GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1998-11 > 0911163318


From: Nathaniel Taylor< >
Subject: Godfrey de Bouillon & English family?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 15:55:18 -0500


Leo van de Pas wrote:

>I can only quote Schwennicke and he gives Eustache II of Boulogne five
>sons, three legitimate and two illegitimate.

>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.

In fact, that's exactly what Schwennicke did. This article by Round
(1895, repr. 1971) is the only relevant source among his bibliographical
references for that table.

>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,

Kelley and Wagner were discussing this question in the late '70s and early
'80s, I think. Bridge may have been totally unaware of this question, so
simple posteriority argues nothing.

> 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.

If that is exactly what the message said, and not a historian's assumption
(or the testimony of a non-contemporary like William of Tyre) based on the
assumption that that's the argument that would have been used, than it's
significant, otherwise not so. The issue of succession to the lordship of
Jerusalem, as with other crusader property overseas, may have been settled
without dealing with the niceties of kin--even close kin--left behind in
Western Europe. Runciman 1:315-26 tells of the frantic scramble for
control of the lordship after Godfrey's death. Godfrey had actually
willed Jerusalem to the patriarch, but the Lorraine party, whose interest
were opposed to the Norman and Italian faction (which would assume
leadership through the patriarch) sent the bishop of Ramleh and others to
fetch Baldwin "for they would only obey one of his [i.e. Godfrey's] kin"
(315). So in Runciman's language, this point is slightly different.

>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.

Kelley notes that the Mandevilles were significant landholders in 11
counties in England after the Conquest; they became Earls soon
thereafter. He claims the Mandevilles would not have been a necessarily
improper match for the second son of a Picard count who had participated
in the Norman Conquest. The title to Lower Lorraine came to Godfrey only
collaterally in 1084, through an in-law connection: and just as quickly
passed on to others. Easy come.

But why these English "Boulognes" had no connection or honors on the
continent if they were legitimate and knew themselves to be would need to
be explained.

Nevertheless the possibility that the two Godfreys are the same person
needs to be explored more. The onomastic argument for it is correct: the
name is the same, so it is possible that the individual is the same
(though of course there could have been two half-brothers with the same
name). While the burden of proof would be on identity (partly because the
Crusader seems to have had no heir), I'd like to see a full documentary
chronology for both Godfreys before saying the father of William de
Boulogne definitely wasn't the Advocatus sancti sepulcri.

I note that "Godefroy Lord of Carshalton" is noted by Schwennicke
(following Round, I assume) to have been in the Holy Land in 1100. What's
the source for this? Does anyone have the Round article on this handy?

By the way, the "A" text of the Genealogia comitum boloniensium, created
around 1096 (which survives in a 12th-century copy), doesn't mention any
of these Carshalton Boulognes.

I don't descend from this line. I've no vested interest either way, but
would like to see this problem, as one frequent poster puts it, "run to
ground."

Nat Taylor

This thread: