GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-11 > 0911147670


From: Leo van de Pas< >
Subject: Re: Godfrey de Bouillon & Charlemagne
Date: 15 Nov 1998 08:34:30 -0800


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:
>Leo,
>
>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
>error).
>
>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
>
>

This thread: