GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-11 > 0911163606
From: G . EDWARD ALLEN< >
Subject: Re: Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne
Date: 15 Nov 1998 13:00:06 -0800
I'm sorry that you found it hard to understand. Nat Taylor did a very
good job of reducing it.
However, I must disagree with you. Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon would
leave a wife and child in England, since the wife had lands there, her
maritagium. Why would she stay in France, even if her husband haled from
there? I sure as ned wouldn't suffer exile in a strange country when I
could stay at home on familiar turf with familar serf. Doesn't compute.
You quote Schwennicke, but who is Schwennicke quoting and citing? That
would be more to the point? I find that when Schwennicke deals with
English or possible English lines, he stinks because he does not seem to
have access to the latest English and American research.
Sorry, it is not I who quotes those two sources, it is David H. Kelley
The Lotharingians might not have accepted an Anglo-Norman heir. Also
you may notice when there are fiefdoms in England and other fiefdoms in
France, that the legacy might be split into two parts, the English and
the French. Just because the lotharingians accepted Baldwin as the
rightful heir, doesn't ipso facto mean that Gadfrey/Geoffrey didn't
leave heirs of his own body, i.e. children. We must also consider what
the age of Godfrey/Geoffrey's and Beatrix's heir was on the death of his
father. Was he in his minority or his majority? Would he have had
support for a run at his father's French lands? Possibly not. He would
have had English knights, but would they support him in a fight for
French lands? His French knights and tenants might not have been
acquainted with him, so I doubt whether they would be very enthusiastic
to support him. With all due respect, it wasn't a puny estate in
I do not think that the case for ancestral uncle is that strong either.
As Nat said, "Any takers (for researching this problem)?"
Kay Allen AG
Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Dear Kay,
> What you sent sounded very much like 'legalese' and is not very clear in
> what it actually said. In the first place Godfrey/Geoffrey de Bouillon
> would not leave a wife and child behind in England as that is not where he
> came from.
> I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
> sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.
> One illegitimate he calls Godefroy who married Beatrix de Mandeville, one
> legitimate son is called Gottfried the person who is our subject. This
> Gottfried de Bouillon is marked off as Herzog von Niederlothringen, leader
> of the first crusade and Advocatus Sancti Sepulchre. born, died, and buried
> in Jerusalem but no wife is mentioned, nor children.
> You quote two sources, one 1895 and one 1913, 'inventing' the
> illegitimate half-brother. I doubt that Schwennicke would simply have
> copied this without checking. Of course, if the illegitimate Godfrey held
> land in England, then Beatrix de Mandeville would have been left in
> England. However I doubt that the Duke of Lower-Lorraine would have left
> his wife in England.
> Another point is that heirs were very important and their rights were often
> held against indredible odds. Read the life of Emperor Friedrich II. Robert
> the Devil in Normandy had perfectly legal brothers, but he made his
> illegitimate son his heir and one of the legal brothers protected William
> the Conqueror, insuring him his heritage.
> What happened to the 'inheritance' of Godfrey of Bouillon?
> Anthony Bridge, in his book "The Crusades" published in 1980,
> a long time after the other mentioned sources, on page 116 he records what
> happened:.....a group of Godfrey's own Lorrainers, who hated the papal
> legate, took control of the city, and sent a messenger to Baldwin of
> Edessa, Godfrey's brother, inviting him to come at once and TAKE OVER HIS
> RIGHTFUL INHERITANCE AS NEXT OF KIN. The brother was next of kin, because
> Godfrey did not have children. If Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of
> Lower-Lorraine, had had a legitimate son,
> surely he would have been either King of Jerusalem or Duke of
> Lower-Lorraine, and not the holder of a small property in England. How can
> Dr. Liebermann speculate whether Beatrix de Mandeville is "the first wife,
> else unknown of the future King of Jerusalem" when there was no second
> wife---nor was Godfrey/Gottfried King of Jerusalem.
> I still think that our Godfrey is an 'ancestral uncle' and not an ancestor.
> Best wishes
> Leo van de Pas
> At 07:47 AM 11/15/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >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
> >highly unlikely.
> >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
|Re: Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne by G . EDWARD ALLEN< >|