Discussion:
Jacquetta of Luxembourg
Add Reply
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-07 15:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in the thread https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ on SGM:
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
John Higgins
2020-06-07 18:10:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Here is the current state of Jacquetta's ancestry in Genealogics through the 8th generations:
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8

A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-07 23:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
Thanks, John. At a first glance, one minor point worth making is that
Leo had taken many dates of death from *Europäische Stammtafeln* in the
form "Aft[er]" whatever year, e.g. "Aft 1393" for #5 Marguerite
d'Enghien (who incidentally was countess of Brienne & Conversano, both
titles held by her husband #4 in her right). However, Marguerite was
last recorded on 19 September in 1393 so it is not established that she
lived beyond the end of the same year.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-07 23:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote,
in the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Here is the current state of Jacquetta's ancestry in Genealogics
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill
(e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname).  But
perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
Thanks, John. At a first glance, one minor point worth making is that
Leo had taken many dates of death from *Europäische Stammtafeln* in the
form "Aft[er]" whatever year, e.g. "Aft 1393" for #5 Marguerite
d'Enghien (who incidentally was countess of Brienne & Conversano, both
titles held by her husband #4 in her right). However, Marguerite was
last recorded on 19 September in 1393 so it is not established that she
lived beyond the end of the same year.
At a second glance I see that Leo had given more detail in his page for
Marguerite, placing her death after her testament dated 19 September
1393, so this is left vague only in the ancestor table.

The death of #32 Valeran II of Luxemburg is placed on his page "Aft 23
Aug 1366" - this is correct, but since the actual date of his death was
26 January according to the necrology of Saint-Pierre de Lille it may be
worth amending to this date after 1366 (new style).

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-08 04:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On the page for Marguerite d'Enghien (https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00007728&tree=LEO), Leo cites "Europäische Stammtafeln, Band III, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, 1976, Isenburg, W. K. Prinz von. 109." I think that means Table 109 in volume 3 in the second series of Europäische Stammtafeln. I just looked at vol. 3 on Hathi (emergency temporary access service), but the publication date of the copy there is 1965. Was there a revision in 1976 or was the book simply reprinted?

The next citation on the page for Marguerite is "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 57:79." I think that means the new (third} series of Europäische Stammtafeln. But what does "57:79" mean? In the sources on Marguerite's father's page, the first citation is to "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 7:79" Perhaps "57:79" is just a typo and should have been "7:79"? If so does that mean vol. 7, table 79?

The publisher's website lists the volumes of the new series here, https://www.klostermann.de/epages/63574303.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/63574303/Categories/Buecher/Stammtafeln, and has a link to an index. In the index, I see "Enghien, Sire d´ VII/78-79; XXVII/38-39" listed, but in the list of volumes, there is no volume VII. So what does "VII/78-79" mean?
Peter Stewart
2020-06-08 05:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
On the page for Marguerite d'Enghien (https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00007728&tree=LEO), Leo cites "Europäische Stammtafeln, Band III, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, 1976, Isenburg, W. K. Prinz von. 109." I think that means Table 109 in volume 3 in the second series of Europäische Stammtafeln. I just looked at vol. 3 on Hathi (emergency temporary access service), but the publication date of the copy there is 1965. Was there a revision in 1976 or was the book simply reprinted?
Perhaps Hathi's "emergency temporary access service" is restricted to US
users, as I can't see any such option.

For the present I can't visit a library to check, but from memory
Isenburg's work started with a single volume in 1932, then he published
a second edition from 1953 to 1965, then Freytag von Loringhoven
published corrected and augmented versions in 1976. Don't quote me on
these years. Detlev Schwennicke took over as editor, with the same title
but "neue Folge" volume numeration, from 1977.
Post by Jan Wolfe
The next citation on the page for Marguerite is "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 57:79." I think that means the new (third} series of Europäische Stammtafeln. But what does "57:79" mean? In the sources on Marguerite's father's page, the first citation is to "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 7:79" Perhaps "57:79" is just a typo and should have been "7:79"? If so does that mean vol. 7, table 79?
Yes, "57:79" appears to be a typo for 7:79.
Post by Jan Wolfe
The publisher's website lists the volumes of the new series here, https://www.klostermann.de/epages/63574303.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/63574303/Categories/Buecher/Stammtafeln, and has a link to an index. In the index, I see "Enghien, Sire d´ VII/78-79; XXVII/38-39" listed, but in the list of volumes, there is no volume VII. So what does "VII/78-79" mean?
Schwennicke's vol. VII was published in 1979, with the sub-title
"Familien des alten Lotharingien II", so perhaps the publisher's website
has included it with part I (i.e. vol VI) published in 1978. Table 78 in
vol. VII is headed "Les Seigneurs d'Enghien I, auch Châtelains de Mons",
and table 79 continuing this is headed "Die Herren von Zotteghem
(Flandern), auch Titularherzoge von Athen".

Germans tend to love bibliographic complexity, sometimes to the point of
lunacy.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-08 15:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 1:34:48 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Perhaps Hathi's "emergency temporary access service" is restricted to US
users, as I can't see any such option.
For the present I can't visit a library to check, but from memory
Isenburg's work started with a single volume in 1932, then he published
a second edition from 1953 to 1965, then Freytag von Loringhoven
published corrected and augmented versions in 1976. Don't quote me on
these years. Detlev Schwennicke took over as editor, with the same title
but "neue Folge" volume numeration, from 1977.
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Schwennicke's vol. VII was published in 1979, with the sub-title
"Familien des alten Lotharingien II", so perhaps the publisher's website
has included it with part I (i.e. vol VI) published in 1978. Table 78 in
vol. VII is headed "Les Seigneurs d'Enghien I, auch Châtelains de Mons",
and table 79 continuing this is headed "Die Herren von Zotteghem
(Flandern), auch Titularherzoge von Athen".
Germans tend to love bibliographic complexity, sometimes to the point of
lunacy.
Peter Stewart
Thank you, Peter.

In tables 106-109 about the von Luxemburg family in Band III (1964, edited by Loringhoven), there are lots of names, dates, and relationships, but no citations. Do the 1976 Loringhoven volumes have citations? Do the Schwennicke volumes have citations?

The Hathi emergency temporary access service is only available to students and faculty logged in at a Hathi member university, only some of the restricted books are available, and the books cannot be downloaded. At first one could download individual pages as pdfs, but that option is no longer available. I think that only one person can electronically "check out" a book at a time, and the book is due the next day. It's supposed to be a substitute for visiting one's own university library in person.

The set of ES that I can see on Hathi has Band I, Band II, Band III and Band IV. Band I and Band II are bound together with two title pages. The title pages state:
Von Wilhelm Karl Prinz von Isenburg
Berichtiger und ergänzter Abdruck der 2. verbesserten Auflage von 1953
herausgegeben von Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven
Marburg
Verlag von J. A. Stargardt
1965

The title page of Band 3 states:
Von Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven
3. Verbesserte Auflage
Marburg
Verlag von J. A. Stargardt
1964

The title page of Band 4 states:
Von Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven
Marburg
Verlag von J. A. Stargardt
1961

Hathi also has the Schwennicke volumes T.1-T.3, T.5, and vol. 17-vol. 27 from the University of Virginia, but I cannot access them.

From the University of California (also not accessible to me), Hathi has vols. 2-5 with the following description:
Founded by Wilhelm Karl Prinz von Isenburg. Vols. 2-5 edited by Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven (v. 5: "From the estate published by Detlev Schwennicke")
Vol. 2 (1976): "Corrected and supplemented reprint of the 2nd edition from 1953."
John Higgins
2020-06-08 18:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
In tables 106-109 about the von Luxemburg family in Band III (1964, edited by Loringhoven), there are lots of names, dates, and relationships, but no citations. Do the 1976 Loringhoven volumes have citations? Do the Schwennicke volumes have citations?
Both the Loringhoven volumes and the Schwennicke volumes follow the same (less than satisfactory) method of providing bibliographic references. At the front of each volume, there is a page (or a few pages) where sources are provided for each group of pages pertaining to a specific family. So it is difficult if not impossible to find the specific source for information on particular individuals. Unfortunately, that's the way it is...
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-08 23:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Both the Loringhoven volumes and the Schwennicke volumes follow the same (less than satisfactory) method of providing bibliographic references. At the front of each volume, there is a page (or a few pages) where sources are provided for each group of pages pertaining to a specific family. So it is difficult if not impossible to find the specific source for information on particular individuals. Unfortunately, that's the way it is...
Thanks, John. With your explanations and Peter's, I now have a better understanding of the sources ES and ESNF.

In ES Band III (1964, edited by Loringhoven), the bibliography is after the tables. It states for the von Luxemburg tables:

106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. M. Paul Adam hat mir zu diesen Tafeln zahlreiche Ergänzungen gegeben, die leider erst nach Fertigstellung der 2. Lieferung eintrafen.

Then there are two and a half columns of "facts" which appear to be additions to the information in the tables. Among the additions to Table 109, I see the following:

Die Gemahlin von Johann von Beauvoir nannte sich von Enghien. Johanna. [d.] 13. X. 1430. Dame d'Ailly usw.; außdem Marguerite; [m.]I 1377 Pierre d'Enghien, Comte de Liches; [m.]II Jean de Verchin, [d.] 1415

Apparently, the words after "außdem Marguerite" refer to an additional daughter of Guy von Luxemburg not shown in table 109. Leo does have her with these two marriages, citing ESNF 6:28.

Leo also has the death date for Guy's daughter Jean (here Johanna) as 13 October 1430, citing ESNF 6:28.

The von Luxemburg siblings Jean von Beauvoir and Marguerite married cousins, Marguerite von Enghien and Pierre von Enghien who were their 4th cousins once removed.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 00:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by John Higgins
Both the Loringhoven volumes and the Schwennicke volumes follow the same (less than satisfactory) method of providing bibliographic references. At the front of each volume, there is a page (or a few pages) where sources are provided for each group of pages pertaining to a specific family. So it is difficult if not impossible to find the specific source for information on particular individuals. Unfortunately, that's the way it is...
Thanks, John. With your explanations and Peter's, I now have a better understanding of the sources ES and ESNF.
106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. M. Paul Adam hat mir zu diesen Tafeln zahlreiche Ergänzungen gegeben, die leider erst nach Fertigstellung der 2. Lieferung eintrafen.
Then there are two and a half columns of "facts" which appear to be additions to the information in the tables.
Frank Freytag von Loringhoven must have been exasperated with Paul Adam
for giving his additions too late for the printing of tables. I think
Detlev Schwennicke has been similarly at the mercy of dallying
contributors at times.

This kind of cumulative work would be better-placed online than in print
nowadays. But the volume of paper used in the world seems to have
increased grotesquely ever since a paperless "future" became practicable.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-08 22:20:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09-Jun-20 1:57 AM, Jan Wolfe wrote:

<snip>
Post by Jan Wolfe
In tables 106-109 about the von Luxemburg family in Band III (1964, edited by Loringhoven), there are lots of names, dates, and relationships, but no citations. Do the 1976 Loringhoven volumes have citations? Do the Schwennicke volumes have citations?
ES, like so many other projects in scholarship, suffered from the curse
of being in the hands of clever fools. They took on far too much, went
at it far too quickly, and skimmed over the very practices that might
have made their work more useful. The ADHD of academia, in full flight.
Post by Jan Wolfe
The Hathi emergency temporary access service is only available to students and faculty logged in at a Hathi member university, only some of the restricted books are available, and the books cannot be downloaded. At first one could download individual pages as pdfs, but that option is no longer available. I think that only one person can electronically "check out" a book at a time, and the book is due the next day. It's supposed to be a substitute for visiting one's own university library in person.
And of course IT is now hostage to an army of clever fools, who blithely
lose focus on the real purpose of whatever they set out to do. Hathi has
rendered itself almost useless for the facilitation of learning, which
presumably was behind the initiative at its start. Like Google Books
with its imbecilic "snippet view", the enterprise has turned into a
gigantic tease instead of a helpful resource.

The piffling amounts of money that could ever possibly be generated from
most copyright material once the first print run is sold out have
twisted fresh little smartipants brains into stale pretzels of
stupidity. The story of our times...

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-08 23:43:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
And of course IT is now hostage to an army of clever fools, who blithely
lose focus on the real purpose of whatever they set out to do. Hathi has
rendered itself almost useless for the facilitation of learning, which
presumably was behind the initiative at its start. Like Google Books
with its imbecilic "snippet view", the enterprise has turned into a
gigantic tease instead of a helpful resource.
Don't know if this is something others experience or is some conflict with my operating system, but about a year ago Hathi became deathly slow for me. I can hardly stand reading anything there because it takes as long as fifteen seconds to load each page, and though that doesn't seem long, it adds up when you are paging through to find what you want, particularly when it defaults to dumping the page as soon as you move on so if you go back you have to wait for it to reload again from scratch.
Post by Peter Stewart
The piffling amounts of money that could ever possibly be generated from
most copyright material once the first print run is sold out have
twisted fresh little smartipants brains into stale pretzels of
stupidity. The story of our times...
Partly the fault of the lawyers. Funded by the big publishers who wanted a piece of the pie from wealthy Google, they argued that the very act of Google saving their content on Google's servers, even if they didn't show it to anyone, violated copyright. They got their settlement and it made all the hosts skittish. That is about when Google started taking down old books that had been reissued, and everyone simply ignored that almost all books published before the mid-1950s in the US had been in the public domain for decades, and simply went with the ultra-conservative 1922 cutoff that they are still following.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 00:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
And of course IT is now hostage to an army of clever fools, who blithely
lose focus on the real purpose of whatever they set out to do. Hathi has
rendered itself almost useless for the facilitation of learning, which
presumably was behind the initiative at its start. Like Google Books
with its imbecilic "snippet view", the enterprise has turned into a
gigantic tease instead of a helpful resource.
Don't know if this is something others experience or is some conflict with my operating system, but about a year ago Hathi became deathly slow for me. I can hardly stand reading anything there because it takes as long as fifteen seconds to load each page, and though that doesn't seem long, it adds up when you are paging through to find what you want, particularly when it defaults to dumping the page as soon as you move on so if you go back you have to wait for it to reload again from scratch.
Post by Peter Stewart
The piffling amounts of money that could ever possibly be generated from
most copyright material once the first print run is sold out have
twisted fresh little smartipants brains into stale pretzels of
stupidity. The story of our times...
Partly the fault of the lawyers. Funded by the big publishers who wanted a piece of the pie from wealthy Google, they argued that the very act of Google saving their content on Google's servers, even if they didn't show it to anyone, violated copyright. They got their settlement and it made all the hosts skittish. That is about when Google started taking down old books that had been reissued, and everyone simply ignored that almost all books published before the mid-1950s in the US had been in the public domain for decades, and simply went with the ultra-conservative 1922 cutoff that they are still following.
Yes, I realise it was lawyers who spooked Google and Hathi - but this
doesn't excuse their rushing in to establish partnerships with libraries
before (and, as it turned out, at the expense of) negotiating with
publishers.

Academic publishing is already a nonsense, not least in Germany. The
prices extorted to sustain the vanity of small print runs of journals
and books that only richly-endowed and/or publicly-funded institutions
can afford, while then withholding the material in these for many years
from the public who have paid for other people's privileged access,
offend against sense and scholarship equally. The trigger for releasing
digitisations ought to be that the work is no longer available in print,
and so the author's opportunity to earn income from its dissemination
has lapsed. If the copyright-holder is at the same time earning a salary
from a rich endowment and/or from public funding, how is that much
better than being a pointless mini-me of subsidised big pharma
exploiting the market for medicines?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 11:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
And of course IT is now hostage to an army of clever fools, who blithely
lose focus on the real purpose of whatever they set out to do. Hathi has
rendered itself almost useless for the facilitation of learning, which
presumably was behind the initiative at its start. Like Google Books
with its imbecilic "snippet view", the enterprise has turned into a
gigantic tease instead of a helpful resource.
Don't know if this is something others experience or is some conflict with my operating system, but about a year ago Hathi became deathly slow for me. I can hardly stand reading anything there because it takes as long as fifteen seconds to load each page, and though that doesn't seem long, it adds up when you are paging through to find what you want, particularly when it defaults to dumping the page as soon as you move on so if you go back you have to wait for it to reload again from scratch.
I just looked at a full-view book on Hathi for the first time in a
while, and did not run into the problems you described.

For me there is an added nuisance of needing to go through a proxy
server for titles that are available to read in the US but not in
Australia. Despite this, I don't find it slow to load new pages.

Usually I don't try to use arrows for moving from page to page, unless
occasionally when using a two-page view. For single pages it is quicker
for me to adjust the sequence number at the end of the URL to choose a
different page, even when this is the next or preceding one. But still,
it isn't slow for me when using arrows. Perhaps I am likely to be using
Hathi at times when their servers are less busy than in your waking hours.

Also I can still download each page separately, which Jan mentioned she
could not do recently (maybe this problem is only via "emergency access").

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-09 19:19:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:41:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Also I can still download each page separately, which Jan mentioned she
could not do recently (maybe this problem is only via "emergency access").
Peter StewItrt
Yes, it is only for the Hathi temporary emergency access books that one cannot download pdfs of individual pages. For full access books, logged in users from associated universities can download a pdf of the entire book as well as pdfs of individual pages.
I find that Hathi is sometimes discouragingly slow and sometimes reasonably fast.
The project of digitizing books, greatly augmented by the agreement with Google in December 2004 to begin digitizing entire libraries, has immensely expanded our ability to access the information in books.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 21:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Also I can still download each page separately, which Jan mentioned she
could not do recently (maybe this problem is only via "emergency access").
Peter StewItrt
Yes, it is only for the Hathi temporary emergency access books that one cannot download pdfs of individual pages. For full access books, logged in users from associated universities can download a pdf of the entire book as well as pdfs of individual pages.
I find that Hathi is sometimes discouragingly slow and sometimes reasonably fast.
The project of digitizing books, greatly augmented by the agreement with Google in December 2004 to begin digitizing entire libraries, has immensely expanded our ability to access the information in books.
Um, so says a privileged-access user ...

Of course it has, and the immensely-expanded ability is immensely
compromised by the greedy and stupid failure of Google to negotiate a
system of royalty payments for copyright material accessed through their
digitisation project.

For instance, they could track each page viewed and credit payments
accordingly to each author in a journal. However small the income, it
would presumably be preferable to the scholars of the world and their
publishers than the alternative, where they hardly benefit from library
circulation and not at all from second-hand book sales.

But they were so focused on obtaining content from which they could
indirectly extract advertising revenue for their shareholders at minimal
cost to their corporation that they barged ahead into needless
litigation and a permanently-compromised "service" that withholds
information in many of the most useful books.

Peter Stewart
JBrand
2020-06-10 17:19:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
And of course IT is now hostage to an army of clever fools, who blithely
lose focus on the real purpose of whatever they set out to do. Hathi has
rendered itself almost useless for the facilitation of learning, which
presumably was behind the initiative at its start. Like Google Books
with its imbecilic "snippet view", the enterprise has turned into a
gigantic tease instead of a helpful resource.
Don't know if this is something others experience or is some conflict with my operating system, but about a year ago Hathi became deathly slow for me. I can hardly stand reading anything there because it takes as long as fifteen seconds to load each page, and though that doesn't seem long, it adds up when you are paging through to find what you want, particularly when it defaults to dumping the page as soon as you move on so if you go back you have to wait for it to reload again from scratch.
Post by Peter Stewart
The piffling amounts of money that could ever possibly be generated from
most copyright material once the first print run is sold out have
twisted fresh little smartipants brains into stale pretzels of
stupidity. The story of our times...
Partly the fault of the lawyers. Funded by the big publishers who wanted a piece of the pie from wealthy Google, they argued that the very act of Google saving their content on Google's servers, even if they didn't show it to anyone, violated copyright. They got their settlement and it made all the hosts skittish. That is about when Google started taking down old books that had been reissued, and everyone simply ignored that almost all books published before the mid-1950s in the US had been in the public domain for decades, and simply went with the ultra-conservative 1922 cutoff that they are still following.
taf
I like Hathi, but it's always been a bit on the slow side. With the Chromebook I'm currently using, it only allows me to see the top half of each page within the viewer (I have to make a pdf to see what's at the bottom of the page).

Google Books seems to be showing less and less as time goes by. You'll come across "snippet" views in which the date of publication is in the 1890s or earlier (I suppose there must have been some obscure reprint which is still in copyright?). On my Chromebook, the snippets often (not always) appear for a fraction of a second and then disappear totally.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-11 00:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11-Jun-20 3:19 AM, JBrand wrote:

<snip>
Post by JBrand
Google Books seems to be showing less and less as time goes by. You'll come across "snippet" views in which the date of publication is in the 1890s or earlier (I suppose there must have been some obscure reprint which is still in copyright?). On my Chromebook, the snippets often (not always) appear for a fraction of a second and then disappear totally.
I have not run into the second of these problems (yet...), but the first
has definitely surfaced recently.

When Google Books first appeared it became my habit to download any
useful book I came across that wasn't otherwise available. For years
this meant keeping pdf copies that did not allow copy-pasting, which
could be remedied from a few years ago when the same digitisations were
refreshed and made more flexible. (Apologies, I don't know the IT jargon
to describe this better.)

So occasionally I update the copies I kept with new downloads of the
same titles. Until recently this was always possible, but lately titles
from the 1890s onwards (to 1909, that for some crackpot reason that I
think Todd can explain has been the cut-off point for years now) are no
longer available.

However, these are not usually books or journals that could conceivably
be reprinted except perhaps as on-demand single copies. I think the
withdrawing to "snippet view" is probably more from incompetent
librarianship and/or dumb panic in partner institutions, since the same
titles are often fully available from other libraries' digitisations -
IF they can be found from the often idiotic cataloguing systems used in
some US universities.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2020-06-08 18:00:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
On the page for Marguerite d'Enghien (https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00007728&tree=LEO), Leo cites "Europäische Stammtafeln, Band III, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, 1976, Isenburg, W. K. Prinz von. 109." I think that means Table 109 in volume 3 in the second series of Europäische Stammtafeln. I just looked at vol. 3 on Hathi (emergency temporary access service), but the publication date of the copy there is 1965. Was there a revision in 1976 or was the book simply reprinted?
The next citation on the page for Marguerite is "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 57:79." I think that means the new (third} series of Europäische Stammtafeln. But what does "57:79" mean? In the sources on Marguerite's father's page, the first citation is to "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 7:79" Perhaps "57:79" is just a typo and should have been "7:79"? If so does that mean vol. 7, table 79?
The publisher's website lists the volumes of the new series here, https://www.klostermann.de/epages/63574303.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/63574303/Categories/Buecher/Stammtafeln, and has a link to an index. In the index, I see "Enghien, Sire d´ VII/78-79; XXVII/38-39" listed, but in the list of volumes, there is no volume VII. So what does "VII/78-79" mean?
Volume 3 of ES (by Freytag von Loringhoven) was originally published in 1956 The editions of that volume (along with vol. 4) in 1965 and 1976 are simply reprints of the original volume. All 5 volumes of of the F von L edition of ES were once available online via the FHL, but they no longer seem to be there. Fortunately I have downloaded copies of them.

All the Schwennicke volumes have the words "Neue Folge" in the title. I refer to them collectively as ESNF to distinguish them from the earlier ES volumes of F von L. A few of the earliest volumes of ESNF are no longer in print and have been replaced by new, expanded and updated new volumes (or, in the case of vol. 1, by 3 volumes - volumes 1 parts 1, 2, and 3). So, volume 6 was replaced by volume 18 and volume 7 was replaced by volume 28. Apparently both the new and old volumes are included in the publisher's index to the over-all series.

And, yes, the reference to "57:79" was indeed a typo - it should be 7:79.
John Higgins
2020-06-09 03:36:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
On the page for Marguerite d'Enghien (https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00007728&tree=LEO), Leo cites "Europäische Stammtafeln, Band III, Frank Baron Freytag von Loringhoven, 1976, Isenburg, W. K. Prinz von. 109." I think that means Table 109 in volume 3 in the second series of Europäische Stammtafeln. I just looked at vol. 3 on Hathi (emergency temporary access service), but the publication date of the copy there is 1965. Was there a revision in 1976 or was the book simply reprinted?
The next citation on the page for Marguerite is "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 57:79." I think that means the new (third} series of Europäische Stammtafeln. But what does "57:79" mean? In the sources on Marguerite's father's page, the first citation is to "Europäische Stammtafeln, J.A. Stargardt Verlag, Marburg, Schwennicke, Detlev (Ed.). 7:79" Perhaps "57:79" is just a typo and should have been "7:79"? If so does that mean vol. 7, table 79?
The publisher's website lists the volumes of the new series here, https://www.klostermann.de/epages/63574303.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/63574303/Categories/Buecher/Stammtafeln, and has a link to an index. In the index, I see "Enghien, Sire d´ VII/78-79; XXVII/38-39" listed, but in the list of volumes, there is no volume VII. So what does "VII/78-79" mean?
Volume 3 of ES (by Freytag von Loringhoven) was originally published in 1956 The editions of that volume (along with vol. 4) in 1965 and 1976 are simply reprints of the original volume. All 5 volumes of of the F von L edition of ES were once available online via the FHL, but they no longer seem to be there. Fortunately I have downloaded copies of them.
All the Schwennicke volumes have the words "Neue Folge" in the title. I refer to them collectively as ESNF to distinguish them from the earlier ES volumes of F von L. A few of the earliest volumes of ESNF are no longer in print and have been replaced by new, expanded and updated new volumes (or, in the case of vol. 1, by 3 volumes - volumes 1 parts 1, 2, and 3). So, volume 6 was replaced by volume 18 and volume 7 was replaced by volume 28. Apparently both the new and old volumes are included in the publisher's index to the over-all series.
Upon checking, I see that I misspoke with regard to one point in my comments above about ESNF. I had said that volume 7 of ESNF had been replaced by volume 28. In fact, volumes 7 AND 8 together were replaced by the four volumes 26 through 29. All the families in 7 and 8 are covered in 26 through 29 (although grouped differently than they were in 7 and 8), and quite a number of new families not previously covered in ESNF are added in the new volumes.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-08 04:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
The parentage given for Jeanne #65 (following ES vol. 13 table 165) is
problematic.

She was the heiress of Beaurevoir, sometimes called Beauvoir as in
Genealogics, where Joan of Arc was later held captive. Her parents are
not certainly known as far as I'm aware, but they are not likely to have
been Mathieu #130 and Mathilde #131 as shown - this couple were recorded
with three children in the early 1230s, two sons and a daughter named
Oda. It is a chronological stretch for another daughter of theirs to
have been Jeanne, who married for the first time in the early 1260s. She
was more probably their granddaughter, heiress of Beaurevoir as daughter
one of their sons (Mathieu and Jacques) whose marriages are unknown to me.

In ES, citing mainly works of Octave le Maire, Jeanne is shown as the
only child of Mathieu and Mathilde, that does not inspire confidence.
Other secondary sources give her father's name as Jean or Baudouin, but
these may be guesses as far as I can tell.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2020-06-08 21:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
The pedigree chart for jacquetta that I linked to above doesn't show the ancestor numbers which Peter has been referring to in his subsequen tposts. For those of who can't easily determine ancestor numbers from such a chart, here is the same 8-generation ancestry for Jacquetta in ahnentafel form - with the ancestor numbers:
https://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&generations=8
Peter Stewart
2020-06-08 22:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
https://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&generations=8
Thanks, John - with luck you will have saved me from counting blunders
that I was bound to fall into as this thread goes on.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-09 00:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
https://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&generations=8
With the whole thing laid out here, is anyone aware of any reason to doubt the authenticity of the descent from Tancred of Sicily to Jacquetta?

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 04:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by John Higgins
Post by John Higgins
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=8
A lot of the blanks in this chart are going to be difficult to fill (e.g., when only a wife's given name is known but not a surname). But perhaps some readers here may have some leads on filling in the gaps.
https://www.genealogics.org/ahnentafel.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO&parentset=0&generations=8
With the whole thing laid out here, is anyone aware of any reason to doubt the authenticity of the descent from Tancred of Sicily to Jacquetta?
I'm not, but also I'm not sure what has led you to ask. Are you
wondering if Tancred may not have been the father of Albiria, whose son
Gautier IV of Brienne was born posthumously, or perhaps that her first
husband may not have been the father because her second wedding was
contracted before the child's birth and postponed due to her pregnancy?

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-09 04:35:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
With the whole thing laid out here, is anyone aware of any reason to
doubt the authenticity of the descent from Tancred of Sicily to Jacquetta?
I'm not, but also I'm not sure what has led you to ask. Are you
wondering if Tancred may not have been the father of Albiria, whose son
Gautier IV of Brienne was born posthumously, or perhaps that her first
husband may not have been the father because her second wedding was
contracted before the child's birth and postponed due to her pregnancy?
No, nothing so profound as that - just that if true it would likely represent the primary avenue by which people of English ancestry might trace descent from Isabella, 4th wife of Alfonso VI. Claimed descents from her usually are traced through her other daughter, Sancha, via a son that Salazar y Castro just invented to bridge between two people he thought should be related (but are now generally accepted by scholars not to have been). I knew this descent was there, but have never studied it in detail, and as I just told somebody earlier in this discussion, nobody can be an expert at everything. With my superficial familiarity with the sourcing there could very well have been some hypothetical obvious flaw known to someone with more relevant expertise but not to me. That's all.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 04:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
With the whole thing laid out here, is anyone aware of any reason to
doubt the authenticity of the descent from Tancred of Sicily to Jacquetta?
I'm not, but also I'm not sure what has led you to ask. Are you
wondering if Tancred may not have been the father of Albiria, whose son
Gautier IV of Brienne was born posthumously, or perhaps that her first
husband may not have been the father because her second wedding was
contracted before the child's birth and postponed due to her pregnancy?
No, nothing so profound as that - just that if true it would likely represent the primary avenue by which people of English ancestry might trace descent from Isabella, 4th wife of Alfonso VI. Claimed descents from her usually are traced through her other daughter, Sancha, via a son that Salazar y Castro just invented to bridge between two people he thought should be related (but are now generally accepted by scholars not to have been). I knew this descent was there, but have never studied it in detail, and as I just told somebody earlier in this discussion, nobody can be an expert at everything. With my superficial familiarity with the sourcing there could very well have been some hypothetical obvious flaw known to someone with more relevant expertise but not to me. That's all.
Right, apologies for my overthinking it.

Albiria was recorded as one of three daughters of Tancred, and she was
evidently the eldest since her first husband Gautier III of Brienne
assumed the title 'prince of Taranto' and claimed the throne of Sicily
by her right. (Presumably she was named after Tancred's paternal
grandmother, Elvira of Castile, underlining the descent you mention.)

The descent from this couple to Jacquetta's great-great-grandmother #21
Isabeau, heiress of Brienne, is well-attested.

When it comes to medieval genealogy, expertise is only as good as the
sources relied on - and these can be wrong. Knowing everything would be
a ticket to a padded cell.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-09 06:50:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by taf
With the whole thing laid out here, is anyone aware of any reason to
doubt the authenticity of the descent from Tancred of Sicily to Jacquetta?
I'm not, but also I'm not sure what has led you to ask. Are you
wondering if Tancred may not have been the father of Albiria, whose son
Gautier IV of Brienne was born posthumously, or perhaps that her first
husband may not have been the father because her second wedding was
contracted before the child's birth and postponed due to her pregnancy?
No, nothing so profound as that - just that if true it would likely represent the primary avenue by which people of English ancestry might trace descent from Isabella, 4th wife of Alfonso VI. Claimed descents from her usually are traced through her other daughter, Sancha, via a son that Salazar y Castro just invented to bridge between two people he thought should be related (but are now generally accepted by scholars not to have been). I knew this descent was there, but have never studied it in detail, and as I just told somebody earlier in this discussion, nobody can be an expert at everything. With my superficial familiarity with the sourcing there could very well have been some hypothetical obvious flaw known to someone with more relevant expertise but not to me. That's all.
taf
Speaking of Queen Isabela, what is your current opinion on whether she was the same person as Zaida?
taf
2020-06-09 12:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Speaking of Queen Isabela, what is your current opinion on whether she
was the same person as Zaida?
More likely than not, but still uncertain.

taf
s***@mindspring.com
2020-06-07 22:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Responding to such broad open-ended questions is difficult. You would be more likely to get useful responses by asking more specific questions about a small number of individuals.

Stewart Baldwin
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-07 22:35:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Regarding Jacquetta's descent from "Maria" Taronitissa, a member of the Byzantine Taronites family, the latest research on the Taronites appears here:

Die Taronitai. Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie
Stratos Nikolaros
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0007 | Published online: 25 Apr 2018

But I can't seem to access it. Has anyone had any luck accessing it? I tried to pay for the article but I kept getting an error message.

Sincerely,

Chuck Owens
Peter Stewart
2020-06-08 05:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Die Taronitai. Eine prosopographisch-sigillographische Studie
Stratos Nikolaros
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mill-2017-0007 | Published online: 25 Apr 2018
But I can't seem to access it. Has anyone had any luck accessing it? I tried to pay for the article but I kept getting an error message.
You can download (free) his 2016 master's thesis on this subject here:

https://othes.univie.ac.at/42570/

Peter Stewart
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-08 12:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Excellent! Thank you so much Peter.

Sincerely,

Chuck Owens
Peter Stewart
2020-06-07 23:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@mindspring.com
Post by Jan Wolfe
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Responding to such broad open-ended questions is difficult. You would be more likely to get useful responses by asking more specific questions about a small number of individuals.
This is true in most cases, but here Jan is opening a broad discussion
that can be readily broken down into specific components by taking one
married couple at a time and applying Ahnentafel numbers to them for
extra clarity. I will try to do this anyway, bit by bit, and I hope
others will too.

I appreciate that some people prefer to examine long "vertical" lineages
rather than, or as well as, close "horizontal" connections, but I don't
have the brain-power for this or an interest in talking about anyone's
great-great-grandparent whom they (like us) could only have known as a
name and hearsay or documented story, not as a personality touching
their own memory.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-09 10:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
It's slow going down such a long list of ancestors. The entry for #154
Jean de Brienne looks somewhat bare of details.

He was known as Jean of Acre, seigneur of La Loupelande and butler of
France. After the death of his first wife, with whom he was Jacquetta's
ancestor, he married (between 13 September 1256 & 6 June 1257) Marie de
Coucy, dowager queen of Scotland. They enjoyed a third of the royal
revenues, but Jean spent his time in the courts of France and Castile
without getting much involved in Scottish affairs except as a nominal
member of the council of ten that ruled the kingdom in the minority of
his step-son Alexander III.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-10 05:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
It's slow going down such a long list of ancestors. The entry for #154
Jean de Brienne looks somewhat bare of details.
He was known as Jean of Acre, seigneur of La Loupelande and butler of
France. After the death of his first wife, with whom he was Jacquetta's
ancestor, he married (between 13 September 1256 & 6 June 1257) Marie de
Coucy, dowager queen of Scotland. They enjoyed a third of the royal
revenues, but Jean spent his time in the courts of France and Castile
without getting much involved in Scottish affairs except as a nominal
member of the council of ten that ruled the kingdom in the minority of
his step-son Alexander III.
Further to the Brienne ancestry, there are a few problems in Genealogics
beyond #154.

His father, the famous Jean de Brienne #308, is given as a son of #617
Agnès de Montfaucon, but this is questionable. His mother's name was
Agnès, but she may have been a second wife of his father after the death
of the first - who was from the Montfaucon family, but not definitely
named Agnès. The mother of Jean may have been a daughter of Guillaume
III, count of Nevers, Auxerre and Tonnerre by Ida of Sponheim.

Also the wife of Jean's paternal grandfather #1232 Gautier II of Brienne
is shown as the first of multiple wives - this is an old and persistent
error that was discussed here in 2011:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Brienne$20Nevers$20Sponheim/soc.genealogy.medieval/B9DWj-CaD0M/nci8wkKV1fEJ

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-11 02:30:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Leo had not given any ancestors for #163 Elisabeth d'Ecry - her family
was set out by William Mendel Newman in *Les seigneurs de Nesle en
Picardie* (1971), vol. 1 pp. 145-148, as follows:

163 Elisabeth, occurring 1232 [Newman did not mention that she was
married by December 1237 to Manasses IV, count of Rethel]

326 Gérard II, seigneur of Ecry & Bertincourt, died before 1256 (?)
327 Félicité, called Comtesse, occurring 1232, 1239

652 Gérard I, seigneur of Ecry & Bertincourt, died 1223/March 1232
653 Catherine, died before February 1223

1304 Raoul, seigneur of Ecry, occurring from 1190, died 24 May 1211
1305 Ide de Clacy, died in or before 1197

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-11 03:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Leo had not given any ancestors for #163 Elisabeth d'Ecry - her family
was set out by William Mendel Newman in *Les seigneurs de Nesle en
163 Elisabeth, occurring 1232 [Newman did not mention that she was
married by December 1237 to Manasses IV, count of Rethel]
326 Gérard II, seigneur of Ecry & Bertincourt, died before 1256 (?)
327 Félicité, called Comtesse, occurring 1232, 1239
652 Gérard I, seigneur of Ecry & Bertincourt, died 1223/March 1232
653 Catherine, died before February 1223
1304 Raoul, seigneur of Ecry, occurring from 1190, died 24 May 1211
1305 Ide de Clacy, died in or before 1197
I should have added (also from Newman, vol. 1 p. 180):

1610 Gérard I, vidame of Laonnois, died 1140
1611 Adelvie de Clacy

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-12 07:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The ancestry shown in Genealogics for #85 Isabelle of La
Roche-sur-l'Ognon of Athens is at odds with her family as established by
Antoine Bon in *La Morée franque*, 2 vols (1969), as follows:

#170 Guy I, co-seigneur of Thebes 1211, megas kyr of Athens 1225, duke
1260, d 1263
#171 N, niece of Guillaume II de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia

#340 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#341 NN

#680 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#681 NN (Mathélie in Genealogics)

#1360 Othon, seigneur of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon, occurring 1130-1170
#1361 NN

Guy I #170 was a nephew, not son, of Othon who became megas kyr of
Athens in 1205, seigneur of Argos & Naulia in 1211 and returned to
France in 1225. This Othon married in 1208 Isabelle, daughter of Guy de
Ray (and a half-sister of Clarembaud V of Chappes).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-12 23:42:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The ancestry shown in Genealogics for #85 Isabelle of La
Roche-sur-l'Ognon of Athens is at odds with her family as established by
#170 Guy I, co-seigneur of Thebes 1211, megas kyr of Athens 1225, duke
1260, d 1263
#171 N, niece of Guillaume II de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia
#340 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#341 NN
#680 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#681 NN (Mathélie in Genealogics)
#1360 Othon, seigneur of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon, occurring 1130-1170
#1361 NN
Guy I #170 was a nephew, not son, of Othon who became megas kyr of
Athens in 1205, seigneur of Argos & Naulia in 1211 and returned to
France in 1225. This Othon married in 1208 Isabelle, daughter of Guy de
Ray (and a half-sister of Clarembaud V of Chappes).
The addition in parentheses should read "and later a sister of
Clarembaud V of Chappes" - I mistakenly supposed that her father
Clarembaud IV had two wives, but it appears he had only one wife with
two names (Helissende and Elisabeth).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-13 05:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote,
in the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The ancestry shown in Genealogics for #85 Isabelle of La
Roche-sur-l'Ognon of Athens is at odds with her family as established
#170 Guy I, co-seigneur of Thebes 1211, megas kyr of Athens 1225, duke
1260, d 1263
#171 N, niece of Guillaume II de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia
#340 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#341 NN
#680 Pons of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon
#681 NN (Mathélie in Genealogics)
#1360 Othon, seigneur of La Roche-sur-l'Ognon, occurring 1130-1170
#1361 NN
Guy I #170 was a nephew, not son, of Othon who became megas kyr of
Athens in 1205, seigneur of Argos & Naulia in 1211 and returned to
France in 1225. This Othon married in 1208 Isabelle, daughter of Guy
de Ray (and a half-sister of Clarembaud V of Chappes).
The addition in parentheses should read "and later a sister of
Clarembaud V of Chappes" - I mistakenly supposed that her father
Clarembaud IV had two wives, but it appears he had only one wife with
two names (Helissende and Elisabeth).
On third thoughts, this purported second marriage of Othon should be
questioned.

His wife was usually said to have been Isabelle, heiress of Ray (which
his namesake son inherited). I can't find any medieval source for this,
but it held sway until Jean Longnon identified her instead as Elisabeth
of Chappes on the shaky basis of a charter dated December 1236 as
transcribed by Jacques Vignier in the 17th century.

Longnon took this at face value - it says: "Clarembaudus dominus
Capparum ... specialiter autem pro remedio Elisabeth sororis meæ quondam
Atheniensis duccissæ [sic]" (Clarembaud seigneur of Chappes ...
especially for the soul of my sister Elisabeth, formerly duchess of Athens).

However, there was properly no ducal title of Athens until 1260 when
this was accorded to Othon's nephew Guy. Although Othon was only megas
kyr, he was called duke retrospectively by his son - but if this was the
case 24 years before the title formally existed it might be expected to
crop up more frequently and directly than in a tangential context.

Geoffroy de Villehardouin, bailli of Morea and prince of Achaia, married
Isabelle of Chappes according to most historians (also without an
explicit medieval source for her family origin that I can find). Marie
Guérin in her 2014 Sorbonne doctoral thesis made Elisabeth and Isabelle
of Chappes into two women, sisters, but there is no evidence at all for
this: we have several charters of Clarembaud IV naming his sons and a
single daughter Elisabeth, from before 1189 and in 1194 and also an
extract in French (again by Vignier) dated to 1198.

It seems to me that, without better evidence for the 1236 charter, the
designation "Atheniensis" given by Vignier may have been a misreading on
his part or that of an earlier copyist, possibly for "Achaiensis", for
the deceased wife of Geoffroy de Villehardouin and not of Othon de la
Roche-sur-l'Ognon.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-14 05:47:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
Some further details for wives in the Sanseverino ancestry:

#44 Margherita Clignet was probably born earlier than ca 1310 - she was
married first to Jacquet Burson, by whom she had no offspring, and
secondly (as his second wife) to #44 Tommaso.

His mother #89 Ilaria di Lauria was living in 1340, when she obtained
royal assent to divide her inheritance between her sons Tommaso and
Ruggiero - a third son, Ugo, was probably deceased by then. I'm not sure
when she died.

This information comes from works of Sylvie Pollastri:

'Les Burson d'Anjou, barons de Nocera puis comtes de Satriano
(1268-1400)', in *La noblesse dans les territoires angevins à la fin du
Moyen âge* (Rome, 2000)

*Le lignage et le fief: l'affirmation du milieu comtal et la
construction des États féodaux sous les Angevins de Naples (1265-1435)*
(Paris, 2011)

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-15 01:07:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
More on the Sanseverino ancestry:

#88 Enrico was not count of Marsico - he died in the lifetime of his
father, #176 Tommaso, who was.

Enrico was lord of Cuccaro and constable of Sicily. His death is placed
ca 1317 in Genealogics - he was last recorded as living in that year,
and was dead before 5 November 1319 when #89 Ilaria di Lauria was
described as his widow in a letter of Pope John XXII.

Ilaria's mother #179 Margherita Lancia (Margarita Lanza in Genealogics)
was a sister of Corrado Lancia, count of Caltanissetta, and the admiral
Manfredi Lancia, according to Andreas Kiesewetter in *Dizionario
biografico degli Italiani*, vol. 64 (2005). Their father was Federico,
from a Piedmontese family.

Enrico's mother #177 was not Isnarda de Courban as shown in Genealogics
- this was his father's first wife, Isnarde or Isolde, whose father
Amiel d'Agoult (from Provence, called Amadio di Agoldo in Genealogics)
was lord of Corbano. #177 should be amended to the second wife of #176
Tommaso, who was Marguerite, daughter of (#354) Henri I, count of
Vaudémont and Ariano. Her mother was (#355) Marguerite, most probably a
sister of #85 Isabelle de la Roche of Athens mentioned upthread.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-15 05:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The father ascribed in Genealogics to #178 Ruggero di Lauria, the
celebrated admiral, is fictitious - #356 Richardo de Lauria and #712
Gibel de Loria should be deleted from Jacquetta's ancestry: this line
was merely a name's-the-same-or-near-enough invention by an author
calling himself "D.A.L.", who published *Memorie storico-genealogiche di
Ruggiero ed Andreotto Loria* (Naples, 1878).

The identity of #356 is unknown and any given name proposed for him is
guesswork. He was evidently a member of the Lauria family and his wife
#357 Bella d'Amico, or de Amichi, was recorded as the mother of Ruggero.
She was governess to Constanza, daughter of Emperor Frederick II's
illegitimate son Manfredi of Benevento, king of Sicily, who married
Pedro III of Aragón.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-15 08:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The father ascribed in Genealogics to #178 Ruggero di Lauria, the
celebrated admiral, is fictitious - #356 Richardo de Lauria and #712
Gibel de Loria should be deleted from Jacquetta's ancestry: this line
was merely a name's-the-same-or-near-enough invention by an author
calling himself "D.A.L.", who published *Memorie storico-genealogiche di
Ruggiero ed Andreotto Loria* (Naples, 1878).
The identity of #356 is unknown and any given name proposed for him is
guesswork. He was evidently a member of the Lauria family and his wife
#357 Bella d'Amico, or de Amichi, was recorded as the mother of Ruggero.
She was governess to Constanza, daughter of Emperor Frederick II's
illegitimate son Manfredi of Benevento, king of Sicily, who married
Pedro III of Aragón.
I should have added: the parentage of #357 Bella is unknown - it is
thought that she was sister to Guglielmo, who described himself as son
of the count of Amico ("filius domini comitis Amici"). The latter,
probably Ruggero's maternal grandfather, apparently lived until 1248 but
his name was not found by Laura Sciascia for her study of the family,
'Nome e memoria: i De Amicis dalla conquista normanna al Vespro', in
*Puer Apuliae: mélanges offerts à Jean-Marie Martin* (2008).

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-18 10:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
#98 Guigues "Mechan de Tounel" should be amended to Guigues Meschin II
du Tournel. He was living in 1271.

His wife is named in Genealogics as #99 Vierne de Valergues - this was
stated, without citing a source, by Denis-François Gastelier de La Tour
in *Généalogie de la maison de Châteauneuf de Randon* (1783), adding the
date 18 March 1239 for the marriage. Père Anselme had called the same
wife Valpurge, but made significant mistakes in the generation before
and after #98 Guigues Meschin II. More recently his wife has been
identified as Alaysie Pelet d'Alais, though I don't know a medieval
source for this either.

His father #196 "Adilon I de Châteauneuf" should be amended to Odilon
Guérin of Châteauneuf de Randon.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-18 11:35:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
#98 Guigues "Mechan de Tounel" should be amended to Guigues Meschin II
du Tournel. He was living in 1271.
His wife is named in Genealogics as #99 Vierne de Valergues - this was
stated, without citing a source, by Denis-François Gastelier de La Tour
in *Généalogie de la maison de Châteauneuf de Randon* (1783), adding the
date 18 March 1239 for the marriage. Père Anselme had called the same
wife Valpurge, but made significant mistakes in the generation before
and after #98 Guigues Meschin II. More recently his wife has been
identified as Alaysie Pelet d'Alais, though I don't know a medieval
source for this either.
His father #196 "Adilon I de Châteauneuf" should be amended to Odilon
Guérin of Châteauneuf de Randon.
I should have looked further: #196 Odilon Guérin was living in 1237. His
mother was not Marie d'Assumens as given in Genealogics but #393
Guillelma de Saissac, who was named by her younger son Guigues in 1219.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-20 00:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
On Saturday, May 30, 2020 at 9:16:47 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote, in
the thread
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/dYfb_RFI_4I/vMGLyyfhAQAJ
  ...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta
of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages
were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you
and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the
ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments,
sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta,
https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
#98 Guigues "Mechan de Tounel" should be amended to Guigues Meschin II
du Tournel. He was living in 1271.
His wife is named in Genealogics as #99 Vierne de Valergues - this was
stated, without citing a source, by Denis-François Gastelier de La Tour
in *Généalogie de la maison de Châteauneuf de Randon* (1783), adding the
date 18 March 1239 for the marriage. Père Anselme had called the same
wife Valpurge, but made significant mistakes in the generation before
and after #98 Guigues Meschin II. More recently his wife has been
identified as Alaysie Pelet d'Alais, though I don't know a medieval
source for this either.
I have not been able to find any published medieval source for the
marriage/s of #98 Guigues Meschin II of Le Tournel.

Valpurge, as given by Père Anselme, can be ruled out - she was evidently
the wife of his namesake paternal uncle.

According to André Philippe in *La baronnie du Tournel et ses seigneurs*
(1903) in 1260 Guigues named his wife as Alaissette, and she was
mentioned as Asyalacia is a charter of his son dated 1287. However,
Philippe did not print these documents and he did not ascribe a family
origin to her. He accumulated three wives for Guigues in his table,
though giving enough information in the text to suggest that the second
(Valpurge, as above) belonged elsewhere. He also indicated that #99
Vierne de Valergues comes from Gastelier de La Tour, and that it is
uncertain who was the mother of #98's offspring.

As for #49 Eucharie, her existence seems to come from Jean-Antoine
Pithon-Curt in vol. 4 of *Histoire de la noblesse du Comté-Venaissin,
d'Avignon et de la principauté d’Orange* (1750), where her parents were
not specified and no authority was given for her marriage.

The seigneurial family of Tournel has not been very thoroughly studied
in print since Philippe's work, apart from some corrections to this by
Stanisław Stroński (1908) and Clovis Brunel (1910). This was one of
several baronial lineages in Gévaudan with a legendary descent from an
unnamed king of Hungary whose only daughter is supposed to have eloped
with a local, living at Mende in poverty until her father on tour in
France happened along needing to rest his horses, whereupon the runaway
was reconciled with her father (who abdicated in order to stay with her)
and her seven sons were elevated from trade apprenticeships to
lordships. Hey-ho. Another version of this substituted a count of
Toulouse for the king of Hungary.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-25 11:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
The ancestry of #27 Isabella Etendard and #123 Eustachie Etendard as
given in Genealogics may be wrong, or at any rate not proven.

They belonged to a family that has never been definitively traced to its
origin, known as Etendard in France and Stendardo in Italy. The first of
them on record, #108 and #246 Guillaume (Guglielmo) the elder, was
evidently a vassal of the counts of Montfort who received fiefs from
them in Provence. He was probably seneschal of Beaucaire in 1247 and
accompanied Guy de Montfort, later count of Nola, at the battle of
Benevento in 1266 when the kingdom of Sicily was conquered for Charles I
of Anjou. He was appointed vicar general of Sicily on 21 August 1269 and
died between 17 January and 24 February 1271.

It is easier to say who this Guillaume was not by descent than who he
was. He was called "of Beynes", that has misled some historians into
making him a son of Guy of Nola's namesake great-uncle who was seigneur
of Castres in the Albigeois (killed in battle in 1229) by his second
wife Briande who has been miscalled "of Beynes" - this is an error for
Vénès in the Albigeois, between Castres and Albi, which was presumably
held by her as dower from her first husband who was seigneur of Lombers
around 11 kms away. Her only son by Guy de Montfort was also named Guy
and he inherited Lombers from his childless half-brother, dying in the
early 1250s before his mother who lived until September 1260. Any claim
that #108 and #246 Guillaume Etendard was the same person as this Guy de
Montfort of Lombers is nonsense - apart from their distinct names, we
know the latter's quite different history from testimony given by family
members about rights to Lombers at the end of the 13th century.

It is also not certain that #108 and #246 Guillaume the elder was a son
of Robert of Beynes as sometimes asserted. The castle of Beynes belonged
to Saint-Germain-des-Prés abbey and was held by the counts of Montfort
from the early-12th century, probably before - it was at the northern
limit of their territory and apparently sub-tenanted by a vassal family
that took it as a toponym. They were probably also Montfort tenants at
Etendard in the seigneurie of Épernon - the surname Etendard, or
Stendardo, does not indicate that they were standard-bearers of the
Angevin kings of Sicily or anyone else, as often wrongly asserted.

There is no convincing evidence I have seen that the Etendard family was
a cadet branch of the seigneurs of Milly as has also been claimed.

#108 and #246 Guillaume was either the father or grandfather of #54
Guglielmo II, known as Guillaume the younger and also called "of
Beynes", who died probably in 1308 having been marshal and constable of
the Sicilian kingdom under Charles II of Anjou.

The succession of Guillaumes in the line is not certain, and there may
have been another namesake between the elder and younger men above. #246
Petronilla of Mesnil-Renard may have been the wife of a middle Guillaume
rather than the second wife of the elder, as noted by Thierry Pécout in
*Dizionario biografico degli Italiani* vol. 94 (2019).

Also, #55 Isabella d'Aquino is problematic - the (first or second) wife
of #54 Guglielmo was identified in the 17th century as Giovanna
d'Aquino, a sister of Isabella (both nieces of St Thomas Aquinus), but
the medieval source for this marriage appears to have been lost since
and anyway it is not clear that she left any children. The mother of #27
Isabella Etendard is better left uncertain. According to the
19th-century historian Camillo Minieri-Riccio, citing sources that have
not yet been published in *I registri della cancelleria angioina*, #54
Guglielmo's first wife was Giovanna di Ceccano, by whom he had Isabella,
and his second was Giovanna de Cavignano, signora of Calvi, who survived
him. It would be odd if he also had another wife of the same name, an
Aquino niece of the famous theologian or possibly a sister of hers named
Isabella, who left no extant record.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-26 04:08:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The succession of Guillaumes in the line is not certain, and there may
have been another namesake between the elder and younger men above. #246
Petronilla of Mesnil-Renard may have been the wife of a middle Guillaume
rather than the second wife of the elder
Apologies for my typo giving an even number to a female in the ancestor
table: this should be #247 Petronilla.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-06-27 05:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Given the vast array, as Bronwen put it very well, of Jacquetta's
European ancestors, it seems a bit rum to me that questions would not be
raised about them more frequently here if even a few of her US
descendants were present in the newsgroup.
Peter Stewart
Peter, my main source of information about the ancestors of Jacquetta of Luxembourg is the information in Leo's database. Many of the pages were last updated about 20 years ago. I would be very pleased if you and others knowledgeable in this area would take a look at the ancestors of Jacquetta in Leo's database and share your comments, sources, additions, and any corrections.
Here is the link to Leo's page for Jacquetta, https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00015403&tree=LEO
#90 Giovanni Clignetti (or Jean Clignet) of Caiazzo was the son of
[#180, not entered in Genealogics] Guillaume Clignet, from Provence, who
received the lordship of Caiazzo from Charles I on 26 September 1269.
Giovanni, also known as Gianotto, notified the Angevin court of his
father's death between 5 September 1277 & 29 August 1278. He must have
been young at the time, since he was not knighted until 15 August 1281.
His mother [#181] is unknown, as recorded in Genealogics.

There has been confusion about his marriage/s, variously attributed, but
it appears that #91 Margherita del Balzo (Marguerite, daughter of
Guillaume I Etendard's daughter #123 Eustachie, aka Tassia, by #122
Raimond de Baux) is correct. She reportedly survived him and married
secondly Egidio de Plama, but I haven't seen a medieval source for this.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-06-28 02:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 1:59:52 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
Post by Peter Stewart
#90 Giovanni Clignetti (or Jean Clignet) of Caiazzo was the son of
[#180, not entered in Genealogics] Guillaume Clignet, from Provence, who
received the lordship of Caiazzo from Charles I on 26 September 1269.
Giovanni, also known as Gianotto, notified the Angevin court of his
father's death between 5 September 1277 & 29 August 1278. He must have
been young at the time, since he was not knighted until 15 August 1281.
His mother [#181] is unknown, as recorded in Genealogics.
There has been confusion about his marriage/s, variously attributed, but
it appears that #91 Margherita del Balzo (Marguerite, daughter of
Guillaume I Etendard's daughter #123 Eustachie, aka Tassia, by #122
Raimond de Baux) is correct. She reportedly survived him and married
secondly Egidio de Plama, but I haven't seen a medieval source for this.
Peter Stewart
Peter, thank you very much for carefully reviewing the ancestry of Jacquetta of Luxembourg as posted on Leo's website and sharing your knowledge with the group. I haven't had time yet to review and digest all of the information you have posted so far, but I definitely plan to so so. I very much appreciate your posts.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-28 03:49:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
#90 Giovanni Clignetti (or Jean Clignet) of Caiazzo was the son of
[#180, not entered in Genealogics] Guillaume Clignet, from Provence, who
received the lordship of Caiazzo from Charles I on 26 September 1269.
Giovanni, also known as Gianotto, notified the Angevin court of his
father's death between 5 September 1277 & 29 August 1278. He must have
been young at the time, since he was not knighted until 15 August 1281.
His mother [#181] is unknown, as recorded in Genealogics.
There has been confusion about his marriage/s, variously attributed, but
it appears that #91 Margherita del Balzo (Marguerite, daughter of
Guillaume I Etendard's daughter #123 Eustachie, aka Tassia, by #122
Raimond de Baux) is correct. She reportedly survived him and married
secondly Egidio de Plama, but I haven't seen a medieval source for this.
Peter Stewart
Peter, thank you very much for carefully reviewing the ancestry of Jacquetta of Luxembourg as posted on Leo's website and sharing your knowledge with the group. I haven't had time yet to review and digest all of the information you have posted so far, but I definitely plan to so so. I very much appreciate your posts.
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.

Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-07-05 20:33:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 11:49:09 PM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-05 20:38:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Jan Wolfe
2020-07-06 00:23:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.

Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.

I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 00:47:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.

Peter Stewart
Jan Wolfe
2020-07-06 02:15:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 02:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.

The references cited for the table are:

Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)

and

Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)

There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
references for Siegfried in Pit Péporté's *Constructing the Middle Ages:
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2020-07-06 04:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
Vol 6 (1978) of ESNF was replaced by vol. 1.2 (1999). The family in question appears on table 202 in the new volume. In the revised version, Siegfried is connected to the other siblings by a dotted line, indicating that Schwennicke was uncertain about the parentage of Siegfried. But it's not possible to determine from the table what the reason for the uncertainty was. It could well be that Schwennicke was aware of the theory that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun, as indicated in ES 3:106 and mentioned earlier in this thread.

In the revised version the order of the children of Wigerich and Kunigunde (setting aside Siegfried) is different than as shown in ESNF 6:127. The order is: Adalbero, Gozelin, Luitgarde, Friedrich, Giselbert, Sigebert.

The list of sources is notably longer than the two sources mentioned by Peter, and those two sources are now placed at the bottom of the list - perhaps (or not) indicating they are less important than the newer ones added above them. I can't easily or reliably transcribe the new list of sources, but if anyone is interested, send me a note off-group with your email address and I can scan and email you a copy of the list.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 06:51:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
Vol 6 (1978) of ESNF was replaced by vol. 1.2 (1999). The family in question appears on table 202 in the new volume. In the revised version, Siegfried is connected to the other siblings by a dotted line, indicating that Schwennicke was uncertain about the parentage of Siegfried. But it's not possible to determine from the table what the reason for the uncertainty was. It could well be that Schwennicke was aware of the theory that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun, as indicated in ES 3:106 and mentioned earlier in this thread.
If Giselbert was shown as definitely Wigerich's son, Schwennicke may
have been unaware at the time his 1999 volume went to press of another
theory, put forward by René Klein in 1998 ('Wer waren die Eltern von
Graf Sigfrid? Eine neue Hypothese zum Ursprung des ersten Luxemburger
Grafenhauses', *Jahrbuch der Luxemburgischen Gesellschaft für Genealogie
und Heraldik), speculating that Kunigunde as widow of Richuin of Verdun
became the first wife of Gislebert of Lorraine, who was drowned in the
Rhine escaping from a battle near Andernach on 2 October 939 - according
to Klein he was the father of Sigifrid and Gislebert.

But this rather off-beat idea has not met with much accord from
historians over the past 22 years.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-06 10:20:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
So, in your opinion, were Siegfrid and Sigebert distinct?
Regardless, the Henry II Project page I linked to shows that there's no strong evidence regarding Giselbert's father and that he may have been either Wigerich or Ricuin.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 11:44:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
So, in your opinion, were Siegfrid and Sigebert distinct?
My opinion is of no more value than yours or anyone else's if there is
not sufficient evidence to decide. As far as I recall (and please remind
me if this is patchy) the evidence for "Sigebert" is a later record of
lost charter dated 943 naming Frederic, Gislebert and Sigibert as
brothers of Wigerich's son Gozlin. If there is nothing beyond this, a
copyist's misreading or miswriting of the name Sigifrid (i.e. Siegfried)
as Sigibert seems a plausible explanation.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, the Henry II Project page I linked to shows that there's no strong evidence regarding Giselbert's father and that he may have been either Wigerich or Ricuin.
Or, as noted upthread from the unconvincing (to me) proposal of René
Klein, his father may have been a third husband of Kunigunde, possibly
Gislebert of Lorraine.

There is little value in going over the unknowable repetitively. Your
adherence to Occam's razor might suggest an unemphatic preference for
Wigerich as the probable father to all of Kunigunde's sons, as the
simplest solution since none of them appears to have held territorial
possessions attributably inherited from Richuin of Verdun or anyone else.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-06 13:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
So, in your opinion, were Siegfrid and Sigebert distinct?
My opinion is of no more value than yours or anyone else's if there is
not sufficient evidence to decide. As far as I recall (and please remind
me if this is patchy) the evidence for "Sigebert" is a later record of
lost charter dated 943 naming Frederic, Gislebert and Sigibert as
brothers of Wigerich's son Gozlin. If there is nothing beyond this, a
copyist's misreading or miswriting of the name Sigifrid (i.e. Siegfried)
as Sigibert seems a plausible explanation.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, the Henry II Project page I linked to shows that there's no strong evidence regarding Giselbert's father and that he may have been either Wigerich or Ricuin.
Or, as noted upthread from the unconvincing (to me) proposal of René
Klein, his father may have been a third husband of Kunigunde, possibly
Gislebert of Lorraine.
There is little value in going over the unknowable repetitively. Your
adherence to Occam's razor might suggest an unemphatic preference for
Wigerich as the probable father to all of Kunigunde's sons, as the
simplest solution since none of them appears to have held territorial
possessions attributably inherited from Richuin of Verdun or anyone else.
Peter Stewart
I agree. IMO, Siegfried and Sigebert were almost certainly the same.
Regardless, as the page notes, a passage in Adalbero's biography indicates that he had at least one maternal half-brother. Out of the known sons of Cunégonde, Giselbert is the obvious candidate. The idea that Cunégonde may have married for a third time to Giselbert of Lorraine is almost certainly wrong, as the page discusses.
Jan Wolfe
2020-07-06 20:44:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich ...
Thank you Paulo, Peter, and John for your informative replies to my question. The knowledge and resources available in this group are amazing and your generosity in sharing your knowledge and resources is much appreciated. Thanks also to Stewart Baldwin for the clear analysis of the evidence on this question provided on the Henry Project website.

It appears that not much is known about the ancestry of either Wigerich or Richwin, and clearly Siegfried did not have the opportunity to know either of them when he was a boy or young man. It seems that we'll have to be satisfied with a "most likely but possibly" answer in this case.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-06 21:24:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich ...
Thank you Paulo, Peter, and John for your informative replies to my question. The knowledge and resources available in this group are amazing and your generosity in sharing your knowledge and resources is much appreciated. Thanks also to Stewart Baldwin for the clear analysis of the evidence on this question provided on the Henry Project website.
It appears that not much is known about the ancestry of either Wigerich or Richwin, and clearly Siegfried did not have the opportunity to know either of them when he was a boy or young man. It seems that we'll have to be satisfied with a "most likely but possibly" answer in this case.
There's speculation that Wigerich was descended from Pepin II, read https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried#Hypothèses_sur_sa_descendance.
Regardless, I don't think Siegfried was Ricuin's son because he was still alive when his nephew Godefroid became Count of Verdun. As Gozlin was only Ricuin's stepson, Siegfried would probably have contested that, if he was Ricuin's son. However, Adalbero appears to have had at least one half-brother. The obvious candidate is Giselbert, who was already dead when Godefroid became Count of Verdun.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 22:46:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich ...
Thank you Paulo, Peter, and John for your informative replies to my question. The knowledge and resources available in this group are amazing and your generosity in sharing your knowledge and resources is much appreciated. Thanks also to Stewart Baldwin for the clear analysis of the evidence on this question provided on the Henry Project website.
It appears that not much is known about the ancestry of either Wigerich or Richwin, and clearly Siegfried did not have the opportunity to know either of them when he was a boy or young man. It seems that we'll have to be satisfied with a "most likely but possibly" answer in this case.
There's speculation that Wigerich was descended from Pepin II, read https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried#Hypothèses_sur_sa_descendance.
Regardless, I don't think Siegfried was Ricuin's son because he was still alive when his nephew Godefroid became Count of Verdun. As Gozlin was only Ricuin's stepson, Siegfried would probably have contested that, if he was Ricuin's son. However, Adalbero appears to have had at least one half-brother. The obvious candidate is Giselbert, who was already dead when Godefroid became Count of Verdun.
This page is futile in aim and incompetent in method - I would advise
you to stop using Wikipedia altogether, or at least to stop reading
articles when you come across unverifiable assertions and/or garbage.

For instance, this remark: "il est établi qu'à cette époque, les prénoms
masculins de la famille carolingienne ne se transmettent pas chez les
enfants de princesses carolingiennes". The citations offered for this
(or, at any rate, after this) are two works of Christian Settipani where
no such negative is proved.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-11 00:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich ...
Thank you Paulo, Peter, and John for your informative replies to my question. The knowledge and resources available in this group are amazing and your generosity in sharing your knowledge and resources is much appreciated. Thanks also to Stewart Baldwin for the clear analysis of the evidence on this question provided on the Henry Project website.
It appears that not much is known about the ancestry of either Wigerich or Richwin, and clearly Siegfried did not have the opportunity to know either of them when he was a boy or young man. It seems that we'll have to be satisfied with a "most likely but possibly" answer in this case.
There's speculation that Wigerich was descended from Pepin II, read https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godefried#Hypothèses_sur_sa_descendance.
Regardless, I don't think Siegfried was Ricuin's son because he was still alive when his nephew Godefroid became Count of Verdun. As Gozlin was only Ricuin's stepson, Siegfried would probably have contested that, if he was Ricuin's son. However, Adalbero appears to have had at least one half-brother. The obvious candidate is Giselbert, who was already dead when Godefroid became Count of Verdun.
This page is futile in aim and incompetent in method - I would advise
you to stop using Wikipedia altogether, or at least to stop reading
articles when you come across unverifiable assertions and/or garbage.
For instance, this remark: "il est établi qu'à cette époque, les prénoms
masculins de la famille carolingienne ne se transmettent pas chez les
enfants de princesses carolingiennes". The citations offered for this
(or, at any rate, after this) are two works of Christian Settipani where
no such negative is proved.
Peter Stewart
But the page does show arguments for a descent of Wigerich from Godefried. Adalbero of Metz was closely related to Hugues de Chaumontois, who was said to have been descended from the Arnulfiens, albeit not the Carolingians.
Pope Leo IX, who was descended from Wigerich, named Pepin II, Drogo and his third son as his ancestors.
Gozlin's descendants included several Godefroids.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-06 22:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
So, in your opinion, were Siegfrid and Sigebert distinct?
My opinion is of no more value than yours or anyone else's if there is
not sufficient evidence to decide. As far as I recall (and please remind
me if this is patchy) the evidence for "Sigebert" is a later record of
lost charter dated 943 naming Frederic, Gislebert and Sigibert as
brothers of Wigerich's son Gozlin. If there is nothing beyond this, a
copyist's misreading or miswriting of the name Sigifrid (i.e. Siegfried)
as Sigibert seems a plausible explanation.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, the Henry II Project page I linked to shows that there's no strong evidence regarding Giselbert's father and that he may have been either Wigerich or Ricuin.
Or, as noted upthread from the unconvincing (to me) proposal of René
Klein, his father may have been a third husband of Kunigunde, possibly
Gislebert of Lorraine.
There is little value in going over the unknowable repetitively. Your
adherence to Occam's razor might suggest an unemphatic preference for
Wigerich as the probable father to all of Kunigunde's sons, as the
simplest solution since none of them appears to have held territorial
possessions attributably inherited from Richuin of Verdun or anyone else.
Peter Stewart
I agree. IMO, Siegfried and Sigebert were almost certainly the same.
Regardless, as the page notes, a passage in Adalbero's biography indicates that he had at least one maternal half-brother. Out of the known sons of Cunégonde, Giselbert is the obvious candidate. The idea that Cunégonde may have married for a third time to Giselbert of Lorraine is almost certainly wrong, as the page discusses.
I wish you would stop throwing out comments referring to this or that
"page" or author without specifics.

Do you suppose SGM readers have nothing better to do than follow your
train of thought?

In this case I assume you mean, and failed to tell us, the Henry Project
page for Kunigunde where it quotes "fratres ei plures ex matre erant"
and then says:

"There is no good reason to doubt that these fratres ex matre included
Frédéric, Giselbert, and Sigebert, who were all living at the time, and
would thus be sons of Cunégonde. The words "ex matre" appear to indicate
that at least one of the brothers had a different father than Adalbero,
but it need not imply that all of these brothers were only maternal
half-brothers."

If so, I don't entirely agree with Stewart Baldwin's reading. Richuin
had a named Otho, and the same work states that Adalbero suffered from a
shortage of wealth due to his mother's second marriage - fratres plures
ex matre could be just a passing statement of fact that Kunigunde had
many sons or perhaps an oblique reference to a step- rather than
half-blood relative through Richuin.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-06 23:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Jan Wolfe
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Jan Wolfe
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Thanks Jan - I have to admit my puff is running low, and I may leave it
for a while before going on.
Jacquetta's ancestors weren't considerate enough to intermarry more than
allowed, so there are a bewildering lot of them in Genealogics to look
over. Families from the Angevin Sicilian kingdom are especially slow
going, with 50 volumes of reconstructed chancellery registers published
so far and no general index yet.
Peter Stewart
Leo's website indicates that Siegfried of Luxembourg (d. 998, 12th great grandfather of Jacquetta) was the son of Kunigunde (granddaughter of Louis the Stammerer) by Kunigunde's first husband Wigerich, but table 106 in ES Loringhoven vol. 3 (1964) indicates that the father of Siegfried was Kundigunde's second husband Richwin of Verdun.
Leo cites "Caroli Magni Progenies, Neustadt an der Aisch, 1977, Rösch, Siegfried. 141." What is the evidence?
(My computer indicates that Siegfried is Jacquetta's ancestor number 16464.)
Stewart Baldwin discusses this in https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. He concludes that it's very likely that Siegfried's father was Wigerich.
Thanks, Paulo. The discussion of this question by Stewart Baldwin is very thoughtful and exhaustive.
Here is a link to a snippet view of Caroli Magni Progenies, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ec0KAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Widricus+AND+Kunegund.
I wonder if the more recent editions of ES agree that Wigerich was the more likely father.
In ESnF vol. 6 (1978) table 127 Schwennicke placed Siegfried
unequivocally as the youngest son of Wigerich and Kunigunde.
Peter Stewart
Thanks, Peter. Which husband of Kunigunde is shown as the father of Giselbert in ESnf vol. 6 (1978)?
All of Kunigunde's offspring are shown as fathered by Wigerich.
Gislebert is placed after Adalbero bishop of Metz and Gozelin (i.e. as
the third son), followed by Sigebert whose existence (as distinct from
Siegfried) has been doubted, then Friedrich of Upper Lorraine, a
daughter Liutgard and finally Siegfried.
Heinz Renn, *Das erste Luxemburger Grafenhaus (963-1136)* (1941)
and
Michel Parisse, *La noblesse lorraine, XIe-XIIIe siècles*, 2 vols (1976)
There have been a lot of studies since, and you will find useful
Historiography, Collective Memory and Nation-Building in Luxembourg*
(2011) here
https://epdf.pub/constructing-the-middle-ages-historiography-collective-memory-and-nation-buildin.html.
Peter Stewart
So, in your opinion, were Siegfrid and Sigebert distinct?
My opinion is of no more value than yours or anyone else's if there is
not sufficient evidence to decide. As far as I recall (and please remind
me if this is patchy) the evidence for "Sigebert" is a later record of
lost charter dated 943 naming Frederic, Gislebert and Sigibert as
brothers of Wigerich's son Gozlin. If there is nothing beyond this, a
copyist's misreading or miswriting of the name Sigifrid (i.e. Siegfried)
as Sigibert seems a plausible explanation.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, the Henry II Project page I linked to shows that there's no strong evidence regarding Giselbert's father and that he may have been either Wigerich or Ricuin.
Or, as noted upthread from the unconvincing (to me) proposal of René
Klein, his father may have been a third husband of Kunigunde, possibly
Gislebert of Lorraine.
There is little value in going over the unknowable repetitively. Your
adherence to Occam's razor might suggest an unemphatic preference for
Wigerich as the probable father to all of Kunigunde's sons, as the
simplest solution since none of them appears to have held territorial
possessions attributably inherited from Richuin of Verdun or anyone else.
Peter Stewart
I agree. IMO, Siegfried and Sigebert were almost certainly the same.
Regardless, as the page notes, a passage in Adalbero's biography indicates that he had at least one maternal half-brother. Out of the known sons of Cunégonde, Giselbert is the obvious candidate. The idea that Cunégonde may have married for a third time to Giselbert of Lorraine is almost certainly wrong, as the page discusses.
I wish you would stop throwing out comments referring to this or that
"page" or author without specifics.
Do you suppose SGM readers have nothing better to do than follow your
train of thought?
In this case I assume you mean, and failed to tell us, the Henry Project
page for Kunigunde where it quotes "fratres ei plures ex matre erant"
"There is no good reason to doubt that these fratres ex matre included
Frédéric, Giselbert, and Sigebert, who were all living at the time, and
would thus be sons of Cunégonde. The words "ex matre" appear to indicate
that at least one of the brothers had a different father than Adalbero,
but it need not imply that all of these brothers were only maternal
half-brothers."
If so, I don't entirely agree with Stewart Baldwin's reading. Richuin
had a named Otho, and the same work states that Adalbero suffered from a
shortage of wealth due to his mother's second marriage - fratres plures
ex matre could be just a passing statement of fact that Kunigunde had
many sons or perhaps an oblique reference to a step- rather than
half-blood relative through Richuin.
Peter Stewart
No offense, but I think it was clear that I was refering to the Henry II Project page That I had already linked to.
Regardless, thanks for your alternate explanation.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 00:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No offense, but I think it was clear that I was refering to the Henry II Project page That I had already linked to.
Then why not say so? And why not copy-paste the relevant passage? There
were other links to other pages in the thread.

Other people may not chose to spend their day looking at whatever you
are interested in while having to sort out for themselves exactly what
you are focused on from post to post. This leaves me feeling like a
clown-head at a carnival, turning from side to side while having
ping-pong balls fed into it in order to come up with some footling prize.

Instead of reply-copying vast swathes of each thread in every post, try
cutting down to the bits you intend to comment on and adding citations
to or quotations from whatever you are referring to. This would make for
much easier reading, with perhaps more participants.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-07 01:25:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No offense, but I think it was clear that I was refering to the Henry II Project page That I had already linked to.
Then why not say so? And why not copy-paste the relevant passage? There
were other links to other pages in the thread.
Other people may not chose to spend their day looking at whatever you
are interested in while having to sort out for themselves exactly what
you are focused on from post to post. This leaves me feeling like a
clown-head at a carnival, turning from side to side while having
ping-pong balls fed into it in order to come up with some footling prize.
Instead of reply-copying vast swathes of each thread in every post, try
cutting down to the bits you intend to comment on and adding citations
to or quotations from whatever you are referring to. This would make for
much easier reading, with perhaps more participants.
Peter Stewart
From the context, I think it was clear that I was refering to Cunégonde's page.
Regardless, as for quoting the statement in question, yes, you're right, maybe I should have done so.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 03:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
No offense, but I think it was clear that I was refering to the Henry II Project page That I had already linked to.
Then why not say so? And why not copy-paste the relevant passage? There
were other links to other pages in the thread.
Other people may not chose to spend their day looking at whatever you
are interested in while having to sort out for themselves exactly what
you are focused on from post to post. This leaves me feeling like a
clown-head at a carnival, turning from side to side while having
ping-pong balls fed into it in order to come up with some footling prize.
Instead of reply-copying vast swathes of each thread in every post, try
cutting down to the bits you intend to comment on and adding citations
to or quotations from whatever you are referring to. This would make for
much easier reading, with perhaps more participants.
Peter Stewart
From the context, I think it was clear that I was refering to Cunégonde's page.
Presumably it is always clear to you what you are thinking about - you
are evidently missing the point that other people don't have the benefit
of living inside your head.

Do you suppose that your SGM contributions occupy so much of readers'
attention that they hang on your previous posts to elucidate later ones?
The reason for your excessive reply-copying is hard to follow if you
believe this. At my end, without editing for relevance, it just adds a
level of static noise regarding posts that I had already forgotten and
have no intention of re-reading.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 05:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I agree. IMO, Siegfried and Sigebert were almost certainly the same.
Regardless, as the page notes, a passage in Adalbero's biography
indicates that he had at least one maternal half-brother. Out of the
known sons of Cunégonde, Giselbert is the obvious candidate. The idea
that Cunégonde may have married for a third time to Giselbert of
Lorraine is almost certainly wrong, as the page discusses.
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
In this case I assume you mean, and failed to tell us, the Henry Project
page for Kunigunde where it quotes "fratres ei plures ex matre erant"
"There is no good reason to doubt that these fratres ex matre included
Frédéric, Giselbert, and Sigebert, who were all living at the time, and
would thus be sons of Cunégonde. The words "ex matre" appear to indicate
that at least one of the brothers had a different father than Adalbero,
but it need not imply that all of these brothers were only maternal
half-brothers."
If so, I don't entirely agree with Stewart Baldwin's reading. Richuin
had a named Otho, and the same work states that Adalbero suffered from a
shortage of wealth due to his mother's second marriage - fratres plures
ex matre could be just a passing statement of fact that Kunigunde had
many sons or perhaps an oblique reference to a step- rather than
half-blood relative through Richuin.
The second sentence in the last paragraph should read: Richuin had a son
named Otho ...

In passing, it may be worth noting a few outlying theories that have
been concocted for the paternity of Siegfried -

Victor Haag in 1951 suggested that Wigerich and Kunigunde did have a son
named Sigibert, and that he was the father of Siegfried of Luxemburg
rather than identical with him. However, this comes unstuck because
Gerbert in a letter to Empress Theophanu written in 985 called Siegfried
"patruus" (paternal uncle) to Wigerich & Kunigunde's grandson Godfrid
the Captive.

Emil Kimpen in 1955 interpreted "patruus" in Gerbert's letter to mean
not even a blood relative but rather a senior cousin-by-marriage, making
Siegfried's wife Hedwig a member of Wigerich's family while Siegfried
took his name from Danish ancestry and belonged to the family of
Eberhard of Hamaland (Zütphen).

Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.

None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-07 09:02:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I agree. IMO, Siegfried and Sigebert were almost certainly the same.
Regardless, as the page notes, a passage in Adalbero's biography
indicates that he had at least one maternal half-brother. Out of the
known sons of Cunégonde, Giselbert is the obvious candidate. The idea
that Cunégonde may have married for a third time to Giselbert of
Lorraine is almost certainly wrong, as the page discusses.
<snip>
Post by Peter Stewart
In this case I assume you mean, and failed to tell us, the Henry Project
page for Kunigunde where it quotes "fratres ei plures ex matre erant"
"There is no good reason to doubt that these fratres ex matre included
Frédéric, Giselbert, and Sigebert, who were all living at the time, and
would thus be sons of Cunégonde. The words "ex matre" appear to indicate
that at least one of the brothers had a different father than Adalbero,
but it need not imply that all of these brothers were only maternal
half-brothers."
If so, I don't entirely agree with Stewart Baldwin's reading. Richuin
had a named Otho, and the same work states that Adalbero suffered from a
shortage of wealth due to his mother's second marriage - fratres plures
ex matre could be just a passing statement of fact that Kunigunde had
many sons or perhaps an oblique reference to a step- rather than
half-blood relative through Richuin.
The second sentence in the last paragraph should read: Richuin had a son
named Otho ...
In passing, it may be worth noting a few outlying theories that have
been concocted for the paternity of Siegfried -
Victor Haag in 1951 suggested that Wigerich and Kunigunde did have a son
named Sigibert, and that he was the father of Siegfried of Luxemburg
rather than identical with him. However, this comes unstuck because
Gerbert in a letter to Empress Theophanu written in 985 called Siegfried
"patruus" (paternal uncle) to Wigerich & Kunigunde's grandson Godfrid
the Captive.
That must have been one of the attempts to deal with Siegfried's long chronology. However, as Cunégonde's Henry II Project page discusses, while such long chronologies were rare, they did happen from time to time.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 09:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Victor Haag in 1951 suggested that Wigerich and Kunigunde did have a son
named Sigibert, and that he was the father of Siegfried of Luxemburg
rather than identical with him. However, this comes unstuck because
Gerbert in a letter to Empress Theophanu written in 985 called Siegfried
"patruus" (paternal uncle) to Wigerich & Kunigunde's grandson Godfrid
the Captive.
That must have been one of the attempts to deal with Siegfried's long chronology. However, as Cunégonde's Henry II Project page discusses, while such long chronologies were rare, they did happen from time to time.
Indeed, most people would know of someone with a full sibling young
enough to be their child - for instance, one of my cousins has an uncle
younger than himself, and I don't suppose this is especially rare.

One of my grandparents had a paternal half-sibling 40 years younger,
though of course this does not address the problem some have had with
Siegfried as a son of Kunigunde by her first husband.

However, the problem is hardly eased by making him instead a son of
Richuin, who was killed just a few years after Wigerich died. An
unrecorded third husband is not impossible, but hardly compellingly
plausible given the fairly extensive sourcing for her prominent sons and
the mysterious connection of Siegfried to the Ottonians as "imperatorius
frater", which was not a kind of description used when it might well
have been for Richuin's son Otto (i.e. when he was made duke of Lorraine
as guardian to Heinrich I's nephew) and presumably came through
Siegfried's father who - if not Wigerich - must have achieved a major
feat in remaining unnoticed.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-07-07 10:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Indeed, most people would know of someone with a full sibling young
enough to be their child - for instance, one of my cousins has an uncle
younger than himself, and I don't suppose this is especially rare.
One of my grandparents had a paternal half-sibling 40 years younger,
Similarly, I have ancestor whose youngest son was 6 years younger than the oldest great-grandson. The son was born when the father was 70, 51 years after he had his first child. The youngest son by the first wife was 23 years younger than his oldest full-sibling, and four years younger than his eldest niece.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 11:13:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
Indeed, most people would know of someone with a full sibling young
enough to be their child - for instance, one of my cousins has an uncle
younger than himself, and I don't suppose this is especially rare.
One of my grandparents had a paternal half-sibling 40 years younger,
Similarly, I have ancestor whose youngest son was 6 years younger than the oldest great-grandson. The son was born when the father was 70, 51 years after he had his first child. The youngest son by the first wife was 23 years younger than his oldest full-sibling, and four years younger than his eldest niece.
Given examples like this, it's hard to fathom why some historians worry
so much about age-range oddities that are clearly within the span of
possibility. Trying to limit the reproductive lives of medieval people
to some arbitrary standard or rule of thumb is an exercise in futility.
If it can happen, no doubt it did.

Peter Stewart
s***@mindspring.com
2020-07-07 15:30:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Similarly, I have ancestor whose youngest son was 6 years younger than the oldest great-grandson. The son was born when the father was 70, 51 years after he had his first child. The youngest son by the first wife was 23 years younger than his oldest full-sibling, and four years younger than his eldest niece.
I imagine that most of us have found examples like this in our own ancestry. One of my ancestors, a Mary Robinson, was married twice, first to a John Williams, and after his death to her first husband's uncle, another John William, who was younger than her first husband. She had children by both husbands.

Stewart Baldwin
joseph cook
2020-07-07 16:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Indeed United States President John Tyler who was born in 1790 still has two living grandchildren today

amazing but true
Joe cook
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 22:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Peter Stewart
Victor Haag in 1951 suggested that Wigerich and Kunigunde did have a son
named Sigibert, and that he was the father of Siegfried of Luxemburg
rather than identical with him. However, this comes unstuck because
Gerbert in a letter to Empress Theophanu written in 985 called Siegfried
"patruus" (paternal uncle) to Wigerich & Kunigunde's grandson Godfrid
the Captive.
That must have been one of the attempts to deal with Siegfried's long
chronology. However, as Cunégonde's Henry II Project page discusses,
while such long chronologies were rare, they did happen from time to
time.
Indeed, most people would know of someone with a full sibling young
enough to be their child - for instance, one of my cousins has an uncle
younger than himself, and I don't suppose this is especially rare.
One of my grandparents had a paternal half-sibling 40 years younger,
though of course this does not address the problem some have had with
Siegfried as a son of Kunigunde by her first husband.
However, the problem is hardly eased by making him instead a son of
Richuin, who was killed just a few years after Wigerich died. An
unrecorded third husband is not impossible, but hardly compellingly
plausible given the fairly extensive sourcing for her prominent sons and
the mysterious connection of Siegfried to the Ottonians as "imperatorius
frater", which was not a kind of description used when it might well
have been for Richuin's son Otto (i.e. when he was made duke of Lorraine
as guardian to Heinrich I's nephew) and presumably came through
Siegfried's father who - if not Wigerich - must have achieved a major
feat in remaining unnoticed.
A tiny voice in the back of my head has been telling me I goofed
somewhere yesterday, and this is apparently where it is pointing.

Richuin's son Otto was made duke of Lorraine as guardian to Heinrich the
Fowler's namesake grandson - not nephew - after the death of the boy's
father Gislebert on 2 October 939. His mother Gisela was quickly
remarried to the West Frankish king Louis IV. The high trust placed in
Richuin's son in these circumstances is a fairly strong indicator of
blood relationship, especially given that the name Otto may suggest
descent from Heinrich I's father, the Saxon duke Otto the Illustrious.

Some historians have assumed that Richuin's son Otto was also the son of
Kunigunde, but this seems unlikely since he would have been still a
young man in 939 if born after the death of Wigerich, and someone with
more experience would more probably have been chosen instead as
place-holder in the political hot-spot of Lorraine. It is more plausible
to me that Otto was born to a prior wife of Richuin, perhaps a sister of
Heinrich I and daughter of Otto the Illustrious (who by the way is
called "Otto der Erlauchte" in German, not the mongrelised form "der
Erlauchten" that is used as nominative in some English web pages from
mistaking the accusative "den Erlauchten").

Mathilde Uhlirz suggested that Wigerich may have been a son, brother or
cousin of Heinrich I, trying to explain why Kunigunde's son Adalbero was
described as having royal ancestry far back on both paternal and
maternal sides. However, distant royal ancestry on the father's side
cannot very well have been his as a grandson of Heinrich I - who was the
first king in his lineage - much less as a nephew of cousin. Wigerich
may just as well have had a family legend of descent from Burgundian or
Merovingian kings.

The odd description of Siegfried as "imperatorius frater" in a
contingent list from early in 983 also exercised Mathilde Uhlirz and
others to dubious suppositions. The literal meaning is "imperial
brother", not Emperor Otto II's brother (imperatoris frater). One
historian proposed that "frater" here meant "brother-in-arms", but this
seems extremely likely. It is more plausible to me that the writer knew
Siegfried to be a brother of an imperial relative but not the exact
details, and could have been referring to a step-brother relationship
between Siegfried and Richuin's son Otto.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 22:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
The odd description of Siegfried as "imperatorius frater" in a
contingent list from early in 983 also exercised Mathilde Uhlirz and
others to dubious suppositions. The literal meaning is "imperial
brother", not Emperor Otto II's brother (imperatoris frater). One
historian proposed that "frater" here meant "brother-in-arms", but this
seems extremely likely.
I meant "extremely unlikely", but my fingers blocked their ears.

Peter Stewart
s***@mindspring.com
2020-07-07 14:31:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 12:31:47 AM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of Wigerich's brother Friedrich? That is the proposal that Jackman was making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have not seen the 2012 work.

Stewart Baldwin
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 20:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@mindspring.com
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of Wigerich's brother Friedrich? That is the proposal that Jackman was making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have not seen the 2012 work.
Yes, I'm afraid this is still his proposal - Jackman is nothing if not
relentless in pursuit of crackpot ideas. This one appeared in print in
his self-published *Studia Luxembourensia*, Archive for Medieval
Prosopography no. 13 (State College, PA, 2012):

p. 14: "Why did his 'fratres' called him Sigebert? A possible cause is
that Siegfried was someone whom they regarded as 'frater' even though he
was not actually their brother, and for this reason they became
accustomed to using an inaccurate name-form."

pp. 21-22: "That Adalbero I of Metz and his siblings were adopted is
documented almost explicitly. There is extensive information available
regarding a brother of Count Palatine Wigerich named Frederick ... From
the tenor of these reports one perceives that Frederick was originally
the lawful guardian of Adalbero and his brothers, who, as we know, were
orphaned when their father died and their mother remarried ... A younger
brother, Frederick remained in his monastery until the moment when
Wigerich’s death made his emergence desirable. He emerged as the only
suitable agnatic relative, and his property claims were considerable,
leading to a highly fraternal ethos in the next generation, since all
depended on each other for their wealth. Frederick would have married
fairly soon, eventually siring Siegfried, which greatly helps to explain
how Siegfried lived so much longer than his alleged brothers."

One perceived this, but alas never yet two... unless of course John
Schmeeckle can confirm it all.

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-07 20:31:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by s***@mindspring.com
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of
Wigerich's brother Friedrich?  That is the proposal that Jackman was
making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have
not seen the 2012 work.
Yes, I'm afraid this is still his proposal - Jackman is nothing if not
relentless in pursuit of crackpot ideas. This one appeared in print in
his self-published *Studia Luxembourensia*, Archive for Medieval
p. 14: "Why did his 'fratres' called him Sigebert? A possible cause is
that Siegfried was someone whom they regarded as 'frater' even though he
was not actually their brother, and for this reason they became
accustomed to using an inaccurate name-form."
pp. 21-22: "That Adalbero I of Metz and his siblings were adopted is
documented almost explicitly. There is extensive information available
regarding a brother of Count Palatine Wigerich named Frederick ... From
the tenor of these reports one perceives that Frederick was originally
the lawful guardian of Adalbero and his brothers, who, as we know, were
orphaned when their father died and their mother remarried ... A younger
brother, Frederick remained in his monastery until the moment when
Wigerich’s death made his emergence desirable. He emerged as the only
suitable agnatic relative, and his property claims were considerable,
leading to a highly fraternal ethos in the next generation, since all
depended on each other for their wealth. Frederick would have married
fairly soon, eventually siring Siegfried, which greatly helps to explain
how Siegfried lived so much longer than his alleged brothers."
I should add that Jackman continued, on p. 22:

"There can be very little doubt indeed that Frederick adopted his
nephews according to customary law, and that he left his monastery
explicitly for that purpose. While we can be quite confident of that
aspect of the family situation, it is less certain that Frederick then
sired Siegfried. While circumstances argue eloquently in favor of this
solution, direct evidence is not forthcoming, and the problem is not
especially accessible to indirect evidence."

I don't know how Frederick can have been explicit in his purpose without
leaving direct evidence of this, but if custom obliged monks to leave
the cloister whenever a brother died leaving fatherless sons then
medieval history would be perceptibly different for everyone.

Peter Stewart
mike
2020-07-08 21:53:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by s***@mindspring.com
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of
Wigerich's brother Friedrich?  That is the proposal that Jackman was
making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have
not seen the 2012 work.
Yes, I'm afraid this is still his proposal - Jackman is nothing if not
relentless in pursuit of crackpot ideas. This one appeared in print in
his self-published *Studia Luxembourensia*, Archive for Medieval
p. 14: "Why did his 'fratres' called him Sigebert? A possible cause is
that Siegfried was someone whom they regarded as 'frater' even though he
was not actually their brother, and for this reason they became
accustomed to using an inaccurate name-form."
i dont understand this arguement at all. Surely either sigebert is a
different person to sigfried, or its just a scribal error, although
i dont know the source of the document.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
pp. 21-22: "That Adalbero I of Metz and his siblings were adopted is
documented almost explicitly. There is extensive information available
regarding a brother of Count Palatine Wigerich named Frederick ... From
the tenor of these reports one perceives that Frederick was originally
the lawful guardian of Adalbero and his brothers, who, as we know, were
orphaned when their father died and their mother remarried ... A younger
brother, Frederick remained in his monastery until the moment when
Wigerich’s death made his emergence desirable. He emerged as the only
suitable agnatic relative, and his property claims were considerable,
leading to a highly fraternal ethos in the next generation, since all
depended on each other for their wealth. Frederick would have married
fairly soon, eventually siring Siegfried, which greatly helps to explain
how Siegfried lived so much longer than his alleged brothers."
"There can be very little doubt indeed that Frederick adopted his
nephews according to customary law, and that he left his monastery
explicitly for that purpose. While we can be quite confident of that
aspect of the family situation, it is less certain that Frederick then
sired Siegfried. While circumstances argue eloquently in favor of this
solution, direct evidence is not forthcoming, and the problem is not
especially accessible to indirect evidence."
Its amazing what different interpretations historians come to. if this
is the same Frederic uncle of Bp Adelbero mentioned in the Cambridge
Medieval History, it seems to describe a totally different person.
According to this, Frederic left the abbey of St.Hubert because monastic
life was impossible there and went to Gorze where Adelbero appointed
him prior, then later he became abbot of St.hubert after monastic life
had been restored. He doesnt sound like a man eager to run off to father
children.

However I did wonder who secured or promoted the interests of Wigeric
& Cunegundes many children after they had quickly lost both their father
and stepfather by 923. I notice that there was a bishop of Metz called
Wigeric [d927] at this time. He was so pro French that henry I had to send an
army to beseige Metz to get him to submit. Adelbero however seems to have
been totally loyal to the Ottonians. So I wonder if he was related to
some german family through his mother. Cunegunde sounds germanic and I
think was the name of Conrad I's wife, who was the widow of the margrave
Luitpold, although obviously a different person.

On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.

Also the chronology of

Louis II d.879 - Ermentrude - Cunegunde alive 916 - Adelbero alive 916 and
a bishop by 929

looks quite tight, although by no means impossible. But I notice that Ermentrude
is believed to be the daughter of Adeleide, the second wife of Louis II, and
therefore the full sister of Charles the Simple. So Ermentrude must have been
born in the mid or late 870s, say 876/8, and therefore Cunegunde c893 at the
earliest and she had 6 or 7 children by the time Wigeric died in 916/19, even
though Charles only mentions Adelbero. So I can see why some think some of her
children might have been by later husbands, or that some of Wigerics children
might have been from a supposed first wife, although there doesnt seem to be
any direct proof of this. I havnt seen Parisse's article on the Ardennes family,
which probably is the required reading on the subject.

mike
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-08 22:29:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by s***@mindspring.com
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of
Wigerich's brother Friedrich?  That is the proposal that Jackman was
making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have
not seen the 2012 work.
Yes, I'm afraid this is still his proposal - Jackman is nothing if not
relentless in pursuit of crackpot ideas. This one appeared in print in
his self-published *Studia Luxembourensia*, Archive for Medieval
p. 14: "Why did his 'fratres' called him Sigebert? A possible cause is
that Siegfried was someone whom they regarded as 'frater' even though he
was not actually their brother, and for this reason they became
accustomed to using an inaccurate name-form."
i dont understand this arguement at all. Surely either sigebert is a
different person to sigfried, or its just a scribal error, although
i dont know the source of the document.
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
pp. 21-22: "That Adalbero I of Metz and his siblings were adopted is
documented almost explicitly. There is extensive information available
regarding a brother of Count Palatine Wigerich named Frederick ... From
the tenor of these reports one perceives that Frederick was originally
the lawful guardian of Adalbero and his brothers, who, as we know, were
orphaned when their father died and their mother remarried ... A younger
brother, Frederick remained in his monastery until the moment when
Wigerich’s death made his emergence desirable. He emerged as the only
suitable agnatic relative, and his property claims were considerable,
leading to a highly fraternal ethos in the next generation, since all
depended on each other for their wealth. Frederick would have married
fairly soon, eventually siring Siegfried, which greatly helps to explain
how Siegfried lived so much longer than his alleged brothers."
"There can be very little doubt indeed that Frederick adopted his
nephews according to customary law, and that he left his monastery
explicitly for that purpose. While we can be quite confident of that
aspect of the family situation, it is less certain that Frederick then
sired Siegfried. While circumstances argue eloquently in favor of this
solution, direct evidence is not forthcoming, and the problem is not
especially accessible to indirect evidence."
Its amazing what different interpretations historians come to. if this
is the same Frederic uncle of Bp Adelbero mentioned in the Cambridge
Medieval History, it seems to describe a totally different person.
According to this, Frederic left the abbey of St.Hubert because monastic
life was impossible there and went to Gorze where Adelbero appointed
him prior, then later he became abbot of St.hubert after monastic life
had been restored. He doesnt sound like a man eager to run off to father
children.
However I did wonder who secured or promoted the interests of Wigeric
& Cunegundes many children after they had quickly lost both their father
and stepfather by 923. I notice that there was a bishop of Metz called
Wigeric [d927] at this time. He was so pro French that henry I had to send an
army to beseige Metz to get him to submit. Adelbero however seems to have
been totally loyal to the Ottonians. So I wonder if he was related to
some german family through his mother. Cunegunde sounds germanic and I
think was the name of Conrad I's wife, who was the widow of the margrave
Luitpold, although obviously a different person.
On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.
Also the chronology of
Louis II d.879 - Ermentrude - Cunegunde alive 916 - Adelbero alive 916 and
a bishop by 929
looks quite tight, although by no means impossible. But I notice that Ermentrude
is believed to be the daughter of Adeleide, the second wife of Louis II, and
therefore the full sister of Charles the Simple. So Ermentrude must have been
born in the mid or late 870s, say 876/8, and therefore Cunegunde c893 at the
earliest and she had 6 or 7 children by the time Wigeric died in 916/19, even
though Charles only mentions Adelbero. So I can see why some think some of her
children might have been by later husbands, or that some of Wigerics children
might have been from a supposed first wife, although there doesnt seem to be
any direct proof of this. I havnt seen Parisse's article on the Ardennes family,
which probably is the required reading on the subject.
mike
Cunégonde's ancestry comes from the ancestral tables of her great-granddaughter Empress Cunégonde. They show her as daughter of Ermentrude and granddaughter of Louis II.
As shown in her Henry II Project page, she can be identified with Wigerich and Ricuin's wife by overwhelming circumstantial evidence.
Vanderkindere argued against this but his argument was unconvincing.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-08 23:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by s***@mindspring.com
...
Post by Peter Stewart
Donald Jackman in 2012 proposed that Siegfried was actually the son of
Richuin's brother, who adopted his nephews (Kunigunde's sons) so that
they all called each other "brother", while Wigerich's sons possibly
used "Sigibert" as a nickname for Siegfried.
None of these forced and weakly-argued speculations has appealed to
sensible historians.
Did you mean to say that Jackman was proposing Siegfried as a son of
Wigerich's brother Friedrich?  That is the proposal that Jackman was
making in various items on his website in the early 2000's, but I have
not seen the 2012 work.
Yes, I'm afraid this is still his proposal - Jackman is nothing if not
relentless in pursuit of crackpot ideas. This one appeared in print in
his self-published *Studia Luxembourensia*, Archive for Medieval
p. 14: "Why did his 'fratres' called him Sigebert? A possible cause is
that Siegfried was someone whom they regarded as 'frater' even though he
was not actually their brother, and for this reason they became
accustomed to using an inaccurate name-form."
i dont understand this arguement at all. Surely either sigebert is a
different person to sigfried, or its just a scribal error, although
i dont know the source of the document.
Please don't imagine that I posted this in order to endorse it - I don't
expect understanding to come from any argument put forward by Donald
Jackman His idea of methodology is to make it up as he goes along.
Academia is never short of junior hot-shots who turn into senior cranks,
and he has become a champion example.

The name Sigibert occurs for a brother of Wigerich's son Gozelin in a
later record of lost charter dated 943, probably in the last months of
that year shortly after Gozelin's burial in Saint-Maximin at Trier
("Gozlinus nomine miles quidam, ex nobilissimis regni Chlotharii ducens
prosapiam ... Friderici, Gisilberti, Sigeberti fratrum predicti
Gozlini"). He is also called Sigibert by Laurent of Liège writing in the
mid-12th century, relating the same episode in which he is called
Sigifrid by Hugo of Flavigny around 40 years earlier.
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by Peter Stewart
pp. 21-22: "That Adalbero I of Metz and his siblings were adopted is
documented almost explicitly. There is extensive information available
regarding a brother of Count Palatine Wigerich named Frederick ... From
the tenor of these reports one perceives that Frederick was originally
the lawful guardian of Adalbero and his brothers, who, as we know, were
orphaned when their father died and their mother remarried ... A younger
brother, Frederick remained in his monastery until the moment when
Wigerich’s death made his emergence desirable. He emerged as the only
suitable agnatic relative, and his property claims were considerable,
leading to a highly fraternal ethos in the next generation, since all
depended on each other for their wealth. Frederick would have married
fairly soon, eventually siring Siegfried, which greatly helps to explain
how Siegfried lived so much longer than his alleged brothers."
"There can be very little doubt indeed that Frederick adopted his
nephews according to customary law, and that he left his monastery
explicitly for that purpose. While we can be quite confident of that
aspect of the family situation, it is less certain that Frederick then
sired Siegfried. While circumstances argue eloquently in favor of this
solution, direct evidence is not forthcoming, and the problem is not
especially accessible to indirect evidence."
Its amazing what different interpretations historians come to. if this
is the same Frederic uncle of Bp Adelbero mentioned in the Cambridge
Medieval History, it seems to describe a totally different person.
According to this, Frederic left the abbey of St.Hubert because monastic
life was impossible there and went to Gorze where Adelbero appointed
him prior, then later he became abbot of St.hubert after monastic life
had been restored. He doesnt sound like a man eager to run off to father
children.
Again, it is safer to ignore Jackman's fantasy altogether.
Post by mike
However I did wonder who secured or promoted the interests of Wigeric
& Cunegundes many children after they had quickly lost both their father
and stepfather by 923. I notice that there was a bishop of Metz called
Wigeric [d927] at this time. He was so pro French that henry I had to send an
army to beseige Metz to get him to submit. Adelbero however seems to have
been totally loyal to the Ottonians. So I wonder if he was related to
some german family through his mother. Cunegunde sounds germanic and I
think was the name of Conrad I's wife, who was the widow of the margrave
Luitpold, although obviously a different person.
She was sister of the Alaholfing counts Erchangar and Berthold, whose
father may have been count palatine in Swabia - Cunegundis was also the
name of the wife of Charlemagne's grandson Bernard, king of Italy.
Post by mike
On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.
As mentioned upthread, the genealogy compiled by Witger in the 950s
places Ermentrude as a full-sister of Charles the Simple, and an
early-11th century genealogical table in accordance with this shows
Sigifrid's mother Cunegunde (Cynigund) (i.e. Wigerich's wife) as
daughter of Ermentrude (Irmindrud), see here:
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0005/bsb00059279/images/index.html?id=00059279&groesser=&fip=eayaxswewqewqxdsydewqsdaseayaxdsydfsdr&no=&seite=2.
Post by mike
Also the chronology of
Louis II d.879 - Ermentrude - Cunegunde alive 916 - Adelbero alive 916 and
a bishop by 929
looks quite tight, although by no means impossible. But I notice that Ermentrude
is believed to be the daughter of Adeleide, the second wife of Louis II, and
therefore the full sister of Charles the Simple. So Ermentrude must have been
born in the mid or late 870s, say 876/8, and therefore Cunegunde c893 at the
earliest and she had 6 or 7 children by the time Wigeric died in 916/19, even
though Charles only mentions Adelbero. So I can see why some think some of her
children might have been by later husbands, or that some of Wigerics children
might have been from a supposed first wife, although there doesnt seem to be
any direct proof of this. I havnt seen Parisse's article on the Ardennes family,
which probably is the required reading on the subject.
Among others, yes - but you won't find definite answers to the puzzles
there.

The chronology is perhaps skewed a bit by the over-confident assertion
that Wigerich died in 916/19. He was last recorded on 19 January 916 and
he was he was not present at an assembly held in June 919 - some
historians have concluded that he must have died beforehand but this is
just guesswork, and his wife's later husband Ricuin was also not among
the twelve counts named on the occasion either. Ricuin was killed in 923
(though this too has been doubted), so we can be fairly sure that
Wigerich was dead a few years before - and of course he may have left
his wife pregnant at the time.

Adalbero is said to have lacked resources due to Cunegunde's second
marriage, but this does not necessarily mean that Ricuin was still
living: if he had been previously married to an Ottonian princess, as I
suggested upthread, then Cunegunde was perhaps obliged to keep financing
her step-son Otto. Adalbero became bishop of Metz in 929 - he had
perhaps reached the qualifying age of 25 years complete for election by
then, and may have been younger - at any rate, he can't have reached the
canonical age of 30 for consecration but that was not an insuperable
barrier.

Peter Stewart
s***@mindspring.com
2020-07-09 00:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Please don't imagine that I posted this in order to endorse it - I don't
expect understanding to come from any argument put forward by Donald
Jackman His idea of methodology is to make it up as he goes along.
Academia is never short of junior hot-shots who turn into senior cranks,
and he has become a champion example.
In general, I have found Jackman's work very tiresome to read, but there was one very amusing remark he made in one publication (I forget exactly where), in which he used the term "Genealogical Wild West" to describe the work of someone whose theories he was criticizing. The problem, of course, is that the term is much more appropriate to Jackman's own work.

Stewart Baldwin
mike
2020-07-09 21:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by mike
On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.
As mentioned upthread, the genealogy compiled by Witger in the 950s
places Ermentrude as a full-sister of Charles the Simple, and an
early-11th century genealogical table in accordance with this shows
Sigifrid's mother Cunegunde (Cynigund) (i.e. Wigerich's wife) as
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0005/bsb00059279/images/index.html?id=00059279&groesser=&fip=eayaxswewqewqxdsydewqsdaseayaxdsydfsdr&no=&seite=2.
I'm not questioning the source or Sigfrids descent from Louis II, merely pointing out the implications for the parentage of the rest of the ardennes clan.

There is definite proof that Adelbero, Luitgrade and Sigfrid were Cunegundes
children, and definite proof that Adelbero and Luitgarde were her children
by Wigeric. Sigfrid might be his son as many have said, or he might be by a
later husband. Cunegunde might also be the mother of the rest of the clan or their mother might be an earlier wife of Wigeric. The accepted version seems
to be that they all had the same parents and were born 910/19.
Post by Peter Stewart
The chronology is perhaps skewed a bit by the over-confident assertion
that Wigerich died in 916/19. He was last recorded on 19 January 916 and
he was he was not present at an assembly held in June 919 - some
historians have concluded that he must have died beforehand but this is
just guesswork, and his wife's later husband Ricuin was also not among
the twelve counts named on the occasion either. Ricuin was killed in 923
(though this too has been doubted), so we can be fairly sure that
Wigerich was dead a few years before - and of course he may have left
his wife pregnant at the time.
Then again Wigeric might have died in 916. Either way this chronology requires
Cunegund to be about 13 when she married and to have 6 or 7 children in about
10 years of marriage all of whom survived to adulthood despite losing first their father then their stepfather in a matter of a few years. Perhaps infant
mortality had declined and childcare improved in early 10th century
Lotharingia ;)

When I looked for 'Wigeric' I found that his name appears to change in the
documents.

Firstly Widiac 899, Wigeric 902, Widric count of Bidgau 909, Count Windric in
King Charles charter 911/15. I havnt seen the 916 document to see how his name
is spelt there. Where is Bidgau? Does anyone know? Is that why Parisse [i think
it was him] invented the term count of the ardennes because they couldnt locate
the mysterious Bidgau?

The first 3 documents are associated with Trier, [where both Sigfrid and his
son were buried], but the charter of king Charles for Windric involves 2 abbies
far away near Namur and Mechelen. I havnt seen it but as it can only be dated
911-15 maybe its not an original but a later copy. I did find it odd that
Charles ignores his neice but calls Adelbero his nepos when he was actually his
grandnephew. Usually kings knew their own close relatives! It seems Windric was
donating these abbies to Liege but he wanted to ensure that he and Adelbero
'one of his sons' could continue to own them until their deaths.
Post by Peter Stewart
Adalbero is said to have lacked resources due to Cunegunde's second
marriage, but this does not necessarily mean that Ricuin was still
living: if he had been previously married to an Ottonian princess, as I
suggested upthread, then Cunegunde was perhaps obliged to keep financing
her step-son Otto. Adalbero became bishop of Metz in 929 - he had
perhaps reached the qualifying age of 25 years complete for election by
then, and may have been younger - at any rate, he can't have reached the
canonical age of 30 for consecration but that was not an insuperable
barrier.
Peter Stewart
I think a birth date of 904 for Adelbero makes the chronology far too
short if Ermentrude was born 876/8. However I assume Adelbero
was an adult in 929. However it seems at this time canonical rules were
often not observed: Hugo of Rheims was only 4 when appointed in 925, although
clearly an extreme case, and John XII was between 17 and 24 when he became
pope in 955.

mike
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-09 21:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by mike
On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.
As mentioned upthread, the genealogy compiled by Witger in the 950s
places Ermentrude as a full-sister of Charles the Simple, and an
early-11th century genealogical table in accordance with this shows
Sigifrid's mother Cunegunde (Cynigund) (i.e. Wigerich's wife) as
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0005/bsb00059279/images/index.html?id=00059279&groesser=&fip=eayaxswewqewqxdsydewqsdaseayaxdsydfsdr&no=&seite=2.
I'm not questioning the source or Sigfrids descent from Louis II, merely pointing out the implications for the parentage of the rest of the ardennes clan.
There is definite proof that Adelbero, Luitgrade and Sigfrid were Cunegundes
children, and definite proof that Adelbero and Luitgarde were her children
by Wigeric. Sigfrid might be his son as many have said, or he might be by a
later husband. Cunegunde might also be the mother of the rest of the clan or their mother might be an earlier wife of Wigeric. The accepted version seems
to be that they all had the same parents and were born 910/19.
Post by Peter Stewart
The chronology is perhaps skewed a bit by the over-confident assertion
that Wigerich died in 916/19. He was last recorded on 19 January 916 and
he was he was not present at an assembly held in June 919 - some
historians have concluded that he must have died beforehand but this is
just guesswork, and his wife's later husband Ricuin was also not among
the twelve counts named on the occasion either. Ricuin was killed in 923
(though this too has been doubted), so we can be fairly sure that
Wigerich was dead a few years before - and of course he may have left
his wife pregnant at the time.
Then again Wigeric might have died in 916. Either way this chronology requires
Cunegund to be about 13 when she married and to have 6 or 7 children in about
10 years of marriage all of whom survived to adulthood despite losing first their father then their stepfather in a matter of a few years. Perhaps infant
mortality had declined and childcare improved in early 10th century
Lotharingia ;)
When I looked for 'Wigeric' I found that his name appears to change in the
documents.
Firstly Widiac 899, Wigeric 902, Widric count of Bidgau 909, Count Windric in
King Charles charter 911/15. I havnt seen the 916 document to see how his name
is spelt there. Where is Bidgau? Does anyone know? Is that why Parisse [i think
it was him] invented the term count of the ardennes because they couldnt locate
the mysterious Bidgau?
The first 3 documents are associated with Trier, [where both Sigfrid and his
son were buried], but the charter of king Charles for Windric involves 2 abbies
far away near Namur and Mechelen. I havnt seen it but as it can only be dated
911-15 maybe its not an original but a later copy. I did find it odd that
Charles ignores his neice but calls Adelbero his nepos when he was actually his
grandnephew. Usually kings knew their own close relatives! It seems Windric was
donating these abbies to Liege but he wanted to ensure that he and Adelbero
'one of his sons' could continue to own them until their deaths.
Post by Peter Stewart
Adalbero is said to have lacked resources due to Cunegunde's second
marriage, but this does not necessarily mean that Ricuin was still
living: if he had been previously married to an Ottonian princess, as I
suggested upthread, then Cunegunde was perhaps obliged to keep financing
her step-son Otto. Adalbero became bishop of Metz in 929 - he had
perhaps reached the qualifying age of 25 years complete for election by
then, and may have been younger - at any rate, he can't have reached the
canonical age of 30 for consecration but that was not an insuperable
barrier.
Peter Stewart
I think a birth date of 904 for Adelbero makes the chronology far too
short if Ermentrude was born 876/8. However I assume Adelbero
was an adult in 929. However it seems at this time canonical rules were
often not observed: Hugo of Rheims was only 4 when appointed in 925, although
clearly an extreme case, and John XII was between 17 and 24 when he became
pope in 955.
mike
The chronology is not as tight as you think. Ermentrude may have been born as early as 870, read https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/ermen102.htm. Regardless, there's no reason to believe that Wigerich had an earlier wife, read https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/kunig000.htm. Indeed, Frédéric and Giselbert were probably younger than Adalbero.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-09 23:38:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Post by mike
On the internet Cunegunde is often said to be the neice of Charles the Simple,
but does he actually say this in any document? AFAIK he just calls Adelbero
nepos, which seems to have variety of meanings. The other problem is who did
her mother Ermentrude marry. it seems very odd for a genealogy at this time
to leave out the fathers in a descent.
As mentioned upthread, the genealogy compiled by Witger in the 950s
places Ermentrude as a full-sister of Charles the Simple, and an
early-11th century genealogical table in accordance with this shows
Sigifrid's mother Cunegunde (Cynigund) (i.e. Wigerich's wife) as
https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/0005/bsb00059279/images/index.html?id=00059279&groesser=&fip=eayaxswewqewqxdsydewqsdaseayaxdsydfsdr&no=&seite=2.
I'm not questioning the source or Sigfrids descent from Louis II, merely pointing out the implications for the parentage of the rest of the ardennes clan.
There is definite proof that Adelbero, Luitgrade and Sigfrid were Cunegundes
children, and definite proof that Adelbero and Luitgarde were her children
by Wigeric. Sigfrid might be his son as many have said, or he might be by a
later husband. Cunegunde might also be the mother of the rest of the clan or their mother might be an earlier wife of Wigeric. The accepted version seems
to be that they all had the same parents and were born 910/19.
Sigfrid was called (by Gerbert of Aurillac, later Pope Sylvester II) a
paternal uncle (patruus) of Adelbero's brother Gozlin, who inherited
Wigeric's countship in the Bidgau (see below). That all the recorded
children of Cunegunde were probably fathered by Wigeric is reasonable
if not incontestable.
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
The chronology is perhaps skewed a bit by the over-confident assertion
that Wigerich died in 916/19. He was last recorded on 19 January 916 and
he was he was not present at an assembly held in June 919 - some
historians have concluded that he must have died beforehand but this is
just guesswork, and his wife's later husband Ricuin was also not among
the twelve counts named on the occasion either. Ricuin was killed in 923
(though this too has been doubted), so we can be fairly sure that
Wigerich was dead a few years before - and of course he may have left
his wife pregnant at the time.
Then again Wigeric might have died in 916. Either way this chronology requires
Cunegund to be about 13 when she married and to have 6 or 7 children in about
10 years of marriage all of whom survived to adulthood despite losing first their father then their stepfather in a matter of a few years. Perhaps infant
mortality had declined and childcare improved in early 10th century
Lotharingia ;)
We know that Cunegunde's mother must have been born by December 878
since her maternal full-blood uncle Charles the Simple was born
posthumously in September 879. We know that Carolingian princesses were
sometimes married at 12, and the power politics swirling around
Ermentrude in her early years make this not at all unlikely in her case.
Trying to apply a standard rate for reproduction to Cunegunde or for
mortality to her children is not very helpful: she could have been born
ca 891 having children of her own from ca 904. Plenty of time for a
brood of six or more living to adulthood to be born by ca 916.
Post by mike
When I looked for 'Wigeric' I found that his name appears to change in the
documents.
Welcome to medieval orthography.
Post by mike
Firstly Widiac 899, Wigeric 902, Widric count of Bidgau 909, Count Windric in
King Charles charter 911/15. I havnt seen the 916 document to see how his name
is spelt there. Where is Bidgau? Does anyone know? Is that why Parisse [i think
it was him] invented the term count of the ardennes because they couldnt locate
the mysterious Bidgau?
The Bidgau was the countship around Bitburg, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg. It was inherited by Sigfrid's
brother Gozlin and then by the latter's son Godfrid the Captive. The
family of Wigeric is called "la maison d'Ardenne" by Michel Parisse and
others because their territorial possessions and comital power were
centered in that region.
Post by mike
The first 3 documents are associated with Trier, [where both Sigfrid and his
son were buried], but the charter of king Charles for Windric involves 2 abbies
far away near Namur and Mechelen. I havnt seen it but as it can only be dated
911-15 maybe its not an original but a later copy. I did find it odd that
Charles ignores his neice but calls Adelbero his nepos when he was actually his
grandnephew. Usually kings knew their own close relatives! It seems Windric was
donating these abbies to Liege but he wanted to ensure that he and Adelbero
'one of his sons' could continue to own them until their deaths.
Adelbero was the only one of Wigeric's sons whose career was in the
Church. The 911/15 charter is known from a 14th-century copy in a
cartulary of Liège cathedral, in which Wigeric's name is given as
Widric, not Windric. Adalbero is named after Wigeric and Cunegunde as
one of their children and called "nepos" to the king - for a
grand-nephew this is not an unusual extension of the term and certainly
not an indicator that Charles did not know their relationship precisely.
One of the abbeys, at Hastière in modern Belgium, is where Wigeric died
and was buried, as we know from a charter of Adalbero dated 6 October
944 ("abbatiam ... in loco Harsteria in comitatu Lotmensi super fluvium
Mosae ... genitor meus nobilis comes Vigiricus ... qui in eodem
monasterio ergastulo solutus mortis et traditus sepulture").
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
Adalbero is said to have lacked resources due to Cunegunde's second
marriage, but this does not necessarily mean that Ricuin was still
living: if he had been previously married to an Ottonian princess, as I
suggested upthread, then Cunegunde was perhaps obliged to keep financing
her step-son Otto. Adalbero became bishop of Metz in 929 - he had
perhaps reached the qualifying age of 25 years complete for election by
then, and may have been younger - at any rate, he can't have reached the
canonical age of 30 for consecration but that was not an insuperable
barrier.
Peter Stewart
I think a birth date of 904 for Adelbero makes the chronology far too
short if Ermentrude was born 876/8. However I assume Adelbero
was an adult in 929. However it seems at this time canonical rules were
often not observed: Hugo of Rheims was only 4 when appointed in 925, although
clearly an extreme case, and John XII was between 17 and 24 when he became
pope in 955.
The case of Hugo of Vermandois is not entirely parallel, but in any
event he was aged 5 or 6 when nominated archbishop of Reims (as a
deacon, with the archdiocese under administration) in 926, deprived in
931, restored and ordained priest in 940 and consecrated as a bishop in
941 when aged 21. If a Carolingian princess is to be considered "far
too" young to become a grandmother at ca 27 years old, the family's
history will need to be rewritten. Charlemagne'e Hildegarde, mother of
his heir (who was born a twin) was in her 12th or 13th year when married
and she had at least 9 children over the following 12 or so years. As I
said before, if something can happen it no doubt did - and if it did,
how can we make rules for who it could or could not happen to?

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-10 00:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Charlemagne'e Hildegarde, mother of his heir
My fingers and keyboard are conspiring to reinvent the language - this
should read "Charlemagne's wife Hildegarde ..."

Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
2020-07-10 02:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
Sigfrid was called (by Gerbert of Aurillac, later Pope Sylvester II) a
paternal uncle (patruus) of Adelbero's brother Gozlin
My wits have taken leave of me, or vice versa, without their absence
being noticed - I meant that Sigfrid was called patruus to the son of
Adalbero's brother Gozlin.

Peter Stewart
mike
2020-07-10 21:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
We know that Cunegunde's mother must have been born by December 878
since her maternal full-blood uncle Charles the Simple was born
posthumously in September 879. We know that Carolingian princesses were
sometimes married at 12, and the power politics swirling around
Ermentrude in her early years make this not at all unlikely in her case.
Trying to apply a standard rate for reproduction to Cunegunde or for
mortality to her children is not very helpful: she could have been born
ca 891 having children of her own from ca 904. Plenty of time for a
brood of six or more living to adulthood to be born by ca 916.
The Bidgau was the countship around Bitburg, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg. It was inherited by Sigfrid's
brother Gozlin and then by the latter's son Godfrid the Captive. The
family of Wigeric is called "la maison d'Ardenne" by Michel Parisse and
others because their territorial possessions and comital power were
centered in that region.
So Bitburg is the ancient castrum Bedense. yes it makes more sense now.
They should be called the House of Bitburg. Bitburg Luxemburg and Trier
are all reasonably close to each other.
Post by Peter Stewart
history will need to be rewritten. Charlemagne'e Hildegarde, mother of
his heir (who was born a twin) was in her 12th or 13th year when married
and she had at least 9 children over the following 12 or so years. As I
said before, if something can happen it no doubt did - and if it did,
how can we make rules for who it could or could not happen to?
Yes it looks more likely now although 3 of Hildegardes children did die in
infancy, but i take your point. Soon after i posted i remembered that Judith
married Athelwulf and then his son at a very young age, although she didnt
have any known children by either.

I do now see that Frederick of Bar was also likely son of Wigeric and Cunegunde,
as Duke frederick is called germanus of Bishop Adelbero in a charter of Otto I
in 960 [no210,p289 in sickels MGH vol]. Unless there is a difference between
germanus and frater. In the same charter Otto calls Adelbero his compater which
i thought meant godfather. Otto was born in 912, and Adelbero would surely have
to be an adult to be his compater, which is impossible in 912 even if
Cunegundes life mirrored Hildegardes, which is a bit of a puzzel too.

I was reading the Preporte article you mentioned before, and in one of the
references it mentioned a study by Depoin [Joseph Depoin, ‘Sifroi Kunuz, comte
de Mosellane, tige de la maison de Luxembourg’, Ons Hémecht (1904): 307–346.]
He called him Kunuz, and was not alone in this at that time, apparently finding
this name in 2 seperate memorial books, one belonging to Ranshofen. I havnt
found the article to make sense of this. What is this Kunuz? Is it a reference
to his mother or is it a different Sigfrid? I did wonder if the reason why
Sigfrids father isnt mentioned anywhere is that he was illegitimate.

Also in this article by Preporte, it has i thought a very clever explanation of
how Sigfrids family 'forgot' their ancestry.

"Firstly, we may ask why the knowledge of Sigefroid’s ancestry has been lost.
Michel Margue argues convincingly that if we assume, as most theories do, that
Sigefroid stemmed from the House of Ardenne44, our lack of knowledge originates
with Sigefroid’s conscious intent to break with the political tradition of his
paternal ancestry.45 Sigefroid and his generation of the Ardenne family moved
from a West-Frankish Carolingian allegiance, to an East-Frankish Ottonian one.
In the process, they helped change the destiny of the whole Lotharingian region
by supporting its attachment to the Empire. In Sigefroid’s case in particular,
the relationship with the new overlord seems to have been very close, resulting
in high prestige for the count. As a consequence of this rupture with the past,
the memoria of Sigefroid’s ancestry were neglected, and the knowledge of them
forgotten over time."

Although its rather spoilt by the fact that Witger recorded Sigfrids descent
from those same west frankish kings.

Also refering to the many theories Preporte says:

"They provide an excellent illustration of how a minute factual basis can lead to long and complex speculation."

mike
Peter Stewart
2020-07-11 00:36:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
We know that Cunegunde's mother must have been born by December 878
since her maternal full-blood uncle Charles the Simple was born
posthumously in September 879. We know that Carolingian princesses were
sometimes married at 12, and the power politics swirling around
Ermentrude in her early years make this not at all unlikely in her case.
Trying to apply a standard rate for reproduction to Cunegunde or for
mortality to her children is not very helpful: she could have been born
ca 891 having children of her own from ca 904. Plenty of time for a
brood of six or more living to adulthood to be born by ca 916.
The Bidgau was the countship around Bitburg, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitburg. It was inherited by Sigfrid's
brother Gozlin and then by the latter's son Godfrid the Captive. The
family of Wigeric is called "la maison d'Ardenne" by Michel Parisse and
others because their territorial possessions and comital power were
centered in that region.
So Bitburg is the ancient castrum Bedense. yes it makes more sense now.
They should be called the House of Bitburg. Bitburg Luxemburg and Trier
are all reasonably close to each other.
Bitburg used to be commonly called Bidburg, but this was not the
continuing centre of the family's power. Wigeric first occurs as a count
without territorial designation in a charter of King Zwentibold dated 23
January 899, along with his wife's later husband Richuin ("Richquinus et
Widiacus [sic] venerandi comites"). In a charter of Louis the Child
dated 19 September 902 Wigeric consented to the restoration of temporal
authority in Trier to the archbishop ("per consensum Wigerici comitis").
On 1 January 909 he occurs as count in the Bidgau ("in pago Bedinse in
comitatu Widrici"). The Ardennergau bordered the Bidgau and covered the
area of Wigeric's evident origin, and was perhaps his initial countship.
He was called count palatine at his last occurrence in January 916.

By the way, the form Windric was given istead of Widric in some editions
of the 911/15 charter of Charles the Simple, for instance in Camille
Wampach's *Urkunden- und Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der
altluxemburgischen Territorien bis zur burgundischen Zeit* vol. 1
(1935). Wampach made a useful collection but he was not a strong textual
scholar - this version was taken from earlier editions of a lost copy
interpolating the superfluous "n", and ascribed to 908/15 (though he
thought it was probably issued at the same time as another for
Saint-Lambert de Liège dated 25 Aug 915) but the better source now is
*Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France* 2 vols
(1940-1949), no. 65, taken from a 14th-century cartulary ("comes Widricus").
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
history will need to be rewritten. Charlemagne'e Hildegarde, mother of
his heir (who was born a twin) was in her 12th or 13th year when married
and she had at least 9 children over the following 12 or so years. As I
said before, if something can happen it no doubt did - and if it did,
how can we make rules for who it could or could not happen to?
Yes it looks more likely now although 3 of Hildegardes children did die in
infancy, but i take your point. Soon after i posted i remembered that Judith
married Athelwulf and then his son at a very young age, although she didnt
have any known children by either.
Six of Hildegarde's children born over a span of 10-12 years from the
time she was 12 or 13 survived to adulthood - so this was hardly
impossible for Cunegunde from a similar age over the same interval.
Post by mike
I do now see that Frederick of Bar was also likely son of Wigeric and Cunegunde,
as Duke frederick is called germanus of Bishop Adelbero in a charter of Otto I
in 960 [no210,p289 in sickels MGH vol]. Unless there is a difference between
germanus and frater. In the same charter Otto calls Adelbero his compater which
i thought meant godfather. Otto was born in 912, and Adelbero would surely have
to be an adult to be his compater, which is impossible in 912 even if
Cunegundes life mirrored Hildegardes, which is a bit of a puzzel too.
On p. 120 of the same MGH edition you will see that Otto also called
Ebergis, bishop of Minden, his "compater" - this could mean godfather,
or any venerable friend, and Otto I used it occasionally as a diplomatic
compliment to bishops.
Post by mike
I was reading the Preporte article you mentioned before, and in one of the
references it mentioned a study by Depoin [Joseph Depoin, ‘Sifroi Kunuz, comte
de Mosellane, tige de la maison de Luxembourg’, Ons Hémecht (1904): 307–346.]
He called him Kunuz, and was not alone in this at that time, apparently finding
this name in 2 seperate memorial books, one belonging to Ranshofen. I havnt
found the article to make sense of this. What is this Kunuz? Is it a reference
to his mother or is it a different Sigfrid? I did wonder if the reason why
Sigfrids father isnt mentioned anywhere is that he was illegitimate.
Gerbert would hardly have called an illegitimate brother of Gozlin the
"patruus" to his son Godfrid the Captive expecting Empress Theophanu to
know what he meant, nor would Sigfrid be called "imperatorius frater" as
the bastard son of Wigeric. Stewart Baldwin has given the source for
Sigfri's byname "Kunuz" here
https://fasg.org/projects/henryproject/data/siegf000.htm.
Post by mike
Also in this article by Preporte, it has i thought a very clever explanation of
how Sigfrids family 'forgot' their ancestry.
"Firstly, we may ask why the knowledge of Sigefroid’s ancestry has been lost.
Michel Margue argues convincingly that if we assume, as most theories do, that
Sigefroid stemmed from the House of Ardenne44, our lack of knowledge originates
with Sigefroid’s conscious intent to break with the political tradition of his
paternal ancestry.45 Sigefroid and his generation of the Ardenne family moved
from a West-Frankish Carolingian allegiance, to an East-Frankish Ottonian one.
In the process, they helped change the destiny of the whole Lotharingian region
by supporting its attachment to the Empire. In Sigefroid’s case in particular,
the relationship with the new overlord seems to have been very close, resulting
in high prestige for the count. As a consequence of this rupture with the past,
the memoria of Sigefroid’s ancestry were neglected, and the knowledge of them
forgotten over time."
Although its rather spoilt by the fact that Witger recorded Sigfrids descent
from those same west frankish kings.
"They provide an excellent illustration of how a minute factual basis can lead to long and complex speculation."
Just so: some people insist on filling in blanks of knowledge with
conjecture, quibbles and imagination. I have no idea why it is hard to
say "We don't know, we are never likely to know, so we should simply
state the evidence we have and leave it at that". But there is a
mentality at large in academia that feels compelled to look for secret
information or patterns and coded messaging in medieval sources (as with
modern ones too, the basis of almost all whacko conspiracy theories that
are not outright lies).

Witger did not mention Sigfrid - he stopped at Louis the Stammerer's
daughter Ermentrude, and was not interested in the family of Wigeric.
The early-11th century table linked upthread continues the line through
Cunegunde to Sigfrid and the latter's daughter, the sainted wife of
Emperor Heinrich II.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2020-07-09 23:45:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mike
Post by Peter Stewart
The chronology is perhaps skewed a bit by the over-confident assertion
that Wigerich died in 916/19. He was last recorded on 19 January 916 and
he was he was not present at an assembly held in June 919 - some
historians have concluded that he must have died beforehand but this is
just guesswork, and his wife's later husband Ricuin was also not among
the twelve counts named on the occasion either. Ricuin was killed in 923
(though this too has been doubted), so we can be fairly sure that
Wigerich was dead a few years before - and of course he may have left
his wife pregnant at the time.
Then again Wigeric might have died in 916.
I overlooked this point before - Wigeric was present, along with his
wife's later husband Richuin, at an assembly held in Herstal in January
916. Neither of them was named at another assembly held there in June
919. We know that Richuin did not die before or at the same time as
Wigeric, so why presume that Wigeric had to be dead by June 919? He
might have died in 916 or he may have lived until ca 921 for all we
know. This makes very little difference for the lifespan of Sigfrid, who
was evidently nearly 80 if not just over that age when he died.

Peter Stewart
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-09 00:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Speaking of Jackman, what do you think of his and Wolf's alternative reconstructed genealogy of the Conradines as opposed to the traditional version, defended by Hlawitschka? Which version do you think is more likely to be correct? This is relevant to Jacquetta's ancestry, as she was descended from Heribert of Kinziggau.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-07-09 01:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Speaking of Jackman, what do you think of his and Wolf's alternative reconstructed genealogy of the Conradines as opposed to the traditional version, defended by Hlawitschka? Which version do you think is more likely to be correct? This is relevant to Jacquetta's ancestry, as she was descended from Heribert of Kinziggau.
I see that Stewart Baldwin has already expressed his opinions https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/UkaKURcgc90/ngH7zNhZLsEJ, though, as it's been 8 years, he may have more to say.
I'd like to know Peter Stewart's thoughts.
Peter Stewart
2020-07-09 01:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Speaking of Jackman, what do you think of his and Wolf's alternative reconstructed genealogy of the Conradines as opposed to the traditional version, defended by Hlawitschka? Which version do you think is more likely to be correct? This is relevant to Jacquetta's ancestry, as she was descended from Heribert of Kinziggau.
I see that Stewart Baldwin has already expressed his opinions https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/UkaKURcgc90/ngH7zNhZLsEJ, though, as it's been 8 years, he may have more to say.
I'd like to know Peter Stewart's thoughts.
I mostly agree with Stewart Baldwin's remarks in the post linked above.

Eduard Hlawitschka is conscientious and thorough in his research and
usually measured in his conclusions. I think he has been too adamant
over some of these, and not always convincing.

However, I would not readily criticise his feuding behaviour - partly
because my own is very far from exemplary, and partly because
Hlawitschka has been provoked by sometimes extremely silly, vain and
arrogant wrangling from younger revisionists out to make names for
themselves at his expense.

I don't recall ever feeling exasperated by Hlawitschka. I don't recall
ever NOT feeling queasily so when obliged to read Donald Jackman, or
feeling likely to become so when reading Armin Wolf.

Peter Stewart
Loading...