In order to avoid an overlong posting, and to spread my depleted energy
a bit, I will break down the indicators to Richilde's origin across
several threads. I will leave out detailed source citations but of
course will provide these if anyone asks.
We know that Richilde must have been born within or very little outside
the range ca 1015-ca 1020: her eldest son was evidently born by ca 1036
and her youngest ca 1055. Her first husband Herman was the only recorded child of parents who were married in a peace settlement after the death
of Reginar V's paternal uncle Lambert (killed on 12 October 1015).
Herman's paternal grandparents had been married after the death of the bride's father, Hugo Capet, in October 996, which is perhaps what led Alberic of Troisfontaines in the 13th century to state wrongly that
Reginar IV had another wife who was mother to Herman's father Reginar V.
The prior wife may be correct, as Reginar IV was probably around two
decades older than his Capetian wife, but we know from a contemporary
source written for Reginar V himself that he was a nephew by a sister to Hugo Capet's son Robert II. The timespan from a marriage after October
996 through male line to a great-grandson who was born by ca 1036 is tightish but definitely not impossible.
Richilde's eldest son Roger of Hainaut first occurs as bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne in a royal charter dated 1065 but with indiction for 1066, most probably issued in 1066 after 1 October. He is called 'episcopus', not qualified as 'electus', so was apparently already consecrated by that time. The canonical minimum age for episcopal consecration was 30, and Roger was evidently a man of some experience as
he occurs in the royal act of 1066 as the highest-ranking dignitary (and
the only cleric) adjudicating a dispute between the abbot of
Saint-Médard and the count of Soissons - if he was not around 30 years
old this would be throwing an underage bishop in at the judicial deep
end without floaties, which is very unlikely in the circumstances.
Jean-Noël Mathieu asserted that Roger had been an archdeacon from ca
1050, but he cited no authority for this fairly implausible information
and I haven't come across one. Roger was said to have been relegated to
a clerical career by his step-father Balduin VI, so in or after 1051 if
true - but he is also said to have been lame and a 14th-century source
says that he entered the church with the consent of his father Herman,
so by 1051 at the latest if true. Unfortunately several medieval sources
and modern historians have confused Roger with his namesake predecessor, that may have muddled the scant indications we have for his
pre-episcopal life.
Richilde's daughter by Herman was said to have been encloistered by
Balduin VI but this is probably not true or at least not the full story.
In May 1071, ten months after Balduin's death, Richilde had an unmarried daughter (named Agnes) who explicitly may yet have wished to marry, and there is no reason to believe this was a former nun or was other than Herman's daughter. She may have been placed in a nunnery as an oblate
but exercised her choice to leave without taking final vows. At any
rate, there is no evidence that she ever did marry.
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on
the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or
vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin
II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in
Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased
- it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+
years afterwards.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on
the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or
vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin
II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in
Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased
- it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+
years afterwards.
In order to avoid an overlong posting, and to spread my depleted energy
a bit, I will break down the indicators to Richilde's origin across
several threads. I will leave out detailed source citations but of
course will provide these if anyone asks.
We know that Richilde must have been born within or very little outside
the range ca 1015-ca 1020: her eldest son was evidently born by ca 1036
and her youngest ca 1055. Her first husband Herman was the only recorded child of parents who were married in a peace settlement after the death
of Reginar V's paternal uncle Lambert (killed on 12 October 1015).
Herman's paternal grandparents had been married after the death of the bride's father, Hugo Capet, in October 996, which is perhaps what led Alberic of Troisfontaines in the 13th century to state wrongly that
Reginar IV had another wife who was mother to Herman's father Reginar V.
The prior wife may be correct, as Reginar IV was probably around two
decades older than his Capetian wife, but we know from a contemporary
source written for Reginar V himself that he was a nephew by a sister to Hugo Capet's son Robert II. The timespan from a marriage after October
996 through male line to a great-grandson who was born by ca 1036 is tightish but definitely not impossible.
Richilde's eldest son Roger of Hainaut first occurs as bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne in a royal charter dated 1065 but with indiction for 1066, most probably issued in 1066 after 1 October. He is called 'episcopus', not qualified as 'electus', so was apparently already consecrated by that time. The canonical minimum age for episcopal consecration was 30, and Roger was evidently a man of some experience as
he occurs in the royal act of 1066 as the highest-ranking dignitary (and
the only cleric) adjudicating a dispute between the abbot of
Saint-Médard and the count of Soissons - if he was not around 30 years
old this would be throwing an underage bishop in at the judicial deep
end without floaties, which is very unlikely in the circumstances.
Jean-Noël Mathieu asserted that Roger had been an archdeacon from ca
1050, but he cited no authority for this fairly implausible information
and I haven't come across one. Roger was said to have been relegated to
a clerical career by his step-father Balduin VI, so in or after 1051 if
true - but he is also said to have been lame and a 14th-century source
says that he entered the church with the consent of his father Herman,
so by 1051 at the latest if true. Unfortunately several medieval sources
and modern historians have confused Roger with his namesake predecessor, that may have muddled the scant indications we have for his
pre-episcopal life.
Richilde's daughter by Herman was said to have been encloistered by
Balduin VI but this is probably not true or at least not the full story.
In May 1071, ten months after Balduin's death, Richilde had an unmarried daughter (named Agnes) who explicitly may yet have wished to marry, and there is no reason to believe this was a former nun or was other than Herman's daughter. She may have been placed in a nunnery as an oblate
but exercised her choice to leave without taking final vows. At any
rate, there is no evidence that she ever did marry.
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on
the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or
vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin
II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in
Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased
- it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+
years afterwards.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:19:31 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
In order to avoid an overlong posting, and to spread my depleted energy
a bit, I will break down the indicators to Richilde's origin across several threads. I will leave out detailed source citations but of
course will provide these if anyone asks.
We know that Richilde must have been born within or very little outside the range ca 1015-ca 1020: her eldest son was evidently born by ca 1036 and her youngest ca 1055. Her first husband Herman was the only recorded child of parents who were married in a peace settlement after the death
of Reginar V's paternal uncle Lambert (killed on 12 October 1015). Herman's paternal grandparents had been married after the death of the bride's father, Hugo Capet, in October 996, which is perhaps what led Alberic of Troisfontaines in the 13th century to state wrongly that Reginar IV had another wife who was mother to Herman's father Reginar V. The prior wife may be correct, as Reginar IV was probably around two decades older than his Capetian wife, but we know from a contemporary source written for Reginar V himself that he was a nephew by a sister to Hugo Capet's son Robert II. The timespan from a marriage after October
996 through male line to a great-grandson who was born by ca 1036 is tightish but definitely not impossible.
Richilde's eldest son Roger of Hainaut first occurs as bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne in a royal charter dated 1065 but with indiction for 1066, most probably issued in 1066 after 1 October. He is called 'episcopus', not qualified as 'electus', so was apparently already consecrated by that time. The canonical minimum age for episcopal consecration was 30, and Roger was evidently a man of some experience as he occurs in the royal act of 1066 as the highest-ranking dignitary (and the only cleric) adjudicating a dispute between the abbot of
Saint-Médard and the count of Soissons - if he was not around 30 years old this would be throwing an underage bishop in at the judicial deep
end without floaties, which is very unlikely in the circumstances.
Jean-Noël Mathieu asserted that Roger had been an archdeacon from ca 1050, but he cited no authority for this fairly implausible information and I haven't come across one. Roger was said to have been relegated to
a clerical career by his step-father Balduin VI, so in or after 1051 if true - but he is also said to have been lame and a 14th-century source says that he entered the church with the consent of his father Herman,
so by 1051 at the latest if true. Unfortunately several medieval sources and modern historians have confused Roger with his namesake predecessor, that may have muddled the scant indications we have for his
pre-episcopal life.
Richilde's daughter by Herman was said to have been encloistered by Balduin VI but this is probably not true or at least not the full story. In May 1071, ten months after Balduin's death, Richilde had an unmarried daughter (named Agnes) who explicitly may yet have wished to marry, and there is no reason to believe this was a former nun or was other than Herman's daughter. She may have been placed in a nunnery as an oblate
but exercised her choice to leave without taking final vows. At any
rate, there is no evidence that she ever did marry.
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased
- it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+
years afterwards.
There are quite a lot of Richilde threads, to avoid confusing the other ones which
are evolving, i post this small query here. When did Richilde and Herman marry?
Wiki has the date of 1040 and refs to Karen S. Nicholas, 'Countesses as Rulers in
Flanders', Aristocratic Women in Medieval France, Ed. Theodore Evergates (Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), p. 115. I havnt seen this
and I wonder if its just a guess.
You point out that Hermans grandparents were Hugh capet, but wasnt Baldwin VI
also descended from him? I remember that when Henry VIII married his brothers
widow, they had to get papal dispensation, but this affinity was more distant, so
would the rules still apply?
The sources on the net suggest that she was forced to marry Baldwin VI when he
invaded Hainault, but as a widow with 2 small children, she might have seen him
as an advantageous match and a protector of her position, perhaps against other
claimants to Hainault. It did of course lead to a terrible war as the Emperor was
outraged to see Flanders take over Hainault. Ultimately the 2 were separated after
baldwin VIs brother Robert the Frisian seized Flanders, but Richildes descendants
did stay in control of Hainault.
Mike
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:07:28 PM UTC+1, mike davis wrote:numerous references to those two. I edit on both of them.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:19:31 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
In order to avoid an overlong posting, and to spread my depleted energy a bit, I will break down the indicators to Richilde's origin across several threads. I will leave out detailed source citations but of course will provide these if anyone asks.
We know that Richilde must have been born within or very little outside the range ca 1015-ca 1020: her eldest son was evidently born by ca 1036 and her youngest ca 1055. Her first husband Herman was the only recorded child of parents who were married in a peace settlement after the death of Reginar V's paternal uncle Lambert (killed on 12 October 1015). Herman's paternal grandparents had been married after the death of the bride's father, Hugo Capet, in October 996, which is perhaps what led Alberic of Troisfontaines in the 13th century to state wrongly that Reginar IV had another wife who was mother to Herman's father Reginar V. The prior wife may be correct, as Reginar IV was probably around two decades older than his Capetian wife, but we know from a contemporary source written for Reginar V himself that he was a nephew by a sister to Hugo Capet's son Robert II. The timespan from a marriage after October 996 through male line to a great-grandson who was born by ca 1036 is tightish but definitely not impossible.
Richilde's eldest son Roger of Hainaut first occurs as bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne in a royal charter dated 1065 but with indiction for 1066, most probably issued in 1066 after 1 October. He is called 'episcopus', not qualified as 'electus', so was apparently already consecrated by that time. The canonical minimum age for episcopal consecration was 30, and Roger was evidently a man of some experience as he occurs in the royal act of 1066 as the highest-ranking dignitary (and the only cleric) adjudicating a dispute between the abbot of Saint-Médard and the count of Soissons - if he was not around 30 years old this would be throwing an underage bishop in at the judicial deep end without floaties, which is very unlikely in the circumstances.
Jean-Noël Mathieu asserted that Roger had been an archdeacon from ca 1050, but he cited no authority for this fairly implausible information and I haven't come across one. Roger was said to have been relegated to a clerical career by his step-father Balduin VI, so in or after 1051 if true - but he is also said to have been lame and a 14th-century source says that he entered the church with the consent of his father Herman, so by 1051 at the latest if true. Unfortunately several medieval sources and modern historians have confused Roger with his namesake predecessor, that may have muddled the scant indications we have for his pre-episcopal life.
Richilde's daughter by Herman was said to have been encloistered by Balduin VI but this is probably not true or at least not the full story. In May 1071, ten months after Balduin's death, Richilde had an unmarried daughter (named Agnes) who explicitly may yet have wished to marry, and there is no reason to believe this was a former nun or was other than Herman's daughter. She may have been placed in a nunnery as an oblate but exercised her choice to leave without taking final vows. At any rate, there is no evidence that she ever did marry.
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased - it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+ years afterwards.
There are quite a lot of Richilde threads, to avoid confusing the other ones which
are evolving, i post this small query here. When did Richilde and Herman marry?
Wiki has the date of 1040 and refs to Karen S. Nicholas, 'Countesses as Rulers in
Flanders', Aristocratic Women in Medieval France, Ed. Theodore Evergates (Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), p. 115. I havnt seen this
and I wonder if its just a guess.
You point out that Hermans grandparents were Hugh capet, but wasnt Baldwin VI
also descended from him? I remember that when Henry VIII married his brothers
widow, they had to get papal dispensation, but this affinity was more distant, so
would the rules still apply?
The sources on the net suggest that she was forced to marry Baldwin VI when he
invaded Hainault, but as a widow with 2 small children, she might have seen him
as an advantageous match and a protector of her position, perhaps against other
claimants to Hainault. It did of course lead to a terrible war as the Emperor was
outraged to see Flanders take over Hainault. Ultimately the 2 were separated after
baldwin VIs brother Robert the Frisian seized Flanders, but Richildes descendants
did stay in control of Hainault.
MikeMike, which "wiki"? Wikipedia or Wikitree or another one? Sorry, but this is not a joke question. I realize your question is in good faith and you might not understand my confusion. A wiki is a type of software set-up, and on this list there are
Unfortunately the Wikipedia entry on Richilde has more nonsense than sense. It's a real dog's breakfast as one of our posters states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richilde,_Countess_of_Hainaut
It's only made immensely more unreadable by not *quoting* inline the exact terms used in the sources cited.
So it's almost impossible to know what each source actually stated, and what some intrepid editor has inserted from their own ignorance.
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:source discussion, whereas Wikipedia demands modern secondary sources (and not online ones like Medlands or Wikitree or this forum).
Unfortunately the Wikipedia entry on Richilde has more nonsense than sense.
It's a real dog's breakfast as one of our posters states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richilde,_Countess_of_Hainaut
It's only made immensely more unreadable by not *quoting* inline the exact terms used in the sources cited.If anyone is looking for sources to help rework the Wikipedia article, the Wikitree profile mentioned by Mike was worked on by me in 2020 and contains more. The job is not really simple though because Wikitree is a genealogical Wiki and prefers primary
So it's almost impossible to know what each source actually stated, and what some intrepid editor has inserted from their own ignorance.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:36:15 AM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:primary source discussion, whereas Wikipedia demands modern secondary sources (and not online ones like Medlands or Wikitree or this forum).
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
Unfortunately the Wikipedia entry on Richilde has more nonsense than sense.
It's a real dog's breakfast as one of our posters states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richilde,_Countess_of_Hainaut
It's only made immensely more unreadable by not *quoting* inline the exact terms used in the sources cited.If anyone is looking for sources to help rework the Wikipedia article, the Wikitree profile mentioned by Mike was worked on by me in 2020 and contains more. The job is not really simple though because Wikitree is a genealogical Wiki and prefers
So it's almost impossible to know what each source actually stated, and what some intrepid editor has inserted from their own ignorance.
Medlands is a modern secondary source though... there should be no issue at all using it from Wikipedia. They allow all sorts of weak secondary sources in articles so I don't think using them would be an issue whatsoever. I've got my own work going onwith the d'Estouteville and d'Halluin research on WikiTree so I'm not going to be able to help with Wikipedia.
I haven't engaged in any Wikipedia discussions in ages, so you would know more than I! Pretty ridiculous in my mind but it's not my universe anymore!
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 1:48:51 PM UTC+1, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:primary source discussion, whereas Wikipedia demands modern secondary sources (and not online ones like Medlands or Wikitree or this forum).
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:36:15 AM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 6:11:42 PM UTC+1, Will Johnson wrote:
Unfortunately the Wikipedia entry on Richilde has more nonsense than sense.
It's a real dog's breakfast as one of our posters states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richilde,_Countess_of_Hainaut
It's only made immensely more unreadable by not *quoting* inline the exact terms used in the sources cited.If anyone is looking for sources to help rework the Wikipedia article, the Wikitree profile mentioned by Mike was worked on by me in 2020 and contains more. The job is not really simple though because Wikitree is a genealogical Wiki and prefers
So it's almost impossible to know what each source actually stated, and what some intrepid editor has inserted from their own ignorance.
on with the d'Estouteville and d'Halluin research on WikiTree so I'm not going to be able to help with Wikipedia.Medlands is a modern secondary source though... there should be no issue at all using it from Wikipedia. They allow all sorts of weak secondary sources in articles so I don't think using them would be an issue whatsoever. I've got my own work going
Darrell, Medlands has been discussed on WP more than once and there is a pretty strong consensus there that it does not have the necessary type of reputation among experts, nor does it have peer review like a journal, and nor does it have any team ofeditors and checkers, like an academic publishing house. These are the standard types of questions on WP. 100s of such questions are debated there every day. So whatever we each think of it, it does not match the requirements of WP. All projects need to
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:13:45 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:appearance of scholarship. That is not to say that most of it isn't accurate, but with the occasional flawed logic, jumped conclusion, novice error, simple repetition of traditional material, or superficiality ('a scholar concluded X', ignoring criticism
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:20:36 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
I haven't engaged in any Wikipedia discussions in ages, so you would know more than I! Pretty ridiculous in my mind but it's not my universe anymore!
Not really ridiculous. Self-published, without editorial oversight, by a person without a reputation for accuracy or expertise among people familiar with the topics covered. The use of primary sources to decorate the narrative gives a misleading
based on that success, but adapted to the goals of the various projects. Darrell I have answered you about the profile you mentioned. I think the cited source, Clay EYC ix, explains it all so maybe you can't see it on google from where you are? ChristafYes I think that like any simple policy, it will sometimes be frustrating, but it reduces the risks and time consumed in silliness. In practice Wikipedia has been a lot more successful than most online projects and many have adapted their own policies
On this list Rosie Bevan once made some good posts about the Stutevilles. There is a lot of confusion around about them.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:20:36 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:appearance of scholarship. That is not to say that most of it isn't accurate, but with the occasional flawed logic, jumped conclusion, novice error, simple repetition of traditional material, or superficiality ('a scholar concluded X', ignoring criticism
I haven't engaged in any Wikipedia discussions in ages, so you would know more than I! Pretty ridiculous in my mind but it's not my universe anymore!
Not really ridiculous. Self-published, without editorial oversight, by a person without a reputation for accuracy or expertise among people familiar with the topics covered. The use of primary sources to decorate the narrative gives a misleading
taf
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 3:34:20 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:appearance of scholarship. That is not to say that most of it isn't accurate, but with the occasional flawed logic, jumped conclusion, novice error, simple repetition of traditional material, or superficiality ('a scholar concluded X', ignoring criticism
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:13:45 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:20:36 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
I haven't engaged in any Wikipedia discussions in ages, so you would know more than I! Pretty ridiculous in my mind but it's not my universe anymore!
Not really ridiculous. Self-published, without editorial oversight, by a person without a reputation for accuracy or expertise among people familiar with the topics covered. The use of primary sources to decorate the narrative gives a misleading
policies based on that success, but adapted to the goals of the various projects. Darrell I have answered you about the profile you mentioned. I think the cited source, Clay EYC ix, explains it all so maybe you can't see it on google from where you are?tafYes I think that like any simple policy, it will sometimes be frustrating, but it reduces the risks and time consumed in silliness. In practice Wikipedia has been a lot more successful than most online projects and many have adapted their own
On this list Rosie Bevan once made some good posts about the Stutevilles. There is a lot of confusion around about them.I responded, have the La Roque and the Morandière references already up in my browser from earlier.
Is Rosie Bevan still active or is she not on here anymore? I will see what I can find... thanks for that tidbit!
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:05:44 PM UTC+1, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:appearance of scholarship. That is not to say that most of it isn't accurate, but with the occasional flawed logic, jumped conclusion, novice error, simple repetition of traditional material, or superficiality ('a scholar concluded X', ignoring criticism
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 3:34:20 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 6:13:45 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 9:20:36 AM UTC-7, Darrell E. Larocque wrote:
I haven't engaged in any Wikipedia discussions in ages, so you would know more than I! Pretty ridiculous in my mind but it's not my universe anymore!
Not really ridiculous. Self-published, without editorial oversight, by a person without a reputation for accuracy or expertise among people familiar with the topics covered. The use of primary sources to decorate the narrative gives a misleading
policies based on that success, but adapted to the goals of the various projects. Darrell I have answered you about the profile you mentioned. I think the cited source, Clay EYC ix, explains it all so maybe you can't see it on google from where you are?tafYes I think that like any simple policy, it will sometimes be frustrating, but it reduces the risks and time consumed in silliness. In practice Wikipedia has been a lot more successful than most online projects and many have adapted their own
On this list Rosie Bevan once made some good posts about the Stutevilles. There is a lot of confusion around about them.I responded, have the La Roque and the Morandière references already up in my browser from earlier.
Is Rosie Bevan still active or is she not on here anymore? I will see what I can find... thanks for that tidbit!Rosie Bevan is still active, but not on this forum. She publishes reasonably often in Foundations, and also helps manage such things as the Domesday Corrections webpages on the FMG website.
On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:19:31 PM UTC, Peter Stewart wrote:
In order to avoid an overlong posting, and to spread my depleted energy
a bit, I will break down the indicators to Richilde's origin across
several threads. I will leave out detailed source citations but of
course will provide these if anyone asks.
We know that Richilde must have been born within or very little outside
the range ca 1015-ca 1020: her eldest son was evidently born by ca 1036
and her youngest ca 1055. Her first husband Herman was the only recorded
child of parents who were married in a peace settlement after the death
of Reginar V's paternal uncle Lambert (killed on 12 October 1015).
Herman's paternal grandparents had been married after the death of the
bride's father, Hugo Capet, in October 996, which is perhaps what led
Alberic of Troisfontaines in the 13th century to state wrongly that
Reginar IV had another wife who was mother to Herman's father Reginar V.
The prior wife may be correct, as Reginar IV was probably around two
decades older than his Capetian wife, but we know from a contemporary
source written for Reginar V himself that he was a nephew by a sister to
Hugo Capet's son Robert II. The timespan from a marriage after October
996 through male line to a great-grandson who was born by ca 1036 is
tightish but definitely not impossible.
Richilde's eldest son Roger of Hainaut first occurs as bishop of
Châlons-sur-Marne in a royal charter dated 1065 but with indiction for
1066, most probably issued in 1066 after 1 October. He is called
'episcopus', not qualified as 'electus', so was apparently already
consecrated by that time. The canonical minimum age for episcopal
consecration was 30, and Roger was evidently a man of some experience as
he occurs in the royal act of 1066 as the highest-ranking dignitary (and
the only cleric) adjudicating a dispute between the abbot of
Saint-Médard and the count of Soissons - if he was not around 30 years
old this would be throwing an underage bishop in at the judicial deep
end without floaties, which is very unlikely in the circumstances.
Jean-Noël Mathieu asserted that Roger had been an archdeacon from ca
1050, but he cited no authority for this fairly implausible information
and I haven't come across one. Roger was said to have been relegated to
a clerical career by his step-father Balduin VI, so in or after 1051 if
true - but he is also said to have been lame and a 14th-century source
says that he entered the church with the consent of his father Herman,
so by 1051 at the latest if true. Unfortunately several medieval sources
and modern historians have confused Roger with his namesake predecessor,
that may have muddled the scant indications we have for his
pre-episcopal life.
Richilde's daughter by Herman was said to have been encloistered by
Balduin VI but this is probably not true or at least not the full story.
In May 1071, ten months after Balduin's death, Richilde had an unmarried
daughter (named Agnes) who explicitly may yet have wished to marry, and
there is no reason to believe this was a former nun or was other than
Herman's daughter. She may have been placed in a nunnery as an oblate
but exercised her choice to leave without taking final vows. At any
rate, there is no evidence that she ever did marry.
Richilde died on 15 March in 1084 according to her later epitaph, or on
the same date in 1086 according to an inscription allegedly found in her
coffin. The discrepancy may have come from a misreading of IV as VI, or
vice versa, at the end of the year AD in Roman numerals. 1086 is more
frequently given, probably because in that year her son and heir Balduin
II of Hainaut donated her foundation of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in
Valenciennes to Hasnon abbey as a priory, stating that she was deceased
- it is natural to suppose this was done closer to her death than 2+
years afterwards.
There are quite a lot of Richilde threads, to avoid confusing the other ones which
are evolving, i post this small query here. When did Richilde and Herman marry?
Wiki has the date of 1040 and refs to Karen S. Nicholas, 'Countesses as Rulers in
Flanders', Aristocratic Women in Medieval France, Ed. Theodore Evergates (Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), p. 115. I havnt seen this
and I wonder if its just a guess.
You point out that Hermans grandparents were Hugh capet, but wasnt Baldwin VI also descended from him? I remember that when Henry VIII married his brothers widow, they had to get papal dispensation, but this affinity was more distant, so
would the rules still apply?
The sources on the net suggest that she was forced to marry Baldwin VI when he
invaded Hainault, but as a widow with 2 small children, she might have seen him
as an advantageous match and a protector of her position, perhaps against other
claimants to Hainault. It did of course lead to a terrible war as the Emperor was
outraged to see Flanders take over Hainault. Ultimately the 2 were separated after
baldwin VIs brother Robert the Frisian seized Flanders, but Richildes descendants
did stay in control of Hainault.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:03:59 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,600 |