GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-07 > 1121248130


From: "Peter Stewart" < >
Subject: Re: HP - New Henry Project Pages
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:48:50 GMT
References: <qekqc11iqp7ap4knrir8lckdie9sbguikv@4ax.com>


"Stewart Baldwin" < > wrote in message
news: ...
>I have now uploaded some new pages to the Henry Project, of which the
> URL to the index page is:
>
> http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/provis.htm
>
> The 23 new pages are:
>
> Agnes of vreux, wife of Simon I de Montfort
> Amaury I de Montfort
> Bertrade de Montfort, wife of Fulk IV and Philip I
> Elizabeth, wife of Robert de Chteau-du-Loir
> remburge, wife of Gervaise II de Chteau-du-Loir
> remburge de la Fleche, wife of Fulk IV of Anjou
> Fulk V of Anjou

The index and head of the page for Henry II's grandfather Fulk V state that
he died in, or was king of Jerusalem until, 1144, yet this is contradicted
in the text & his year of death is stated there as 1143.

The whole question is vexed in the sources & literature. William of Tyre is
cited for the date given of 13 November, without mentioning that in the
second reference he actually gave 10 November instead. It's difficult to
tell which was meant, that is whether a word was omitted once or added the
other time: the first statement is "quarta demum die, Idibus videlicet
Novembris" (at last on the fourth day, that is 13th November) while the
second is "Defuncto...quarto Idus Novembris" (dead on the 10th November).
Either way, William of Tyre placed the event in November 1142 but stated
that this occurred in the 11th year of Fulk's reign as king of Jerusalem
that ended before then, on 13 September 1142.

For the date, 10 November seems more probable since the parallel date (IV
Ides) is given in obituaries of Saint-Serge at Angers, Fontevrault and
Saint-Germain des Prs abbeys - however, the last places it in October
instead of November.

For the year, we have conflicting evidence. A charter of Fulk's son Geoffrey
ostensibly dated February 1141 refers to his father "of blessed memory". The
last monastic chronicle cited on the page is confused, as set out by
Stewart, but there is some further consistency in reporting the death two
years early as the same is done for Innocent II, as noted, and also for
Celestin II (1142 instead of 1144) and for Lucius II (1143 for 1145).

1144 as in ES is very probably wrong. Pope Lucius II referred to Fulk as
deceased in a document dated 14 September 1144; Pope Celestin II however had
thought that he was still alive on 10 January of the same year. This might
only indicate very slow progress of the news to Rome, taking over two months
from 10 November 1143, or is possibly an error. The last reference to his
reign in Jerusalem is a dating "regnante rege Fulcone" on 4 October 1143.

In view of this evidence, there can't be absolute certianty but 10 November
1143 seems the most likely to be correct.

I wonder what is said about Fulk's death date in Richardson's sacred tome.

Peter Stewart



This thread: