GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-11 > 0911144844
From: G . EDWARD ALLEN< >
Subject: Re: Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne
Date: 15 Nov 1998 07:47:24 -0800
This one's for you: Weis & Sheppard AR 6th ed., line 158A, note:
"Note: Although the Lotharingian name, Godofred, borne by the famous
leader of the First Crusade, has been transcribed into English as
'Godfrey', this is etymologically incorrect. The name is, instead, the
equivalent of the name which normally appears in cintemporary French or
Anglo-Norman documents in such forms as "Goisfrid' and "Gauzfrid', the
prototypes of modern "Geoffrey'. ...J. Horace Round (1895, p.256[no
citation given]), citing Domesday references to property held by
Goisfrid, son of Count Eustace in right of his wife, daughter of
Geoffrey de Mandeville, says that 'Dr. Liebermann asks whether
Geoffrey's daughter was not thus 'the first wife, else unknown, of the
future King of jerusalem'.' The reference is presumably to the
linguistically sophisticated Anglo-Saxonist, Felix Liebermann, who would
have made the equation. However, in an article published a year later,
on Faramus, grandson of "Goisfrid', Round makes no mention of this
identification. He had come to recognize that "Goisfrid' was the
equivalent of later Geoffrey and had been informed by his friend, M.V.J.
Vaillant, of Boulogne 'that the sons of Eustace are known and that
Geoffrey is not among them'. What M. Vaillant should have written was
that there was no Godfrey among them. However, Round accepted the
testimony of his linguistically naive friend against that of Liebermann
and therefore invented a non-existent bastard son, Geoffrey, of Eustace
of Boulogne. The truth was later recognized by Joseph Armitage Robinson
in his study of the Crispins, and by H.W.C. Davis (1913) who drew
attention to the fact that ''Godfrey' of Jerusalem married Beatrice,
daughter of Geoffrey de mandeville and aunt of the first Earl of Essex.
While the holdings of Geoffrey de mandeville were not nearly as great as
those of Eustace of Boulogne, he was a very substantial landholder in 11
counties and his daughter a suitable match "Godfrey' who had already
inherited a great deal from his maternal uncle. That De Mandeville would
have alienated property in order to give his daughter in marriage to a
bastard son of Count Eustace, lacking any substantial prospects, is
More recently, Johnson and Cronne, good historians but poor linguists,
have used Round's article to 'correct' Davis. The true identity of
Geoffrey/Godfrey was recognized again by Miss Catherine Morton, who has
been in touch with DHK [David H. Kelley] and with Sir Anthony Wagner on
this matter. Wagner(1975, p. 253, with an unfortunate misprint) mentions
the 'confusion' between 'Godfrey'and 'Geoffrey'. It was there assumed
that the confusi9on was ancient and that Eustace's son Godofred, was
genuinely a Godfrey. It should be emphasized that actually the confusion
is entirely modern due to the use of 'Godfrey' to transcribe a name
which is etymologically 'Geoffrey' (the Germans use 'Gottfried' both for
the leader of the first crusade and for Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of
Anjou--onew may regard this either as desirable consisttency or double
Wagner cites the views of Stephen Runciman, a historian of the crusades,
pointing out that crusader sources make no suggestion of a wife for
"Godfrey' and emphasizing his chastity. However, a wife and child left
in England would not necessarily have been known to such sources, nor
was there anything notable in a Crusader leaving s wife behind, though
certainly noteworthy if he brought a wife with him. Runciman's further
suggestion that 'Godfrey' might have made some sort og 'morganatic
alliance must be rejected. The concept is completely foreign to the
period, save, perhaps, among the Welsh and would, in any case, hardly
apply to a marriage of 'Godfrey/Geoffrey' with Beatrice de Mandeville,
of a family whose status was fully comparable to his own. It is
extremely unlikely that 'maritagium', the term used for Goisfrid's
marriage, would be applied to a union which was in any way irregular.
Runciman is looking back from the days of 'Godfrey's' greatness, rather
than realistically appraising the situation at the time of his marriage.
..." David Humiston Kelley was the author of this line.
Kay Allen AG
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Dear Ed,
> I have bad news and bad news--- I have never seen a remark that Godfrey
> of Bouillon was married, and that was the reason that his brother took over
> in Jerusalem.
> In your line, number 6 Ingelram de Fiennes and Enguerrand III de Coucy are
> definitely two separate persons.
> The only Enguerrand III that fits the period (Schwennicke Volume VII page
> 80) was Seigneur de Coucy de Marle de la fere et de Crecy, Comte de Roucy,
> Comte de Perche, married
> (1) Beatrix de Vignory (2) Mathilde of Saxony (3) Marie de Montmirail. He
> had only children by his third wife, the daughters : Marie married (1) to
> Alexander II King of Scots and Alix wife of Arnould III de Guines
> Ingelram de Fiennes, in his own right, is mentioned by Turton (page 167)
> and the Complete Peerage Volume VI page 465:
> Humphrey de Bohun married in 1275 Maud de Fiennes, she was daughter of
> Enguerrand de Fiennes, Seigneur de Fiennes in Guisnes by NN daughter of
> Jacques, Seigneur de Conde, Bailleul and Moriammez in Hainault, and
> granddaughter of Guillaume de Fiennes by Agnes de Dammartin, daughter of
> Alberic II Count de Dammartin.
> >From here we get into more interesting and revealing information :
> Schwennicke III/4 page 621 again.
> Guillaume de Fiennes (husband of Agnes de Fammartin) is son of Enguerrand
> de Fiennes and Sibyl de Tingry (de Boulogne).
> Sibyl is daughter of Faramus de Boulogne or de Tingry.
> Faramus is son of William (Guillaume ?) de Boulgone
> Guillaume is son of Godefroy de Boulogne, Lord of Carshalton, and Beatrix
> de Mandeville.
> Godefroy, Lord of Carshalton, is an illegitimate son of Eustache II de
> Boulogne and HALF-brother of THE Godfrey de
> Bouillon...............Ancestor? No, ancestral uncle yes.
> Let me know what you think,
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
|Re: Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne by G . EDWARD ALLEN< >|