GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-07 > 1154229076
From: "Peter Stewart" <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne Line??
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:11:16 GMT
References: <email@example.com> <027e01c6b296$018e7670$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <44caa025@news.ColoState.EDU> <02b401c6b29f$eab962c0$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <44cab83e@news.ColoState.EDU> <030401c6b2b6$452f2f30$0300a8c0@Toshiba> <44cada99@news.ColoState.EDU> <nwCyg.2757$rP1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <6JFyg.2859$rP1.email@example.com>
"Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message
> "Peter Stewart" <> wrote in message
>> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message
>>> Leo van de Pas wrote:
>>>> Dear Todd,
>>>> What is the correct spelling of the firstname? You show Dalmas, Turton
>>>> (page 200) shows Dalmace, ES III/3 434 uses Damas and so does Gaston
>>> I have seen them all and others - typical problem of recasting a
>>> medieval name that appears in Latin documents into modern languages in
>>> which the name is not current. I don't know that there is a 'correct'
>>>> Which one are you referring to? There are three in that family. It
>>>> can't be Damas I, as his mother goes nowhere. Damas II for him I have
>>>> no parents, that leaves Damas III, and I have him as mentioned in 1223
>>>> no wife no children. However, in my system it is Damas I, which appears
>>>> as an ancestor as nr.18.
>>> Yes, and as I did the math, the lines appeared to go through his wife
>>> and mother - it appears that I erred in one of the calculations.
>>>> The numbers I gave were 4128, 4896, 8848 and 8944
>>>> 1.Alfonso I King of Portugal
>>>> 2.Henri Count of Portugal
>>>> 4.Henri de Bourgogne
>>>> 8.Robert I Duke of Burgundy
>>>> 9.Helie de Semur
>>>> 16.Robert II King of France
>>>> 17.Constance de Provence
>>>> 19.Aremburge de Bourgogne
>>> While speculated by Szabolcs de Vajay, I am unaware of direct evidence
>>> which shows Arembourge as mother of Helie.
>> The speculation by Vajay is about the parentage of Aremburg, but I don't
>> think there is any doubt that a woman of this name was mother of Helie of
>> Semur, the first wife of Duke Robert I of Burgundy. As far as I remember,
>> in a life of her brother Hugo, abbot of Cluny, it is made clear that
>> their father had only one wife.
>> Aremburg's family is not recorded, and (going by memory) Vajay was trying
>> to make a case that she was a maternal half-sister of Thibaud of Semur,
>> count of Chalon, who was called uncle by her sons. However, Count Thibaud
>> was a paternal half-brother of Aremburg's husband Dalmas I of Semur, so
>> there is no mystery about this, and equally there is no evidence at all
>> that his mother Mathild of Chalon was married twice.
> In the life of St Hugo the Great, abbot of Cluny, written by his
> contemporary Hugo, a monk in his abbey, the parents are named as Dalmas,
> seigneur of Semur and Aremburg ("Pater eius fuit Dalmatius, princeps
> egregius, Samurensis dominus, mater eius Aremburgis").
> I think that Duchess Helie of Burgundy is called "germana" (normally
> meaning full sister) to Hugo in another life of the saint, by Gilo, but I
> don't have a copy of this to check.
> Vajay evidently forgot to follow the descendants of his subjects when
> speculating that Aremburg might have been daughter of Mathild of Chalon -
> Duchess Helie's daughter Constance married Mathild's grandson Hugo, count
> of Chalon, and under Vajay's scheme this couple would have been first
> cousins once removed, a union that would have been unthinkable at their
> time & place.
Vajay also neglected to study the chronology carefully: according to him,
Mathild of Chalon was married first to Eudes Henri, duke of Burgundy, who
died in October 1002, and then secondly ca 1003 to Geoffrey of Semur. But
this is impossible, since Mathild's eldest son by Geoffrey of Semur,
Thibaud, was already the recognised heir of his uncle as count of Chalon
before March 999 at the latest.
There are at least two charters where Mathild's brother Hugo names his
nephew Thibaud, as having an interest in his donations, that were definitely
given with only the comital title alone and therefore prior to his becoming
bishop of Auxerre on 5 or 9 March in 999 (not 1001 as the latest editors of
_Les gestes des vques d'Auxerre_ (Paris, 2002) have it, calculating back
from the years ascibed to his episcopate at the time of his death but
overlooking his charter for Cluny, as bishop, dated May 999). Afterwards he
always called himself "episcopus", not "comes".