Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo Post by Peter Stewart Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo Post by Peter Stewart Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo Post by taf Post by Peter Stewart Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What do you think of the idea that Eadmund, Eadweard the Exile's brother, married a Hungarian princess, which is discussed in http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm? This was claimed by Aelred of Rievaulx, who got some of his information directly from King David of Scotland, Eadweard's grandson. This would explain all accounts of Agatha as a Hungarian princess as being the result of confusion between the two brothers. The idea that a daughter of Stephen I would be a chronologically unlikely wife for Eadweard or Eadmund has, IMO, been exaggerated. Gisela may very well have been one decade younger than her brother Heinrich II and have had a daughter about 1020. However, the other arguments against Eadweard as Stephen I's son-in-law are strong. Those, however, don't apply to Eadmund, who according to Aelred's account died shortly after the wedding. I agree with Stewart Baldwin that a Hungarian marriage for Eadmund is very plausible but unproven.
In my opinion Stewart Baldwin has treated the question very cogently -
there is just one point that I don't entirely agree with: "If Eadmund
did marry a Hungarian king's daughter, then confusion between the
brothers Eadmund and Eadweard would explain all of the appearances of
Agatha as the daughter of a Hungarian king". I'm not sure we can rule
out the possibility of an unwarranted but not necessarily confused idea
that the brothers had married sisters.
I would even not be surprised if the fact she was coming from the Hungarian royal court sufficed, after several steps remove both geographically and from source to source, in her being portrayed as daughter of the king. There are other instances where someone has been 'promoted' in this way (Zaida and just about all of the Byzantine brides in the west come to mind).
I still think the idea of confusion between the two brothers is more likely. Aelred got some of his information directly from King David, Eadweard's grandson, and there was little reason for him to invent a marriage for Eadmund who is then said to have died shortly afterwards.
According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Aelred's account omitted the brothers' time in Russia, then. Still, there doesn't seem to be much reason to invent such a short marriage for Eadmund.
Regardless, are you sure that those two children of Stephen were born in 1002-1004? According to the main Agatha page, a German chronicle reports that Stephen and Gisela married in 1009. Also, Heinrich II was born in 973 and Gisela may very well have been born a decade later. That makes it feasible for her to have had a daughter the same age or younger than Eadmund.
I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.
Or as a widow at large she might have become the first human on Mars, or
whatever else suits a strained hypothesis. Children of St Stephen and
Gisela were not mere ciphers to be ascribed life stories that are not
recorded. The idea that one might have been a nun left in the convent
when her mother returned to Bavaria during the succession struggles for
the Hungarian throne, or stayed celibate when her marriage would have
been a momentous factor, or conveniently died without notice before this
came to be, is an overreach of speculation. It is far more likely, in
the context of the fishy vagueness about Agatha's parentage, that Edmund
and Edward were not considered good catches for royal marriages and that
the stories for each of them were hyped up without specifics before
telling to Aelred and others.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Second, Vajay also accepted the 999 date but http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath000.htm under the "Hungarian Hypothesis" section notes that two German chronicles give 1006, instead. Both are plausible, IMO.
I haven't said anything about a 999 date so I suppose (without the
energy to check Vajay's work) that this is a typo for 997.
As for your confidence in "two German chronicles" giving "1006", I
suppose you must mean one German chronicle giving no date for the
marriage reported in direct connection to the baptism of Stephen and the
Christianisation of Hungary (Frutolf of Michelsberg, writing ca 1100)
that was followed a few decades later by another reporting this as a
past event under 1001 (Otto of Freising), that was reported in almost
the same words by two Austrian compilations (the annals of Admont and a
continuator of the Melk annals writing at Garsten) under 1009 as
referenced without context by Stewart Baldwin. The same past event had
been mentioned under 1029 by Wipo more than half a century before
Frutolf, while Sigibert of Gembloux (writing not long after Frutolf)
placed it under 1010.
Medieval historians were not exact chronologists, "IMO". Why do you
think I went to the trouble of linking to Regesta Imperii pages where
this question is directly canvassed with extensive sourcing? If you want
to keep raising discussions here, perhaps you might do at least some of
your own legwork occasionally, or failing that refrain from leaping to
assumptions about plausibility from inadequate research.