GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1997-05 > 0864239232


From: Matman < >
Subject: Re: Burgundy - One more try to sum up *
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:27:12 +0100


Jim Stevens wrote:
>
snip
> |
> Giselbert = Ermengarde *
> C of Chalon |
> & D of Burgundy |
> |
> |
> |
> | **
> Lambert C = (2) Adelaide (1) = Robert, C of Troyes
> of Chalon | | ***
> | (3).|........(2) = Geoffrey I
> | | | C of Anjou
> at least 3 or 4 | |
> children Adela = (1) |
> **** | |
> | Maurice
>
> *
> There is a wide range of theories regarding Ermengarde's parentage. The
> oldest is that she was a dau. of Richard the Justiciar, but it has no more
> marit than any of the others. If true, note that she and her husband,
> Giselbert, would then be 1st cousins.
>

only if you combine the various theories.
>

Adelaide dau of Duke Giselbert appears with her husband Robert of Troyes
and son Heribert in a charter of 949. There is no problem with this.
The difference of opinion is whether this Adelaide is the same as
the wife of Lambert who later married Geoffrey. Most historians
have shied away from making this assumption, eg Maurice Chaume (who
was otherwise much given to speculation) in his 'The Origins
of Burgundy' 1925, Werner in an article in Die Welt als Geschicht,
1960, p107-13 (especially p111), and more recently Constance
Bouchard, 'Sword and Mitre'.

To make them one person does create problems, not least
with the chronology. Adelaide was old enough to have children
by about 950 (for she had a grandson Fulk the Black by c.970),
yet she was still young enough to have children (eg Maurice)
c.980 or later. Its possible, but only just. I don't know
how common it was for noblewomen to give birth after 40.

Secondly if she only married Lambert after 967, then any
children from that marriage could not have been born before
that. But Adalbert of Italy first husband of Gerberga had
died by 975 at the latest, and Otto-William was their son.
So clearly if one accepts that Adelaide was one person, one
has to find different parents for Gerberga. Some have got
round this by making Gerberga a daughter of Lambert by an
earlier wife. As Lambert first appears in 944, and is
called count in 959, this may not be impossible.

Lastly, I may be naive about this, but even in the tenth century,
a case of a mother marrying her son-in-law would be exceptional
(no?) and arouse comment, yet no source mentions such a thing.

>
> ****
> ES iii, 433 shows the following children for Lambert, Count
> of Chalon & Adelaide of Burgundy:
> 1. Hugues I, Count of Chalon, d. 4 Nov 1039, Bishop of Auxerre
> 2. Aelis m. circa 991 Guy I, Count of Macon
> 3. Mahaut, Dame de Donzy d. by 1019, m. Geoffrey of Semur-en-Brionnais

Guy of Macon was the son of Otto-William. I think this Aelis or
Adelaide may be a mistake. I don't think any source mentions the
wife of Guy or an Aelis daughter of Lambert. A son of Otto-William
did marry an Adelaide but this was his other son Raynald of Burgundy
(d.1057) who married Adelaide-Judith of Normandy.

If this were true one would have to discard Gerberga as daughter
of Lambert for otherwise, Guy would have married his great aunt,
even more unlikely than marrying your son-in-law. eg

Lambert
|________________
| |
Gerberga |
m. Adalbert |
| |
Otto-William |
| |
Guy of Macon m. 'Aelis'

The historians that I have seen seem to agree that Gerberga
was daughter of Lambert. But if one discards this idea and
makes her the daughter of Leotald of Macon, a number of other
ancestries have to be changed. It may be better to separate
those theories which exclude Gerberga from Lambert's family,
rather than trying to combine all of them, for as you can
see, big problems can arise.

Matt

This thread: