Discussion:
Help with a Latin charter - Lords of Vaz
(too old to reply)
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-06 19:51:00 UTC
Permalink
I need help understanding the genealogical information contained in an undated charter (from the episcopacy of Diethelm von Krenkingen as bishop of Konstanz, thus datable to 1189 to 1206). The charter can be seen at https://archive.org/details/codexdiplomatic01abbegoog/page/n86/mode/2up (charter n. 41 beginning at bottom of left-hand side, transcribed from the original) and at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t9g52dc00&view=1up&seq=181 (charter nr. 21 beginning near top of page, transcribed from a copy book)

What I am interested in here is the relationship of the Rodolfus/Rvedolfus de Vaczes mentioned in the charter to the Waltherus and Ruedolfus who are mentioned later in the charter.

As I understand the charter (with my admittedly rudimentary Latin), Rodolfus de Vaczes and his sons had held two parcels in Wancenruthi of the bishop, which Conradus de Mersburc and Ebones de Maingen had held of Rodolfus and his sons and had now sold to the abbey of Salem. Then comes a line that says "quod postmodum decedente patre filii vuidelicet Walterus Auwie, Rodolfus Constantie resignauerunt" -- does this mean that, after the death of their father (Rodolfus de Vaczes), Walterus held of Auwie (i.e., abbey of Reichenau) and Rodolfus of Konstanz? Then there comes another sentence which seems to be talking about these two brothers (i.e. Walterus and Rodolfus) holding a parcel in Wade, which Bertoldus, miles de Hori, is also selling.

My main interest is this: is this charter evidence that Walter and Rudolf are the sons of a recently-deceased Rudolf of Vaz? I know Walter and Rudolf as brothers from charters from the 1210s, and I know that Rudolf of Vaz, who married ca. 1169, had a brother Walter (apparently deceased before 1169), but I don't yet have any other evidence as to who was the father of the two brothers from the 1210s.

Thank you for your help!
Peter Stewart
2021-03-07 01:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
I need help understanding the genealogical information contained in an undated charter (from the episcopacy of Diethelm von Krenkingen as bishop of Konstanz, thus datable to 1189 to 1206). The charter can be seen at https://archive.org/details/codexdiplomatic01abbegoog/page/n86/mode/2up (charter n. 41 beginning at bottom of left-hand side, transcribed from the original) and at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=gri.ark:/13960/t9g52dc00&view=1up&seq=181 (charter nr. 21 beginning near top of page, transcribed from a copy book)
What I am interested in here is the relationship of the Rodolfus/Rvedolfus de Vaczes mentioned in the charter to the Waltherus and Ruedolfus who are mentioned later in the charter.
As I understand the charter (with my admittedly rudimentary Latin), Rodolfus de Vaczes and his sons had held two parcels in Wancenruthi of the bishop, which Conradus de Mersburc and Ebones de Maingen had held of Rodolfus and his sons and had now sold to the abbey of Salem. Then comes a line that says "quod postmodum decedente patre filii vuidelicet Walterus Auwie, Rodolfus Constantie resignauerunt" -- does this mean that, after the death of their father (Rodolfus de Vaczes), Walterus held of Auwie (i.e., abbey of Reichenau) and Rodolfus of Konstanz? Then there comes another sentence which seems to be talking about these two brothers (i.e. Walterus and Rodolfus) holding a parcel in Wade, which Bertoldus, miles de Hori, is also selling.
My main interest is this: is this charter evidence that Walter and Rudolf are the sons of a recently-deceased Rudolf of Vaz? I know Walter and Rudolf as brothers from charters from the 1210s, and I know that Rudolf of Vaz, who married ca. 1169, had a brother Walter (apparently deceased before 1169), but I don't yet have any other evidence as to who was the father of the two brothers from the 1210s.
You have the charter more-or-less right - certainly Walter and Rudolf
were the sons of Rudolf of Vaz, but they gave up their holdings in
Wancenruth (? Banzenreute forest) after inheriting from him rather than
continuing to hold them. The following section about property held by
Bertold does not relate to them but to another acquisition of the monks.

You can find a genealogy of the family in an 1884 article by Emil Krüger
here (table on p. 298),
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=szg-004%3A1885%3A4%3A%3A470.

Peter Stewart
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2021-03-07 15:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
You have the charter more-or-less right - certainly Walter and Rudolf
were the sons of Rudolf of Vaz, but they gave up their holdings in
Wancenruth (? Banzenreute forest) after inheriting from him rather than
continuing to hold them. The following section about property held by
Bertold does not relate to them but to another acquisition of the monks.
You can find a genealogy of the family in an 1884 article by Emil Krüger
here (table on p. 298),
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=szg-004%3A1885%3A4%3A%3A470.
Peter Stewart
Peter:

Thank you very much for the help with the Latin charter - I appreciate that.

Thank you also for the reference to the Krüger article - I had seen it with reference to the lords of Rapperswil (and in that context it has been heavily attacked by subsequent genealogists - see the reference in the Genealogisches Handbuch zur Schweizer Geschichte I: 64, at https://archive.org/details/genealogischesh01gesegoog/page/n75/mode/2up), but I had not thought of it in relationship to the lords of Vaz. I had been using two very recent articles on their genealogy, by Florian Hitz in the Bündner Monatsblatt for 2009 (at https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=bmb-002%3A2009%3A0%3A%3A130#140) and by Heinz Gabathuler in the Bündner Monatsblatt for 2010 (at https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=bmb-002%3A2009%3A0%3A%3A130#140). The second of these articles had a reference to this particular charter, but I wanted to make sure it actually supported the claim he was making for it.

I know you have serious problems with Cawley and Medlands, but I am trying a very similar project for my own personal family tree - that is, to see what the actual primary sources are that support each step in the tree. I also have, for my personal tree, a very high standard of proof - I'm not interested in "possible" (unlike our friend from Portugal), I'm not even interested in "more likely than not" or "very likely", what I want is "beyond any reasonable doubt." If there is any possibility someone might have been a nephew rather than a son, I'm cutting the link (which means that, for my personal tree, I have already pruned a number of branches shown in Genealogics).
Peter Stewart
2021-03-08 00:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Peter Stewart
You have the charter more-or-less right - certainly Walter and Rudolf
were the sons of Rudolf of Vaz, but they gave up their holdings in
Wancenruth (? Banzenreute forest) after inheriting from him rather than
continuing to hold them. The following section about property held by
Bertold does not relate to them but to another acquisition of the monks.
You can find a genealogy of the family in an 1884 article by Emil Krüger
here (table on p. 298),
https://www.e-periodica.ch/cntmng?pid=szg-004%3A1885%3A4%3A%3A470.
Peter Stewart
Thank you very much for the help with the Latin charter - I appreciate that.
Thank you also for the reference to the Krüger article - I had seen it with reference to the lords of Rapperswil (and in that context it has been heavily attacked by subsequent genealogists - see the reference in the Genealogisches Handbuch zur Schweizer Geschichte I: 64, at https://archive.org/details/genealogischesh01gesegoog/page/n75/mode/2up), but I had not thought of it in relationship to the lords of Vaz. I had been using two very recent articles on their genealogy, by Florian Hitz in the Bündner Monatsblatt for 2009 (at https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=bmb-002%3A2009%3A0%3A%3A130#140) and by Heinz Gabathuler in the Bündner Monatsblatt for 2010 (at https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=bmb-002%3A2009%3A0%3A%3A130#140). The second of these articles had a reference to this particular charter, but I wanted to make sure it actually supported the claim he was making for it.
I know you have serious problems with Cawley and Medlands, but I am trying a very similar project for my own personal family tree - that is, to see what the actual primary sources are that support each step in the tree. I also have, for my personal tree, a very high standard of proof - I'm not interested in "possible" (unlike our friend from Portugal), I'm not even interested in "more likely than not" or "very likely", what I want is "beyond any reasonable doubt." If there is any possibility someone might have been a nephew rather than a son, I'm cutting the link (which means that, for my personal tree, I have already pruned a number of branches shown in Genealogics).
Emil Krüger has been debunked on several of his theories, but in the
article I linked to he gave citations to Salem abbey charters for the
relationships you were questioning.

I have no problem with the stated intention of Medieval Lands, but many
with the extremely shoddy execution. You will have some sadly truncated
lines in the early medieval period if you insist on iron-clad proof of
father-son relationships where these are highly likely.

But anyway, in the case of Rudolf of Vaz and his sons you already had a
clear statement in the charter you posted about initially : this says
"decedente patre filii, uidelicet Walterus ... Rodolfus" (literally "the
father deceased the sons, indeed Walter ... Rudolf"). If they had been
heirs of Rudolf as his nephews it would probably have read "decedente
patruo nepotes, uidelicet Walterus ... Rodolfus".

Peter Stewart

Loading...