Post by tafPost by Peter StewartShe was subsequently repudiated, supposedly for consanguinity
but we have no evidence for how the couple may have been related (if at
all).
While this is all pretty iffy, she almost immediately remarried to Robert's nephew, Richard. Richard was son of Drogo, Robert's half-brother, so _if_ the first annulment was indeed due to consanguinity, and _if_ a blind eye wasn't turned to consanguinity in regard to the second marriage, and _if_ it wasn't just a factor of the husband being one additional generation away, then it suggests that the relationship came through a connection of Robert's mother, Fredescenda, that was not shared by Drogo's mother, Muriella. (Note that the two are dubiously claimed both to have been daughters of Richard I of Normandy.) Too much tea leaf reading here to be of much value, though.
This is part of the old confusion of two different ladies named Alberada
- Robert Guiscard's first wife, Alberada of Buonalbergo the mother of
Bohemond of Antioch, is not recorded as having any other husband, and
her epitaph calling her "Guiscardi coniux Aberada" suggests that she did
not. We don't know anything about her life after she was repudiated in
favour of Sikelgaita of Salerno, including how long she surviveed after
1058.
Guiscard's nephew, Drogo's son, Richard the Seneschal married first
Altrude (who has been misnamed Alberada), possibly daughter of Geoffrey
of Conversano, and secondly the other Alberada I mentioned before, lady
of Colobraro & Policoro, whose first husband was Roger of Pomareda and
whose father was Hugo the One-Eyed, lord of Chiaromonte.
There is no good information about the family of Alberada of
Buonalbergo. She was evidently a Norman and it is likely that her father
and/or her brother, whose names are unknown, joined with Robert
Guiscard's elder brothers William Iron-arm and Drogo when they ventured
into Apulia. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
As for the supposed sibling relationship of Drogo's and Guiscard's
mothers, Muriella's alleged relationships to the ducal family of
Normandy and to Tancred of Hauteville's second wife Fressendis are
imaginary, given a pestiferous currency in 1971 by Szabolcs de Vajay,
who was _far_ from being reliable on this. The sources he adduced in
proof are not contemporaneous, or even nearly so, with the individuals
in question and one of them flatly does not say what is claimed at all.
Vajay cited two narrative sources in reverse order of their composition:
the first written was taken from Pierre Pithou's collection *Historiae
Francorum* (1596) and was doubly mistaken by Vajay as he mistitled it
'Aquitanicae historiae fragmentum' whereas the latter actually ended on
page 83 of the work and the quotation was from the following extract on
the next page - the correct title for this is 'Fragmentum historiae
Francorum a Roberto ad mortem Philippi regis'. It is a partial version,
written at Fleury, derived from the somewhat slapdash history compiled
in 1114 by Hugo de Sainte Marie, a monk at the same abbey, titled 'Liber
qui modernorum regum Francorum continet actus'. The version by Hugo
states that a certain Norman knight named Richard, a vigorous man of
worthy birth but not of great nobility ("quidam miles Normannus nomine
Richardus, vir quidem strenuus et ingenuus, sed non magnae nobilitatis")
encouraged his countrymen to join him in winning wealth and honour in
Apulia; one of those who did was his nephew or kinsman Robert Guiscard
("Inter quos nepos prefati Richardi Rotbertus eo profectus est"). In the
later version quoted inaccurately by Vajay, this has become "Ricardus
quidam Normannus eo tempore in Apuliam profectus ... [making the same
appeal to his fellow Normans] Inter quos nepos ipsius Ricardi Robertus
nomine profectus est". So Robert Guiscard is said in both versions to be
the "nepos" of a certain Norman named Richard who ventured to Italy, not
of a namesake duke ruling at home. Vajay's reversal of the chronological
order of the misstated sources for his argument emphasised his
misreading, since he quoted "nepos ipsius Ricardi" out of context on the
false assumption that the passage was about a duke and not a simple knight.
The other medieval text adduced in support of the proposition allegedly
describes William Iron-Arm as "nepos Richardi Magni ducis Normandiae";
however, Vajay was misquoting the early-14th century work by Tolomeo of
Lucca in which William is erroneously connected to a Norman "duke" named
Tancred (inserted between entries for 1034 and 1036: "Veniens igitur
Guillielmus quidam in Italiam cognomine Ferrabath, nepos Tancredi magni
ducis Normannie"). Vajay miscited this passage in the edition by
Muratori in *Rerum Italicarum Scriptores* vol. 11 (1727) as occurring in
vol. 9 under the year 1022. Tolomeo's stated source for these
nonsensical details was an otherwise unknown writer named Martin (column
1022 in Muratori's edition, weirdly mistaken by Vajay for the year):
"Anno Domini DCCCCXII ... Stephanus V ["IV" in the version as printed by
Muratori], natione Romanus ex patre Adriano de via Lata in cathedra
Petri sedet [sic, but Stephen V, whose father was a Roman named Hadrian,
was pope 885-891 while the pope in 912 was actually Anastasius III] ...
Istius etiam pontificis tempore, scribit Martinus, quod postquam
Normanni quieverunt in terra Francorum, primus ipsorum dux fuit
Robertus. Hic autem genuit Guillelmum, Guillelmus vero Richardum, hic
autem secundum Richardum et Robertum Guiscardi [sic], qui Apuliam et
Calabriam devicit ac Sicilie insulam, sicut infra patebit. On this
wholly confused, anachronistic and sloppily reported basis, Robert
Guiscard's mother Fressendis has been made into a sister of her
husband's first wife, both supposedly illegitimate daughters of Duke
Richard II since the younger could not have been born by the time of
Richard I's death.
A charter of William the Conqueror and Queen Matilda for La Trinité
abbey at Caen was also cited as evidence that the elder, Muriella, must
have been either a sister of Robert Guiscard's mother, both of them
daughters of a Norman duke, or that they were possibly aunt and niece
sired by successive dukes of the same name, Richard I and Richard II -
this charter was quoted by Vajay an 1850 edition where it is in turn
cited from one of 1663: in the 1998 edition by David Bates it is p. 280
no. 59, written 1080/82: "Ebremarus ... in Willon decimam quam emit ipse
a Murier sorore Ricardi principis, dedit pro filia sua in eodem cenobio
monacha facta". The resulting claim that Tancred of Hauteville's first
wife Muriella and his second wife Fressendis were both daughters of
Norman dukes and therefore sisters or an aunt and niece must be
considered implausible in the extreme, and no contemporary source
suggests anything of the kind: it is scarcely credible that this kind of
unequal marriage would ever have taken place when ducal daughters had
far greater value in the marriage market than to be matched with an
obscure lordling, or if such an oddity did happen that chroniclers would
have neglected for 300 years to mention such an interesting fact as the
close relationship between the two Norman ducal-royal families. Besides,
this purported evidence is highly problematic in itself. First, the term
"princeps" was scarcely used any longer for earlier Norman dukes by the
late 11th century when this charter was written; secondly, the
description "Murier sorore Ricardi principis" distinguishes this lady
from a namesake "Murier de Guitot" occurring earlier in the document (p.
279 in the edition by Bates) rather than asserting incidentally that she
was a relative of Duke William; thirdly, because Tancred of Hauteville's
wife Muriella would not have been remembered as acting in her own right
in this way while identified only as a sister to someone when she had
long since become a wife and the mother of celebrated sons; fourthly,
because she was a deceased wife and mother long before anyone could have
bought a tithe from Murier to present to an abbey that was not founded
until decades after the death of Tancred's first wife; and fifthly,
because the word "princeps" in the 10th and 11th centuries was used for
leading men of different status, not exclusively for the rulers of great
territories - for instance, the lords of Montmirail and Déols
consistently used it as their title - and not only in feudal contexts
anyway, so that it could well be merely a nickname in this instance and
not a title of rank at all.
Peter Stewart