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.

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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)

taf

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 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.
>
> 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)

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

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

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:57:58 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
> 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 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.
> >
> > 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
> 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

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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
> In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
> (not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.

Yes. 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 IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.

taf

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.

Enno

Op maandag 27 februari 2023 om 17:05:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
> > In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
> > (not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
> Yes. 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 IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.
>
> taf

Op maandag 27 februari 2023 om 17:05:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
> 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
> > In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
> > (not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
> Yes. 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 IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.
>
> 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 Cambrai intervenes and approves marriage).
The translation problem can easily be solved with Google's translation machine.

Hans Vogels

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

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 9:55:51 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
> 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

There seems to be a translation function within academia itself now?

Op 27-02-2023 om 21:55 schreef 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.

You may be able to do that with an alternative PDF viewer. When I use
the one that's built in Linux Mint, text selection by dragging is
spoiled by the watermark, but I can still use select all and copy to put
everything onto the clipboard and paste it into LibreOffice Writer.

On 28-Feb-23 6:54 AM, Hans Vogels wrote:
> Op maandag 27 februari 2023 om 17:05:18 UTC+1 schreef taf:
>> 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
>>> In the chart on p. 72, Van Droogenbroeck makes Richilde into a second
>>> (not first) cousin once removed to her first husband.
>> Yes. 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 IV of Flanders', so Baldwin V would be her great-uncle, and Baldwin VI a first-cousin-once.
>>
>> 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 Cambrai intervenes and approves marriage).

I'm afraid this response fits the pattern of Van Droogenbroeck's work -
ignoring the difficulty that he didn't even recognise 'honori' as a
dative noun in a salient context and yet not understanding why I might
suggest he is a headstrong revisionist.

As to Richilde's lineage he accepts (p. 73), on the sole and outlying
authority of 'Flandria generosa' written in the mid-1160s, that she may
have been a niece of Pope Leo IX, daughter of a purported sister of his
with no extant medieval documentation; and he claims (p. 104), on the
same basis although misrepresenting the source and/or conflating it with
another (but without citing it in either case), that Leo had granted a
dispensation for her marriage in the 5th degree of consanguinity to
Balduin VI of Flanders.

There is no support at all for a blood relationship between Richilde and
Leo IX in any other source where mention of such a noteworthy connection
would be expected, and even 'Flandria generosa' only says Leo agreed
that Balduin and Richilde could stay together as a chaste couple
explicitly because of the blood relationship between Balduin and her
prior husband Herman - not over a 5th degree relationship between
Balduin and Richilde themselves ("Balduinus [VI] ... duxit uxorem
Richeldem comitissam Haionensem, ut illum comitatum etiam haberet per
eam ... A domno tamen Ingelberto Cameracensi et Atrebatensi episcopo cum
Richelde sua excommunicatus est, eo quod per incestum adulterio peiorem
cognati sui Herimanni comitis uxorem duxisset; sed a domno papa Leone
nono, eiusdem Richeldis avunculo, hanc meruerunt indulgentiam, ut in
coniugio quidem, sed absque carnali commixtione manerent").

Herman of Tournai, writing two decades earlier, said nothing about a
relationship with the pope or about his granting a dispensation, but did
report that he declared the marriage illicit due to consanguinity
between the husband and wife themselves, forecasting that Balduin's
descendants would not hold either Flanders or Hainaut for long, which
proved to be the case ("Hic [Balduinus VI] ... Richeldem, uxorem
Hermanni Montensis comitis, post mortem eius coniugem duxit ... Quod
audiens Leo tunc temporis papa Romanus, qui prius fuerat Tullensis
episcopus et vocabatur Bruno, dixit coniugium illud non esse legitimum
quoniam consanguinitatis linea propinqui erant, prophetavitque posteros
Balduini non diu possessuros utrumque comitatum. Quod verum fuisse finis
probavit.").

Fudging details in order to bolster the argument for a novel
interpretation may make a splash with some readers but as a research
method it doesn't make for conscientious scholarship.

Peter Stewart

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

On 27-Feb-23 10:27 PM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:57:58 AM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:
>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> 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 (but maybe the author addresses this?)
>> 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

Gislebert wrote that Richilde and Herman added Valenciennes to the
honour of Hainaut and Mons by hereditary right and buy-out of noble
claimants after the count had died without a direct heir ("Sciendum
igitur quod Hermannus comes, qui comes Montensis dicebatur ... uxorem
habuit Richildem comitissam ... qui defuncto comite Valencenensi absque
proprii corporis herede tam jure hereditario quam coemptione facta cum
quibusdam nobilibus qui in hereditate illa reclamabant, sibi in
proprietatem comitatum illum vendicaverunt et ipsum comitatum
Valencenensem comitatus Hanoniensis et castri Montensis honori addiderunt.")

The couple's right to acquire Valenciennes probably belonged to Richilde
rather than to Herman, as implied by the use of "coemptio" which in
classical Latin meant the acquisition of the bride's inheritance by a
pretended sale to avoid family obligations, but Gislebert does not
specify this much less explain how it came about. Her origin remains an
unsolved puzzle.

Peter Stewart

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

Maybe to provide some additional background:
The extra branch of the counts of Leuven that Van Droogenbroeck proposed and where he places Richilde starts with a Reinier, who he sees as the third son of Lambert I and Gerberga. This Reinier would then be the grandfather of Richilde. This Reinier is absent from the 13th century chronicles and genealogies of the counts of Leuven and and dukes of Brabant. He appears first in the mid 15th century in the work of Peter a Thymo. He wrote a chronicle which is a mix of copies of old documents and some historical notes, written in Latin. In one part a Thymo publishes a text on the youth of duke Godfrey I. It's a very fantastical tale where Godfrey goes east, allies with Gengis Khan, fights a giant in Georgia, and in the end marries Sophie, the only daughter of the German emperor. A Thymo used as source a story written in Dutch, now largely lost. The text was studied by Belgian scholars David Guilardian and Serge Boffa (https://www.persee.fr/doc/bcrh_0001-415x_1999_num_165_3_1174). They showed that the author of the Dutch text was inspired by the crusades. So he took names of famous crusaders, and changed them to fit the story about Godfrey. So Baldwin of Bourq was the inspiration for Baldwin of Brussels. In the story of a Thymo and the article by Van Droogenbroeck this Baldwin is the grandson of Reinier, third son of Lambert I and Gerberga, and a Thymo also added this Reinier in his genealogy of counts of Leuven. To me this background is not the soundest foundation for a parallel branch.

Yet Van Droogenbroeck has a very good point on the marriage of Adela of Orlamunde and count palatine Herman, who are obvious too closely related if Adela is the granddaughter of Lambert II and Oda, Herman presumably being the son of Mathilde, the sister of Oda. He is also correct in pointing out the close relations of Adela of Leuven, the mother of Adela of Orlamunde, to the counts of Flanders. Baldwin VI calls her his "neptis" and she owned part of an allodium that previously belonged to Baldwin IV. However, I see a different solution than a parallel branch. The issue with the marriage would be solved if Adela of Leuven was the daughter of Lambert II, but not by Oda.. In that case the Saxon chronicles that call her a sister of Henry II and Reinier are right, and the closeness to the counts of Flanders can be explained by her mother being a daughter of Baldwin IV. She is then indeed the niece of Baldwin IV. Given the later marriage of count Henry III of Leuven to Gertrude of Flanders, it's clear that Henry II and Reinier were children of Oda, and so half-brothers of Adela. Chronologically it would appear somewhat more likely that Adela would be a daughter of a first marriage of Lambert II than a second. In terms of names I can remark that Adela of Leuven had a daughter with the name Kunigunde, this was also the name of the aunt of Baldwin IV's wife, empress Kunigunde. So the name of Lambert II's first wife might have been Kunigunde, but that is off course a pure hypothesis.
With this solution the need for a parallel branch falls away.

On 28-Feb-23 5:44 AM, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
> 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.

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.

Peter Stewart

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

On 28-Feb-23 11:24 PM, Raf Ceustermans wrote:
> Maybe to provide some additional background:
> The extra branch of the counts of Leuven that Van Droogenbroeck proposed and where he places Richilde starts with a Reinier, who he sees as the third son of Lambert I and Gerberga. This Reinier would then be the grandfather of Richilde. This Reinier is absent from the 13th century chronicles and genealogies of the counts of Leuven and and dukes of Brabant. He appears first in the mid 15th century in the work of Peter a Thymo. He wrote a chronicle which is a mix of copies of old documents and some historical notes, written in Latin. In one part a Thymo publishes a text on the youth of duke Godfrey I. It's a very fantastical tale where Godfrey goes east, allies with Gengis Khan, fights a giant in Georgia, and in the end marries Sophie, the only daughter of the German emperor. A Thymo used as source a story written in Dutch, now largely lost. The text was studied by Belgian scholars David Guilardian and Serge Boffa (https://www.persee.fr/doc/bcrh_0001-415x_1999_num_165_3_1174). They showed that the author of the Dutch text was inspired by the crusades. So he took names of famous crusaders, and changed them to fit the story about Godfrey. So Baldwin of Bourq was the inspiration for Baldwin of Brussels. In the story of a Thymo and the article by Van Droogenbroeck this Baldwin is the grandson of Reinier, third son of Lambert I and Gerberga, and a Thymo also added this Reinier in his genealogy of counts of Leuven. To me this background is not the soundest foundation for a parallel branch.
>
> Yet Van Droogenbroeck has a very good point on the marriage of Adela of Orlamunde and count palatine Herman, who are obvious too closely related if Adela is the granddaughter of Lambert II and Oda, Herman presumably being the son of Mathilde, the sister of Oda. He is also correct in pointing out the close relations of Adela of Leuven, the mother of Adela of Orlamunde, to the counts of Flanders. Baldwin VI calls her his "neptis" and she owned part of an allodium that previously belonged to Baldwin IV. However, I see a different solution than a parallel branch. The issue with the marriage would be solved if Adela of Leuven was the daughter of Lambert II, but not by Oda. In that case the Saxon chronicles that call her a sister of Henry II and Reinier are right, and the closeness to the counts of Flanders can be explained by her mother being a daughter of Baldwin IV. She is then indeed the niece of Baldwin IV.
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.
> Given the later marriage of count Henry III of Leuven to Gertrude of Flanders, it's clear that Henry II and Reinier were children of Oda, and so half-brothers of Adela. Chronologically it would appear somewhat more likely that Adela would be a daughter of a first marriage of Lambert II than a second. In terms of names I can remark that Adela of Leuven had a daughter with the name Kunigunde, this was also the name of the aunt of Baldwin IV's wife, empress Kunigunde. So the name of Lambert II's first wife might have been Kunigunde, but that is off course a pure hypothesis.
> With this solution the need for a parallel branch falls away.
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

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

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.

> 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 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.

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 Adela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).

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 granddaughter of Baldwin IV
-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

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC+1, Raf Ceustermans wrote:
> 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.
> > 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 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.
>
> 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 Adela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
>
> 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 granddaughter of Baldwin IV
> -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?

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 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.

OK, that's clear, thanks.

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?

Regards,

Enno

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 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.
> OK, that's clear, thanks.
>
> 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 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.

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 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' might think he was rewarming the old chestnut rather than presenting a novel theory.

taf

On 02-Mar-23 2:43 AM, Raf Ceustermans wrote:
> 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 primary meanings of "neptis" are granddaughter and niece, though it
was occasionally used for more distant junior relatives - clearly
Balduin VI cannot have had a granddaughter owning property in 1065.

Occasional usages can be risky to follow when there is an alternative
possibility adhering to the norm. For instance, in the late-12th century
a count whose mother was definitely named Beatrix called a woman named
Oda his mother ("Odam, matrem meam"): from the context we can tell that
this was a retainer, presumably his nurse as a child, but this is not
clear from the immediate wording.

>> 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.

By a verifiable starting point I meant an established fact that is not
open to conjecture or opinion - in this case, simply Balduin VI calling
a lady he named as Adela countess of Thuringia his "neptis". That is a
starting point to assume that he meant a niece married to a count of
Thuringia, and turning her into a cousin married to a count of Weimar is
a secondary jump. We know far less about females born into most families
in the 11th century than about their male siblings, and there may have
been an unrecorded Adela briefly married to a count in the heartland of
Germany other than the lady of that name from Louvain married to Otto of
Weimar (or Orlamünde if you prefer). In 1065, by when Otto was margrave
of Meissen, Balduin VI might have been more observant than to call his
wife "countess of Thuringia".

Adela of Louvain had descendants who could be expected to figure in
documentation as kindred of the Flemish comital family, for example her
grandsons Sigefrid and William, counts palatine of the Rhine and
advocates of Trier, the former when Balduin VII died in 1119 and latter
during the troubles after the assassination of Charles the Good in 1127.

>> 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 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.
>
> 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 Adela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
>
> 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 granddaughter of Baldwin IV
> -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

I agree with the last point.

Peter Stewart

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

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 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.
>> OK, that's clear, thanks.
>>
>> 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 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.
>
> 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 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' might think he was rewarming the old chestnut rather than presenting a novel theory.

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

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

On 02-Mar-23 4:35 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:43:58 PM UTC+1, Raf Ceustermans wrote:
>> 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.
>>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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 Adela (although Adela could have been named for her in any of the three options).
>>
>> 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 granddaughter of Baldwin IV
>> -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?

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").

This cannot be twisted to mean that the former count had a daughter but
no sons, as Van Droogenbroeck maintains, since if Richilde's claim was
that much better than any collateral relatives (unless she had to buy
out sisters, whom of course Gislebert would not have mentioned vaguely
even along with their putative husbands as "quidam nobiles") she would
have faced no competition for the inheritance.

Peter Stewart

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

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 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.
> >> OK, that's clear, thanks.
> >>
> >> 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 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.
> >
> > 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 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' might think he was rewarming the old chestnut rather than presenting a novel theory.
> 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

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, 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 which supplied an income to the office-holder. The term "pagus" (which was territorial) was very clearly distinguished from "comitatus". I think it also gets confusing because the words count and county do not always line up well. It appears there could be counts without counties, partly because the word count also implied a certain level of noble status. The terminology was not standardized or easy to interpret. I don't think there was any clear line stopping a castellan occasionally getting called a count, especially if they were wealthy, well-connected and held a few such offices.

But coming back to your remark Peter, doesn't this all mean that it is in fact possible during this period for relatively minor lords to occasionally be called a count, especially if he had the right relatives? I also think it was possible for them to have quite distant lands. The counts of Duras and the counts of Loon originally had isolated lands which lay very far away from the castles they were named after. I am not arguing for anything specifically, but I am wondering about the way you try to narrow down the options. Can we exclude the possibility that there was a "count" of Hasnon who held land on the Sambre?

On 03-Mar-23 12:40 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 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.
>>>> OK, that's clear, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> 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 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' might think he was rewarming the old chestnut rather than presenting a novel theory.
>> 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
>
> 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, 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 which supplied an income to the office-holder. The term "pagus" (which was territorial) was very clearly distinguished from "comitatus". I think it also gets confusing because the words count and county do not always line up well. It appears there could be counts without counties, partly because the word count also implied a certain level of noble status. The terminology was not standardized or easy to interpret. I don't think there was any clear line stopping a castellan occasionally getting called a count, especially if they were wealthy, well-connected and held a few such offices.
>
> But coming back to your remark Peter, doesn't this all mean that it is in fact possible during this period for relatively minor lords to occasionally be called a count, especially if he had the right relatives? I also think it was possible for them to have quite distant lands. The counts of Duras and the counts of Loon originally had isolated lands which lay very far away from the castles they were named after. I am not arguing for anything specifically, but I am wondering about the way you try to narrow down the options. Can we exclude the possibility that there was a "count" of Hasnon who held land on the Sambre?
Not at all, because the count of Hasnon was the count of Hainaut.
Van Droogenbroeck correctly says (p.69) that Hasnon became the house
abbey and burial-place of the counts of Hainaut, noting that Richilde's
second husband who was buried there (as she was too) became known as
Balduin of Hasnon.
Maintaining important abbeys was core business for 11th-century counts -
their worldly prestige as well as eternal hopes were bound up in
this. Comital families were not likely to chose an abbey that had once
been hived off as an apanage of a cadet branch to be at the centre of
their dynastic brand on earth and in heaven.
Peter Stewart

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

On 03-Mar-23 12:40 AM, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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 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.
>>>> OK, that's clear, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> 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 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' might think he was rewarming the old chestnut rather than presenting a novel theory.
>> 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
>
> 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, 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 which supplied an income to the office-holder. The term "pagus" (which was territorial) was very clearly distinguished from "comitatus". I think it also gets confusing because the words count and county do not always line up well. It appears there could be counts without counties, partly because the word count also implied a certain level of noble status. The terminology was not standardized or easy to interpret. I don't think there was any clear line stopping a castellan occasionally getting called a count, especially if they were wealthy, well-connected and held a few such offices.
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

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