GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1015329121


From: "Annie Natalelli-Waloszek" <>
Subject: Re: Judith (of Flanders?) m. (1) Tostig (2) Welf (part 2 of 2)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:52:01 +0100


Ken:

wow, that has nothing at all to do with what's going the rounds in France...
Everyone here thinks that Robert the Magnificent was the son of Richard II
& Judith of Bretagne, & killed his brother Richard III to get the heir status of
the eldest...

I wonder how we can get what's being copied from source to source in France,
in tune with what's considered "authoritative" elsewhere... with an amelioration
of techniques & verification, for all concerned...

I have this from Claude Pithois' two books on the orgins of the Bruce lines,
but also from the public expos at Fecamp, Falaise, Bayeux, & my History of
France which taf already took out after...

To these refs, the consanguinity does indeed make Mathilde descend from Richard II,
tho others make her but a step relative, through Eleonore & Baudouin IV, Mathilde being
Baud IV's granddaughter thru a marriage to Elfgive...

The problem with french sources, is that they dont agree, but it's not considered polite
to question them, so they dont get figured out & fixed...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : <>
À : <>
Date : lundi 4 mars 2002 17:23
Objet : Re: Judith (of Flanders?) m. (1) Tostig (2) Welf (part 2 of 2)



In a message dated 3/4/02 5:46:58 AM, writes:

<< Why is this {marriages between people related in the 7th degree were in
theory

prohibited at this time] not considered to explain the grounds of the papal
prohibition? >>

Actually, they are ... and I was about to point one out myself. However, it
sometimes seems quite absurd that the church and the families knew their
genealogies back to the seventh degree while we struggle to find a link in
primary records. This is one of my major problems with this entire field --
that the law required knowledge of descents and they were known at the time.
The information on degrees of relatedness must have been kept in forms other
than primary records -- family traditions, etc. Genealogies were not
researched in a modern manner to prove the legalities of marriages.
Obviously, the church already had the information in most cases ... such as
this one, convoluted and complex as it may be.

The closest common descent I can find for Mathilda of Flanders and William is
as follows. There is one generational difference between the two, so the
degree of relatedness is ______?

CHART I

Fulk II the Good = Gerberge
|
Geoffrey I, Coount of Anjou = Adela of Vermandois
|
Ermengarde d'Anjou = Conan I, Count of Bretagne and Rennes
|
Judith of Brittany = Fulbert of Falaise
|
Robert II the Devil = Arlotta the tanner's daughter
|
William the Conqueror = Mathilda of Flanders

CHART II

Fulk II the Good= Gergerge
|
Adhelheid of Anjou = William II, Count of Arles
|
Constance of Toulouse = Robert II the Pious
|
Adele of France = Baldwin V, Count of Flanders
|
Mathilda of Flanders = William the Conqueror


Kenneth Harper Finton
Editor and Publisher
THE PLANTAGENET CONNECTION
__________________________________________
HT Communications / PO Box 1401 / Arvada CO 80001
VOICE: 303-420-4888 FAX: 303-420-4845
<A HREF="http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html">;
http://htcommunications.org/homepage.html</A>;






This thread: