right or married to kings. The earliest of these I
can think of who reportedly insisted on being titled "regina" because
her father was a king was Mafalda of Portugal, countess of Flanders in
the late-12th century. Unlike others, including William the
Conqueror's wife briefly in Normandy before he became king, Mafalda
wanted to be called "regina" and was indulged in this before she
became a proxy ruler, effectively regent - of a "regnum", which did
not necessarily mean a kingdom - only after her husband's death.
1. Matilda was regent of Flanders in the lifetime of her husband
Philippe of Alsace, while he was away on crusade; and more remarkably
2. She had been titled queen in Portugal by her father, when she was
still called Teresa, well before she was married (evidently at around
the age of 32) and took her mother's name instead (Matilda, inherited
directly from Matilda 'regina', countess of Albon, whom we have been
discussing).
By the way, it can be ruled out that 'regina' may have been a nickname
of Teresa/Matilda inherited from her matrilineal great-grandmother
Matilda countess of Albon.

For starters, she was named Teresa from birth and had a sister named
Mafalda/Matilda. Several Flemish sources state that she insisted on
being called 'regina' after she had married the count and changed her
name to Matilda, one explaining that this was because her father and
brother were kings and one attributing the royal title to her 11 years
before the marriage (although anachronistically calling her Matilda at
that time).

She called herself - and was many times called by her father - "Teresa
regina" in formal contexts through the 1160s and 1170s. There has been
some debate over whether or not she was considered an heir of her father
Afonso Henriques along with her brother Sancho, or perhaps a spare in
case her siblings should not survive their father.

The royal title was officially new in Portugal when assumed in the
1130s, sanctioned by the papacy in 1179. However, Teresa/Matilda's
paternal grandmother Teresa (illegitimate daughter of Alfonso VI of
Castile) had been called 'regina' as a countess. I suppose Afonso
Henriques, as the first king, may have been a touch besotted with his
novel rank and spread it around to emphasise the royal status of his
daughters.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-15 09:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Even if Matilda Regina was the daughter of Edgar or a Norman king, why would that explain
her title of queen? Perhaps she might regard herself as a princess although I believe Edgar
was never crowned [?], but this seems a very odd argument. Kings daughters surely wernt
normally so entitled, and Henry I had to go to great lengths to get his Matilda recognised
as heir to the throne. Didnt contemporaries call her Empress long after the
death of her husband? If so this suggests to me that if Matilda was a queen she was
the widow of a king.
Henry I's daughter Matilda was not always titled 'empress' after her
second marriage, and she was sometimes pointedly called only countess of
Anjou even after assuming the title 'lady (domina, not regina) of the
English'.
Post by keri CA
Didnt Manteyer have another theory on this, that she that she came from Northumbria and so
introduced the name Dolfin/ Dauphin into the Rhone family, but unless she was a widow of a
scottish king, it doesnt explain regina. I'm unsure whether we know the names of wives of the
sons of Malcolm III, but coincidentally I think it was Edgar Aetheling who led a norman army
to place his ?nephew Edgar on the scottish throne in 1097.
The names of Malcolm III's sons known to have married are recorded. The
name of his brother Donaldbane's wife is unknown, and if she survived as
his widow she may have been called queen since he was king or co-king in
the 1090s. However, Scotland is not 'Anglia' so this would not offer a
highly plausible line of speculation to explain the source representing
that Matilda countess of Albon was a queen from England.
Post by keri CA
The theory that Matilda regina wife of Guigo, was the widow of Conrad of Germany
king of Italy 1093-1101 seems believable but as quoted above, his wife was probably
the dau of Roger of Sicily. It would make sense for the rebel Conrad to marry a
daughter of his fathers enemy, if he wanted to maintain himself in Italy. And Roger I seems
to have had 3 daus called Matilda. Sure was a popular name in the west. Who was the first
Matilda who started it off I wonder, Matilda of Flanders?
The widespread popularity of the name started in the century before her,
from St Matilda the second wife - and from 936 to 968 widow - of the
German king Heinrich I; she was the mother of emperor Otto the Great.

Roger I of Sicily had three daughters named Matilda but none of them was
a queen - they all married counts, respectively Raimond of Toulouse &
Tripoli, Robert of Eu and Rainolf of Caiazzo & Alife. His daughter
presumed to have been married to Conrad as a young girl, from the 1090s
until 1101, called herself 'Maximilla regina' in charters dated in the
1130s, when she was still in Italy. The name Matilda was attached to her
by mistake - this was thought to have been her name in the 17th century
by Thierri Ruinart in his biography of Pope Urban II, but this was an
error from his misundertanding a passsage in the chronicle of Bernold
(where the bride was not named) about Conrad's joining with Matilda of
Tuscany and others at the beginning of 1095 - the word 'junctus' in this
context should be understood to mean simply 'joined' and not 'married',
as at the same time Konrad was said to have 'joined' with the pope's
remaining adherents as well. Subsequently her name was also misstated by
Muratori following Ruinart, and unfortunately Matilda has been ascribed
to Conrad's bride in many editorial glosses since with no better authority.

The name Matilda was not related to Maximilla - the latter is from a
Latin origin and the former is Germanic. Maximilla is a feminine form of
the Roman name Maximus, the most famous instance being the Maximilla who
claimed to be the last of the prophets, active along with the heretic
Montanus in 2nd-century Phrygia.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-15 09:37:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The name Matilda was not related to Maximilla - the latter is from a
Latin origin and the former is Germanic. Maximilla is a feminine form of
the Roman name Maximus, the most famous instance being the Maximilla who
claimed to be the last of the prophets, active along with the heretic
Montanus in 2nd-century Phrygia.
Incidentally, there are other instances of the name Maximilla in the
early-12th century, one occurring among the deceased of Notre-Dame de
Saintes priory in the mortuary roll of William the Conqueror's daughter
Matilda written in 1113/14, and another in the cartulary of Fontevraud
occurring between 1115 & 1149.

Maximilla of Hauteville's cousin Sybilla, wife of Ebles II of Roucy, had
a daughter named Mamilia, presumably a shortened version of Maximilla.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-03-15 17:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Max Stenner
[3] - Project Medlands page - http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkvien.htm
Not something I have spent much time on before - so I am wondering, in all the charters where "domina Regina" is named as wife of Guigues, is "Regina" being used as a title or as a name (having grown up in Germany I still encountered Regina or Regine as a female first name)? That is, is she "Queen" or is she "Queenie"?
Moriarty's manuscript cites Winkhaus's claim that she's daughter of Eadgar, but adds that little is known of his family, and doesn't give her parents. On p 258-259, he has her as Mathilda, "regina, quae fuit de Anglia", with a discussion on p260 which cites a charter of 1106, based on Georges de Manteyer (Bulletin de la Societe d'Etudes des Hautes Alpes, 1925, pp307-426).
Even if Matilda Regina was the daughter of Edgar or a Norman king, why would that explain
her title of queen? Perhaps she might regard herself as a princess although I believe Edgar
was never crowned [?], but this seems a very odd argument. Kings daughters surely wernt
normally so entitled, and Henry I had to go to great lengths to get his Matilda recognised
as heir to the throne. Didnt contemporaries call her Empress long after the
death of her husband? If so this suggests to me that if Matilda was a queen she was
the widow of a king.
Henry I's daughter Matilda was not always titled 'empress' after her
second marriage, and she was sometimes pointedly called only countess of
Anjou even after assuming the title 'lady (domina, not regina) of the
English'.
Post by keri CA
Didnt Manteyer have another theory on this, that she that she came from Northumbria and so
introduced the name Dolfin/ Dauphin into the Rhone family, but unless she was a widow of a
scottish king, it doesnt explain regina. I'm unsure whether we know the names of wives of the
sons of Malcolm III, but coincidentally I think it was Edgar Aetheling who led a norman army
to place his ?nephew Edgar on the scottish throne in 1097.
The names of Malcolm III's sons known to have married are recorded. The
name of his brother Donaldbane's wife is unknown, and if she survived as
his widow she may have been called queen since he was king or co-king in
the 1090s. However, Scotland is not 'Anglia' so this would not offer a
highly plausible line of speculation to explain the source representing
that Matilda countess of Albon was a queen from England.
I havnt read Manteyer on this but perhaps he thought she was from
the Norman aristocracy in England who married a Scottish king, but if so
I would have expected some contemporary mention of this.

Perhaps Anglia isnt England, but the region in north Germany and
Denmark, now called Angeln, where the Angles originally came
from, although its seems unlikely. Was Albon part of the Arelate
and therefore under nominal German suzerainty?
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
The theory that Matilda regina wife of Guigo, was the widow of Conrad of Germany
king of Italy 1093-1101 seems believable but as quoted above, his wife was probably
the dau of Roger of Sicily. It would make sense for the rebel Conrad to marry a
daughter of his fathers enemy, if he wanted to maintain himself in Italy. And Roger I seems
to have had 3 daus called Matilda. Sure was a popular name in the west. Who was the first
Matilda who started it off I wonder, Matilda of Flanders?
The widespread popularity of the name started in the century before her,
from St Matilda the second wife - and from 936 to 968 widow - of the
German king Heinrich I; she was the mother of emperor Otto the Great.
She had to flee the country when Otto seized her dowry which he didnt
want her to give away to convents and so on.
Post by Peter Stewart
Roger I of Sicily had three daughters named Matilda but none of them was
a queen - they all married counts, respectively Raimond of Toulouse &
Tripoli, Robert of Eu and Rainolf of Caiazzo & Alife. His daughter
presumed to have been married to Conrad as a young girl, from the 1090s
until 1101, called herself 'Maximilla regina' in charters dated in the
1130s, when she was still in Italy. The name Matilda was attached to her
by mistake - this was thought to have been her name in the 17th century
by Thierri Ruinart in his biography of Pope Urban II, but this was an
If Conrads wife was called Maximilla, then she certainly couldnt be
the wife of Guigo of Albon. So that s another theory dead.

Kerica
taf
2021-03-15 18:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
I havnt read Manteyer on this but perhaps he thought she was from
the Norman aristocracy in England who married a Scottish king, but if so
I would have expected some contemporary mention of this.
No. He derived her from borderlands Northumbrian dynasty, making her daughter of Earl Gospatric, who (at least based on Simon of Durham) was paternal grandson of Crinan (usually identified with Malcolm III's grandfather), as well as being maternal grandson of the Anglo-Saxon ealdorman Uchtred of Northumbria by a daughter of king AEthelred II (making Gospatric Edgar's 2nd cousin).

taf
taf
2021-03-15 18:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
His daughter
presumed to have been married to Conrad as a young girl, from the 1090s
until 1101, called herself 'Maximilla regina' in charters dated in the
1130s, when she was still in Italy. The name Matilda was attached to her
by mistake - this was thought to have been her name in the 17th century
by Thierri Ruinart in his biography of Pope Urban II, but this was an
error from his misundertanding a passsage in the chronicle of Bernold
(where the bride was not named) about Conrad's joining with Matilda of
Tuscany and others at the beginning of 1095 - the word 'junctus' in this
context should be understood to mean simply 'joined' and not 'married',
as at the same time Konrad was said to have 'joined' with the pope's
remaining adherents as well. Subsequently her name was also misstated by
Muratori following Ruinart, and unfortunately Matilda has been ascribed
to Conrad's bride in many editorial glosses since with no better authority.
This always troubled me with this hypothesis. Rudt von Collenberg seemed to be playing a shell-game with the names Maximilla vs Matilda, but I was never sure I wasn't missing something in translation.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-16 02:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
His daughter
presumed to have been married to Conrad as a young girl, from the 1090s
until 1101, called herself 'Maximilla regina' in charters dated in the
1130s, when she was still in Italy. The name Matilda was attached to her
by mistake - this was thought to have been her name in the 17th century
by Thierri Ruinart in his biography of Pope Urban II, but this was an
error from his misundertanding a passsage in the chronicle of Bernold
(where the bride was not named) about Conrad's joining with Matilda of
Tuscany and others at the beginning of 1095 - the word 'junctus' in this
context should be understood to mean simply 'joined' and not 'married',
as at the same time Konrad was said to have 'joined' with the pope's
remaining adherents as well. Subsequently her name was also misstated by
Muratori following Ruinart, and unfortunately Matilda has been ascribed
to Conrad's bride in many editorial glosses since with no better authority.
This always troubled me with this hypothesis. Rudt von Collenberg seemed to be playing a shell-game with the names Maximilla vs Matilda, but I was never sure I wasn't missing something in translation.
He was evidently bamboozled himself by the shell-game - he traced the
name Matilda in this instance to Muratori, who did not explain it.

I was wrong in suggesting that the error over Matilda as the name of
Conrad's wife was first made by Thierri Ruinart. On checking, he
understood Bernold (whom he called Bertold) correctly and placed the
'joining' with Matilda (of Tuscany) before recounting that Pope Urban II
and Matilda advised him to marry Roger of Sicily's (unnamed) daughter
("idem princeps [Conradus] Mathildi junctus totum paterni exercitus
robur obtinuisset ... Interea Conradus, crescente in dies ejus potentia,
Pisas cum apparatu regio adiit, ibique Rogerii comitis Siciliæ et
Calabriæ filiam cum inaudita pecunia in sponsam accepit: quod Urbani et
Mathildis consilio factum fuisse").

Muratori apparently misread Ruinart, who did not add anyone else to the
'joining', rather than Bernold directly, when he wrote: "Fu in questi
tempi consigliato Corrado re d'Italia ad ammogliarsi. Papa Urbano, e la
Contessa Matilda gli proposero Matilda Figliuola di Ruggieri Conte di
Sicilia."

Bernold had used 'coniunctus' in this context ("Chonradus ... domnae
Mathildi reliquisque fidelibus sancti Petri firmiter coniunctus ...")
but it is very plain here from the conjunction also with adherents of
the papacy that he did not mean Conrad had married someone named Matilda.

Muratori was a very great scholar but of course no-one is spared from
occasional lapses.

Peter Stewart
keri CA
2021-03-17 14:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
His daughter
presumed to have been married to Conrad as a young girl, from the 1090s
until 1101, called herself 'Maximilla regina' in charters dated in the
1130s, when she was still in Italy. The name Matilda was attached to her
by mistake - this was thought to have been her name in the 17th century
by Thierri Ruinart in his biography of Pope Urban II, but this was an
error from his misundertanding a passsage in the chronicle of Bernold
(where the bride was not named) about Conrad's joining with Matilda of
Tuscany and others at the beginning of 1095 - the word 'junctus' in this
context should be understood to mean simply 'joined' and not 'married',
as at the same time Konrad was said to have 'joined' with the pope's
remaining adherents as well. Subsequently her name was also misstated by
Muratori following Ruinart, and unfortunately Matilda has been ascribed
to Conrad's bride in many editorial glosses since with no better authority.
This always troubled me with this hypothesis. Rudt von Collenberg seemed to be playing a shell-game with the names Maximilla vs Matilda, but I was never sure I wasn't missing something in translation.
He was evidently bamboozled himself by the shell-game - he traced the
name Matilda in this instance to Muratori, who did not explain it.
I was wrong in suggesting that the error over Matilda as the name of
Conrad's wife was first made by Thierri Ruinart. On checking, he
understood Bernold (whom he called Bertold) correctly and placed the
'joining' with Matilda (of Tuscany) before recounting that Pope Urban II
and Matilda advised him to marry Roger of Sicily's (unnamed) daughter
("idem princeps [Conradus] Mathildi junctus totum paterni exercitus
robur obtinuisset ... Interea Conradus, crescente in dies ejus potentia,
Pisas cum apparatu regio adiit, ibique Rogerii comitis Siciliæ et
Calabriæ filiam cum inaudita pecunia in sponsam accepit: quod Urbani et
Mathildis consilio factum fuisse").
Muratori apparently misread Ruinart, who did not add anyone else to the
'joining', rather than Bernold directly, when he wrote: "Fu in questi
tempi consigliato Corrado re d'Italia ad ammogliarsi. Papa Urbano, e la
Contessa Matilda gli proposero Matilda Figliuola di Ruggieri Conte di
Sicilia."
Bernold had used 'coniunctus' in this context ("Chonradus ... domnae
Mathildi reliquisque fidelibus sancti Petri firmiter coniunctus ...")
but it is very plain here from the conjunction also with adherents of
the papacy that he did not mean Conrad had married someone named Matilda.
Muratori was a very great scholar but of course no-one is spared from
occasional lapses.
Peter Stewart
Just to summarise:

There are no confirmed male line descents from Egbert of Wessex after Edgar Aetheling.
I can think of 4 confirmed female line descents:

1. Ethelfrith? of Flanders
2. Ogive of France
3. Edith of Germany
4. St.Margaret of Scotland

Are there any more? There were quite a few continental marriages in the 10-11th
centuries with the House of Wessex. I believe the Sudeleys claimed descent from
Goda the sister of the Confessor.

Kerica
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-17 15:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
There are no confirmed male line descents from Egbert of Wessex after Edgar Aetheling.
1. Ethelfrith? of Flanders
2. Ogive of France
3. Edith of Germany
4. St.Margaret of Scotland
Are there any more? There were quite a few continental marriages in the 10-11th
centuries with the House of Wessex. I believe the Sudeleys claimed descent from
Goda the sister of the Confessor.
Kerica
As mentioned above by taf, there is also Elgiva/Alfgifu, daughter of Aethelred "the Unready", who married Uchtred Earl of Northumbria and (according to Simeon of Durham) left descendants who became ancestors to both the Lords Neville and the kings of Scotland. But perhaps this documentation is not as strong as with the other four.

And Godgifu/Goda, daughter of king Aethelred, was married to Dreux comte de Mantes et de Vexin; at a minimum his son Raoul, earl of Hereford and ancestor to the Sudeleys, is (according to Cawley) attested to by "Florence" of Worcester and Simeon of Durham as also being Goda's son.
Max Stenner
2021-03-17 16:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by keri CA
There are no confirmed male line descents from Egbert of Wessex after Edgar Aetheling.
1. Ethelfrith? of Flanders
2. Ogive of France
3. Edith of Germany
4. St.Margaret of Scotland
Are there any more? There were quite a few continental marriages in the 10-11th
centuries with the House of Wessex. I believe the Sudeleys claimed descent from
Goda the sister of the Confessor.
Kerica
As mentioned above by taf, there is also Elgiva/Alfgifu, daughter of Aethelred "the Unready", who married Uchtred Earl of Northumbria and (according to Simeon of Durham) left descendants who became ancestors to both the Lords Neville and the kings of Scotland. But perhaps this documentation is not as strong as with the other four.
And Godgifu/Goda, daughter of king Aethelred, was married to Dreux comte de Mantes et de Vexin; at a minimum his son Raoul, earl of Hereford and ancestor to the Sudeleys, is (according to Cawley) attested to by "Florence" of Worcester and Simeon of Durham as also being Goda's son.
Aelfgifu, daughter of Edward the Elder, married a ‘Prince near the alps’, probably Louis, son of Rudolph I of Burgundy.
taf
2021-03-17 18:24:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Aelfgifu, daughter of Edward the Elder, married a ‘Prince near the alps’, probably Louis, son of Rudolph I of Burgundy.
Calling this identification 'probable' is giving it too much weight. There have been at least a dozen people identified at one point or another as the mysterious 'Prince near the Alps' and/or Louis, Prince of Aquitaine.

taf
taf
2021-03-17 19:06:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
As mentioned above by taf, there is also Elgiva/Alfgifu, daughter of Aethelred "the
Unready", who married Uchtred Earl of Northumbria and (according to Simeon of
Durham) left descendants who became ancestors to both the Lords Neville and the
kings of Scotland. But perhaps this documentation is not as strong as with the other
four.
The most detailed source for this relationship is De Obsessione Dunelmi, which is a genealogical/historical study of the conflicts among the competing and intermarried families of the area. It documents five generations in this line: AEthelred > AElfgifu m. Uchtred > Ealdgyth m. Maldred, son of Crinan the thane > Cospatric > brothers Dolphin, Waltheof & Cospatric. Its very level of detail on the marriages, divorces and children, and incidental details of the blood-feuds, much of which is unknown from other sources, suggests that the author was well-informed about the goings-on. Though the surviving manuscript dates to the 1160s, it includes events through 1073 but not the execution of Waltheof in 1076, tentatively placing its composition between those dates. I would suggest that makes the line 'as strong as with the other four' (perhaps even stronger, given the conflicting accounts of Edward's daughters and the temporal and cultural remove between them and the Norman chroniclers writing about them).

The questionable relationship I was referring to is whether Crinan the thane, father of Maldred is the same man as Crinan, lay abbot of Dunkeld, father of Duncan I of Scotland that underlies the potential relationship between the descendants of this line and the Scottish monarchs. Also, the text is not explicit in identifying Cospatric with earl Gospatric, and a minority have suggested alternative identifications/pedigree placments for earl Gospatric. However, Manteyer was specifically interested in the name Dolphin, making Edgar's supposed wife the sister of that man, so if Cospatric and earl Gospatric are distinct people, it is Cospatric father of Dolphin who is the relevant person.

taf
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-17 19:44:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
As mentioned above by taf, there is also Elgiva/Alfgifu, daughter of Aethelred "the
Unready", who married Uchtred Earl of Northumbria and (according to Simeon of
Durham) left descendants who became ancestors to both the Lords Neville and the
kings of Scotland. But perhaps this documentation is not as strong as with the other
four.
The most detailed source for this relationship is De Obsessione Dunelmi, which is a genealogical/historical study of the conflicts among the competing and intermarried families of the area. It documents five generations in this line: AEthelred > AElfgifu m. Uchtred > Ealdgyth m. Maldred, son of Crinan the thane > Cospatric > brothers Dolphin, Waltheof & Cospatric. Its very level of detail on the marriages, divorces and children, and incidental details of the blood-feuds, much of which is unknown from other sources, suggests that the author was well-informed about the goings-on. Though the surviving manuscript dates to the 1160s, it includes events through 1073 but not the execution of Waltheof in 1076, tentatively placing its composition between those dates. I would suggest that makes the line 'as strong as with the other four' (perhaps even stronger, given the conflicting accounts of Edward's daughters and the temporal and cultural remove between them and the Norman chroniclers writing about them).
The questionable relationship I was referring to is whether Crinan the thane, father of Maldred is the same man as Crinan, lay abbot of Dunkeld, father of Duncan I of Scotland that underlies the potential relationship between the descendants of this line and the Scottish monarchs. Also, the text is not explicit in identifying Cospatric with earl Gospatric, and a minority have suggested alternative identifications/pedigree placments for earl Gospatric. However, Manteyer was specifically interested in the name Dolphin, making Edgar's supposed wife the sister of that man, so if Cospatric and earl Gospatric are distinct people, it is Cospatric father of Dolphin who is the relevant person.
taf
Now you've got me curious. I take it that De Obsessione Dunelmi (probably written as you say in the 1070s but per Wikipedia possibly not compiled until around 1120) does not identify the Cospatric son of Maldred as the earl Gospatric. But it seems to me that Symeon of Durham, writing in the 1120s, does identify exactly this Cospatric, with the same genealogy back to king Ethelred and with the same three sons, as the earl of Northumbria.

So on what basis do the "minority" suggest a need for an alternative identification? Is there evidence that Symeon is not trustworthy?
taf
2021-03-17 21:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Now you've got me curious. I take it that De Obsessione Dunelmi (probably written
as you say in the 1070s but per Wikipedia possibly not compiled until around 1120)
does not identify the Cospatric son of Maldred as the earl Gospatric. But it seems to
me that Symeon of Durham, writing in the 1120s, does identify exactly this Cospatric,
with the same genealogy back to king Ethelred and with the same three sons, as the
earl of Northumbria.
The relevant text of De Obsessione is very brief (translation from Stapleton, 1855, p. 766 with text of original ms in brackets):
"Afterwards, when Uchtred hade additional progress in military affairs, king Ethelred gave him his own daughter Elfgiva [Ælfgiua] in marriage ; by whom he had Algitha [Aldgitham], whom her father wedded to Maldred, the son of Crinan the thane [Maldredo filio Crinan, tein] ; by whom Maldred became father of Cospatric, who begat Dolphin [dolfini], and Waltheof [Walteofi], and Cospatric [cospat'ci]."

(The original is Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, ms. 139, beginning at the very bottom of the second column, f. 50r - https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/canvas-9203a788f503dec316552b0d9c300e71 - with the relevant text about a third of the way down col. 2 of the next page, 50v.)

There is no further mention of this branch, so as you can see, nothing but the names.

This compares with Simeon of Durham:
At [Osulf's] death, Cospatric the son of Maldred, the son of Crinan, going to king William, obtained the earldom of the Northumbrians, which he purchased for a great sum; for the dignity of that earldom belonged to him by his mother's blood. His mother was Algitha the daughter of earl Uchtred, whom he had of Algiva, daughter of king Agelred. This Algitha her father gave in marriage to Maldred the son of Crinan. He then held the earldom, until the king, for the causes above named, took it from him. Flying therefore to Malcolm, he not long after made a voyage to Flanders; returning after a little time to Scotland, the aforesaid king bestowed upon him Dunbar, with the lands adjacent in Lothian, that out of these he might provide for himself and his friends until more prosperous times should come. This Cospatric was the father of Dolfin, Walthev, and Cospatric. After Cospatric the earldom was given to Walthev, the son of earl Siward;
. . .
Cospatric being cast down from his dignity, Waltheov was raised to the earldom, which was his right by his father's and mother's descent; for he was the son of earl Siward, by Elfleda, daughter of earl Aldred."

(This is also from CCCC ms. 139, but I have not bothered to fish out the precise page in the original.)

So yes, Simeon is explicit in the identification, and it also seems apparent that he used De Obsessione as a source but also had access to further information.
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
So on what basis do the "minority" suggest a need for an
alternative identification? Is there evidence that Symeon
is not trustworthy?
Unfortunately, I have been misled by Wikipedia (article on Gospatric), which says "Alternatively, some suggest Gospatric may have been the youngest son of Earl Uhtred the Bold (died 1016) or the grandson of Uhtred's discarded first wife, Ecgfritha, daughter of Aldhun, Bishop of Durham, through Sigrida, her daughter with Kilvert, son of Ligulf." I was unable to follow up on this because it cites Forte, Oram and Pederson, Viking Empires, p. 204, which Google Books won't let me see. However, with some creative string searching, I learn that this book repeats verbatim the text of Oram, The Lordship of Galloway, p. 32, and again some creative searching there gives me the following,

"A key figure in the political structure of Cumberland in the mid eleventh century was a nobleman named Cospatric, who issued a writ in favour of one Thorfinn mac Thore concerning land in Allerdale.[171] The identity of this Cospatric is a matter of some controversy , the two main arguments naming him either as youngest son of Earl Uhtred, or the son of Maldred, who was to become earl of Northumbria briefly between 1068 and 1072, and who subsequently became earl of Dunbar.[172] Alternatively he may have been the grandson of Bishop Aldhun's daughter, Ecgfrytha, through Sigrida, the daughter of her second marriage to Kilvert, son of Ligulf."

So this is saying that the Cospatric who granted Allerdale may be Cospatric, son of Uhtred, or he may be earl Cospatric, son of Maldred (with a cite I can't see), or (in what appears to be the author's own speculation) he may be Cospatric son of Arkil. The author is not questioning that earl Gospatric was the son of Maldred, only whether he was the Allerdale grantor and Cumberland notable, or whether the Cumberland notable and Allerdale grantor Cospatric was distinct from the earl and instead one of these other people also named Cospatric.

(The son of Uchtred is not named in De Obsessione, but is given brief notice by Simeon: "But earl Uchtred had left three sons, Aldred, Eadulf, and Cospatric, of whom the first two were successively earls of the Northumbrians."; the grandson of Kilvert is named in De Obsessione immediately after the other Cospatric, but again, nothing but genealogical information is given - "The daughter of bishop Aldun, whom earl Ucthred had sent away, became the wife of a certain thane in Yorkshire, namely, Kilvert, the son of Ligulf; their daughter, Sigrida, became the wife of Arkil, the son of Ecgfrid, and she bore him a son named Cospatric. This Cospatric took to wife the daughter of Dolfin, the son of Torfin, by whom he begot Cospatric, who of late ought to have fought with Waltheof, the son of Eilaf.")

Oram's footnote 172 may provide further information, but this looks like a Wikipedia editor has misunderstood the source, confusing the nature of the controversy. Thus I am unaware of any scholar questioning Simeon on the identity of earl Gospatric with Maldred's son.

taf
keri CA
2021-03-17 23:38:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Now you've got me curious. I take it that De Obsessione Dunelmi (probably written
as you say in the 1070s but per Wikipedia possibly not compiled until around 1120)
does not identify the Cospatric son of Maldred as the earl Gospatric. But it seems to
me that Symeon of Durham, writing in the 1120s, does identify exactly this Cospatric,
with the same genealogy back to king Ethelred and with the same three sons, as the
earl of Northumbria.
"Afterwards, when Uchtred hade additional progress in military affairs, king Ethelred gave him his own daughter Elfgiva [Ælfgiua] in marriage ; by whom he had Algitha [Aldgitham], whom her father wedded to Maldred, the son of Crinan the thane [Maldredo filio Crinan, tein] ; by whom Maldred became father of Cospatric, who begat Dolphin [dolfini], and Waltheof [Walteofi], and Cospatric [cospat'ci]."
(The original is Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, ms. 139, beginning at the very bottom of the second column, f. 50r - https://parker.stanford.edu/parker/catalog/canvas-9203a788f503dec316552b0d9c300e71 - with the relevant text about a third of the way down col. 2 of the next page, 50v.)
There is no further mention of this branch, so as you can see, nothing but the names.
At [Osulf's] death, Cospatric the son of Maldred, the son of Crinan, going to king William, obtained the earldom of the Northumbrians, which he purchased for a great sum; for the dignity of that earldom belonged to him by his mother's blood. His mother was Algitha the daughter of earl Uchtred, whom he had of Algiva, daughter of king Agelred. This Algitha her father gave in marriage to Maldred the son of Crinan. He then held the earldom, until the king, for the causes above named, took it from him. Flying therefore to Malcolm, he not long after made a voyage to Flanders; returning after a little time to Scotland, the aforesaid king bestowed upon him Dunbar, with the lands adjacent in Lothian, that out of these he might provide for himself and his friends until more prosperous times should come. This Cospatric was the father of Dolfin, Walthev, and Cospatric. After Cospatric the earldom was given to Walthev, the son of earl Siward;
. . .
Cospatric being cast down from his dignity, Waltheov was raised to the earldom, which was his right by his father's and mother's descent; for he was the son of earl Siward, by Elfleda, daughter of earl Aldred."
(This is also from CCCC ms. 139, but I have not bothered to fish out the precise page in the original.)
So yes, Simeon is explicit in the identification, and it also seems apparent that he used De Obsessione as a source but also had access to further information.
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
So on what basis do the "minority" suggest a need for an
alternative identification? Is there evidence that Symeon
is not trustworthy?
Unfortunately, I have been misled by Wikipedia (article on Gospatric), which says "Alternatively, some suggest Gospatric may have been the youngest son of Earl Uhtred the Bold (died 1016) or the grandson of Uhtred's discarded first wife, Ecgfritha, daughter of Aldhun, Bishop of Durham, through Sigrida, her daughter with Kilvert, son of Ligulf." I was unable to follow up on this because it cites Forte, Oram and Pederson, Viking Empires, p. 204, which Google Books won't let me see. However, with some creative string searching, I learn that this book repeats verbatim the text of Oram, The Lordship of Galloway, p. 32, and again some creative searching there gives me the following,
"A key figure in the political structure of Cumberland in the mid eleventh century was a nobleman named Cospatric, who issued a writ in favour of one Thorfinn mac Thore concerning land in Allerdale.[171] The identity of this Cospatric is a matter of some controversy , the two main arguments naming him either as youngest son of Earl Uhtred, or the son of Maldred, who was to become earl of Northumbria briefly between 1068 and 1072, and who subsequently became earl of Dunbar.[172] Alternatively he may have been the grandson of Bishop Aldhun's daughter, Ecgfrytha, through Sigrida, the daughter of her second marriage to Kilvert, son of Ligulf."
So this is saying that the Cospatric who granted Allerdale may be Cospatric, son of Uhtred, or he may be earl Cospatric, son of Maldred (with a cite I can't see), or (in what appears to be the author's own speculation) he may be Cospatric son of Arkil. The author is not questioning that earl Gospatric was the son of Maldred, only whether he was the Allerdale grantor and Cumberland notable, or whether the Cumberland notable and Allerdale grantor Cospatric was distinct from the earl and instead one of these other people also named Cospatric.
(The son of Uchtred is not named in De Obsessione, but is given brief notice by Simeon: "But earl Uchtred had left three sons, Aldred, Eadulf, and Cospatric, of whom the first two were successively earls of the Northumbrians."; the grandson of Kilvert is named in De Obsessione immediately after the other Cospatric, but again, nothing but genealogical information is given - "The daughter of bishop Aldun, whom earl Ucthred had sent away, became the wife of a certain thane in Yorkshire, namely, Kilvert, the son of Ligulf; their daughter, Sigrida, became the wife of Arkil, the son of Ecgfrid, and she bore him a son named Cospatric. This Cospatric took to wife the daughter of Dolfin, the son of Torfin, by whom he begot Cospatric, who of late ought to have fought with Waltheof, the son of Eilaf.")
Oram's footnote 172 may provide further information, but this looks like a Wikipedia editor has misunderstood the source, confusing the nature of the controversy. Thus I am unaware of any scholar questioning Simeon on the identity of earl Gospatric with Maldred's son.
taf
Sorry to butt in to the debate, but would you say from looking at these sources, that the
descent of the lords Dunbar from Uhtred and Elgiva dau of Ethelred II, is confirmed?

Ethelred II -- Elgiva -- Algitha -- Cospatrick of Dunbar

The reason why I didnt add Goda sister of the confessor to the list is just because I was unaware
of the contemporary sources that linked Ralph the Timid with the later Ewias family, but it seems
confirmed by both Domesday book and charters in the 12th century.

Ethelred II -- Goda -- Ralph -- Harold of Ewias -- Robert of Ewias

so if this is the case

5. Elgiva of Northumbria
6. Goda of Vexin

Kerica
taf
2021-03-17 23:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Sorry to butt in to the debate, but would you say from looking at these sources, that the
descent of the lords Dunbar from Uhtred and Elgiva dau of Ethelred II, is confirmed?
Ethelred II -- Elgiva -- Algitha -- Cospatrick of Dunbar
Yes, I would say this part of the pedigree is as good as one could expect for the period.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 01:06:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 18-Mar-21 8:45 AM, taf wrote:

<snip>
Post by taf
Unfortunately, I have been misled by Wikipedia (article on Gospatric), which says "Alternatively, some suggest Gospatric may have been the youngest son of Earl Uhtred the Bold (died 1016) or the grandson of Uhtred's discarded first wife, Ecgfritha, daughter of Aldhun, Bishop of Durham, through Sigrida, her daughter with Kilvert, son of Ligulf." I was unable to follow up on this because it cites Forte, Oram and Pederson, Viking Empires, p. 204, which Google Books won't let me see. However, with some creative string searching, I learn that this book repeats verbatim the text of Oram, The Lordship of Galloway, p. 32, and again some creative searching there gives me the following,
"A key figure in the political structure of Cumberland in the mid eleventh century was a nobleman named Cospatric, who issued a writ in favour of one Thorfinn mac Thore concerning land in Allerdale.[171] The identity of this Cospatric is a matter of some controversy , the two main arguments naming him either as youngest son of Earl Uhtred, or the son of Maldred, who was to become earl of Northumbria briefly between 1068 and 1072, and who subsequently became earl of Dunbar.[172] Alternatively he may have been the grandson of Bishop Aldhun's daughter, Ecgfrytha, through Sigrida, the daughter of her second marriage to Kilvert, son of Ligulf."
So this is saying that the Cospatric who granted Allerdale may be Cospatric, son of Uhtred, or he may be earl Cospatric, son of Maldred (with a cite I can't see), or (in what appears to be the author's own speculation) he may be Cospatric son of Arkil. The author is not questioning that earl Gospatric was the son of Maldred, only whether he was the Allerdale grantor and Cumberland notable, or whether the Cumberland notable and Allerdale grantor Cospatric was distinct from the earl and instead one of these other people also named Cospatric.
(The son of Uchtred is not named in De Obsessione, but is given brief notice by Simeon: "But earl Uchtred had left three sons, Aldred, Eadulf, and Cospatric, of whom the first two were successively earls of the Northumbrians."; the grandson of Kilvert is named in De Obsessione immediately after the other Cospatric, but again, nothing but genealogical information is given - "The daughter of bishop Aldun, whom earl Ucthred had sent away, became the wife of a certain thane in Yorkshire, namely, Kilvert, the son of Ligulf; their daughter, Sigrida, became the wife of Arkil, the son of Ecgfrid, and she bore him a son named Cospatric. This Cospatric took to wife the daughter of Dolfin, the son of Torfin, by whom he begot Cospatric, who of late ought to have fought with Waltheof, the son of Eilaf.")
Oram's footnote 172 may provide further information, but this looks like a Wikipedia editor has misunderstood the source, confusing the nature of the controversy. Thus I am unaware of any scholar questioning Simeon on the identity of earl Gospatric with Maldred's son.
Oram's endnote 172 (on p. 48) cites two secondary works:

William Kapelle, *The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its
Transformation, 1000-1135* (1979) pp. 43-44, and

Archibald Duncan, *The Making of the Kingdom* (1975) p. 98.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 01:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
<snip>
Post by taf
Unfortunately, I have been misled by Wikipedia (article on Gospatric),
which says "Alternatively, some suggest Gospatric may have been the
youngest son of Earl Uhtred the Bold (died 1016) or the grandson of
Uhtred's discarded first wife, Ecgfritha, daughter of Aldhun, Bishop
of Durham, through Sigrida, her daughter with Kilvert, son of Ligulf."
I was unable to follow up on this because it cites Forte, Oram and
Pederson, Viking Empires, p. 204, which Google Books won't let me see.
However, with some creative string searching, I learn that this book
repeats verbatim the text of Oram, The Lordship of Galloway, p. 32,
and again some creative searching there gives me the following,
"A key figure in the political structure of Cumberland in the mid
eleventh century was a nobleman named Cospatric, who issued a writ in
favour of one Thorfinn mac Thore concerning land in Allerdale.[171]
The identity of this Cospatric is a matter of some controversy , the
two main arguments naming him either as youngest son of Earl Uhtred,
or the son of Maldred, who was to become earl of Northumbria briefly
between 1068 and 1072, and who subsequently became earl of
Dunbar.[172]  Alternatively he may have been the grandson of Bishop
Aldhun's daughter, Ecgfrytha, through Sigrida, the daughter of her
second marriage to Kilvert, son of Ligulf."
So this is saying that the Cospatric who granted Allerdale may be
Cospatric, son of Uhtred, or he may be earl Cospatric, son of Maldred
(with a cite I can't see), or (in what appears to be the author's own
speculation) he may be Cospatric son of Arkil.  The author is not
questioning that earl Gospatric was the son of Maldred, only whether
he was the Allerdale grantor and Cumberland notable, or whether the
Cumberland notable and Allerdale grantor Cospatric was distinct from
the earl and instead one of these other people also named Cospatric.
(The son of Uchtred is not named in De Obsessione, but is given brief
notice by Simeon: "But earl Uchtred had left three sons, Aldred,
Eadulf, and Cospatric, of whom the first two were successively earls
of the Northumbrians."; the grandson of Kilvert is named in De
Obsessione immediately after the other Cospatric, but again, nothing
but genealogical information is given - "The daughter of bishop Aldun,
whom earl Ucthred had sent away, became the wife of a certain thane in
Yorkshire, namely, Kilvert, the son of Ligulf; their daughter,
Sigrida, became the wife of Arkil, the son of Ecgfrid, and she bore
him a son named Cospatric. This Cospatric took to wife the daughter of
Dolfin, the son of Torfin, by whom he begot Cospatric, who of late
ought to have fought with Waltheof, the son of Eilaf.")
Oram's footnote 172 may provide further information, but this looks
like a Wikipedia editor has misunderstood the source, confusing the
nature of the controversy. Thus I am unaware of any scholar
questioning Simeon on the identity of earl Gospatric with Maldred's son.
William Kapelle, *The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its
Transformation, 1000-1135* (1979) pp. 43-44, and
Archibald Duncan, *The Making of the Kingdom* (1975) p. 98.
I should have added: in endnote 171 Oram cited Florence Harmer's
*Anglo-Saxon Writs* (1952), the writ of Cospatric for Thorfinn mac
Thore. Harmer noted that Cospatric had been identified by HWC Davis
"with great probability" with "Gospatric, a son of Uhtred, earl of
Northumbria" citing his 'Cumberland before the Norman conquest' in
*English Historical Review* 20 (1905). This can be read on JSTOR (sorry,
I can't provide a link without my proxy included), as can the writ, with
a translation, in the first publication of it by the discoverer James
Wilson in *Scottish Historical Review* 1 (1903).

Peter Stewart
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-18 02:15:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Archibald Duncan, *The Making of the Kingdom* (1975) p. 98.
I should have added: in endnote 171 Oram cited Florence Harmer's
*Anglo-Saxon Writs* (1952), the writ of Cospatric for Thorfinn mac
Thore. Harmer noted that Cospatric had been identified by HWC Davis
"with great probability" with "Gospatric, a son of Uhtred, earl of
Northumbria" citing his 'Cumberland before the Norman conquest' in
*English Historical Review* 20 (1905). This can be read on JSTOR (sorry,
I can't provide a link without my proxy included), as can the writ, with
a translation, in the first publication of it by the discoverer James
Wilson in *Scottish Historical Review* 1 (1903).
Peter Stewart
The Scottish Historical Review article can also be read at https://archive.org/details/scottishhistoric01edinuoft/page/62/mode/2up, and the English Historical Review article at https://archive.org/details/englishhistorica20londuoft/page/60/mode/2up
taf
2021-03-18 02:19:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
William Kapelle, *The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its
Transformation, 1000-1135* (1979) pp. 43-44, and
Google Books is being a little squirrely on this, but the relevant text seems to begin as follows,

"The evidence that Siward expanded into Cumberland comes from a unique charted that dates from between 1041 and 1065, and probably from between 1041 and 1055.[note 52] The charter was granted by Cospatric, the third son of Earl Uhtred, to Thorfinn mac Thore . . ."

and that is the end of the snippet and I haven't been able to find what comes next, but this seems to be cited to indicate Kapelle is identifying the Cospatric of the charter with the son of Uhtred.
Post by Peter Stewart
Archibald Duncan, *The Making of the Kingdom* (1975) p. 98.
"But a writ of 1041–1055 by Gospatrick , probably Maldred's son, referred to Cumberland in (Earl) Ealdred's time . . ."

So for the statement that the charter grantor has been identified with Cospatric, son of Uhtred or with Earl Cospatric, son of Maldred, Oram cites Kapelle and Duncan. Kapelle attributes that charter to the son of Uhtred; Duncan attributes the charter to Maldred's son. That ties everything up - there is no disagreement about the identity of the Earl.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 03:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
William Kapelle, *The Norman Conquest of the North: The Region and its
Transformation, 1000-1135* (1979) pp. 43-44, and
Google Books is being a little squirrely on this, but the relevant text seems to begin as follows,
"The evidence that Siward expanded into Cumberland comes from a unique charted that dates from between 1041 and 1065, and probably from between 1041 and 1055.[note 52] The charter was granted by Cospatric, the third son of Earl Uhtred, to Thorfinn mac Thore . . ."
and that is the end of the snippet and I haven't been able to find what comes next, but this seems to be cited to indicate Kapelle is identifying the Cospatric of the charter with the son of Uhtred.
Post by Peter Stewart
Archibald Duncan, *The Making of the Kingdom* (1975) p. 98.
"But a writ of 1041–1055 by Gospatrick , probably Maldred's son, referred to Cumberland in (Earl) Ealdred's time . . ."
So for the statement that the charter grantor has been identified with Cospatric, son of Uhtred or with Earl Cospatric, son of Maldred, Oram cites Kapelle and Duncan. Kapelle attributes that charter to the son of Uhtred; Duncan attributes the charter to Maldred's son. That ties everything up - there is no disagreement about the identity of the Earl.
I have forgotten more than I ever knew about this, and have nothing
useful to contribute from memory or time to make it up just now.

However, I vaguely recall that Cospatric son of Maldred was reportedly a
grandson of Uhtred through his mother, and was father of Dolfin, Waldeve
and another Cospatric. Is that what Manteyer hung his hat on?

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-18 04:46:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
However, I vaguely recall that Cospatric son of Maldred was reportedly a
grandson of Uhtred through his mother, and was father of Dolfin, Waldeve
and another Cospatric.
This is all from 'De Obsessione Dunelmi', repeated by Simeon of Durham who explicitly identified the Cospatric with this pedigree and children as the earl.
Post by Peter Stewart
Is that what Manteyer hung his hat on?
I don't think I ever gotten a look at Manteyer's original work before, but I just found it online:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k63227705/f353.item

If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into the meat of it on p. 387, but I am now getting a 503 error (server issues or over capacity) when I try to read any more of it.

(Note: he has another article on the Albion rulers earlier in the same issue - see the table of contents at the end)

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 08:25:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
However, I vaguely recall that Cospatric son of Maldred was reportedly a
grandson of Uhtred through his mother, and was father of Dolfin, Waldeve
and another Cospatric.
This is all from 'De Obsessione Dunelmi', repeated by Simeon of Durham who explicitly identified the Cospatric with this pedigree and children as the earl.
Post by Peter Stewart
Is that what Manteyer hung his hat on?
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k63227705/f353.item
If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into the meat of it on p. 387, but I am now getting a 503 error (server issues or over capacity) when I try to read any more of it.
(Note: he has another article on the Albion rulers earlier in the same issue - see the table of contents at the end)
It's a long while since I read through Manteyer's articles on this, but as far as I can recall he never proved the contention in the title of the second part that Dauphin was a baptismal name of Matilda's son. Though Guigues may have had it from boyhood, this does not necessarily mean that he got it at the font - much less that it undoubtedly came from his mother's family.

Earlier today I posted via Usenet with a quotation from Manteyer about the import he drew from "Cospatric, frater Dalfin, Waldef frater suus" in this 1114/24 charter of David I as ruler of Cumbria:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA60.

Somehow the posting has vanished into the depths, not yet surfacing on Google Groups or through Eternal September despite showing at my end as sent in the normal way. Is Usenet not working?

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-18 15:53:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA60.
Somehow the posting has vanished into the depths, not yet surfacing on Google Groups or through Eternal September despite showing at my end as sent in the normal way. Is Usenet not working?
Don't know what to tell you - back in the day this would happen on occasion, and sometimes the message would show up days later, sometimes never. Never understood why. Obviously, this one got through.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 22:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA60.
Somehow the posting has vanished into the depths, not yet surfacing on Google Groups or through Eternal September despite showing at my end as sent in the normal way. Is Usenet not working?
Don't know what to tell you - back in the day this would happen on occasion, and sometimes the message would show up days later, sometimes never. Never understood why. Obviously, this one got through.
The post from me above was sent through Google Groups - the earlier one,
sent once via Usenet in the normal way, disappeared for 11 hours before
turning up 4 times over. Ho hum. Perhaps someone has made a retrograde
"improvement" to something, again.

Peter Stewart
jean-luc soler
2021-03-18 13:10:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I know his work is now out of date, But Manteyer seems convincing..

i rad his work thanks to the link you provided

JL
taf
2021-03-18 16:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into the meat of it on p. 387,
Other issues aside, at least one thing can be clarified - what exactly Manteyer suggested with regard to the relationship:

"on est amené à conclure que le prince Edgar Aetheling père de la reine-comtesse Mahaud avait épousé très probablement la sœur du comte de Northumberland Gospatric vers 1070. Ainsi le comte de Cumberland Dolfin était le cousin germain par alliance de la comtesse d'Albon."(p. 389)

Basically, on the basis of the name Dolphin and the fact that Gospatric's family was related to both the Scottish and English kings, he concludes that Edgar's wife was 'quite probably' sister of Earl Gospatric and aunt of Dolfin of Cumberland. Other issues aside, this seems a thin reed on which to hang a 'quite probably' assessment.

taf
keri CA
2021-03-18 17:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into the meat of it on p. 387,
"on est amené à conclure que le prince Edgar Aetheling père de la reine-comtesse Mahaud avait épousé très probablement la sœur du comte de Northumberland Gospatric vers 1070. Ainsi le comte de Cumberland Dolfin était le cousin germain par alliance de la comtesse d'Albon."(p. 389)
Basically, on the basis of the name Dolphin and the fact that Gospatric's family was related to both the Scottish and English kings, he concludes that Edgar's wife was 'quite probably' sister of Earl Gospatric and aunt of Dolfin of Cumberland. Other issues aside, this seems a thin reed on which to hang a 'quite probably' assessment.
taf
Especially when this wife is never mentioned in the historical record.

Manteyer discusses the many children of Edgar p378-80, repeating the
Lovel claims made in the Huntingdon chronicle, and accepting pipe roll
Edgar as his son.

There seems a lot of unnecessary filler in this article eg about Anselm etc,
who he sees as the architect of this marriage, but I cant see where he
explains why Matilda was called regina. Is it just because she was
a daughter of an uncrowned king?

kerica
jean-luc soler
2021-03-18 19:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Manteyer in this book
"Guigues, dit. le comte, épouse l'anglaise Mahaud, dite
elle-même Regina. Ce surnom pourrait assurément être
un nom propre, celui que plusieurs saintes fêtées le
22 février, le 2 avril, >le Ier juillet et le 7 septembre

avaient porté, mais le culte et le nom des deux plus
connues d'entre elles, vénérées dans les diocèses de Cam-
brai et d'Autun, ne paraissent avoir été répandus ni dans
le pays d'origine ni dans le pays d'adoption de Mahaud.

L'hypothèse la plus probable est donc qu'il faut reconnaître
un titre de naissance dans son surnom : l'acte émané de

- -

son descendant au quatrième degré, le comte André-
Dauphin, et daté du 15 août 1223 confirme cette vue d'une
manière positive. Un tel fait n'est pas isolé 1 au début
du XIIIe siècle, la comtesse de Flandre, nommée Thérèse
dans son pays d'origine et Mathilde ou Mahaud dans son.

pays d'adoption, reçoit aussi le surnom de Regina. Du
- Cange, en citant cet exemple, a depuis longtemps observé
- que' le titre de Reine a été ainsi pris, en fait, non seule-
ment par les femmes des rois, mais encore par des filles
de rois, surtout en Espagne et en Languedoc M. Guillaume

le Hreton et Gilles d'Orval en font foi pour la comtesse
de Flandre :16 il résulte donc du surnom de Mahaud,
femme de Guigues VIII le, Comte, qu'elle-était, sinon
femme, du.moins fille de roi. -"
keri CA
2021-03-18 21:18:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by jean-luc soler
Manteyer in this book
"Guigues, dit. le comte, épouse l'anglaise Mahaud, dite
elle-même Regina. Ce surnom pourrait assurément être
un nom propre, celui que plusieurs saintes fêtées le
22 février, le 2 avril, >le Ier juillet et le 7 septembre
avaient porté, mais le culte et le nom des deux plus
connues d'entre elles, vénérées dans les diocèses de Cam-
brai et d'Autun, ne paraissent avoir été répandus ni dans
le pays d'origine ni dans le pays d'adoption de Mahaud.
L'hypothèse la plus probable est donc qu'il faut reconnaître
un titre de naissance dans son surnom : l'acte émané de
- -
son descendant au quatrième degré, le comte André-
Dauphin, et daté du 15 août 1223 confirme cette vue d'une
manière positive. Un tel fait n'est pas isolé 1 au début
du XIIIe siècle, la comtesse de Flandre, nommée Thérèse
dans son pays d'origine et Mathilde ou Mahaud dans son.
pays d'adoption, reçoit aussi le surnom de Regina. Du
- Cange, en citant cet exemple, a depuis longtemps observé
- que' le titre de Reine a été ainsi pris, en fait, non seule-
ment par les femmes des rois, mais encore par des filles
de rois, surtout en Espagne et en Languedoc M. Guillaume
le Hreton et Gilles d'Orval en font foi pour la comtesse
de Flandre :16 il résulte donc du surnom de Mahaud,
femme de Guigues VIII le, Comte, qu'elle-était, sinon
femme, du.moins fille de roi. -"
Brilliant! thanks very much.

Kerica
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 23:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by keri CA
Post by taf
If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into the meat of it on p. 387,
"on est amené à conclure que le prince Edgar Aetheling père de la reine-comtesse Mahaud avait épousé très probablement la sœur du comte de Northumberland Gospatric vers 1070. Ainsi le comte de Cumberland Dolfin était le cousin germain par alliance de la comtesse d'Albon."(p. 389)
Basically, on the basis of the name Dolphin and the fact that Gospatric's family was related to both the Scottish and English kings, he concludes that Edgar's wife was 'quite probably' sister of Earl Gospatric and aunt of Dolfin of Cumberland. Other issues aside, this seems a thin reed on which to hang a 'quite probably' assessment.
taf
Especially when this wife is never mentioned in the historical record.
Manteyer discusses the many children of Edgar p378-80, repeating the
Lovel claims made in the Huntingdon chronicle, and accepting pipe roll
Edgar as his son.
There seems a lot of unnecessary filler in this article eg about Anselm etc,
who he sees as the architect of this marriage, but I cant see where he
explains why Matilda was called regina. Is it just because she was
a daughter of an uncrowned king?
A lot of unfocused filler too - Manteyer presented a long parade of
people with second names, without proving that any of these were given
at baptism as he assumed Dalfinus was to Matilda's son.

The first record he cited of Matilda given the byname or title regina
was a testament of her husband dated 1105 in the cartulary of Oulx - the
1753 edition he used had been superseded by a better one in 1909,
specifying that the original of this document was lacking, but the text
was practically the same in both editions:

"ego Gigo comes precibus Maieude regine ... cum iam essem in articulo
mortis positus ... Hoc autem facio in remissione peccatorum meorum atque
uxoris mee atque omnium filiorum nostrorum tam uiuorum quam defunctorum
... anno ab incarnacione domini millesimo centesimo quinto, huius rei
testes sunt domina Maieuda regina et stephanus capellanus ..."

Notably Guigues mentioned "our children living and deceased" in 1105,
but maybe he was referring to his offspring by a prior wife: he is
supposed to have had an older son also named Guigues.

Anyway, the odd spelling "Maieuda" for Matilda suggests a possible
connection to "maiestas" (majesty) that may conceivably have given rise
to an ostensibly "royal" nickname.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-19 02:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by keri CA
Post by taf
If a search for Gospatric is any indication, he seems to get into
the meat of it on p. 387,
Other issues aside, at least one thing can be clarified - what
"on est amené à conclure que le prince Edgar Aetheling père de la
reine-comtesse Mahaud avait épousé très probablement la sœur du comte
de Northumberland Gospatric vers 1070. Ainsi le comte de Cumberland
Dolfin était le cousin germain par alliance de la comtesse
d'Albon."(p. 389)
Basically, on the basis of the name Dolphin and the fact that
Gospatric's family was related to both the Scottish and English
kings, he concludes that Edgar's wife was 'quite probably' sister of
Earl Gospatric and aunt of Dolfin of Cumberland. Other issues aside,
this seems a thin reed on which to hang a 'quite probably' assessment.
taf
Especially when this wife is never mentioned in the historical record.
Manteyer discusses the many children of Edgar p378-80, repeating the
Lovel claims made in the Huntingdon chronicle, and accepting pipe roll
Edgar as his son.
There seems a lot of unnecessary filler in this article eg about Anselm etc,
who he sees as the architect of this marriage, but I cant see where he
explains why Matilda was called regina. Is it just because she was
a daughter of an uncrowned king?
A lot of unfocused filler too - Manteyer presented a long parade of
people with second names, without proving that any of these were given
at baptism as he assumed Dalfinus was to Matilda's son.
The first record he cited of Matilda given the byname or title regina
was a testament of her husband dated 1105 in the cartulary of Oulx - the
1753 edition he used had been superseded by a better one in 1909,
specifying that the original of this document was lacking, but the text
"ego Gigo comes precibus Maieude regine ... cum iam essem in articulo
mortis positus ... Hoc autem facio in remissione peccatorum meorum atque
uxoris mee atque omnium filiorum nostrorum tam uiuorum quam defunctorum
... anno ab incarnacione domini millesimo centesimo quinto, huius rei
testes sunt domina Maieuda regina et stephanus capellanus ..."
Notably Guigues mentioned "our children living and deceased" in 1105,
but maybe he was referring to his offspring by a prior wife: he is
supposed to have had an older son also named Guigues.
Anyway, the odd spelling "Maieuda" for Matilda suggests a possible
connection to "maiestas" (majesty) that may conceivably have given rise
to an ostensibly "royal" nickname.
The possible connection of Matilda to majesty in the parlance of the
Grenoble region may be more plain in the form used for this Matilda's
namesake daughter married to Amadeo III of Savoy - according to Charles
Previté Orton in *The Early History of the House of Savoy* (1912) p.
292: "Not more fortunate were Amadeus' relations to his other
brother-in-law, Guigues IV, the Dauphin of Albon. Since his first wife
was alive in July 1133, and Humbert, son of his second wife, appears in
a grant of January 1137, it is probable that Amadeus III became a
widower in 1133 and married again in 1134. His second wife was Matilda,
otherwise Majes, daughter of Guigues III of Albon and the latter's wife,
Queen Matilda".

Previté Orton's reference for the daughter's name is a charter dated 30
March 1143: "Amadeus comes et marchio et Majes comitissa uxor ejus et
Umbertus eorum filius".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-18 03:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 18-Mar-21 2:25 PM, Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
However, I vaguely recall that Cospatric son of Maldred was reportedly a
grandson of Uhtred through his mother, and was father of Dolfin, Waldeve
and another Cospatric. Is that what Manteyer hung his hat on?
On checking, Manteyer drew attention especially to "Cospatric, frater
Dalfin, Waldef frater suus" in this 1114/24 charter of David I as ruler
of Cumbria:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA60.

Manteyer wrote: "Ce nom du comte de Cumberland est une révélation: quand
la reine Mahaud fille d'Edgar, devenue comtesse d'Albon donne comme
surnom de baptême à son fils puîné Guigues le nom de Dalfinus vers 1100
ou 1102, il est clair qu'elle lui donne celui de ce comte de Cumberland
chassé huit ou dix ans plus tôt de son domaine".

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-18 16:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
On checking, Manteyer drew attention especially to "Cospatric, frater
Dalfin, Waldef frater suus" in this 1114/24 charter of David I as ruler
He also repeated the content of a document detailing the children of earl Gospatric that he described as 13th century, (Chancery. Tower, Miscellaneous Rolls, 459/3). I am finding mention of this Tower Miscellaneous Roll 459 in older publications but it appears to have been re-catalogued about the time of Manteyer's writing and I haven't turned it up in the current TNA online cat. Anyone know what document class this might now be grouped with?

taf
taf
2021-03-18 20:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
He also repeated the content of a document detailing the children of earl Gospatric
that he described as 13th century, (Chancery. Tower, Miscellaneous Rolls, 459/3). I
am finding mention of this Tower Miscellaneous Roll 459 in older publications but it
appears to have been re-catalogued about the time of Manteyer's writing and I haven't
turned it up in the current TNA online cat. Anyone know what document class this
might now be grouped with?
I haven't identified this item yet, but did find a reference to it.

J. E. Prescott, The Register of the Priory of Wetherhal, includes additional documents found in Harleian ms. 1881. One of these is a document entitled 'Distributio Cumberlandiæ Ad Conquestum Angliæ'. This is the same compilation copied by Dugdale in Monasticon iii, 584 from a different manuscript where it was entitled 'Chronicon Cumbriæ'. The editor comments, "This . . . is one of those common and inaccurate compilations found in so many of these old Registers and Chartularies. He also mentions a copy published by Machel (MSS. vol. iv, p. 408), and says, "All these copies have been very carelessly transcribed. . . . It was evidently a late addition to the [Harleian] MS, full of blunders; and far too much use of it has been made of it by some of the older local historians. There is a document curiously similar, and, if possible, more untrustworthy, in 'Tower Miscellaneous Rolls 459/3', quoted by J. Bain (Calend. Doc. Scot. ii 15); he places it about 1275, and has the not improbable conjecture that it was a statement by the monks of Holm Cultram, which its last clause and reference seems to support."

https://archive.org/details/cu31924028281883/page/n436/mode/1up

That doesn't bode well for Manteyer's reliance on it for the reconstruction of Gospatric's family.

(Bain's translation can be seen here: https://books.google.com/books?id=gJbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA15)

Something that caught my eye in the Prescott document: in referring to Waltheof (son of earl Gospatric), it says: "Et dedit Waldevo filio Gillemini cum Octreda sorore sua Brochton, Ribeton et parvam Brochton. . . . Et dedit Ormo filio Ketelli, Seton, Camberton, Flemyngby, Graysothen cum Gimilda sorore sua : Et dedit Dolphino filio Aylevvard cum Matella'" sorore sua Aplewhayt et parvam Crosby Langrigg et Brigham, cum advocatione ejusdem Ecclesi." In a note he indicates that the versions of the ms. published by Dugdale and Machel both call this woman Ethreda rather than Octreda. As such, is this referring to Æthelreda, daughter of Gospatric, whom other sources show married to Duncan II of Scotland. Is anyone aware of any other evidence for this Waltheof son of Gillemin? Is this perhaps a man she married after Duncan was killed, or is it just an example of what makes this "one of those common and inaccurate compilations"?

taf
Chris Pitt Lewis
2021-03-19 09:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
On checking, Manteyer drew attention especially to "Cospatric, frater
Dalfin, Waldef frater suus" in this 1114/24 charter of David I as ruler
He also repeated the content of a document detailing the children of earl Gospatric that he described as 13th century, (Chancery. Tower, Miscellaneous Rolls, 459/3). I am finding mention of this Tower Miscellaneous Roll 459 in older publications but it appears to have been re-catalogued about the time of Manteyer's writing and I haven't turned it up in the current TNA online cat. Anyone know what document class this might now be grouped with?
taf
It is now C 47/22/9/3. The TNA catalogue description is:

Reference: C 47/22/9/3
Description: Memorandum of descent of Allerdale in the house of Dunbar
Note: ^ a version of the Distributio Comitatus Cumbrie; compare with
The Register of the Wetheral Priory ed J E Prescott (Cumberland and
Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, Record Series, i,
1897), pp 384-388 ^ see Bain, ii, 64
Date: [c 1275]
Held by: The National Archives, Kew
Former reference in its original department: Tower Misc Rolls no 459/3

It has not been digitised.

Found by using 459/3 as a keyword and limiting the search to the years
1200-1299.

It looks as though many (most?) of the former Tower Miscellaneous Rolls
have ended up in C 47, but the index to the printed Guide to the
Contents of the Public Record Office (1963) reveals others in C 55 and C 76.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis
taf
2021-03-19 10:07:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Former reference in its original department: Tower Misc Rolls no 459/3
Argh! I searched for 'Tower Miscellaneous Rolls "459/3"' and came up empty. You'd think. . . . Thanks.

I note that another version of the 'Chronicon Cumbriæ' document was published by Wilson, Register of the Priory of St. Bees in 1915, wherein the woman in question appears as ' Ithreda'.

https://archive.org/details/registerofstbees00surtuoft/page/491/mode/1up

The editor has fuller comments in VCH Cumberland 1:297-8, where he suggests that both this document and the Tower Misc Rolls one were prepared as memoranda for a series of court cases over a land dispute that began in 1275. "As historical documents they are of slender value when standing alone, but for our present purpose they are useful in showing that the tradition of the district at the close of the thirteenth century was universal that William the Conqueror was the instrument in making the Solway the north-western frontier of the English kingdom."
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092925936/page/n413/mode/1up

taf
taf
2021-03-12 00:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Silvestro is supposedly the ancestor of the minor di Lorenzo family of Sicily[1],
the family does exist,
I don't question that there exists a family claiming to descend from Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo. I do question whether Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo existed. Again, what is the earliest source that names him?

So, a queen, who is from Anglia, which is not necessarily the same thing as 'Queen of England'.
Post by Max Stenner
The Malta genealogy website also speculates that their ancestors may have
come during the crusades[1]. The earliest source for the family I can find is a
1418 militia list. I might contact the Malta genealogy owner
A family that can only be documented back to 1418 claims an ancestor born in 1070? That tells you everything you need to know.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-03-12 16:50:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Silvestro is supposedly the ancestor of the minor di Lorenzo family of Sicily[1],
the family does exist,
I don't question that there exists a family claiming to descend from Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo. I do question whether Silvestro Ætheling, barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo existed. Again, what is the earliest source that names him?
So, a queen, who is from Anglia, which is not necessarily the same thing as 'Queen of England'.
Post by Max Stenner
The Malta genealogy website also speculates that their ancestors may have
come during the crusades[1]. The earliest source for the family I can find is a
1418 militia list. I might contact the Malta genealogy owner
A family that can only be documented back to 1418 claims an ancestor born in 1070? That tells you everything you need to know.
taf
Okay, I have found a mention of the family on Italian Wikipedia[1], the source listed is an Italian heraldry forum[1] [2] -

Il cognome "Di Lorenzo" fa riferimento al feudo di San Lorenzo (tra Noto e Pachino), proprietà della famiglia_. L'attribuzione di "Marchese del Castelluccio" fa seguito all'acquisizione del feudo di Castelluccio, a pochi km dalla città di Noto. Il successivo legame matrimoniale tra una discendente della famiglia Borgia e un Di Lorenzo, tra la fine del XVIII secolo e l'inizio del XIX, provocò la scissione della famiglia in due rami: i "Di Lorenzo Borgia del Casale" e i "Di Lorenzo Borgia del Castelluccio", i quali si trasferirono nella residenza di Noto nel 1782.

There was an Italian Renaissance painter who bared the surname di Lorenzo, also in the 1400s but nothing about his family is known.

Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.

[2] Heraldry Forum - http://www.iagiforum.info/search.php?keywords=Di+lorenzo&sid=5fb80e4dd14558e3f40163395ee00b65

[1] Wikipedia article - https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Di_Lorenzo_del_Castelluccio
taf
2021-03-12 19:07:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey
of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one
daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.
Says who? If she was 'unmentioned', how do we know this was the case?

taf
Max Stenner
2021-03-12 20:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey
of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one
daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.
Says who? If she was 'unmentioned', how do we know this was the case?
taf
Well he had 2 sons (Abelard and Herman) and at least 1 daughter, who is indirectly mentioned in a story told by Amatus, in which Abelard flees Robert Guiscard with "Gradilon, the husband of his sister". Gradilon was a Norman lord who was the son of Robert Drengot and Fredesend, a sister of Humphrey, meaning that Gradilon and Abelard were both cousins and brother-in-laws. He may have had more children though.

The Malta Genealogy page gives Humphrey six children (Abelardo, Riccardo, Valdella, Umfreda, Frasende and Geoffroi).
taf
2021-03-12 21:54:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey
of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one
daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.
Says who? If she was 'unmentioned', how do we know this was the case?
Well he had 2 sons (Abelard and Herman) and at least 1 daughter, who is
indirectly mentioned in a story told by Amatus, in which Abelard flees Robert
Guiscard with "Gradilon, the husband of his sister". Gradilon was a Norman
lord who was the son of Robert Drengot and Fredesend, a sister of Humphrey,
meaning that Gradilon and Abelard were both cousins and brother-in-laws. He
may have had more children though.
The Malta Genealogy page gives Humphrey six children (Abelardo, Riccardo, Valdella, Umfreda, Frasende and Geoffroi).
According to a recent dissertation on the Hautevilles, Herman was the uterine half-brother of Abelard, born to an unnamed other husband of his mother (herself of unknown name, daughter of the duke of Sorrento). He cites Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Roberti Wiscardi et Rogerii, III.5-6, pp. 59-60 where he mentions this, but it is unclear whether the source is intended to document the half-sibling relationship or only the other events described in the same compound sentence.

https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21908/1/Petrizzo_F_MedievalStudies_PhD_2018.pdf (see pp. 29 & 117 in particular)

Though the scholar shows Gradilon's wife as a full sister of Abelard in his chart of the family, elsewhere he calls Abelard the "only known issue of Humphrey". The supposed first-cousin marriage would be obviated were she a full sister of Herman and only maternal half-sister of Abelard. This all makes me wonder where the Malta genealogy page got its list of Humphrey's children from.

And I am still looking for your source for the claim that "Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende."

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-12 22:02:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey
of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one
daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.
Says who? If she was 'unmentioned', how do we know this was the case?
Well he had 2 sons (Abelard and Herman) and at least 1 daughter, who is
indirectly mentioned in a story told by Amatus, in which Abelard flees Robert
Guiscard with "Gradilon, the husband of his sister". Gradilon was a Norman
lord who was the son of Robert Drengot and Fredesend, a sister of Humphrey,
meaning that Gradilon and Abelard were both cousins and brother-in-laws. He
may have had more children though.
The Malta Genealogy page gives Humphrey six children (Abelardo, Riccardo, Valdella, Umfreda, Frasende and Geoffroi).
According to a recent dissertation on the Hautevilles, Herman was the uterine half-brother of Abelard, born to an unnamed other husband of his mother (herself of unknown name, daughter of the duke of Sorrento). He cites Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Roberti Wiscardi et Rogerii, III.5-6, pp. 59-60 where he mentions this, but it is unclear whether the source is intended to document the half-sibling relationship or only the other events described in the same compound sentence.
https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21908/1/Petrizzo_F_MedievalStudies_PhD_2018.pdf (see pp. 29 & 117 in particular)
I wonder how may people have ever misspelled the name of their
university on the title page of a PhD dissertation ...

Peter Stewart
Max Stenner
2021-03-12 22:58:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 13-Mar-21 8:54 AM, taf wrote:
< And I am still looking for your source for the claim that "Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende."

I’m sorry if I didn’t mention that’s what the Malta Genealogy website says.

Also on the other Aethelings in Angevin records, there are 2 Edwards, 1 Edgar and 1 Gilbert. Of those names only Gilbert wasn’t used in the House of Wessex. Which to me is evidence of them being related. Your idea that they might not be related is also possible but knowing the name usage of these ‘Aetheling’ makes me lean towards the Wessex theory.

I think Silvestro is either down-right fictional or an obscure figure whose parentage has been faked by the modern Lorenzo family, Matilda is probably not Edgar’s child in my eyes and more likely to be an illegitimate child of William I.
Margaret is the most likely to be Edgar’s daughter in my opinion.

Even if Edgar did have sons, their lines would be practically untraceable, at best they would be minor landowners, probably having an estate somewhere in the country. Genealogical lines of minor nobility in this era is very hard to trace
Peter Stewart
2021-03-12 23:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
< And I am still looking for your source for the claim that "Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende."
I’m sorry if I didn’t mention that’s what the Malta Genealogy website says.
Also on the other Aethelings in Angevin records, there are 2 Edwards, 1 Edgar and 1 Gilbert. Of those names only Gilbert wasn’t used in the House of Wessex. Which to me is evidence of them being related. Your idea that they might not be related is also possible but knowing the name usage of these ‘Aetheling’ makes me lean towards the Wessex theory.
I think Silvestro is either down-right fictional or an obscure figure whose parentage has been faked by the modern Lorenzo family,
It's evidently the latter - according to the Malta genealogy web page
you linked to upthread:

"(illegitimate) Milite Silvestro Aetheling, (1071-1148), created
Viscomte d'Amtona, came with parents to Sicily/Naples 1087, later
created Barone di Milacca di S. Lorenzo, di San Marco, di Ronda, di
Grainieri, di Ciula e Conali, married to Sofia de Molisio di Boiano,
with issue. "

As noted before, the wife attributed to him is fictional. In 'Catalogus
baronum' and in the magisterial 1984 commentary on this by Errico
Cuozzo, NONE of the lordships assigned to "Silvestro Aetheling" is even
mentioned. He may as well have been lord of Brigadoon.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-13 01:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
< And I am still looking for your source for the claim that "Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende."
I’m sorry if I didn’t mention that’s what the Malta Genealogy website says.
Not that you would know the answer, but the obvious questions are, 1) what source are they using to make this claim, and 2) given that they are attributing a whole lot of children, only one of which is actually documented, why should we think they have any historical basis for the claim at all?

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-13 01:39:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
< And I am still looking for your source for the claim that "Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey of Hauteville called Frasende."
I’m sorry if I didn’t mention that’s what the Malta Genealogy website says.
Also on the other Aethelings in Angevin records, there are 2 Edwards, 1 Edgar and 1 Gilbert. Of those names only Gilbert wasn’t used in the House of Wessex. Which to me is evidence of them being related. Your idea that they might not be related is also possible but knowing the name usage of these ‘Aetheling’ makes me lean towards the Wessex theory.
Are you taking these "other Aethelings in Angevin records" from Angevin
records or from the internet?

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-13 05:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Also on the other Aethelings in Angevin records, there are 2 Edwards, 1 Edgar
and 1 Gilbert. Of those names only Gilbert wasn’t used in the House of Wessex.
Which to me is evidence of them being related. Your idea that they might not be
related is also possible but knowing the name usage of these ‘Aetheling’ makes
me lean towards the Wessex theory.
What exactly does the name usage really tell you? AEtheling is an Anglo-Saxon word, more likely to be familiar to/used by people of Anglo-Saxon descent, the same people who are more likely to use the names of their former kings than the current Norman ones. The Gilbert you name is the only one that is at all surprising. The others are exactly what I would have expected, independent of royal descent.

taf
Max Stenner
2021-03-13 11:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
Also on the other Aethelings in Angevin records, there are 2 Edwards, 1 Edgar
and 1 Gilbert. Of those names only Gilbert wasn’t used in the House of Wessex.
Which to me is evidence of them being related. Your idea that they might not be
related is also possible but knowing the name usage of these ‘Aetheling’ makes
me lean towards the Wessex theory.
What exactly does the name usage really tell you? AEtheling is an Anglo-Saxon word, more likely to be familiar to/used by people of Anglo-Saxon descent, the same people who are more likely to use the names of their former kings than the current Norman ones. The Gilbert you name is the only one that is at all surprising. The others are exactly what I would have expected, independent of royal descent.
taf
There are a lot of Anglo Saxon names, not all of them were used in the Anglo Saxon royal family, like Godred, Cedda, Hrodulf but in my opinion both theories are possible.
taf
2021-03-13 15:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Max Stenner
There are a lot of Anglo Saxon names, not all of them were used in the
Anglo Saxon royal family, like Godred, Cedda, Hrodulf but in my opinion
both theories are possible.
Of course it is possible, but vague possibilities are not the basis for sound genealogy. Making the argument that 'because they used royal names they must be descended from royalty flies in the face of documented onomastic trends - there is a recognized pattern of child-naming after those higher in the social order, all the way up to the top (example: the proliferation of the name George in Hanoverian England - everyone named George King is not a descendant of George I). One of your names, Edward, also matches a second trend, naming for revered religious figures, particularly those relevant to the family's culture. If common cultural norms would account for the naming without a descent, then there is no reason to invoke a descent.

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-13 22:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
There are a lot of Anglo Saxon names, not all of them were used in the
Anglo Saxon royal family, like Godred, Cedda, Hrodulf but in my opinion
both theories are possible.
Of course it is possible, but vague possibilities are not the basis for sound genealogy. Making the argument that 'because they used royal names they must be descended from royalty flies in the face of documented onomastic trends - there is a recognized pattern of child-naming after those higher in the social order, all the way up to the top (example: the proliferation of the name George in Hanoverian England - everyone named George King is not a descendant of George I). One of your names, Edward, also matches a second trend, naming for revered religious figures, particularly those relevant to the family's culture. If common cultural norms would account for the naming without a descent, then there is no reason to invoke a descent.
The penny has dropped for me - Max was referring to Ætheling occurring
as a surname in English Angevin records, not in southern Italian ones
and so not to traces of a purported bastard leaving descendants through
the period of Angevin rule there into modern times.

The only way to pursue the question regarding "Silvestro Ætheling,
barone di Milacca di San Lorenzo (b. 1071. d. 1148), supposedly an
illegitimate son fathered in Italy in 1071" is to look for such a
phantom where only John Schmeeckle has the talent to find him.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-13 01:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
I wonder how may people have ever misspelled the name of their
university on the title page of a PhD dissertation ...
Well, just a few months ago a president of the US misspelled 'United States' on the cover page of a formal document, so nothing like this surprises me.

(And I have to be a little sympathetic to the scholar, given the combination of tedium, relief and impatience to just get the damned thing out the door that hits you when you finally get to the point of typing up the title page of a dissertation - probably lucky he didn't misspell his own name.)

taf
Peter Stewart
2021-03-13 01:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
I wonder how may people have ever misspelled the name of their
university on the title page of a PhD dissertation ...
Well, just a few months ago a president of the US misspelled 'United States' on the cover page of a formal document, so nothing like this surprises me.
(And I have to be a little sympathetic to the scholar, given the combination of tedium, relief and impatience to just get the damned thing out the door that hits you when you finally get to the point of typing up the title page of a dissertation - probably lucky he didn't misspell his own name.)
It was certainly lucky that at the end of the work she didn't think her
name was "his".

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2021-03-12 23:01:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Post by taf
Post by Max Stenner
Apparently Edgar’s mistress was an unmentioned daughter of Humphrey
of Hauteville called Frasende. He is known to have had at least one
daughter but her name isn’t known, her husband was called Gradilon.
Says who? If she was 'unmentioned', how do we know this was the case?
Well he had 2 sons (Abelard and Herman) and at least 1 daughter, who is
indirectly mentioned in a story told by Amatus, in which Abelard flees Robert
Guiscard with "Gradilon, the husband of his sister". Gradilon was a Norman
lord who was the son of Robert Drengot and Fredesend, a sister of Humphrey,
meaning that Gradilon and Abelard were both cousins and brother-in-laws. He
may have had more children though.
The Malta Genealogy page gives Humphrey six children (Abelardo, Riccardo, Valdella, Umfreda, Frasende and Geoffroi).
According to a recent dissertation on the Hautevilles, Herman was the uterine half-brother of Abelard, born to an unnamed other husband of his mother (herself of unknown name, daughter of the duke of Sorrento). He cites Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Roberti Wiscardi et Rogerii, III.5-6, pp. 59-60 where he mentions this, but it is unclear whether the source is intended to document the half-sibling relationship or only the other events described in the same compound sentence.
It can only be the other events, since Geoffrey Malaterra several times
calls Abelard and Herman brothers without qualification. The account
ends by saying that the two of them left for Constantinople, where they
both died ("ad imperatorem Constantinopolitanum transeunt. Ubi et
ultimos dies clauserunt").

The researcher omitted to cite the actual source/s for Herman of Canne's
having been a maternal half-brother of Abelard - the best is William of
Apulia:

"Dux postquam Cannas sibi comperit esse rebelles, / Obsidet; ... /
Rexerat has genitus genitrice Hermannus eadem, / Unfredi fuerat qua
filius Abagelardus. / Non tamen unus eis pater extitit."
(As soon as the duke (Robert Guiscard) found out that Cannae was in
revolt he laid siege to it; ... the town had been ruled by Herman, the
maternal half-brother of Humphrey's son Abelard).

William also mentioned that the sister of Abelard was married to Gradilo:

"Abagelardus, / Filius Unfredi ... / ... socio Gradilone, sororem / Cui
dedit uxorem."
(Abelard, Humphrey's son ... joined with Gradilo, to whom he had given
his sister in marriage).

Gradilo did not fare well, ending up blinded and castrated before they
left Italy around 1082, "Gradilo privatur lumine captus, / Testibus
exuitur". But according to the Malta genealogy website his wife had
allegedly sought other male company well before this ...

In any event, the mother of these half-brothers was Gaitelgrima of
Naples, and her first husband (father of Gradilo) was Rodolfo, count of
Canne - see Thierry Stasser, *Où sont les femmes: prosopographie des
femmes des familles princières et ducales en Italie méridionale*
(Oxford, 2008), pp 246-248 for documentation.

Peter Stewart
taf
2021-03-12 00:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
That Matilda was daughter of Edgar was just wild speculation by Vajay,
Sorry, I was misremembering this - it was not Vajay's wild speculation, that is just where I first saw it.

taf
taf
2021-03-12 16:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
That Matilda was daughter of Edgar was just wild speculation by Vajay, and there is equally wild speculation that she was daughter of Robert Guiscard (IIRC).
And another correction. It was Manteyer who first suggested that she was daughter of Edgar, while Rudt von Collenberg speculated that she was daughter of Roger of Sicily and widow of Conrad of Germany, though there were parts of his argument that didn't make sense to me.

taf
Geoffrey RD Tobin
2021-07-18 06:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The prominent women named 'Matilda' that come to my mind were either Flemish (WIlliam I's queen and Stephen's queen), or named, directly or indirectly, after Flemish ancestors of their husbands (Henry I's queen) or of their father's (Henry I's daughter).
Loading...