The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is
called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece
rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's
1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated
but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men ("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this
way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's
1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated
but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men ("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this
way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (
Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

Andrew

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a
sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is
called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece
rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work
chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's
1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that
Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated
but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men
("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca
1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this
way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of
Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to
Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is
hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain
would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died
in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 11:57:08 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a >> sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is
called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece
rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work
chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that
Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated
but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men
("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca >> 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this
way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died
in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Took me a second to understand your point, so I will spell it out for others. Cono would have been a had a decent claim on the county of Louvain, and claims like that tended not to be ignored in the types of records we have. Thanks Peter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22-Jan-23 8:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 11:57:08 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a >>>> sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is >>>> called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece >>>> rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work >>>> chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >>>> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that >>>> Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated >>>> but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men
("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca >>>> 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this >>>> way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of
Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to
Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is
hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain
would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died
in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Took me a second to understand your point, so I will spell it out for others. Cono would have been a had a decent claim on the county of Louvain, and claims like that tended not to be ignored in the types of records we have. Thanks Peter.

I meant that since Cono was active as one of the leading men of his
uncle Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, by the time of the latter's
charter for Lihons in 1135/36, in that capacity he would have been
well-placed to contest the usurpation (if that had happened) of his
purported mother's inheritance by her paternal uncle.

However, the medieval source for attributing any offspring at all to
Henry III of Louvain is a nonsense to start with. I did not bring this
up before because the toxic mushroom-patch of speculations grown on this
ground will no doubt flourish harmfully enough without a new airing.

The one you noted from ES actually distorts its own feeble evidentiary
basis. This is a puff-piece about the Carolingian heritage of the dukes
of Brabant, written shortly after the summer of 1268, and it says that
Henri III of Louvain left four daughters by Gertrude of Flanders, one of
whom was the great-great-great-(!)grandmother of Emperor Frederick
Barbarossa's wife Beatrix of Mâcon, countess palatine of Burgundy, see
the top two lines on p. 390 here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/390/mode/1up ("Henricus,
frater Godefridi Cum-barba, genuit quatuor filias, quarum una attavia
[sic, atavia = great-great-great-grandmother] fuit Beatricis, que uxor
fuit imperatoris Frederici"). This multiplicity of generations is
clearly implausible, since Henri III was married to Gertrude no earlier
than the 1080s while Beatrix was born by the summer of 1144 at the
latest. This problem was apparently understood at the time, as the
connection was repeated but with the relationship made vague in other genealogies of the Brabant dukes written within a few years or decades afterwards, see lines 3-4 on p. 396 here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/396/mode/1up where Empress
Beatrix is said to have been begotten from a daughter of Henri (promoted
from count to marquis, "Henricus marchio genuit quatuor filias, ex
quarum una procreata est imperatrix Romanorum"), and lines 30-31 on p.
402 here: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_25/index.htm#page/402/mode/1up
where Emperor Frederick's wife is said to have been descended from Henri (demoted back to count, "Henricum comitem fratrem Barbatus habebat; / Ex
quo processit Frederici cesaris uxor").

No names are given for these four alleged daughters of Henri and no
statement is made that any of them ought to have inherited Louvain,
which would have been the case if at least one of them had grown up to
marry and produce offspring.

Despite this, various conjectures have been offered amending the
implausible relationship by cutting back the purported daughter of Henri
from great-great-great-mother ("atavia") of Beatrix to her
great-grandmother ("proavia") or even grandmother ("avia"), as if the
medieval author knew some correct information but hadn't a clue how to
word it properly. This is a common fallacy with medieval sources -
historians who readily understand that modern journalists can get hold
of the wrong end of a stick and inadvertently make stuff up will
nonetheless persist in trying to rectify any obvious error in a medieval
source as if there must be some recoverable truth behind it.

Consequently fatuous efforts have been made to assign names and fanciful attempts have been made to ascribe descendants to some or all of the
four purported daughters of Henri III. These mainly stem from the fact
that Beatrix was said by Lambert Waterlos to be a (grand-)niece of
Thierry of Alsace here, p. 541 lines 13-14: https://www.dmgh.de/mgh_ss_16/index.htm#page/540/mode/1up ("neptis erat Theoderico comiti domna imperatrix"). This was written in or shortly
after 1170 and may be the source underlying the relationship misstated
in the 13th-century genealogies quoted above. The exact relationship
between them is not a mystery: we know from several independent
contemporary sources that the mother of Beatrix was a daughter of
Thierry's paternal half-brother Simon. There is no sound reason to
postulate a second relationship through an alleged daughter of Henri III
of Louvain.

Peter Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op vrijdag 20 januari 2023 om 23:57:08 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a >> sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is
called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece
rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work
chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that
Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated
but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men
("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca >> 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this
way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died
in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Could it not be that the late labelling of an "upsurper" was just unfounded gossip.

There were families like the Lords of Rode (North Brabant in The Netherlands) were in the 12th century the Lordship (fief) after the death of the heir, having only a (or more) daughter(s), transferred to his brother being the next male heir. Daughters
could inherit allodial goods but not fiefs.
In the family of the Lords of Cuijk (in North Brabant in The Netherlands) this practise was in the 13th and 14th century used even when the heir had left minor sons. Then when the uncle died the eldest of the male heirs inherited the Lordship.
The same thing may have been appropriate in the 10/11th century in Brabant.

Yes, I am aware that in later times (from mid 13 th century) inheritance in Brabant could pass through a daughter if the lord died without sons.
The question being is this custom attested in the previous centuries seeing that there were regional diffierences.
Or is it that when a fief (by a duke, count, lord) was held from the German king/emperor we can automaticaly assume that it could be inherited (Ripuarian Law) through a daughter?
Or can we see a an exemple of Salic Law in the succesion by Godfrey of his sonless elder brother.

Hans Vogels

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 10:12:48 AM UTC+1, hansvog...@gmail.com wrote:

Op vrijdag 20 januari 2023 om 23:57:08 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of >> various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a
sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is >> called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece >> rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder >> paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work >> chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that >> Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated >> but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men >> ("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca
1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this >> way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Could it not be that the late labelling of an "upsurper" was just unfounded gossip.

There were families like the Lords of Rode (North Brabant in The Netherlands) were in the 12th century the Lordship (fief) after the death of the heir, having only a (or more) daughter(s), transferred to his brother being the next male heir. Daughters

could inherit allodial goods but not fiefs.

In the family of the Lords of Cuijk (in North Brabant in The Netherlands) this practise was in the 13th and 14th century used even when the heir had left minor sons. Then when the uncle died the eldest of the male heirs inherited the Lordship.
The same thing may have been appropriate in the 10/11th century in Brabant.

Yes, I am aware that in later times (from mid 13 th century) inheritance in Brabant could pass through a daughter if the lord died without sons.
The question being is this custom attested in the previous centuries seeing that there were regional diffierences.
Or is it that when a fief (by a duke, count, lord) was held from the German king/emperor we can automaticaly assume that it could be inherited (Ripuarian Law) through a daughter?
Or can we see a an exemple of Salic Law in the succesion by Godfrey of his sonless elder brother.

Hans Vogels

Hans I guess the first question is whether we can assume that there was any comprehensive and clear law or rule at all in this period. I get the impression that whenever there was no adult son, there was pretty much always some negotiations and conflict
possible? I suppose that modern authors have developed a lot of these ideas about Salian and Ripuarian and so on customs? I suppose it is understandable that we always want to bring order to chaotic records, but I wonder about this.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22-Jan-23 8:12 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:

Op vrijdag 20 januari 2023 om 23:57:08 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of
various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a >>>> sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a
charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's
daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is >>>> called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece >>>> rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder
paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work >>>> chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >>>> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that >>>> Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated >>>> but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men
("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca >>>> 1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this >>>> way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his
second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of
Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to
Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is
hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain
would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died
in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Could it not be that the late labelling of an "upsurper" was just unfounded gossip.

As far as I'm aware there was no late labelling of Godfrey the Bearded
as a usurper or any recorded gossip about this. In the 15th century
Petrus a Thymo wrote that the inheritance "devolved" from Henri III to
his brother Godfrey, but he did not call the latter a usurper. Is that
what you are referring to?

There were families like the Lords of Rode (North Brabant in The Netherlands) were in the 12th century the Lordship (fief) after the death of the heir, having only a (or more) daughter(s), transferred to his brother being the next male heir. Daughters

could inherit allodial goods but not fiefs.

In the family of the Lords of Cuijk (in North Brabant in The Netherlands) this practise was in the 13th and 14th century used even when the heir had left minor sons. Then when the uncle died the eldest of the male heirs inherited the Lordship.
The same thing may have been appropriate in the 10/11th century in Brabant.

The usual expectation was that in the absence of a son the inheritance
would pass to, or through, the eldest daughter of the deceased ruler or
the senior female in his agnatic lineage - as with Flanders passing to
Charles of Denmark in 1119 and then to Thierry of Alsace in 1128. The
dukes of Brabant boasted of their moral right to be considered the
legitimate heirs of the Carolingians by the same principle. We know of exceptions to this at the comital level because these were remarkable
enough to be reported.

Yes, I am aware that in later times (from mid 13 th century) inheritance in Brabant could pass through a daughter if the lord died without sons.
The question being is this custom attested in the previous centuries seeing that there were regional diffierences.
Or is it that when a fief (by a duke, count, lord) was held from the German king/emperor we can automaticaly assume that it could be inherited (Ripuarian Law) through a daughter?
Or can we see a an exemple of Salic Law in the succesion by Godfrey of his sonless elder brother.

If Godfrey had set aside the rights of daughters to inherit Louvain from
his brother Henri III we might expect to hear about it. Henri was killed
in a jousting accident in February 1095: if we are to believe an
unreliable source from over 173 years later that he had four daughters
in the first place, much less that even one survived him into her own reproductive maturity, they would have been either too young to be
married at that time or if already newly-married would have had husbands
and in-laws to contest the succession of their uncle Godfrey. If
unmarried in 1095, he would have been a fool to allow any of them to
find husbands after he had taken power.

Peter Stewart

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op zondag 22 januari 2023 om 11:25:06 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

On 22-Jan-23 8:12 PM, Hans Vogels wrote:

Op vrijdag 20 januari 2023 om 23:57:08 UTC+1 schreef pss...@optusnet.com.au:

On 21-Jan-23 1:49 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 11:50:49 PM UTC+1, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

The identity of Lambert's wife, name unknown, has been the subject of >>>> various speculations. Léon Vanderkindere suggested that she was either a
sister or niece of Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, based on a >>>> charter of his for Tronchiennes abbey dated 1143 in which Lambert's >>>> daughter Gertrude, the wife of Raoul de Nesle, castellan of Bruges, is >>>> called Theirry's niece ("nepta").

Vanderkindere subsequently preferred to make Gertrude's mother a niece >>>> rather than sister of Thierry, one of the many daughters of his elder >>>> paternal half-brother Simon I, duke of Upper Lorraine. This could work >>>> chronologically for the mention of her daughter as "nepta" in Thierry's >>>> 1143 charter, but it does not work with an earlier charter of his that >>>> Vanderkindere probably never saw - this was for Lihons priory, undated >>>> but evidently written in 1135/36, and the first witness among the men >>>> ("homines") of Theirry is described as his nephew ("nepos") Count
Lambert's son Cono. Since Thierry's brother Simon did not marry until ca
1112/13, he could not have had a grandson old enough to figure in this >>>> way by 1135/36.

The probability is that Lambert's wife was an otherwise unrecorded
sister of Thierry of Alsace, as in Vanderkindere's superseded
conjecture, a daughter of Thierry II, duke of Upper Lorraine by his >>>> second wife Gertrude of Flanders.

Peter Stewart

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Thanks Peter

You probably have these but for anyone else interested in this question might be interested in the remarks of Roland who is a source for a second suggestion. This is relatively weak and based on one possible explanation of a specific inheritance (

Clermont). FWIW I'm not sure we need an inheritance. See for example the explanation given on Wikipedia's article about Giselbert, Count of Clermont. "A 1095 entry in the chronicle of Giles of Orval reveals that what Otbert's objective was accomplished
by purchase. The acquisition of Clermont and its subsequent enfeoffment to his vassal Lambert was part of a consistent policy of purchase which also brought to the prince-bishop the important fortresses of Mirwart, Couvin and, Bouillon. This second
theory is now regarded by scholars as the most likely."

C. G. Roland, Les seigneurs et comtes de Rochefort, Annales de la Société archéologique de Namur 20 (1893) p.113 https://archive.org/details/annalesdelasocie20soci/page/114/mode/2up

A third option mentioned by Wikipedia's article about Lambert of Montaigu, citing ES, is "Gertrud de Louvain, daughter of Henry III, Count of Louvain, and Gertrude of Flanders".

That would notionally satisfy the description of Lambert's children as
niece and nephew of Gertrude's son by her second marriage, Thierry of
Alsace, but it leaves a fairly drastic problem with the succession to
Louvain: if any of Henry III's daughters had survived to marry Lambert
and give birth to his son Cono who was an active man by 1135/36, it is
hardly plausible that Henry's brother and successor Godfrey I of Louvain >> would not have been labelled a usurper at some point well before he died >> in the late 1130s.

Peter Stewart

Could it not be that the late labelling of an "upsurper" was just unfounded gossip.

As far as I'm aware there was no late labelling of Godfrey the Bearded
as a usurper or any recorded gossip about this. In the 15th century
Petrus a Thymo wrote that the inheritance "devolved" from Henri III to
his brother Godfrey, but he did not call the latter a usurper. Is that
what you are referring to?

There were families like the Lords of Rode (North Brabant in The Netherlands) were in the 12th century the Lordship (fief) after the death of the heir, having only a (or more) daughter(s), transferred to his brother being the next male heir.

Daughters could inherit allodial goods but not fiefs.

In the family of the Lords of Cuijk (in North Brabant in The Netherlands) this practise was in the 13th and 14th century used even when the heir had left minor sons. Then when the uncle died the eldest of the male heirs inherited the Lordship.
The same thing may have been appropriate in the 10/11th century in Brabant.

The usual expectation was that in the absence of a son the inheritance
would pass to, or through, the eldest daughter of the deceased ruler or
the senior female in his agnatic lineage - as with Flanders passing to Charles of Denmark in 1119 and then to Thierry of Alsace in 1128. The
dukes of Brabant boasted of their moral right to be considered the legitimate heirs of the Carolingians by the same principle. We know of exceptions to this at the comital level because these were remarkable
enough to be reported.

Yes, I am aware that in later times (from mid 13 th century) inheritance in Brabant could pass through a daughter if the lord died without sons.
The question being is this custom attested in the previous centuries seeing that there were regional diffierences.
Or is it that when a fief (by a duke, count, lord) was held from the German king/emperor we can automaticaly assume that it could be inherited (Ripuarian Law) through a daughter?
Or can we see a an exemple of Salic Law in the succesion by Godfrey of his sonless elder brother.

If Godfrey had set aside the rights of daughters to inherit Louvain from
his brother Henri III we might expect to hear about it. Henri was killed
in a jousting accident in February 1095: if we are to believe an
unreliable source from over 173 years later that he had four daughters
in the first place, much less that even one survived him into her own reproductive maturity, they would have been either too young to be
married at that time or if already newly-married would have had husbands
and in-laws to contest the succession of their uncle Godfrey. If
unmarried in 1095, he would have been a fool to allow any of them to
find husbands after he had taken power.

Peter Stewart

Hi Peter,

I misread a previous alinea.

I meant that since Cono was active as one of the leading men of his uncle Thierry of Alsace, count of Flanders, by the time of the latter's charter for Lihons in 1135/36, in that capacity he would have been well-placed to contest the usurpation (if

that had happened) of his purported mother's inheritance by her paternal uncle. <<

Hans Vogels

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)