Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-07 > 1027388013

From: Cristopher Nash <>
Subject: Re: de Thouars and de Faye (Bramley, Surrey) in 'DD' - ?Q
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 02:33:33 +0100
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi John --

I know what you mean - and of course I know the archived versions
including JCP's. E.g. when you say --

> Going back over my charts and your post, it would seem Boussard had
>confused Aimery VI de Thouars with Aimery I de Chatellerault -

-- I think my aim was not to credit Boussard's parentage for Raoul
but rather to figure what he thought he meant, since he clearly had
another sequence in mind altogether (as the reference to an Agnes de
Poitiers makes clear), which no idea of his confusing Aimeri I de
Chatellerault with any Aimery VI de Thouars can finally explain away,
even if the idea's my own ;-!.

>the first construct would make Raoul de Faye a cousin of Eleanor of
>Aquitaine, as opposed to her uncle (via the Chatellerault

I think the point is that, as some geneals have it, there are
probably two generations of Raoul de Fayes -- one Eleanor's uncle,
one her cousin - if not in fact also a third including Ralph of
Bramley (if indeed he's a descendant of theirs).

> Given the
>history of the particular Agnes of Poitou, Boussard's penchant for confusion
>(or misstatement) on other points, and the opinions of other authorities [1]
>on the subject, I'll stick with the Chatellerault connection for the moment.

I think there's little doubt about this, though of course it doesn't
settle the Vineuse->Bramley? question.

> As to Raoul de Faye as seneschal of Poitou, this I find running through
>W. L. Warren's Henry II and other sources. Well actually, Warren says (p.
> ' Eleanor is said to have reposed complete trust in
> her uncle Ralph de Faye, who was seneschal of
> Saintonge and seems to have been regarded as her
> deputy in Aquitaine. [1]

The entire matter is perplexed by the larger problem as to who it is
we take to be 'in charge' in Aquitaine (Richard, Henry, Eleanor) at
any particular time, let alone at different times, as the difference
between Warren's perspective and Boussard's invariably shows. The
trouble begins (tho it doesn't end) with the notoriously distinctive
differences between British and French historians' readings of
documentary evidence for the period.

> [WARREN's footnote #1:
> Materials for the History of Becket, V, 197
> {ed. J. C. Robertson, 7 vols. (Rolls Series,
> 1875-85}
> Recueil des Actes de Henri II, Introduction 416
> {ed. L. Delisle et E. Berger, 4 vols. (Paris,
> 1906-27}
> Boussard, 354 and nn. 3 and 5.
> {Le Gouvernement d'Henri II, as you cite} ] '
> There may be other contemporaneous references to Raoul de Faye: on p.
>121, on the subject of 'Aquitanian lords who had always baulked at Angevin
>authority (and especially by her uncle, Ralph de Faye)...' Warren makes
>reference to:
> 1. Roger of Howden, Gesta , I, 42;
> 2. Gervase of Canterbury, I, 242;
> 3. Gerald of Wales, V, 304; and
> 4. Materials for the History of Becket, V, 197.
> Aquitaine itself was somewhat amorphous: it certainly meant something
>different ca. 1173 than it would 50 years later (thanks to John of England,
>Philippe Augustus and their various supporters and enemies).

Yes. Here the point is that Aquitaine, Poitou, the Saintonge etc are
in the period all both merged and distinct, depending on the
document/transaction you're looking at. Boussard was trying to
rationalize our perspective on the problem in terms of the actual
pragmatics of individual power at given moments, and that's probably
something we can't disregard when it comes to the genealogical
interpretation of e.g. marital and territorial relationships. One
immediate example of its role comes in our trying to understand e.g.
a son/grandson of Raoul de Faye -- who is, as Boussard himself has
excruciatingly to admit (354 n. 3), "nommé plusieurs fois parmi les
grands personnages de la cour d'Henri II" -- settling for Bramley.

Leaving aside Ralph of Bramley, frankly I suspect that Boussard
himself was unaware/unclear -- or didn't think it worth his while to
decide -- as to how many Raouls there may have been in France. It
should be mentioned that his handling of both French and British
archival material is powerful (his knowledge of e.g. English sources
is often impressive) or, to put it more precisely, well up to the
task determined by his topic, but his mission is not fundamentally
genealogical. He's well ahead of old Chamard, and Painter -- John
Parsons' other named reference -- is no help on the question in front
of us, nor is another useful paper by Jacques Duguet, "La question de
la succession dans la famille de Thouars" (Bulletin, Societe
Historique et Scientifique des Deux-Sevres, 3e series, vol. II, 1er
semestre (1994), 11-20 [<>;]); but --

We're still back where we were in Feb 1999, with the exchange between
Richard Borthwick and John Carmi Parsons, helpfully supplemented by
Rosie in Nov 2001 but inconclusively as we've had to admit. More to
do, wot?!


This thread: