I have come across a 2018 artilce by Frans J Van Droogenbroeck that concludes Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, was child of Reinier de Hasnon by a daughter of Hugh IV of Egisheim, with that Reinier being paternal grandson of Lambert of Louvain, andmaternal grandson of Baldwin IV of Flanders. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for others here, the article appears to be in Dutch, which is not high on my list of fluency. I would appreciate a summary of the argument (if it is worth summarizing) if
Frans J Van Droogenbroeck, "De markenruil Ename – Valenciennes en de investituur van de graaf van Vlaanderen in de mark Ename", Handelingen van de Geschieden Oudheidkundige Kring van Oudenaarde 55 (2018) 47-127but maybe the author addresses this?)
https://www.academia.edu/35663101
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:maternal grandson of Baldwin IV of Flanders. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for others here, the article appears to be in Dutch, which is not high on my list of fluency. I would appreciate a summary of the argument (if it is worth summarizing) if
I have come across a 2018 artilce by Frans J Van Droogenbroeck that concludes Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, was child of Reinier de Hasnon by a daughter of Hugh IV of Egisheim, with that Reinier being paternal grandson of Lambert of Louvain, and
but maybe the author addresses this?)Frans J Van Droogenbroeck, "De markenruil Ename – Valenciennes en de investituur van de graaf van Vlaanderen in de mark Ename", Handelingen van de Geschieden Oudheidkundige Kring van Oudenaarde 55 (2018) 47-127
https://www.academia.edu/35663101
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (
In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband. Such a pesky
little thing as probability never gets in the way of this author when he
has the bit between his revisionist's teeth.
His shaky understanding (to put it kindly) of medieval sources is
indicated on p. 56 where he mistranslates "et ipsum comitatum
Valencenensem comitatus Hanoniensis et castri Montensis honori
addiderunt" (they [Herman and Richilde] added the county of Valenciennes
to the honor of the county of Hainaut and the castle of Mons) as if they
had added it "in an honorable manner" (op eervolle wijze).
Peter Stewart
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:but maybe the author addresses this?)
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (
In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
I have come across a 2018 artilce by Frans J Van Droogenbroeck that concludes Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, was child of Reinier de Hasnon by a daughter of Hugh IV of Egisheim, with that Reinier being paternal grandson of Lambert of Louvain, andmaternal grandson of Baldwin IV of Flanders. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for others here, the article appears to be in Dutch, which is not high on my list of fluency. I would appreciate a summary of the argument (if it is worth summarizing) if
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (but maybe the author addresses this?)
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:57:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:(but maybe the author addresses this?)
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church
IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a secondYes. He shows Richilde as daughter of Reinier, son of Reinier, son of Lambert of Louvain, and Herman was grandson of Lambert's brother Reinier IV via Reinier V. However, he also refers there to Richilde's paternal grandmother as 'a daughter of Baldwin
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
taf
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:57:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:(but maybe the author addresses this?)
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church
IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a secondYes. He shows Richilde as daughter of Reinier, son of Reinier, son of Lambert of Louvain, and Herman was grandson of Lambert's brother Reinier IV via Reinier V. However, he also refers there to Richilde's paternal grandmother as 'a daughter of Baldwin
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
taf
The translation problem can easily be solved with Google's translation machine.
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 11:54:07 AM UTC-8, Hans Vogels wrote:
The translation problem can easily be solved with Google's translation machine.Except for some reason I can't lift the text from the PDF. I would have to retype it all, and I have a hard enough time typing when I know the language.
taf
Except for some reason I can't lift the text from the PDF. I would have to retype it all, and I have a hard enough time typing when I know the language.
Op maandag 27 februari 2023 om 17:05:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:but maybe the author addresses this?)
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 8:57:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (
IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a secondYes. He shows Richilde as daughter of Reinier, son of Reinier, son of Lambert of Louvain, and Herman was grandson of Lambert's brother Reinier IV via Reinier V. However, he also refers there to Richilde's paternal grandmother as 'a daughter of Baldwin
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
Cambrai intervenes and approves marriage).
taf
The author let me outside the forum know, that he can do little or nothing to change his view of Richilde's lineage. He wonders why Peter Stewart's uses this kind of taunting remark. The sketched relationship is supported by source material (Bishop of
On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:57:58 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:maternal grandson of Baldwin IV of Flanders. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for others here, the article appears to be in Dutch, which is not high on my list of fluency. I would appreciate a summary of the argument (if it is worth summarizing) if
On 27-Feb-23 1:30 PM, taf wrote:
I have come across a 2018 artilce by Frans J Van Droogenbroeck that concludes Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, was child of Reinier de Hasnon by a daughter of Hugh IV of Egisheim, with that Reinier being paternal grandson of Lambert of Louvain, and
but maybe the author addresses this?)
Frans J Van Droogenbroeck, "De markenruil Ename – Valenciennes en de investituur van de graaf van Vlaanderen in de mark Ename", Handelingen van de Geschieden Oudheidkundige Kring van Oudenaarde 55 (2018) 47-127
https://www.academia.edu/35663101
In particular, see summary chart, p. 72.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband #1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (
In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
(not first) cousin once removed to her first husband. Such a pesky
little thing as probability never gets in the way of this author when he
has the bit between his revisionist's teeth.
His shaky understanding (to put it kindly) of medieval sources is
indicated on p. 56 where he mistranslates "et ipsum comitatum
Valencenensem comitatus Hanoniensis et castri Montensis honori
addiderunt" (they [Herman and Richilde] added the county of Valenciennes
to the honor of the county of Hainaut and the castle of Mons) as if they
had added it "in an honorable manner" (op eervolle wijze).
Peter Stewart
It has been a while since I looked at these articles but I think there is a whole bundle of proposals and some are less convincing than others. One simple question: is there really a convincing explanation about Richilde's ancestry?
Perhaps a second one. Peter concerning the citation you make, do you agree with the interpretation that Gislebert of Mons was saying that Richilde had her own claim of inheritance upon Valenciennes, distinct from
Op 27-02-2023 om 03:30 schreef taf:
I have come across a 2018 artilce by Frans J Van Droogenbroeck that
concludes Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, was child of Reinier de
Hasnon by a daughter of Hugh IV of Egisheim, with that Reinier being
paternal grandson of Lambert of Louvain, and maternal grandson of
Baldwin IV of Flanders. Unfortunately for me, but fortunately for
others here, the article appears to be in Dutch, which is not high on
my list of fluency. I would appreciate a summary of the argument (if
it is worth summarizing) if any of our Dutch-competent participants
can parse it.
Well, I'm Dutch, but at the moment I'm too busy to translate the whole reasoning for you. It's on pages 70 - 73, so it should be small enough
for Google translate.
When you have that, I'll be happy to answer questions that may arise
from things that were lost in translation.
Without having read it, I have to say this solution seems
problematic. This pedigree would make her second cousin of husband
#1, Herman, and first cousin once-removed, of #2, Baldwin VI, neither
of which one would expect to be ignored by the church (but maybe the
author addresses this?)
He does, in the 2nd paragraph of p. 104. I found that by looking for the
word 'dispensatie'. According to the author, dispensation was given by
Pope Leo IX.
I'm not clear how this helps, since it was Balduin VI who called Adela
his "neptis" not Balduin IV. If Adela's mother had been a daughter of
the latter, Balduin VI would more likely have called her "consobrina" or "cognata" than "neptis".
The trouble with conjuring unrecorded marriages and personages out of
thin air to solve genealogical problems is that there is no stopping
point, let alone a verifiable starting point.
Rather I would say it is pushed away. If there are to be no constraints
from lack of medieval sourcing, why not make Adela's mother an
unrecorded daughter of Balduin IV by his second marriage, later
honouring the saintliness of empress Kunigunde without a blood
connection, or a daughter of Balduin V by his Capetian wife after whom
she herself might then have been named?
Peter Stewart
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:16:52 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:considered a forgery (https://www.diplomata-belgica.be/charter_details_en.php?dibe_id=3906). The first would imply Adela was born no later than 1047, while the second is in line with that. Off course she could also be born much earlier than that.
I'm not clear how this helps, since it was Balduin VI who called AdelaI'm no specialist on these terms. It seems at least in some cases it was used for a cousin, but if it was more likely to be used for a sibling's daughter, it indeed points more to Baldwin V as father.
his "neptis" not Balduin IV. If Adela's mother had been a daughter of
the latter, Balduin VI would more likely have called her "consobrina" or "cognata" than "neptis".
The trouble with conjuring unrecorded marriages and personages out ofI would say the use of "neptis" by Baldwin VI, and the common possession do provide a starting point.
thin air to solve genealogical problems is that there is no stopping point, let alone a verifiable starting point.
Rather I would say it is pushed away. If there are to be no constraints from lack of medieval sourcing, why not make Adela's mother anThe sources on the 11th century counts of Leuven are not great. The foundation of Saint-Goedele in Brussels in 1047 by Lambert II and Oda is only known from later sources, and the charter from 1062 where Adela acts with her husband Otto is also
unrecorded daughter of Balduin IV by his second marriage, later
honouring the saintliness of empress Kunigunde without a blood
connection, or a daughter of Balduin V by his Capetian wife after whom
she herself might then have been named?
Peter Stewart
Adela's mother being a child from the second marriage then appears chronologically tight, but not excluded. Her being a child from the marriage of Baldwin V would also be tight, but leaves more room, and indeed offers a good explanation for the nameAdela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
So to recapgranddaughter of Baldwin IV
-It is very unlikely that Oda was the mother of Adela of Leuven given the marriage issue of Adela of Orlamunde, and the unexplainable statement by Baldwin VI that Adela of Leuven was his neptis
-It is nearly certain that Adela of Leuven was the sister of count Henry II of Leuven and Reinier, as this is confirmed by an (albeit later) Saxon chronicle
-Taken together they make it very likely Adela was the daughter of Lambert II by a different (and unrecorded) wife
-Taking into account the fact that Baldwin VI calls Adela of Leuven his neptis, and that she had a stake in a domain that Baldwin IV acquired, there does not seem any other solution than the mother of Adela of Leuven being either a daughter or
-The use of neptis and the name Adela might make it likelier that she is a daughter of Baldwin V, but it is not excluded she is a daughter from either the first or second marriage of Baldwin IV.
-In either case, there is no need for an extra branch in the family of counts of Leuven
The single citation given by Van Droogenbroeck for this on p. 104 is the
1057 entry in the annals of Mont-Blandin abbey, to which he refers for Baldwin VI of Flanders having obtained the countship of Hainaut from the emperor in that year through the intervention of Pope Victor II
("Balduinus iunior marchysus Nerviorum comitatum imperiali munificentia
et auctoritate apostolica suscepit"), adding - without citing any
authority - that Victor's predecessor Leo IX (died 19 April 1054) had previously granted a dispensation for the 5th-degree consanguinity
between Baldwin and Richilde.
Yesterday I noted that this is not an accurate representation of the
uncited source/s Van Droogenbroeck was evidently relying on, as Leo's
alleged dispensation was given for the blood kinship between Baldwin and Richilde's previous husband, not with the lady herself, but it is also
worth pointing out that the 1057 information implicitly undermines the already shaky credibility of 'Flandria generosa' about this.
First, it misnames the bishop of Cambrai who had reportedly
excommunicated Baldwin over the marriage as Ingelbert (the bishop at the
time was actually named Lietbert). Secondly, in contradiction to Van Droogenbroeck's assertion the (apparently informal) papal dispensation
was supposedly granted on condition that the couple should live together
in chastity ("absque carnali commixtione manerent"). However, by the
time of Pope Victor II's intervention on Baldwin's behalf in 1057 he had fathered two sons with Richilde, who were presumably not born from
immaculate conception. Popes in the 11th century were of course not in
the habit of favouring miscreants who had flouted the conditions of
their own release by a predecessor from excommunication.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:16:52 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
I'm not clear how this helps, since it was Balduin VI who called Adela
his "neptis" not Balduin IV. If Adela's mother had been a daughter of
the latter, Balduin VI would more likely have called her "consobrina" or
"cognata" than "neptis".
I'm no specialist on these terms. It seems at least in some cases it was used for a cousin, but if it was more likely to be used for a sibling's daughter, it indeed points more to Baldwin V as father.
The trouble with conjuring unrecorded marriages and personages out of
thin air to solve genealogical problems is that there is no stopping
point, let alone a verifiable starting point.
I would say the use of "neptis" by Baldwin VI, and the common possession do provide a starting point.
considered a forgery (https://www.diplomata-belgica.be/charter_details_en.php?dibe_id=3906). The first would imply Adela was born no later than 1047, while the second is in line with that. Off course she could also be born much earlier than that.Rather I would say it is pushed away. If there are to be no constraints
from lack of medieval sourcing, why not make Adela's mother an
unrecorded daughter of Balduin IV by his second marriage, later
honouring the saintliness of empress Kunigunde without a blood
connection, or a daughter of Balduin V by his Capetian wife after whom
she herself might then have been named?
Peter Stewart
The sources on the 11th century counts of Leuven are not great. The foundation of Saint-Goedele in Brussels in 1047 by Lambert II and Oda is only known from later sources, and the charter from 1062 where Adela acts with her husband Otto is also
Adela's mother being a child from the second marriage then appears chronologically tight, but not excluded. Her being a child from the marriage of Baldwin V would also be tight, but leaves more room, and indeed offers a good explanation for the nameAdela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
So to recapgranddaughter of Baldwin IV
-It is very unlikely that Oda was the mother of Adela of Leuven given the marriage issue of Adela of Orlamunde, and the unexplainable statement by Baldwin VI that Adela of Leuven was his neptis
-It is nearly certain that Adela of Leuven was the sister of count Henry II of Leuven and Reinier, as this is confirmed by an (albeit later) Saxon chronicle
-Taken together they make it very likely Adela was the daughter of Lambert II by a different (and unrecorded) wife
-Taking into account the fact that Baldwin VI calls Adela of Leuven his neptis, and that she had a stake in a domain that Baldwin IV acquired, there does not seem any other solution than the mother of Adela of Leuven being either a daughter or
-The use of neptis and the name Adela might make it likelier that she is a daughter of Baldwin V, but it is not excluded she is a daughter from either the first or second marriage of Baldwin IV.
-In either case, there is no need for an extra branch in the family of counts of Leuven
Hello Peter,
The single citation given by Van Droogenbroeck for this on p. 104 is the 1057 entry in the annals of Mont-Blandin abbey, to which he refers for Baldwin VI of Flanders having obtained the countship of Hainaut from the emperor in that year through the intervention of Pope Victor II ("Balduinus iunior marchysus Nerviorum comitatum imperiali munificentia
et auctoritate apostolica suscepit"), adding - without citing any authority - that Victor's predecessor Leo IX (died 19 April 1054) had previously granted a dispensation for the 5th-degree consanguinity
between Baldwin and Richilde.
Yesterday I noted that this is not an accurate representation of the uncited source/s Van Droogenbroeck was evidently relying on, as Leo's alleged dispensation was given for the blood kinship between Baldwin and Richilde's previous husband, not with the lady herself, but it is also worth pointing out that the 1057 information implicitly undermines the already shaky credibility of 'Flandria generosa' about this.
First, it misnames the bishop of Cambrai who had reportedlyOK, that's clear, thanks.
excommunicated Baldwin over the marriage as Ingelbert (the bishop at the time was actually named Lietbert). Secondly, in contradiction to Van Droogenbroeck's assertion the (apparently informal) papal dispensation
was supposedly granted on condition that the couple should live together in chastity ("absque carnali commixtione manerent"). However, by the
time of Pope Victor II's intervention on Baldwin's behalf in 1057 he had fathered two sons with Richilde, who were presumably not born from immaculate conception. Popes in the 11th century were of course not in
the habit of favouring miscreants who had flouted the conditions of
their own release by a predecessor from excommunication.
This leaves one question for me, and that's about her paternal descent. About that, the author wrote that she's not a daughter of Reinier V van Bergen, as she appears in many GEDCOM files that I found, but rather a granddaughter of Reinier Langhals, a.k.a. Reinier van Leuven, as he is
named in footnote 72.
He defends this position by claiming that Hasnon should not be mixed up
with Hainaut, and that sounds quite reasonable to me.
What's your opinion on that?
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-8, Enno Borgsteede wrote:Richilde was portrayed as sister of Herman and daughter of Reinier V. This has long been known to be false, as she was widow of Herman, not his sister, with her parentage unknown.
Hello Peter,
The single citation given by Van Droogenbroeck for this on p. 104 is the >>> 1057 entry in the annals of Mont-Blandin abbey, to which he refers forOK, that's clear, thanks.
Baldwin VI of Flanders having obtained the countship of Hainaut from the >>> emperor in that year through the intervention of Pope Victor II
("Balduinus iunior marchysus Nerviorum comitatum imperiali munificentia
et auctoritate apostolica suscepit"), adding - without citing any
authority - that Victor's predecessor Leo IX (died 19 April 1054) had
previously granted a dispensation for the 5th-degree consanguinity
between Baldwin and Richilde.
Yesterday I noted that this is not an accurate representation of the
uncited source/s Van Droogenbroeck was evidently relying on, as Leo's
alleged dispensation was given for the blood kinship between Baldwin and >>> Richilde's previous husband, not with the lady herself, but it is also
worth pointing out that the 1057 information implicitly undermines the
already shaky credibility of 'Flandria generosa' about this.
First, it misnames the bishop of Cambrai who had reportedly
excommunicated Baldwin over the marriage as Ingelbert (the bishop at the >>> time was actually named Lietbert). Secondly, in contradiction to Van
Droogenbroeck's assertion the (apparently informal) papal dispensation
was supposedly granted on condition that the couple should live together >>> in chastity ("absque carnali commixtione manerent"). However, by the
time of Pope Victor II's intervention on Baldwin's behalf in 1057 he had >>> fathered two sons with Richilde, who were presumably not born from
immaculate conception. Popes in the 11th century were of course not in
the habit of favouring miscreants who had flouted the conditions of
their own release by a predecessor from excommunication.
This leaves one question for me, and that's about her paternal descent.
About that, the author wrote that she's not a daughter of Reinier V van
Bergen, as she appears in many GEDCOM files that I found, but rather a
granddaughter of Reinier Langhals, a.k.a. Reinier van Leuven, as he is
named in footnote 72.
He defends this position by claiming that Hasnon should not be mixed up
with Hainaut, and that sounds quite reasonable to me.
What's your opinion on that?
This really intermingles two distinct issues. Many traditional pedigrees showed her as daughter of Reinier V. This arose from the passage of Hainaut from Herman, Reinier V's son, to Baldwin VI and Richilde, who were of the same generation, and thus
The novel theory assigns her new parentage, with her father, solely by coincidence, being a man also named Reinier (lord of Hasnon). Whether this relationship is true or not, Reinier V is not an option. I suspect he said the line about Hasnon mixed upwith Hainaut, not as a defense of his position, per se, but just to head off possible confusion between his recent conclusion and the old and known to be false Hainaut paternity, lest anyone looking at it superficially and seeing the name 'Reinier' might
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC+1, Raf Ceustermans wrote:considered a forgery (https://www.diplomata-belgica.be/charter_details_en.php?dibe_id=3906). The first would imply Adela was born no later than 1047, while the second is in line with that. Off course she could also be born much earlier than that.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 1:16:52 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
I'm not clear how this helps, since it was Balduin VI who called AdelaI'm no specialist on these terms. It seems at least in some cases it was used for a cousin, but if it was more likely to be used for a sibling's daughter, it indeed points more to Baldwin V as father.
his "neptis" not Balduin IV. If Adela's mother had been a daughter of
the latter, Balduin VI would more likely have called her "consobrina" or >>> "cognata" than "neptis".
The trouble with conjuring unrecorded marriages and personages out ofI would say the use of "neptis" by Baldwin VI, and the common possession do provide a starting point.
thin air to solve genealogical problems is that there is no stopping
point, let alone a verifiable starting point.
Rather I would say it is pushed away. If there are to be no constraintsThe sources on the 11th century counts of Leuven are not great. The foundation of Saint-Goedele in Brussels in 1047 by Lambert II and Oda is only known from later sources, and the charter from 1062 where Adela acts with her husband Otto is also
from lack of medieval sourcing, why not make Adela's mother an
unrecorded daughter of Balduin IV by his second marriage, later
honouring the saintliness of empress Kunigunde without a blood
connection, or a daughter of Balduin V by his Capetian wife after whom
she herself might then have been named?
Peter Stewart
Adela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
Adela's mother being a child from the second marriage then appears chronologically tight, but not excluded. Her being a child from the marriage of Baldwin V would also be tight, but leaves more room, and indeed offers a good explanation for the name
granddaughter of Baldwin IV
So to recap
-It is very unlikely that Oda was the mother of Adela of Leuven given the marriage issue of Adela of Orlamunde, and the unexplainable statement by Baldwin VI that Adela of Leuven was his neptis
-It is nearly certain that Adela of Leuven was the sister of count Henry II of Leuven and Reinier, as this is confirmed by an (albeit later) Saxon chronicle
-Taken together they make it very likely Adela was the daughter of Lambert II by a different (and unrecorded) wife
-Taking into account the fact that Baldwin VI calls Adela of Leuven his neptis, and that she had a stake in a domain that Baldwin IV acquired, there does not seem any other solution than the mother of Adela of Leuven being either a daughter or
-The use of neptis and the name Adela might make it likelier that she is a daughter of Baldwin V, but it is not excluded she is a daughter from either the first or second marriage of Baldwin IV.
-In either case, there is no need for an extra branch in the family of counts of Leuven
Having not looked for too long, I will ask some dumb questions...
So who was Richilde's family in the end? May we accept she was the daughter of the castellan of Hasnon? May we accept that she had an hereditary claim on Valenciennes?
On 02-Mar-23 8:41 AM, taf wrote:Richilde was portrayed as sister of Herman and daughter of Reinier V. This has long been known to be false, as she was widow of Herman, not his sister, with her parentage unknown.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-8, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
Hello Peter,
The single citation given by Van Droogenbroeck for this on p. 104 is the >>> 1057 entry in the annals of Mont-Blandin abbey, to which he refers for >>> Baldwin VI of Flanders having obtained the countship of Hainaut from the >>> emperor in that year through the intervention of Pope Victor IIOK, that's clear, thanks.
("Balduinus iunior marchysus Nerviorum comitatum imperiali munificentia >>> et auctoritate apostolica suscepit"), adding - without citing any
authority - that Victor's predecessor Leo IX (died 19 April 1054) had >>> previously granted a dispensation for the 5th-degree consanguinity
between Baldwin and Richilde.
Yesterday I noted that this is not an accurate representation of the
uncited source/s Van Droogenbroeck was evidently relying on, as Leo's >>> alleged dispensation was given for the blood kinship between Baldwin and >>> Richilde's previous husband, not with the lady herself, but it is also >>> worth pointing out that the 1057 information implicitly undermines the >>> already shaky credibility of 'Flandria generosa' about this.
First, it misnames the bishop of Cambrai who had reportedly
excommunicated Baldwin over the marriage as Ingelbert (the bishop at the >>> time was actually named Lietbert). Secondly, in contradiction to Van
Droogenbroeck's assertion the (apparently informal) papal dispensation >>> was supposedly granted on condition that the couple should live together >>> in chastity ("absque carnali commixtione manerent"). However, by the
time of Pope Victor II's intervention on Baldwin's behalf in 1057 he had >>> fathered two sons with Richilde, who were presumably not born from
immaculate conception. Popes in the 11th century were of course not in >>> the habit of favouring miscreants who had flouted the conditions of
their own release by a predecessor from excommunication.
This leaves one question for me, and that's about her paternal descent. >> About that, the author wrote that she's not a daughter of Reinier V van >> Bergen, as she appears in many GEDCOM files that I found, but rather a
granddaughter of Reinier Langhals, a.k.a. Reinier van Leuven, as he is
named in footnote 72.
He defends this position by claiming that Hasnon should not be mixed up >> with Hainaut, and that sounds quite reasonable to me.
What's your opinion on that?
This really intermingles two distinct issues. Many traditional pedigrees showed her as daughter of Reinier V. This arose from the passage of Hainaut from Herman, Reinier V's son, to Baldwin VI and Richilde, who were of the same generation, and thus
up with Hainaut, not as a defense of his position, per se, but just to head off possible confusion between his recent conclusion and the old and known to be false Hainaut paternity, lest anyone looking at it superficially and seeing the name 'Reinier'The novel theory assigns her new parentage, with her father, solely by coincidence, being a man also named Reinier (lord of Hasnon). Whether this relationship is true or not, Reinier V is not an option. I suspect he said the line about Hasnon mixed
Van Droogenbroeck was arguing that a problematic charter from Homblières
in which a Reinier occurs as count (not lord) of Hasnon was not
referring to a count of Hainaut as usually assessed, because he thought
(p. 68) that if Hainaut had been meant he would then have been
designated either "Montensis" or "Castriloci" rather than
"Hasnonnensis". However, the charter was probably written in the 1080s
by when the monks of Homblières may have mistaken the name of the count some 40 years earlier rather than his territorial jurisdiction, in which case Herman would be correct instead of Reinier.
In any event, there is insufficient basis in this one occurrence to
assume there was any lord or count of Hasnon distinct from the count of Hainaut. In the 11th century comital courts were peripatetic, and counts were frequently designated by their place of residence within their territorial sphere at different times (e.g. Otto of Weimar or Orlamünde).
The matter at issue in the Homblières charter concerns an allod
apparently on the Sambre, not near enough to Hasnon for them to appeal
to anyone whose authority did not extend far from there.
Peter Stewart
On 03-Mar-23 12:40 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:Richilde was portrayed as sister of Herman and daughter of Reinier V. This has long been known to be false, as she was widow of Herman, not his sister, with her parentage unknown.
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:49:52 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 02-Mar-23 8:41 AM, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:36:27 AM UTC-8, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
Hello Peter,
The single citation given by Van Droogenbroeck for this on p. 104 is theOK, that's clear, thanks.
1057 entry in the annals of Mont-Blandin abbey, to which he refers for >>>>> Baldwin VI of Flanders having obtained the countship of Hainaut from the
emperor in that year through the intervention of Pope Victor II
("Balduinus iunior marchysus Nerviorum comitatum imperiali munificentia
et auctoritate apostolica suscepit"), adding - without citing any >>>>> authority - that Victor's predecessor Leo IX (died 19 April 1054) had >>>>> previously granted a dispensation for the 5th-degree consanguinity >>>>> between Baldwin and Richilde.
Yesterday I noted that this is not an accurate representation of the >>>>> uncited source/s Van Droogenbroeck was evidently relying on, as Leo's >>>>> alleged dispensation was given for the blood kinship between Baldwin and
Richilde's previous husband, not with the lady herself, but it is also >>>>> worth pointing out that the 1057 information implicitly undermines the >>>>> already shaky credibility of 'Flandria generosa' about this.
First, it misnames the bishop of Cambrai who had reportedly
excommunicated Baldwin over the marriage as Ingelbert (the bishop at the
time was actually named Lietbert). Secondly, in contradiction to Van >>>>> Droogenbroeck's assertion the (apparently informal) papal dispensation >>>>> was supposedly granted on condition that the couple should live together
in chastity ("absque carnali commixtione manerent"). However, by the >>>>> time of Pope Victor II's intervention on Baldwin's behalf in 1057 he had
fathered two sons with Richilde, who were presumably not born from >>>>> immaculate conception. Popes in the 11th century were of course not in >>>>> the habit of favouring miscreants who had flouted the conditions of >>>>> their own release by a predecessor from excommunication.
This leaves one question for me, and that's about her paternal descent. >>>> About that, the author wrote that she's not a daughter of Reinier V van >>>> Bergen, as she appears in many GEDCOM files that I found, but rather a >>>> granddaughter of Reinier Langhals, a.k.a. Reinier van Leuven, as he is >>>> named in footnote 72.
He defends this position by claiming that Hasnon should not be mixed up >>>> with Hainaut, and that sounds quite reasonable to me.
What's your opinion on that?
This really intermingles two distinct issues. Many traditional pedigrees showed her as daughter of Reinier V. This arose from the passage of Hainaut from Herman, Reinier V's son, to Baldwin VI and Richilde, who were of the same generation, and thus
up with Hainaut, not as a defense of his position, per se, but just to head off possible confusion between his recent conclusion and the old and known to be false Hainaut paternity, lest anyone looking at it superficially and seeing the name 'Reinier'
The novel theory assigns her new parentage, with her father, solely by coincidence, being a man also named Reinier (lord of Hasnon). Whether this relationship is true or not, Reinier V is not an option. I suspect he said the line about Hasnon mixed
comitatus in this period and region mainly referred to jurisdictions, and if lands were being referred to, then the lands were probably connected to the office involved. For example a castallany, or advocacy, would involve the holding of lands whichVan Droogenbroeck was arguing that a problematic charter from Homblières >> in which a Reinier occurs as count (not lord) of Hasnon was not
referring to a count of Hainaut as usually assessed, because he thought >> (p. 68) that if Hainaut had been meant he would then have been
designated either "Montensis" or "Castriloci" rather than
"Hasnonnensis". However, the charter was probably written in the 1080s
by when the monks of Homblières may have mistaken the name of the count >> some 40 years earlier rather than his territorial jurisdiction, in which >> case Herman would be correct instead of Reinier.
In any event, there is insufficient basis in this one occurrence to
assume there was any lord or count of Hasnon distinct from the count of >> Hainaut. In the 11th century comital courts were peripatetic, and counts >> were frequently designated by their place of residence within their
territorial sphere at different times (e.g. Otto of Weimar or Orlamünde).
The matter at issue in the Homblières charter concerns an allod
apparently on the Sambre, not near enough to Hasnon for them to appeal
to anyone whose authority did not extend far from there.
Peter Stewart
I certainly agree that in this period and region the term county did not imply any kind of logical, contiguous, geographical unit. That is something I have spent a little time on, although looking more concerning other examples. As you know,
I overlooked this before - I'm not sure what you can mean by "counts
without counties" unless this refers to someone accorded the title "ad personam". Who in particular are you thinking of?
As for castellans occasionally getting called count, again who in
particular did this happen with in 11th-century France or Germany? There were certainly some countships that appeared in north-eastern Francia
during the decay of Carolingian authority and the uncertainty of early Capetian rule. There were also some minor countships that held a status barley above that of viscountcies, as clients of major counts in the
region (e.g. Saint-Pol to Boulogne) or as upstarts that were prone to be taken over (e.g. Cambrai by Flanders).
Peter Stewart
That Richilde (more probably) or her first husband Herman of Hainaut had
some hereditary claim to Valenciennes that allowed them buy off rival claimaints is stated by Gislebert of Mons, immediately after stating
that the former count there has died without a direct heir ("defuncto
comite Valencenensi absque proprii corporis herede tam jure hereditario
quam coemptione facta cum quibusdam nobilibus qui in hereditate illa reclamabant").
Op 02-03-2023 om 00:54 schreef Peter Stewart:
That Richilde (more probably) or her first husband Herman of Hainaut had some hereditary claim to Valenciennes that allowed them buy off rival claimaints is stated by Gislebert of Mons, immediately after statingTo me, this suggests that the former count might have been an uncle.
that the former count there has died without a direct heir ("defuncto comite Valencenensi absque proprii corporis herede tam jure hereditario quam coemptione facta cum quibusdam nobilibus qui in hereditate illa reclamabant").
Would that be a reasonable thought, based on the laws of those times?
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 4:09:00 PM UTC+1, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
Op 02-03-2023 om 00:54 schreef Peter Stewart:
That Richilde (more probably) or her first husband Herman of Hainaut had >>> some hereditary claim to Valenciennes that allowed them buy off rivalTo me, this suggests that the former count might have been an uncle.
claimaints is stated by Gislebert of Mons, immediately after stating
that the former count there has died without a direct heir ("defuncto
comite Valencenensi absque proprii corporis herede tam jure hereditario
quam coemptione facta cum quibusdam nobilibus qui in hereditate illa
reclamabant").
Would that be a reasonable thought, based on the laws of those times?
Well who was previous count of Valenciennes then? I think this is an important point for interpreting this thesis we are discussing.
Op 02-03-2023 om 00:54 schreef Peter Stewart:
That Richilde (more probably) or her first husband Herman of Hainaut
had some hereditary claim to Valenciennes that allowed them buy off
rival claimaints is stated by Gislebert of Mons, immediately after
stating that the former count there has died without a direct heir
("defuncto comite Valencenensi absque proprii corporis herede tam jure
hereditario quam coemptione facta cum quibusdam nobilibus qui in
hereditate illa reclamabant").
To me, this suggests that the former count might have been an uncle.
Would that be a reasonable thought, based on the laws of those times?
On 04-Mar-23 2:08 AM, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
Op 02-03-2023 om 00:54 schreef Peter Stewart:
That Richilde (more probably) or her first husband Herman of Hainaut
had some hereditary claim to Valenciennes that allowed them buy off
rival claimaints is stated by Gislebert of Mons, immediately after
stating that the former count there has died without a direct heir
("defuncto comite Valencenensi absque proprii corporis herede tam
jure hereditario quam coemptione facta cum quibusdam nobilibus qui in
hereditate illa reclamabant").
To me, this suggests that the former count might have been an uncle.
Would that be a reasonable thought, based on the laws of those times?
Yes, but it is not verifiable and the possibility of a more distant relationship also fits with the little we are told.
As for the inheritance rights of Richilde to Valenciennes, it's worth remembering that Baldwin IV of Flanders had succeeded as count of Valenciennes after the death of Arnold of Cambrai. There are indications that later Baldwin V and count Herman, thehusband of Richilde exchanged Valenciennes and Ename in a more or less fraudulent way. It's possible that Giselbert, who was writing to glorify the counts he worked for as chancellor, wanted to portray Richilde as legal heiress of Valenciennes to avoid
On 04-Mar-23 9:03 PM, Raf Ceustermans wrote:
As for the inheritance rights of Richilde to Valenciennes, it's worth
remembering that Baldwin IV of Flanders had succeeded as count of
Valenciennes after the death of Arnold of Cambrai. There are
indications that later Baldwin V and count Herman, the husband of
Richilde exchanged Valenciennes and Ename in a more or less fraudulent
way. It's possible that Giselbert, who was writing to glorify the
counts he worked for as chancellor, wanted to portray Richilde as
legal heiress of Valenciennes to avoid putting his employers ancestors
in a bad light. He doesn't mention anything about how Ename was lost
either
Balduin IV did not succeed to Valenciennes by hereditary right - he had
taken it by conquest from Arnulf but then had to wait until after
Arnulf's death to be enfeoffed there by the emperor.
As for Giselbert of Mons wanting "to portray Richilde as legal heiress",
how does he do this? I mentioned before that his use of "coemptio"
perhaps implied that the securing of some kind of birthright to
Valenciennes by Herman and Richilde, effected through buying off rival claimaints, may have belonged to her rather than to him - but although plausible this is not certain and in any case not an explicit portrayal
by Gislebert of Richilde's standing.
We can't be sure that Gislebert even knew of "coemptio" in Roman law as
a form of marriage by fictitious purchase between the couple to avoid
the bride's family duties. It had long been in use by medieval writers
to mean any compulsory purchase, requisition or relief - for instance,
in the Vita of Pope John V (end of the 7th century) "coemptio" was used
for the fixed price of produce that the Church could barely afford which
was the main cost of several annual charges waived by the emperor at
John's request ("sed et coemptum frumenti vel alia diversa quae ecclesia Romana annue minime exurgebat persolvere"). Earlier in Gislebert's own century, and closer to home, Galbert had used the same word when the
citizens of Bruges said that Louis VI had falsely sworn he was not due
any relief or exchange price for the election of William Clito of
Normandy as count of Flanders ("nullam coemptionem vel pretium").
Galbert used it again in this sense, with no suggestion that it related
in any way to a woman, to mean that William had been imposed as count
through the king's power in return for payment ("per coemptionem ex
regis potestate potestative comes effectus"). Ganshof discussed
Galbert's use of the word in 'Coemptio gravissima mansionum', *Archivum latinitatis medii aevi" 17 (1942) 149-161.
On 05-Mar-23 10:18 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
In a different thread I will set out some chronological, relationship
and onomastic markers for seeking the elusive origin of Richilde, that
is among the most intriguing and intractable mysteries in medieval genealogy.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 12:24:36 PM UTC-8, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 05-Mar-23 10:18 AM, Peter Stewart wrote:
In a different thread I will set out some chronological, relationshipIndeed. A few years back Paulo asked what some of the 'big unanswered questions' in medieval genealogy were, and Richilde definitly should have been included in that list.
and onomastic markers for seeking the elusive origin of Richilde, that
is among the most intriguing and intractable mysteries in medieval genealogy.
taf
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:43:14 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,377 |