C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 242-246 has an extended account of the
early baronial/comital Clare family of England. On page 242-243, a
brief account is given of Gilbert Fitz Richard (styled also de Clare
and de Tonbridge), lord of Clare, Suffolk, who died in 1117.

Regarding his marriage and death, the following information is
provided:

"He married Adeliz, daughter of Hugh, Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis,
by Marguerite, daughter of Hilduin, Count of Montdidier and Roucy. He
died 1114 or 1117. His widow married, 2ndly, (?Bouchard) de
Montmorency." END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage cites as its source for the marriage of Gilbert and
Alice as Père Anselme (no volume or page). it also refers the reader
to a note by J.R. Planché in Journal of the Biritish Arch. Assoc..,
vol. xxvi, p. 150. Neither source is quoted.

Elsewhere there is a modern biography of Gilbert de Clare [otherwise
Gilbert fitz Richard, Gilbert of Tonbridge] published in new Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography [ODNB]. Regarding Gilbert's marriage
and death, the following information is provided:

"Gilbert was married, probably before the division of his father's
estates with Roger, to Alice (Aliz), daughter of the count of Clermont
in the Beauvaisis ... Gilbert’s last dated appearance is at
Westminster on 16 September 1115; the Welsh annals note his death in
1117." END OF QUOTE

Strangely, ODNB cites neither Complete Peerage, Père Anselme, or
Planché as a source. Nor is any reference made to the 2nd marriage of
Alice de Clermont to [?Bouchard] de Montmorency. Both ODNB and C.P.
are in agreement, however, that Alice's father was Count of Clermont
in Beauvaisis.

Unfortunately both C.P. and ODNB are in error regarding Alice's
father, Hugues de Clermont, being the Count of Clermont. There is a
good account of Hugues de Clermont published in Luçay, Le Comté de
Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878): 9–11. This source may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9

On page 11, Luçay specifically states the following:

"Ni Suger, ni les chartes que nous avons eues sous les yeux, ne
donnent à Hugues le titre de comte; elles le qualifient seulement
seigneur de Clermont.” END OF QUOTE.

That Luçay is correct is borne out by two records published in Muller,
Prieuré de Saint-Leu d’Esserent: Cartulaire 1 (Pubs. Soc. Hist. du
Vexin) (1900), which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=phcOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44

On page 44, there is a charter of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert
de Clare, in which she styles herself "daughter of Hugues de
Clermont" [Hadalaidis, filia Hugonis de Claromonte, scilicet uxor
Gisleberti de Anglia]. The purpose of Alice's charter was to found an
anniversary at the Priory of Saint-Leu d’Esserent for herself and for
her parents, Hugues and Marguerite. Alice's father is no where styled
count in this document, even though he was surely then deceased.

Likewise, on pages 34–36, Muller presents the testament of Alice de
Clermont's sister, Marguerite de Gerberoy, who similarly styles
herself “daughter of Hugues de Clermont” [filia Hugonis de
Claromonte]. Marguerite arranged for her burial at the Priory of
Saint-Leu d'Esserent, for which she gave the Priory the sixth part of
the tithe of Courlaye for the foundation of her anniversary. This
document mentions her husband, Gerard [de Geberoy]; Pierre son of the
said Gerard; and Count Renaud brother of the said Marguerite). Once
again Hugues de Clermont is no where styled count in this document.

Jackson, Words, Names, & History: Selected Papers [of] Cecily Clark
(1995) gives evidence which confirms both Alice de Clermont's
parentage and her 2nd marriage. On page 335, according to Jackson,
Margareta de ierborai [Gerberoy] is entered in LV as the sister of
Alice de Clermont. LV is Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey (BL., Add. MS.
40,000, Marguerite de Gerberoy is the same lady mentioned above by
Muller. On page 336, Jackson states that "Burchardus de muntmorenci"
is entered in LV as 2nd husband of Alice de Clermont.

Jackson may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YxVgyLzgXpQC&pg=PA335

As far as I know, this is the first concrete evidence which confirms
the given name of Alice de Clermont's 2nd husband, Bouchard de
Montmorency. I presume this man is the same person as Bouchard [III]
de Montmorency seigneur of Montmorency, who was living in 1124.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Adrienne Boaz]

Dear Douglas and all the medieval genealogists,
 
Gilbert and Adelaide
are two of my ancestors whom I have been busy writing biographies for lately.
Just today, I picked up a book which was mentioned by Douglas.
I haven't had a chance to translate it from French, but here is the citation
and page number for the counts of Clare, which does state that Adeliza was the
daughter of Hugh and Marguerite:
 
de Sainte-Marie, Anselme, Augustin Déchaussé, and M. du Fourny.
Histoire Genealogique et Chronologique de la Maison Royale de France, des
Pairs: Grands Officiers de la Couronne & de la Maison du Roy, & des
anciens Barons du Royaume… Troisiéme Édition. Tome Second (Second Book). La
Compagnie des Libraires Associez. 1726. Page 481.


From page 481:
"Gilbert
II. du nom, comte de Clare & de Cardigan... Femme, Alix de Clermont,
fille d'Hugues comte de Clermont en Beauvoisis, & de Marguerite de Roucy,
mariée avant 1113."
"Gilbert II. name, Earl of Clare & Cardigan... Wife,
Alix de Clermont, daughter of Hugh Count of Clermont in Beauvoisis, & Margaret
of Roucy, married before 1113."

Here is a rough draft of the bios I've written for Gilbert and Adelaide. I realize that that when I send
this, the formatting is going to really ruin the superscript codes I've created
which I use as my citations. When you see two letters followed by a number,
just know that that is a code that refers to the alphabetical 
bibliography of my book (which is not finished). Like I said, these bios aren't
complete, because I haven't had a chance to look at the Histoire Genealogique
yet, so more will be added. Additionally, I am not arguing with Douglas
Richardson at all. He may be absolutely correct! Thank you, Doug, for the additional reference. I just figured I'd add what
I've discovered thus far... and I’m sorry about what I’m sure will be ugly
formatting.


Gilbert FitzRichard, Lord of Clare, Tonbridge, and Cardigan
(Richard, Rohese) was also known as “Gilbert de Clare” GI6, RO14 or
“Gilbert de Tonbridge” PL1, RO14; he was born before 1066 and
married Adelaide/Adeliza de Clermont WE3, GI6, RO14. In the spring
of 1088, he and his brother, Roger, fortified the castle of Tonbridge, located
in Kent and southeast of London, against King William Rufus, but he was injured
and taken captive when he defended it against the onslaught of the king’s army RO14.
He fell out of favor with King William Rufus after this BA9.
He succeeded his father as the Lord of Clare and Tonbridge WE3,
WH4, GI6, and was the founder of the Priory of Clare in 1090 WE3,
GI6. Gilbert may have been the recipient of the lands of Rainald FitzIvo
in Norfolk, and
he although he originally opposed King William, he did serve in his army in
1091 and 1095 BA9. He was mentioned, along with many other men, as
being present with William Rufus for his impending Channel crossing from either Dover or Hastings
in 1091, and Gilbert may have accompanied the king to Normandy BA9.
In June 1095, while William Rufus marched northward, Gilbert warned the king of
an ambush RO14. In Colchester on August 29, 1096, he helped lay the
cornerstones of St. John’s
Abbey, which was founded by his brother-in-law, Eudes RO14.
There is a good possibility that he was in attendance at
Brockenhurst (the alleged site of the king’s death) when William Rufus was
fatally shot with an arrow by Gilbert’s brother-in-law, Walter Tirel RO16,
in August 1100 RO14. He spent Christmas of 1101 with King Henry I at
Winchester RO14, and the king granted him the lordship of Cardigan
sometime between 1107 and 1111 GI6, WE3. In 1113, he consented to a
charter created by his mother, and he died of a prolonged illness RO14 between 1114 and 1117 WE3, RO14.
 
Adelaide de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis (Hugh, Marguerite) was
also known as “Adeliz” GI6, TA1 or “Adeliza de Claremont” WE4,
and was the wife of Gilbert FitzRichard GI6, WE4, TA1. She was the
mother of Adeliza (Alice) de Clare GI6, WE3, WH4, PL1,
Richard FitzGilbert, Gilbert de Clare, the first earl of Pembroke GI6,
WH4, PL1, Baldwin, Margaret, who married William de Montfichet RO19,
PL1, and perhaps also John, Walter, Henry (Hervey RO14), and
Rohaisia PL1. After Gilbert’s death, she married Bouchard de
Montmorency, although his given name is questionable GI6.
 
Barlow, Frank. William Rufus. University of California
Press. Berkley.
1983. Pages 73, 140, 170-171, 228, 278-280, and 469.
 
Gibbs, The Hon. Vicary, George Edward Cokayne, and H. Arthur
Doubleday. The Complete Peerage, Volume III. Canonteign to Cutts. The St.
Catherine Press. London.
1913. Pages 242-243.
 
Planché, J.R., Esq. “The Earls of Worcester and Hertford.” The
Journal of the British Archaeological Association. Vol. XXVI. The British
Archaeological Association. London.
1870. Pages 150-152.
 
Round, J.H. “Clare, Gilbert de (d. 1115?).” Dictionary of
National Biography. Volume X. Chamber-Clarkson. Editor Leslie Stephen.
Macmillan and Co. New York.
1887. Page 377.
 
Round, J.H., M.A. Feudal England. Historical Studies on the
XIth and XIIth Centuries. Swan Sonnenschein & Co. London. 1895. Pages 322-324, 469-470, and 472.
 
Round, J.H., M.A. “The Family of Clare.” The Archaeological
Journal. Volume LVI. Second Series, Vol. VI. The Royal Archaeological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland. London. 1899.
Pages 222-226.
 
Tait, James, M.A. The Chartulary or Register of The Abbey of
St. Werburgh Chester. PartI. Remains,
Historical and Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester.
Volume 79 – New Series. The Chetham Society. Manchester. 1920. Pages xviii-xix, and 140-141.
 
Weis, Frederick Lewis, Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., William R.
Beall, and Kaleen E. Beall. Ancestral
Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America before 1700, Eighth Edition.
2004.


________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

Dear Newsgroup ~

Complete Peerage 3 (1913): 242-246 has an  extended account of the
early baronial/comital Clare family of England.  On page 242-243, a
brief account is given of Gilbert Fitz Richard (styled also de Clare
and de Tonbridge), lord of Clare, Suffolk, who died in 1117.

Regarding his marriage and death, the following information is
provided:

"He married Adeliz, daughter of Hugh, Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis,
by Marguerite, daughter of Hilduin, Count of Montdidier and Roucy.  He
died 1114 or 1117.  His widow married, 2ndly, (?Bouchard) de
Montmorency."  END OF QUOTE.

Complete Peerage cites as its source for the marriage of Gilbert and
Alice as Père Anselme (no volume or page).  it also refers the reader
to a note by J.R. Planché in Journal of the Biritish Arch. Assoc..,
vol. xxvi, p. 150.  Neither source is quoted.

Elsewhere there is a modern biography of Gilbert de Clare [otherwise
Gilbert fitz Richard, Gilbert of Tonbridge] published in  new Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography [ODNB].  Regarding Gilbert's marriage
and death, the following information is provided:

"Gilbert was married, probably before the division of his father's
estates with Roger, to Alice (Aliz), daughter of the count of Clermont
in the Beauvaisis ... Gilbert’s last dated appearance is at
Westminster on 16 September 1115; the Welsh annals note his death in
1117."  END OF QUOTE

Strangely, ODNB cites neither Complete Peerage, Père Anselme, or
Planché as a source.  Nor is any reference made to the 2nd marriage of
Alice de Clermont to [?Bouchard] de Montmorency.  Both ODNB and C.P.
are in agreement, however, that Alice's father was Count of Clermont
in Beauvaisis.

Unfortunately both C.P. and ODNB are in error regarding Alice's
father, Hugues de Clermont, being the Count of Clermont.  There is a
good account of Hugues de Clermont published in Luçay, Le Comté de
Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878): 9–11.  This source may be viewed at the
following weblink:

  http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9

On page 11, Luçay specifically states the following:

"Ni Suger, ni les chartes que nous avons eues sous les yeux, ne
donnent à Hugues le titre de comte; elles le qualifient seulement
seigneur de Clermont.”  END OF QUOTE.

That Luçay is correct is borne out by two records published in Muller,
Prieuré de Saint-Leu d’Esserent: Cartulaire 1 (Pubs. Soc. Hist. du
Vexin) (1900), which may be viewed at the following weblink:

  http://books.google.com/books?id=phcOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44

On page 44, there is a charter of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert
de Clare, in which she styles herself "daughter of Hugues de
Clermont" [Hadalaidis, filia Hugonis de Claromonte, scilicet uxor
Gisleberti de Anglia]. The purpose of Alice's charter was to found an
anniversary at the Priory of Saint-Leu d’Esserent for herself and for
her parents, Hugues and Marguerite.  Alice's father is no where styled
count in this document, even though he was surely then deceased.

Likewise, on pages 34–36, Muller presents the testament of Alice de
Clermont's sister, Marguerite de Gerberoy, who similarly styles
herself “daughter of Hugues de Clermont” [filia Hugonis de
Claromonte].  Marguerite arranged for her burial at the Priory of
Saint-Leu d'Esserent, for which she gave the Priory the sixth part of
the tithe of Courlaye for the foundation of her anniversary.  This
document mentions her husband, Gerard [de Geberoy]; Pierre son of the
said Gerard; and Count Renaud brother of the said Marguerite).  Once
again Hugues de Clermont is no where styled count in this document.

Jackson, Words, Names, & History: Selected Papers [of] Cecily Clark
(1995) gives evidence which confirms both Alice de Clermont's
parentage and her 2nd marriage.  On page 335, according to Jackson,
Margareta de ierborai [Gerberoy] is entered in LV as the sister of
Alice de Clermont.  LV is Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey (BL., Add. MS.
40,000,  Marguerite de Gerberoy is the same lady mentioned above by
Muller.  On page 336, Jackson states that "Burchardus de muntmorenci"
is entered in LV as 2nd husband of Alice de Clermont.

Jackson may be viewed at the following weblink:

  http://books.google.com/books?id=YxVgyLzgXpQC&pg=PA335

As far as I know, this is the first concrete evidence which confirms
the given name of Alice de Clermont's 2nd husband, Bouchard de
Montmorency.  I presume this man is the same person as Bouchard [III]
de Montmorency seigneur of Montmorency, who was living in 1124.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post yesterday, I noted that Complete Peerage cited two sources
for the marriage of Gilbert Fitz Richard and Alice de Clermont, namely
Père Anselme and a note in an article by J.R. Planché published in
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (1870): 150–151.

I had the opportunity this morning of reading the note by J.R. Planché
which was cited by Complete Peerage. I've copied the note below.
Planché specifically discusses Père Anselme's comments. Planché's
note may also be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=UDAGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150

"The first of the Clares who wrote himself Earl of Hertford is said to
have been Richard, eldest son of Gilbert de Tonbridge, by his wife
Adeliza, who is stated by Guillaume de Jumièges to have been the
daughter of a Comte de Clermont .... It would be desirable to
affiliate this wife of Gilbert more distinctly, by showing which of
the Counts of Clermont was her father. According to Père Anselme
(Hist. Généalogique) she was the daughter of Hugh, first Comte de
Clermont en Beauvaisis, by his wife Marguerite de Rouey, daughter of
Hildouin, fourth Comte de Rouey, and Alex. de Chastillon; but though
he states this in the genealogy of Clare, he gives no such daughter to
Count Hugh in that of Clermont, naming only three daughters, — 1,
Ermentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester; 2, Richilde, wife of Dreux,
second Seigneur de Mello; and 3, Emma, wife of Matthieu, first Comte
de Beaumont sur l'Oise. The fact of her parentage depends, therefore,
at present on the statement of Guillaume de Jumièges, and the
authenticity of a note appended to her charter in the Register of
Thorney Abbey, and thus printed by Dugdale: 'Adelicia de Claramonte
dicta (folio 11, cap. 9, parte 4).' The charter itself commences
thus: 'Adeliz mater Comitis Gilberti omnibus amicis et hominibus suis
Francie et Anglie salutem,' etc.; and ends with 'Sciendum est anterior
haec esse facta coram Comite Gilberti et Waltero frater ejus.' But we
have yet to identify her as the daugjhter of Count Hugh the first."
END OF QUOTE

As we can see above, Planché was rather uncertain as to the correct
parentage of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard, which
fact was not indicated by Complete Peerage. Fortunately, since the
time that Planché wrote his note, more evidence has been located to
prove conclusively that Alice de Clermont was the daughter of Hugues,
seigneur (not comte) of Clermont in Beauvaisis, and sister of Renaud,
Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis.

One quick comment regarding the various names forms for Alice de
Clermont: Hadalaidis, Adelicia, Adeliz. These are merely Latin forms
for the given name Alice.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Adrienne Boaz]

Dear Douglas and all the medieval genealogists,

I think the only source I've seen which stated that Hughes, Adelaide's father, was the Count of Clermont, was this:

"Hugues, surnommé de Monchi, Montiacensis,  par Suger, parce qu'il possedait le château
de ce nom, du vivant de Renaud, son père, lui succeda au comte de Clermont."
Hughes, known as of Monchi, Montiacensis by Suger, because
he possessed the castle of that name, during the lifetime of Renaud, his father,
succeeded him to the Count of Clermont.

This was from pages 170-171 of:
de Saint-Allais, Nicolas Viton . L'Art de Vérifier les Dates des Faits Historiques, des
Chartes, des Chroniques, et Autres Anciens Monuments, Depuis la Naissance de Notre-Seigneur.
Tome Douzième. C.F. Patris. Paris.
1818.

Here are the biographies I've written of Hugues and Marguerite, minus the annoying citation codes. If anyone would like to know the sources I used for these bios, I will be very happy to provide them.

Hugues de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Count of Clermont (Renaud)
was also known “Hugues de Monchi” or “de Montiacensis”, because he held the
castle Montiacensis. He married Marguerite circa 1080, and was of Beauvaisis,
and while his father was still alive, Hugues succeeded him as the count of
Clermont. In 1099, while Ancel was the bishop of Beauvais, Hugues made a donation to the Abbey
of Flay, which was also known as Saint Germer.
Mathieu, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise, who married Hugues’
daughter, Emme, received the dowry for Emme’s moiety of the land of Luzarches,
about nineteen miles north of Paris, but he aspired to possess the entire
estate, and in about 1102 seized the fortress there. An elderly man, Hugues was
unable to constrain his son-in-law, and so he implored the aid of Louis the Fat,
then prince of France, who, after attempting an unsuccessful diplomatic
approach, eventually marched against Mathieu and besieged the tower of Luzarches
with fire and weaponry. Louis installed knights to defend the keep, and then restored
it to Hugues.
After this, Louis the Fat assailed a second castle held by
Mathieu, called Chambly,
in Beauvaisis, but this effort was hampered by a downpour, and despite his
attempt to maintain order, most of his troops disbanded the following dawn,
amidst several tents being set afire. The men of Chambly made ​​an offense in which several
were taken prisoner, including Hugues, Guy de Senlis, and Herluin of Paris. Louis
the Fat managed to escape, yet when the count of Beaumont discovered that Louis intended to
return with an army thrice the size as the first, he submitted and allowed his
father-in-law his freedom. Hugues’ death occurred after 1102.
Marguerite de Roucy (Hilduin, Alix) has sometimes been
called “Marguerite de Rameru”, but typically as “de Roucy”. She was born circa
1050 and was the mother of Adelaide de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Renaud II, Count
of Clermont, Gui, who died in prison after being captured by the English in 1119,
Raoul, Canon of Beauvàis, Emme, who married Mathieu, Ermentrude, who married Hugh
d’Avranches, Earl of Chester, and Richilde, who married Dreux II, Lord of Mello
en Beauvaisis.

I hope this might help... anyone at all.

 - Adrienne Boaz



________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post yesterday, I noted that Complete Peerage cited two sources
for the marriage of Gilbert Fitz Richard and Alice de Clermont, namely
Père Anselme and a note in an article by J.R. Planché published in
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (1870): 150–151.

I had the opportunity this morning of reading the note by J.R. Planché
which was cited by Complete Peerage.  I've copied the note below.
Planché specifically discusses Père Anselme's comments.  Planché's
note may also be viewed at the following weblink:

  http://books.google.com/books?id=UDAGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150

"The first of the Clares who wrote himself Earl of Hertford is said to
have been Richard, eldest son of Gilbert de Tonbridge, by his wife
Adeliza, who is stated by Guillaume de Jumièges to have been the
daughter of a Comte de Clermont .... It would be desirable to
affiliate this wife of Gilbert more distinctly, by showing which of
the Counts of Clermont was her father.  According to Père Anselme
(Hist. Généalogique) she was the daughter of Hugh, first Comte de
Clermont en Beauvaisis, by his wife Marguerite de Rouey, daughter of
Hildouin, fourth Comte de Rouey, and Alex. de Chastillon; but though
he states this in the genealogy of Clare, he gives no such daughter to
Count Hugh in that of Clermont, naming only three daughters, — 1,
Ermentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester; 2, Richilde, wife of Dreux,
second Seigneur de Mello; and 3, Emma, wife of Matthieu, first Comte
de Beaumont sur l'Oise.  The fact of her parentage depends, therefore,
at present on the statement of Guillaume de Jumièges, and the
authenticity of a note appended to her charter in the Register of
Thorney Abbey, and thus printed by Dugdale: 'Adelicia de Claramonte
dicta (folio 11, cap. 9, parte 4).'  The charter itself commences
thus: 'Adeliz mater Comitis Gilberti omnibus amicis et hominibus suis
Francie et Anglie salutem,' etc.; and ends with 'Sciendum est anterior
haec esse facta coram Comite Gilberti et Waltero frater ejus.'  But we
have yet to identify her as the daugjhter of Count Hugh the first."
END OF QUOTE

As we can see above, Planché was rather uncertain as to the correct
parentage of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard, which
fact was not indicated by Complete Peerage.  Fortunately, since the
time that Planché wrote his note, more evidence has been located to
prove conclusively that Alice de Clermont was the daughter of Hugues,
seigneur (not comte) of Clermont in Beauvaisis, and sister of Renaud,
Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis.

One quick comment regarding the various names forms for Alice de
Clermont: Hadalaidis, Adelicia, Adeliz.  These are merely Latin forms
for the given name Alice.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Monica Kanellis]

some other mentions of the second marriage (gives first name as Herve)

*http://tinyurl.com/boavda3*
*http://tinyurl.com/c4l5lqd*
*http://tinyurl.com/bssp97q*
*
*
MK

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Douglas Richardson

Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
In my post yesterday, I noted that Complete Peerage cited two sources
for the marriage of Gilbert Fitz Richard and Alice de Clermont, namely
Père Anselme and a note in an article by J.R. Planché published in
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (1870): 150–151.
I had the opportunity this morning of reading the note by J.R. Planché
which was cited by Complete Peerage. I've copied the note below.
Planché specifically discusses Père Anselme's comments. Planché's
http://books.google.com/books?id=UDAGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150
"The first of the Clares who wrote himself Earl of Hertford is said to
have been Richard, eldest son of Gilbert de Tonbridge, by his wife
Adeliza, who is stated by Guillaume de Jumièges to have been the
daughter of a Comte de Clermont .... It would be desirable to
affiliate this wife of Gilbert more distinctly, by showing which of
the Counts of Clermont was her father. According to Père Anselme
(Hist. Généalogique) she was the daughter of Hugh, first Comte de
Clermont en Beauvaisis, by his wife Marguerite de Rouey, daughter of
Hildouin, fourth Comte de Rouey, and Alex. de Chastillon; but though
he states this in the genealogy of Clare, he gives no such daughter to
Count Hugh in that of Clermont, naming only three daughters, — 1,
Ermentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester; 2, Richilde, wife of Dreux,
second Seigneur de Mello; and 3, Emma, wife of Matthieu, first Comte
de Beaumont sur l'Oise. The fact of her parentage depends, therefore,
at present on the statement of Guillaume de Jumièges, and the
authenticity of a note appended to her charter in the Register of
Thorney Abbey, and thus printed by Dugdale: 'Adelicia de Claramonte
dicta (folio 11, cap. 9, parte 4).' The charter itself commences
thus: 'Adeliz mater Comitis Gilberti omnibus amicis et hominibus suis
Francie et Anglie salutem,' etc.; and ends with 'Sciendum est anterior
haec esse facta coram Comite Gilberti et Waltero frater ejus.' But we
have yet to identify her as the daugjhter of Count Hugh the first."
END OF QUOTE
As we can see above, Planché was rather uncertain as to the correct
parentage of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard, which
fact was not indicated by Complete Peerage. Fortunately, since the
time that Planché wrote his note, more evidence has been located to
prove conclusively that Alice de Clermont was the daughter of Hugues,
seigneur (not comte) of Clermont in Beauvaisis, and sister of Renaud,
Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis.
One quick comment regarding the various names forms for Alice de
Clermont: Hadalaidis, Adelicia, Adeliz. These are merely Latin forms
for the given name Alice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Monica ~

The evidence I cited is very specific. Bouchard de Montmorency is
named as the 2nd husband of Alice de Clermont in f. 2r of Liber Vitae
of Thorney Abbey (BL., Add. MS.
40,000. Jackson states this entry was made in Liber Vitae ante 1135-c.
1140. So it is very much contemporary evidence.

For Jackson's dating of specific LV entries, see the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=YxVgyLzgXpQC&pg=PA326

It doesn't matter how many secondary sources name Hervé de Montmorency
as Alice de Clermont's 2nd husband. The contemporary evidence says
her husband's name was Bouchard de Montmorency and also that her
sister was Marguerite de Gerberoy. Muller, who I have elsewhere
cited, confirms that Alice and Marguerite, wife of Gérard de Gerberoy,
were both daughters of Hugues de Clermont, seigneur of Clermont.

For interest's sake, I've copied below Charles Cawley's comments
regarding Bouchard de Montmorency and his third wife, Alice de
Clermont. He identifies Bouchard de Montmorency as the 2nd husband of
Alice de Clermont. But he adds: "The precise identity of Adelisa´s
second husband has not yet been confirmed." That confirmation is now
in hand.

One further note: As is common with many genealogists and historians,
Charles Cawley uses the Latin form Adelisa for Alice de Clermont.
Alice is correct.

For an example of Alice de Clermont being styled "Aelicie," see the
charter of Roger, Earl of Clare, published in the Stoke by Clare
Cartulary in which Earl Roger refers to his grandmother as "Aelicie de
Clermunt." [Reference: Harper-Bill & Mortimer, Stoke-by-Clare Priory
Cartulary1 (1982): 22]. Neither Planché or Complete Peerage were
aware of this charter evidence. Once again it confirms that Alice was
a member of the Clermont family.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +
Source: Charles Cawley, Medlands database
Weblink: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc319304480

BOUCHARD [III] de Montmorency, son of HERVE Seigneur de Montmorency &
his wife Agnes --- (-Jerusalem [2 Jan], after 1124).

[m thirdly (after [1114/17]) as her second husband, ADELISA de
Clermont, widow of GILBERT FitzRichard de Clare, daughter of HUGUES
Comte de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis & his wife Marguerite de Ramerupt.
The Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis refers to a sister of "comes
Rainaldus" as husband of "Gillebertus, filius Richardi Anglici"[538].
Guillaume de Jumièges records that the wife of Gilbert was the
daughter of the Comte de Clermont[539]. Her second marriage into the
Montmorency family is confirmed by the charter dated under which
Robert Bishop of Lincoln confirms previous donations to Thorney,
including one by “Adelidæ de Montemoraci” of “…terræ in Randa quas
Turgisius tenuit et Toui prius dederat”[540], which clearly refers
back to the earlier undated charter under which “Adeliz, uxor Gilberti
filii Ricardi, et Gillebertus et Walterus et Baldewinus et Rohaisia
pueri Gilberti” donated property “quod Tovi dedit…et in Randa…quas
Turgisius tenebat” to Thorney Monastery[541]. The precise identity of
Adelisa´s second husband has not yet been confirmed. According to
Duchesne, Adelisa´s second husband was Hervé, son of Bouchard [III]
Seigneur de Montmorency and his second wife, but he cites no primary
source on which this statement is based[542]. As noted below, the
first marriage of Mathieu [I] de Montmorency, who would have been Hervé
´s older half-brother born from their father´s first marriage, is
dated to [1126]. This suggests the birth of Mathieu [I] in
[1095/1105]. If that estimated date range is correct, any half-
brothers born from his father´s second marriage would probably have
been too young to have married Adelisa. In addition, given Adelisa´s
prominent family background and first marriage, it is unlikely that
her second husband would have been the younger son of the seigneur de
Montmorency. As Adelisa had several children by her first husband,
she would have been considerably older than her second husband if he
had been a younger son of Bouchard [III]. A more likely case is that
Adelisa´s second husband was Bouchard [III] himself, whose age and
position would have been more appropriate for the marriage.]

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Interested parties (and I know everyone is interested) will doubtless
enjoy reading John Horace Round's well written discussion of the
"Montmorency Imposture" publiished in his book entitled Feudal England
(1895): 519-527. This material may be viewed at the following
weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZEQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA519

Mr. Round who was a cut above everyone before or since identifies
Alice de Clermont's 2nd husband as [?Bouchard} de Montmorency. I
don't see, however, how he arrives at his conclusion that Alice's
husband was [?Bouchard] de Montmorency. Whatever his reasons, he
clearly rejects the notion that Alice de Clermont's 2nd husband was
Hervé de Montmorency.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Wjhonson]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2zgIAAAAQAAJ&dq=hugh%20count%20of%20clermont&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=hugh%20count%20of%20clermont&f=false



<<"I think the only source I've seen which stated that Hughes, Adelaide's father,
as the Count of Clermont, was this:">>





-----Original Message-----
From: Adrienne Boaz <***@yahoo.com>
To: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>; Gen <GEN-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, May 2, 2012 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


Dear Douglas and all the medieval genealogists,
I think the only source I've seen which stated that Hughes, Adelaide's father,
as the Count of Clermont, was this:
"Hugues, surnommé de Monchi, Montiacensis, par Suger, parce qu'il possedait le
hâteau
e ce nom, du vivant de Renaud, son père, lui succeda au comte de Clermont."
ughes, known as of Monchi, Montiacensis by Suger, because
e possessed the castle of that name, during the lifetime of Renaud, his father,
ucceeded him to the Count of Clermont.
This was from pages 170-171 of:
e Saint-Allais, Nicolas Viton . L'Art de Vérifier les Dates des Faits
istoriques, des
hartes, des Chroniques, et Autres Anciens Monuments, Depuis la Naissance de
otre-Seigneur.
ome Douzième. C.F. Patris. Paris.
818.
Here are the biographies I've written of Hugues and Marguerite, minus the
nnoying citation codes. If anyone would like to know the sources I used for
hese bios, I will be very happy to provide them.
Hugues de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Count of Clermont (Renaud)
as also known “Hugues de Monchi” or “de Montiacensis”, because he held the
astle Montiacensis. He married Marguerite circa 1080, and was of Beauvaisis,
nd while his father was still alive, Hugues succeeded him as the count of
lermont. In 1099, while Ancel was the bishop of Beauvais, Hugues made a
onation to the Abbey
f Flay, which was also known as Saint Germer.
athieu, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise, who married Hugues’
aughter, Emme, received the dowry for Emme’s moiety of the land of Luzarches,
bout nineteen miles north of Paris, but he aspired to possess the entire
state, and in about 1102 seized the fortress there. An elderly man, Hugues was
nable to constrain his son-in-law, and so he implored the aid of Louis the Fat,
hen prince of France, who, after attempting an unsuccessful diplomatic
pproach, eventually marched against Mathieu and besieged the tower of Luzarches
ith fire and weaponry. Louis installed knights to defend the keep, and then
estored
t to Hugues.
fter this, Louis the Fat assailed a second castle held by
athieu, called Chambly,
n Beauvaisis, but this effort was hampered by a downpour, and despite his
ttempt to maintain order, most of his troops disbanded the following dawn,
midst several tents being set afire. The men of Chambly made ​​an offense in
hich several
ere taken prisoner, including Hugues, Guy de Senlis, and Herluin of Paris.
ouis
he Fat managed to escape, yet when the count of Beaumont discovered that Louis
ntended to
eturn with an army thrice the size as the first, he submitted and allowed his
ather-in-law his freedom. Hugues’ death occurred after 1102.
arguerite de Roucy (Hilduin, Alix) has sometimes been
alled “Marguerite de Rameru”, but typically as “de Roucy”. She was born circa
050 and was the mother of Adelaide de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Renaud II, Count
f Clermont, Gui, who died in prison after being captured by the English in
119,
aoul, Canon of Beauvàis, Emme, who married Mathieu, Ermentrude, who married
ugh
’Avranches, Earl of Chester, and Richilde, who married Dreux II, Lord of Mello
n Beauvaisis.
I hope this might help... anyone at all.
- Adrienne Boaz

________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
o: gen-***@rootsweb.com
ent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:56 AM
ubject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or
e Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

ear Newsgroup ~
In my post yesterday, I noted that Complete Peerage cited two sources
or the marriage of Gilbert Fitz Richard and Alice de Clermont, namely
ère Anselme and a note in an article by J.R. Planché published in
ournal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (1870): 150–151.
I had the opportunity this morning of reading the note by J.R. Planché
hich was cited by Complete Peerage. I've copied the note below.
lanché specifically discusses Père Anselme's comments. Planché's
ote may also be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UDAGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150
"The first of the Clares who wrote himself Earl of Hertford is said to
ave been Richard, eldest son of Gilbert de Tonbridge, by his wife
deliza, who is stated by Guillaume de Jumièges to have been the
aughter of a Comte de Clermont .... It would be desirable to
ffiliate this wife of Gilbert more distinctly, by showing which of
he Counts of Clermont was her father. According to Père Anselme
Hist. Généalogique) she was the daughter of Hugh, first Comte de
lermont en Beauvaisis, by his wife Marguerite de Rouey, daughter of
ildouin, fourth Comte de Rouey, and Alex. de Chastillon; but though
e states this in the genealogy of Clare, he gives no such daughter to
ount Hugh in that of Clermont, naming only three daughters, — 1,
rmentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester; 2, Richilde, wife of Dreux,
econd Seigneur de Mello; and 3, Emma, wife of Matthieu, first Comte
e Beaumont sur l'Oise. The fact of her parentage depends, therefore,
t present on the statement of Guillaume de Jumièges, and the
uthenticity of a note appended to her charter in the Register of
horney Abbey, and thus printed by Dugdale: 'Adelicia de Claramonte
icta (folio 11, cap. 9, parte 4).' The charter itself commences
hus: 'Adeliz mater Comitis Gilberti omnibus amicis et hominibus suis
rancie et Anglie salutem,' etc.; and ends with 'Sciendum est anterior
aec esse facta coram Comite Gilberti et Waltero frater ejus.' But we
ave yet to identify her as the daugjhter of Count Hugh the first."
ND OF QUOTE
As we can see above, Planché was rather uncertain as to the correct
arentage of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard, which
act was not indicated by Complete Peerage. Fortunately, since the
ime that Planché wrote his note, more evidence has been located to
rove conclusively that Alice de Clermont was the daughter of Hugues,
eigneur (not comte) of Clermont in Beauvaisis, and sister of Renaud,
ount of Clermont in Beauvaisis.
One quick comment regarding the various names forms for Alice de
lermont: Hadalaidis, Adelicia, Adeliz. These are merely Latin forms
or the given name Alice.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[Adrienne Boaz]

Thank you, Will! I requested the six volumes of Orderic Vitalis (translated by Marjorie Chibnall) from my library, and I know they are chock full of great information like what you just posted. I can't wait until they arrive so I can look at them. Thank you for this. :o)

 - Adrienne Boaz



________________________________
From: Wjhonson <***@aol.com>
To: ***@yahoo.com; ***@msn.com; GEN-***@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


http://books.google.com/books?id=2zgIAAAAQAAJ&dq=hugh%20count%20of%20clermont&pg=PA283#v=onepage&q=hugh%20count%20of%20clermont&f=false

 
<<"I think the only source I've seen which stated that Hughes, Adelaide's father,
was the Count of Clermont, was this:">>



-----Original Message-----
From: Adrienne Boaz <***@yahoo.com>
To: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>; Gen <GEN-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wed, May 2, 2012 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


Dear Douglas and all the medieval genealogists, I think the only source I've seen which stated that Hughes, Adelaide's father,
was the Count of Clermont, was this: "Hugues, surnommé de Monchi, Montiacensis,  par Suger, parce qu'il possedait le
château
de ce nom, du vivant de Renaud, son père, lui succeda au comte de Clermont."
Hughes, known as of Monchi, Montiacensis by Suger, because
he possessed the castle of that name, during the lifetime of Renaud, his father,
succeeded him to the Count of Clermont. This was from pages 170-171 of:
de Saint-Allais, Nicolas Viton . L'Art de Vérifier les Dates des Faits
Historiques, des
Chartes, des Chroniques, et Autres Anciens Monuments, Depuis la Naissance de
Notre-Seigneur.
Tome Douzième. C.F. Patris. Paris.
1818. Here are the biographies I've written of Hugues and Marguerite, minus the
annoying citation codes. If anyone would like to know the sources I used for
these bios, I will be very happy to provide them. Hugues de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Count of Clermont (Renaud)
was also known “Hugues de Monchi” or “de Montiacensis”, because he held the
castle Montiacensis. He married Marguerite circa 1080, and was of Beauvaisis,
and while his father was still alive, Hugues succeeded him as the count of
Clermont. In 1099, while Ancel was the bishop of Beauvais, Hugues made a
donation to the Abbey
of Flay, which was also known as Saint Germer.
Mathieu, Count of Beaumont-sur-Oise, who married Hugues’
daughter, Emme, received the dowry for Emme’s moiety of the land of Luzarches,
about nineteen miles north of Paris, but he aspired to possess the entire
estate, and in about 1102 seized the fortress there. An elderly man, Hugues was
unable to constrain his son-in-law, and so he implored the aid of Louis the Fat,
then prince of France, who, after attempting an unsuccessful diplomatic
approach, eventually marched against Mathieu and besieged the tower of Luzarches
with fire and weaponry. Louis installed knights to defend the keep, and then
restored
it to Hugues.
After this, Louis the Fat assailed a second castle held by
Mathieu, called Chambly,
in Beauvaisis, but this effort was hampered by a downpour, and despite his
attempt to maintain order, most of his troops disbanded the following dawn,
amidst several tents being set afire. The men of Chambly made ​​an offense in
which several
were taken prisoner, including Hugues, Guy de Senlis, and Herluin of Paris.
Louis
the Fat managed to escape, yet when the count of Beaumont discovered that Louis
intended to
return with an army thrice the size as the first, he submitted and allowed his
father-in-law his freedom. Hugues’ death occurred after 1102.
Marguerite de Roucy (Hilduin, Alix) has sometimes been
called “Marguerite de Rameru”, but typically as “de Roucy”. She was born circa
1050 and was the mother of Adelaide de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis, Renaud II, Count
of Clermont, Gui, who died in prison after being captured by the English in
1119,
Raoul, Canon of Beauvàis, Emme, who married Mathieu, Ermentrude, who married
Hugh
d’Avranches, Earl of Chester, and Richilde, who married Dreux II, Lord of Mello
en Beauvaisis. I hope this might help... anyone at all.  - Adrienne Boaz ________________________________ From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-***@rootsweb.com Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or
de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency Dear Newsgroup ~ In my post yesterday, I noted that Complete Peerage cited two sources
for the marriage of Gilbert Fitz Richard and Alice de Clermont, namely
Père Anselme and a note in an article by J.R. Planché published in
Journal of the British Archaeological Association 26 (1870): 150–151. I had the opportunity this morning of reading the note by J.R. Planché
which was cited by Complete Peerage.  I've copied the note below.
Planché specifically discusses Père Anselme's comments.  Planché's
note may also be viewed at the following weblink:   http://books.google.com/books?id=UDAGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA150 "The first of the Clares who wrote himself Earl of Hertford is said to
have been Richard, eldest son of Gilbert de Tonbridge, by his wife
Adeliza, who is stated by Guillaume de Jumièges to have been the
daughter of a Comte de Clermont .... It would be desirable to
affiliate this wife of Gilbert more distinctly, by showing which of
the Counts of Clermont was her father.  According to Père Anselme
(Hist. Généalogique) she was the daughter of Hugh, first Comte de
Clermont en Beauvaisis, by his wife Marguerite de Rouey, daughter of
Hildouin, fourth Comte de Rouey, and Alex. de Chastillon; but though
he states this in the genealogy of Clare, he gives no such daughter to
Count Hugh in that of Clermont, naming only three daughters, — 1,
Ermentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of Chester; 2, Richilde, wife of Dreux,
second Seigneur de Mello; and 3, Emma, wife of Matthieu, first Comte
de Beaumont sur l'Oise.  The fact of her parentage depends, therefore,
at present on the statement of Guillaume de Jumièges, and the
authenticity of a note appended to her charter in the Register of
Thorney Abbey, and thus printed by Dugdale: 'Adelicia de Claramonte
dicta (folio 11, cap. 9, parte 4).'  The charter itself commences
thus: 'Adeliz mater Comitis Gilberti omnibus amicis et hominibus suis
Francie et Anglie salutem,' etc.; and ends with 'Sciendum est anterior
haec esse facta coram Comite Gilberti et Waltero frater ejus.'  But we
have yet to identify her as the daugjhter of Count Hugh the first."
END OF QUOTE As we can see above, Planché was rather uncertain as to the correct
parentage of Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard, which
fact was not indicated by Complete Peerage.  Fortunately, since the
time that Planché wrote his note, more evidence has been located to
prove conclusively that Alice de Clermont was the daughter of Hugues,
seigneur (not comte) of Clermont in Beauvaisis, and sister of Renaud,
Count of Clermont in Beauvaisis. One quick comment regarding the various names forms for Alice de
Clermont: Hadalaidis, Adelicia, Adeliz.  These are merely Latin forms
for the given name Alice. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah -------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message -------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message

[Douglas Richardson]

On May 2, 6:17 pm, Adrienne Boaz <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
< Thank you, Will! I requested the six volumes of Orderic Vitalis
(translated by Marjorie Chibnall) from my library, and I know they are
chock full of great information like what you
< just posted. I can't wait until they arrive so I can look at them.
Thank you for this. :o)
<
<  - Adrienne Boaz

Speaking of Orderic Vitalis, Orderic specifically refers to another of
Alice de Clermont's sisters, Ermentrude, wife of Hugh, Earl of
Chester, as "filiam Hugonis de Claromonte Belvacensi." [see Le
Provost, Orderici Vitalis 2 (1840): 219220; Migne, Patrologiae cursus
completus, Series Latina 188 (1890): 776; Freeman, Reign of William
Rufus and the Accession of Henry the First 2 (1882): 360].

In a footnote, Le Provost, the editor of Orderic Vitalis, identifies
"Hugonis de Claromonte" as "Hugues, premier du nom, seigneur de
Clermont en Beauvoisis, épousa Marguerite de Rouci." No count.

Furthermore, I note that Ermentrude's husband, Hugh, Earl of Chester,
confirmed to the Priory of Saint-Leu d'Esserent the previous gift of
his wife's parents who he refers to as "Hugo Claromontensis et
Margarita uxor ejus" [see Muller, Prieuré de Saint-Leu d’Esserent:
Cartulaire 1 (Pubs. Soc. Hist. du Vexin) (1900): 59–60].

Additional records can be cited but I think the point has been made.
Hugues de Clermont = No count, just seigneur

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Janet Wolfe]

It appears that the contemporary documents cited so far specify
neither the position of seigneur nor that of count with respect to
Hugh of Clermont. Could someone please explain the difference in the
duties, rights, and powers of a seigneur and those of a count in this
era? Also, how did one become a count, as distinguished from a
seigneur of a place, in this era?

The chapter in the book by Round (Feudal England: Historical Studies
on the XIth and XIIth Centuries, cited in an earlier post in this
discussion) about Alice's son Hervey is interesting, but it is
disappointing in that Round does not fully quote the charters, provide
their dates, nor explain all of the reasoning necessary for his
conclusions. An earlier chapter in the same book (p. 468, "Walter
Tirel and his Wife") is also interesting and better explains the
reasoning Round used for his conclusions concerning Tirel and his
wife. It also provides a useful example of the importance of carefully
considering the wording of old documents in the context of other
documents by the same author or of the same era.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7ZEQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA468

[Douglas Richardson]

On May 3, 10:31 am, Janet Wolfe <***@umich.edu> wrote:
< It appears that the contemporary documents cited so far specify
< neither the position of seigneur nor that of count with respect to
< Hugh of Clermont.

As I stated in an earlier post, there is a good account of Hugues de
Clermont, seigneur of Clermont, published in Luçay, Le Comté de
Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878): 9–11. This source may be viewed at the
following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9

On page 11, Luçay specifically states the following:

"Ni Suger, ni les chartes que nous avons eues sous les yeux, ne
donnent à Hugues le titre de comte; elles le qualifient seulement
seigneur de Clermont.” END OF QUOTE.

That is very explicit.

Elsewhere, I note that Lépinois gives an account of the Counts of
Clermont in his book, Recherches historiques et critiques sur
l'ancient Comté et les Comtes de Clermont en Beauvoisis (1877).
Lépinois treats Hugues de Clermont as a count. However, on page 152,
he cites a record which appears to refer to Hugues de Clermont as
seigneur de Clermont:

"Il y avait à Breuil-le-Vert un beau prieuré-cure sous le vocable de
saint Martin, fondé par Hugues, seigneur de Clermont, qui le donna,
vers 1096-1097, à l'abbaye de Saint-Germer, du consentment de ses fils
Renaud et Guy et à la solicitation d'Anselme II, évêque de Beauvais."
END OF QUOTE

This information may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA152

On page 421, he provides a transcript of the actual charter issued by
Hugues de Clermont, in which Hugues specifically styles himself "Hugo,
Clarimontis dns" [i.e., Hugues, seigneur of Clermont]. Lépinois dates
that charter as being "before November 1099."

This transcript may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA421

"Hugo, Clarimontis dns" does not equal Hugues, Count of Clermont.
Even so Lépinois tells us in his introduction to this transcript that
this was a confirmation charter of Hugues, Count of Clermont. Simply
put, the transcript of the charter doesn't agree with Lépinois'
statement.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

P.S. Interested parties might appreciate knowing that Hugues de
Clermont's son and heir, Renaud II, Count of Clermont (who witnessed
the charter of his father mentioned above), was the step-father of the
Ur-Mother of the newsgroup, Isabel de Vermandois.

[Wjhonson]

What Douglas do you assume that "dns" means?




-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 11:16 am
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


On May 3, 10:31 am, Janet Wolfe <***@umich.edu> wrote:
It appears that the contemporary documents cited so far specify
neither the position of seigneur nor that of count with respect to
Hugh of Clermont.
As I stated in an earlier post, there is a good account of Hugues de
lermont, seigneur of Clermont, published in Luçay, Le Comté de
lermont en Beauvaisis (1878): 9–11. This source may be viewed at the
ollowing weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9
On page 11, Luçay specifically states the following:
"Ni Suger, ni les chartes que nous avons eues sous les yeux, ne
onnent à Hugues le titre de comte; elles le qualifient seulement
eigneur de Clermont.” END OF QUOTE.
That is very explicit.
Elsewhere, I note that Lépinois gives an account of the Counts of
lermont in his book, Recherches historiques et critiques sur
'ancient Comté et les Comtes de Clermont en Beauvoisis (1877).
épinois treats Hugues de Clermont as a count. However, on page 152,
e cites a record which appears to refer to Hugues de Clermont as
eigneur de Clermont:
"Il y avait à Breuil-le-Vert un beau prieuré-cure sous le vocable de
aint Martin, fondé par Hugues, seigneur de Clermont, qui le donna,
ers 1096-1097, à l'abbaye de Saint-Germer, du consentment de ses fils
enaud et Guy et à la solicitation d'Anselme II, évêque de Beauvais."
ND OF QUOTE
This information may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA152
On page 421, he provides a transcript of the actual charter issued by
ugues de Clermont, in which Hugues specifically styles himself "Hugo,
larimontis dns" [i.e., Hugues, seigneur of Clermont]. Lépinois dates
hat charter as being "before November 1099."
This transcript may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA421
"Hugo, Clarimontis dns" does not equal Hugues, Count of Clermont.
ven so Lépinois tells us in his introduction to this transcript that
his was a confirmation charter of Hugues, Count of Clermont. Simply
ut, the transcript of the charter doesn't agree with Lépinois'
tatement.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. Interested parties might appreciate knowing that Hugues de
lermont's son and heir, Renaud II, Count of Clermont (who witnessed
he charter of his father mentioned above), was the step-father of the
r-Mother of the newsgroup, Isabel de Vermandois.

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[Douglas Richardson]

Post by Wjhonson
What Douglas do you assume that "dns" means?

dns is a Latin abbreviation.

dns = dominus

When following a given name, in English it means lord and in French it
means seigneur.

DR

[Wjhonson]

So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into French as "Seigneur Montgomery" ?




-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 1:45 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


On May 3, 12:21 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
What Douglas do you assume that "dns" means?
dns is a Latin abbreviation.
dns = dominus
When following a given name, in English it means lord and in French it
eans seigneur.
DR

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[CE Wood]

That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
They are not identical.

CE Wood

So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into French as "Seigneur Montgomery"?

[Wjhonson]

I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte" and it's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely. I'm afraid you are not paying attention to this thread.



-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood

n May 3, 1:49 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[CE Wood]

I was responding to your specific question: "So you think perhaps
that 'Lord Montgomery' should be translated into French as 'Seigneur
Montgomery'?"

"Lord Montgomery" translates into French as "Seigneur Montgomery."


CE Wood

Post by Wjhonson
I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte" and it's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely.  I'm afraid you are not paying attention to this thread.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency
That is the correct translation.  Count = Comte.  Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood
 So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?

[Wjhonson]

You're making a lot of assumptions, and they are wrong.
The word "Lord" has no specific translation into French out of context.
That's the point you're failing to see.



-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


I was responding to your specific question: "So you think perhaps
hat 'Lord Montgomery' should be translated into French as 'Seigneur
ontgomery'?"
"Lord Montgomery" translates into French as "Seigneur Montgomery."

E Wood

On May 3, 3:33 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte" and
t's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely. I'm afraid you are not paying attention to
his thread.
-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard
or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood

n May 3, 1:49 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?


------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

[Leo]

Dear Will,

I think it is great to see that you try to be precise, but at times with
titles when translating you have to look at the nearest almost equivalent.
Seigneur is as messy (I think) in French, a form of address and attached to
properties and therefor (my question) is it a title? A title given? When you
inherited a property you became Seigneur of the property but was it ever
recorded as a title (as title) given to a person or attached to a property?
These days the French are very _liberal_ with the use of titles.

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <***@aol.com>
To: <***@msn.com>; <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont,wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard
(or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

Post by Wjhonson
You're making a lot of assumptions, and they are wrong.
The word "Lord" has no specific translation into French out of context.
That's the point you're failing to see.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency
I was responding to your specific question: "So you think perhaps
hat 'Lord Montgomery' should be translated into French as 'Seigneur
ontgomery'?"
"Lord Montgomery" translates into French as "Seigneur Montgomery."
E Wood
I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte"
and
t's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely. I'm afraid you are not paying attention
to
his thread.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard
or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency
That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood
So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into
French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Leo]

Dear Will,

For me the word Lord is a pain. It is a form of address usually used for
Earls and Barons and Bishops and so on. I _try_ to give people the rank Earl
or Baron or whatever. However in some lineages I have sometimes used both
(sigh).

Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wjhonson" <***@aol.com>
To: <***@msn.com>; <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont,wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard
(or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency

Post by Wjhonson
I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte"
and it's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely. I'm afraid you are not paying attention
to this thread.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency
That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood
So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into
French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Wjhonson]

You are exactly correct that "Lord" has multiple meanings in English and therefore translations into French or Latin.
Which is why C E Wood is wrong.



-----Original Message-----
From: Leo <***@netspeed.com.au>
To: Wjhonson <***@aol.com>
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont,wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


Dear Will,
For me the word Lord is a pain. It is a form of address usually used for
arls and Barons and Bishops and so on. I _try_ to give people the rank Earl
r Baron or whatever. However in some lineages I have sometimes used both
sigh).
Leo van de Pas
anberra, Australia

---- Original Message -----
rom: "Wjhonson" <***@aol.com>
o: <***@msn.com>; <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
ent: Friday, May 04, 2012 8:33 AM
ubject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont,wife of Gilbert Fitz Richard
or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


I did not say they were identical.
And you are incorrect in this particular because "Dominus" is not "Comte"
and it's not "Seigneur" either.
It's a different word entirely. I'm afraid you are not paying attention
to this thread.



-----Original Message-----
From: CE Wood <***@msn.com>
To: gen-medieval <gen-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, May 3, 2012 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: C.P. Addition: Alice de Clermont, wife of Gilbert Fitz
Richard (or de Clare) and Bouchard de Montmorency


That is the correct translation. Count = Comte. Lord = Seigneur.
hey are not identical.
CE Wood

n May 3, 1:49 pm, Wjhonson <***@aol.com> wrote:
So you think perhaps that "Lord Montgomery" should be translated into
French
s "Seigneur Montgomery"?

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body
of
he message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Janet Wolfe]

Post by Douglas Richardson
< It appears that the contemporary documents cited so far specify
< neither the position of seigneur nor that of count with respect to
< Hugh of Clermont.
As I stated in an earlier post, there is a good account of Hugues de
Clermont, seigneur of Clermont, published in Luçay, Le Comté de
Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878): 9–11.  This source may be viewed at the
   http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9
"Ni Suger, ni les chartes que nous avons eues sous les yeux, ne
donnent à Hugues le titre de comte; elles le qualifient seulement
seigneur de Clermont.”   END OF QUOTE.
That is very explicit.
Elsewhere, I note that Lépinois gives an account of the Counts of
Clermont in his book, Recherches historiques et critiques sur
l'ancient Comté et les Comtes de Clermont en Beauvoisis (1877).
Lépinois treats Hugues de Clermont as a count.  However, on page 152,
he cites a record which appears to refer to Hugues de Clermont as
"Il y avait à Breuil-le-Vert un beau prieuré-cure sous le vocable de
saint Martin, fondé par Hugues, seigneur de Clermont, qui le donna,
vers 1096-1097, à l'abbaye de Saint-Germer, du consentment de ses fils
Renaud et Guy et à la solicitation d'Anselme II, évêque de Beauvais."
END OF QUOTE
   http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA152
On page 421, he provides a transcript of the actual charter issued by
Hugues de Clermont, in which Hugues specifically styles himself "Hugo,
Clarimontis dns" [i.e., Hugues, seigneur of Clermont].  Lépinois dates
that charter as being "before November 1099."
   http://books.google.com/books?id=pOVtY1tKF6oC&pg=PA421
"Hugo, Clarimontis dns" does not equal Hugues, Count of Clermont.
Even so Lépinois tells us in his introduction to this transcript that
this was a confirmation charter of Hugues, Count of Clermont.  Simply
put, the transcript of the charter doesn't agree with Lépinois'
statement.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
P.S. Interested parties might appreciate knowing that Hugues de
Clermont's son and heir, Renaud II, Count of Clermont (who witnessed
the charter of his father mentioned above), was the step-father of the
Ur-Mother of the newsgroup, Isabel de Vermandois.

Douglas, thanks for providing an example of a document in which Hugo
of Clermont styles himself "dominus" but not "comes." The source cited
by Lépinois is Pierre Louvet, Histoire de la ville de Beauvais et des
antiquités du pays de Beauvoisis (1614). This book is also available
on Google books, and the passage cited by Lépinois may be viewed at
http://books.google.com/books?id=PyJnQjzLvHEC&pg=PA600
(It starts at the bottom of the previous page.)
Like Lépinois, Louvet refers to both Hugo and his son as "Comte de
Clermont" in his commentary, even though the grant he quotes uses the
word "dominus" for Hugo.

In the passage you cited from Luçay's book (published in 1878), Luçay
indicates that he has not seen any contemporary document in which Hugo
of Clermont was called or called himself count, only documents that
call him seigneur. However, since Luçay does not provide
transcriptions of any such documents, it is difficult to evaluate his
claim. Even if we locate several examples of contemporary documents in
which Hugo of Clermont is called seigneur but not count, it will be
difficult to prove that there was no contemporary document in which he
was called or called himself count.

Suger (c1081-13 January 1151, according to Wikipedia) was born in the
lifetime of Hugo of Clermont, so if, as Luçay suggests, Suger referred
to Hugo of Clermont as seigneur but not count, that would be
interesting evidence. Unfortunately, Luçay does not quote any such
passages from Suger.

Luçay suggests that Hugh's son acquired the status of count when he
married the Vermandois widow, "Renaud II. Il est le premier qui
incontestablement, à notre avis du moins, se soit qualifié de comte de
Clermont, qualification qu'il nous semble avoir due à l'union qu'il
contracta avec Alix ou Adélaïde de Vermandois, fille d'Herbert IV et
d'Adèle de Valois. Cette princesse, quand elle épousa Renaud, était
déjà veuve d'Hugues dit le Grand, troisième fils d'Henri I, roi de
France."

If this marriage occurred before Hugo of Clermont died, do you suppose
that Hugo may also have assumed or acquired the status of count near
the end of his life?

[Wjhonson]

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#Renauddiedbefore1162

[Janet Wolfe]

 http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#Renaudd...

Thanks for posting this link to the relevant section of Charles
Cawley's Medieval Lands. The discussion of Hugh of Clermont refers to
two of his charters. Neither of these refer to him as count,
consistent with Luçay's claim. (One is the charter Douglas Richardson
quoted from the book by Lépinois and published earlier by Louvet. The
other is the confirmation, also noted by Douglas, of a gift to the
Priory of Saint-Leu d'Esserent.)

In the section about Hugh's son Renaud, Medieval Lands states that
Renaud "assumed the title Comte de Clermont [en-Beauvaisis] after his
first marriage," citing Kerrebrouck (2000), pp. 538 and 544 footnote
9. Patrick van Kerrebrouck, Les Capétiens, 987-1328 (2000) is shown in
snippet view on Google books (http://books.google.com/books?
&id=scAiAQAAIAAJ&dq), but I wasn't able to get it to show the cited
pages.)

Perhaps it is interesting to note that Medieval Lands mentions two
documents written not very long after the death of Hugh that do refer
to him as count: "The Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis names 'Guido
dictus Qui-non-dormit et Hugo Pauper et comes Rainaldus et sorores
eorum' as children of 'Hugo comes de Claro-monte' and his wife
Marguerite," citing Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis 15, MGH SS
XIII, p. 255, and "The Chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines names
'comitem Rainaldum' as son of 'comiti Hugonis de Claromonte
Baluacensi' and his wife Marguerite," citing Chronica Albrici Monachi
Trium Fontium 1063, MGH SS XXIII, p. 794.

The first of these can be viewed at http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000875.html?pageNo=255
and begins, "Secundam filiam prefati comitis Helduini de Rameruth
dictam Margaretam duxit Hugo comes de Claro-monte" (Hugh count of
Clermont married the second daughter, named Margaret, of the aforesaid
count Hilduin of Rameruth). Wikipedia says this genealogy was written
at the Abbey of Foigny shortly after 1160, probably by the reigning
abbot, Robert.

The second, written in the 1230s, can be viewed at
http://www.dmgh.de/de/fs1/object/goToPage/bsb00000886.html?pageNo=794
and says, "Margareta comiti Hugoni de Claromonte Baluacensi peperit
comitem Renaldum" (Margaret by count Hugh of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis
gave birth to count Renald).

Thus it appears that while Hugh may not have called himself or been
called count during his lifetime in any extant document, he was so
designated in documents written fairly soon after his death. A
definitive answer to whether Hugh's contemporaries ever thought of him
as having the title, status, or powers of a count may not be possible.
I agree with Douglas that a lack of contemporary documents calling
Hugh a count and a lack of documents naming him as a witness with
other counts would be strong evidence against his having had the title
or status of a count during his own lifetime, especially if there are
a number of such documents available in which Hugh is not called a
count or in which he does not witness in the company of other
contemporary counts.

[Douglas Richardson]

Jan ~

One has to be careful relying on Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis
and Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium. Both sources contain
errors of omission and commission. I've used the pedigrees in these
sources many times. They are great when they are accurate but
frustrating when they are incomplete or just plain wrong.
Unfortunately sometimes they are the only source available for
pedigrees.

In this case, we have more reliable sources we can employ such as
those documents issued by Hugues de Clermont himself in his lifetime
and those issued by his own children after his death. The documents
issued by his children include charters of his son, Count Renaud, his
daughers, Alice (or Alix) and Marguerite, and his son-in-law, Hugh,
Earl of Chester. In none of these items is Hugues de Clermont styled
Count. Had he been a count, his own children would have known it and
said so in their charters. The absence of the title "count" in these
documents indicates that Hugh was not a count, certainly not at the
time of his death. We also have the historian Abbot Suger (died 1151)
who was the foremost historian of his time. Abbot Suger would
personally have known Hugh de Clermont's family. Suger's silence on
Hugues de Clermont being a count I believe is important.

Your next question will be: Why did Genealogiæ Scriptoris
Fusniacensis and Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium call Hugh a
count? Answer: They knew in part and their statements reflect that.
We have available to us today a vast number of documents which they
didn't have available to them. For their time, they did the best
they were able. That's good enough for me.

Your next question after that will be: Could Hugh have been a count in
part of his life and not at the time of his death? Answer: All things
are possible. In this case not likely.

And your next question after that will be: Why did Luçay and Lépinois
take two different positions on this matter? Answer: Good scholars
can disagree with one another and hopefully remain friends. But in
this case I think Lépinois started out believing that Hugues de
Clermont was a count and never questioned the contemporary documents
he saw which said otherwise. In that vein, my personal experience has
been that good history is written based on contemporary documents, not
on what we want to be so.

Once upon a time I was fooled into thinking that Ada of Huntingdon
remarried after her husband, Henry de Hastings' death. I found no
less than twelve published sources that said so ... some even said she
married twice after Henry's death. But when I looked at the
contemporary evidence, it was clear that Ada of Huntingdon predeceased
her husband. So much for secondary sources.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Janet Wolfe]

Post by Douglas Richardson
Jan ~
One has to be careful relying on Genealogiæ Scriptoris Fusniacensis
and Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium.  Both sources contain
errors of omission and commission.  I've used the pedigrees in these
sources many times.  They are great when they are accurate but
frustrating when they are incomplete or just plain wrong.
Unfortunately sometimes they are the only source available for
pedigrees.
In this case, we have more reliable sources we can employ such as
those documents issued by Hugues de Clermont himself in his lifetime
and those issued by his own children after his death.  The documents
issued by his children include charters of his son, Count Renaud, his
daughers, Alice (or Alix) and Marguerite, and his son-in-law, Hugh,
Earl of Chester.  In none of these items is Hugues de Clermont styled
Count.  Had he been a count, his own children would have known it and
said so in their charters.  The absence of the title "count" in these
documents indicates that Hugh was not a count, certainly not at the
time of his death.  We also have the historian Abbot Suger (died 1151)
who was the foremost historian of his time.  Abbot Suger would
personally have known Hugh de Clermont's family.  Suger's silence on
Hugues de Clermont being a count I believe is important.
Your next question will be:  Why did Genealogiæ Scriptoris
Fusniacensis and Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium call Hugh a
count?  Answer: They knew in part and their statements reflect that.
We have available to us today a vast number of documents which they
didn't have available to them.   For their time, they did the best
they were able.  That's good enough for me.
Your next question after that will be: Could Hugh have been a count in
part of his life and not at the time of his death?  Answer: All things
are possible.  In this case not likely.
And your next question after that will be:  Why did Luçay and Lépinois
take two different positions on this matter?  Answer: Good scholars
can disagree with one another and hopefully remain friends.  But in
this case I think Lépinois started out believing that Hugues de
Clermont was a count and never questioned the contemporary documents
he saw which said otherwise.  In that vein, my personal experience has
been that good history is written based on contemporary documents, not
on what we want to be so.
Once upon a time I was fooled into thinking that Ada of Huntingdon
remarried after her husband, Henry de Hastings' death.  I found no
less than twelve published sources that said so ... some even said she
married twice after Henry's death.  But when I looked at the
contemporary evidence, it was clear that Ada of Huntingdon predeceased
her husband.  So much for secondary sources.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

The new issue of Foundations (2012, vol. 4, p. 3-20) includes an
article by Keats-Rohan that provides an image, transcription, and
analysis of the part of the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey related to
the family of Alice of Clermont. In the Liber Vitae Alice's father is
called "Hugo comes de Claromonte." Keats-Rohan dates the entry to
1144, during the lifetime of Alice, and after the death of her sister,
Margaret de Gerberoy, in 1136.

An article by Cecily Clark (“The Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey,” in
Words, Names and History. Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. Peter
Jackson (1995), 301-347) also includes the entry for "Hugo comes de
Claromonte." Douglas had cited this article in his first post in this
topic, but the page that includes the entry for "Hugo comes de
Claromonte" was not available in the Google preview he viewed. The
analysis by Keats-Rohan provides much more information about the
relationships and identities of the people named in this section of
the Liber Vitae, including the identification of "Burchardus de
Muntmorenci" as the second husband of Alice, by whom she had three
sons also named in the Liber Vitae. Keats-Rohan does not discuss the
issue of whether Alice's father Hugo was or wasn't really a count, but
she does refer to him by that title. (Except for Alice's children, the
relationships are not stated in the Liber Vitae itself; they are
inferred from other evidence.)

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Offlist Janet Wolfe kindly sent me a full transcript of the list of
names included in the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey. For interest's
sake, I've copied the list below.

(1) Hugo comes de Cestria. (2) Ærmentruða. (3) Gileb(er)t(us) fili(us)
Ricardi. (4) Ricard(us) fili(us) eius. (5) Hugo comes de Claromonte.
(6) Margareta. (7) Burchardus de Muntmorenci. (8) Margareta de
Ierborai. (9) Aaliz uxor Gileb(er)ti filii Ricardi. (10) Comes
Gileb(er)t(us). (11) Galteri(us). (12) Heruic(us) (13) Hugo. (14)
Guido. filii sui. (15) Gileb(er)t(us) comes de Hereford.[sic] (16)
Rohais. (17) Auiza. (18) Margareta. (19) Aaliz. nate sue (20)
Rodb(er)t(us) capellan(us). (21) Rodb(er)t(us) de Bertuna. (22)
Mabilia. filia Gaufridi de Cotes. (23) Rodb(er)t(us) dapifer. (24)
Aderic(us) Hefede.

Normally I would routinely accept that Hugh de Clermont was a Count
based on this evidence.

However, there is a charter of Renaud, Count of Clermont, dated 1152,
in which he mentions "pater suus Hugo de Claremonte et Margarita mater
ejus, et comites Cestrenses Hugo et Richardus ..."

See the following weblink for this charter:

http://books.google.com/books?id=phcOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64

The only interpretation I can give the wording of the 1152 charter is
that Hugh de Claremont was not a count, but that Hugh and Richard were
Earls of Chester. If Hugh de Claremont was truly a count, I find it
inexplicable why his son, Renaud, would not accord that title to his
father in this document. However, not only did Renaud not refer to
his father as count, but neither did his two sisters or his brother-in-
law, Hugh, Earl of Chester, in their respective charters.

I further note that Lucay, Le Comté de Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878):
11 indicates that following Hugh de Claremont's death after 1102, his
son and heir, Renaud, first appears in 1114, as "seigneur de
Claremont" at the dedication of the Collégiale in that town. For
reference to that record, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11

Had Renaud been Count of Clermont in 1114, he surely would have been
so styled in this record. Given this evidence, I have to assume that
Hugh de Claremont was not a Count at the time of his death sometime
after 1102. Rather he was only "seigneur of Claremont," and was
succeeded by his son, Renaud, as "seigneur" not Count of Claremont.

This, of course, again raises the question that Janet raised earlier:
What constitutes a count? In England a person was an earl if he was
accorded that dignity by the king. The title could be withdrawn by
the king at any time. However, on rare occasions, people in England
were accorded what they call "courtesy" titles. One such person whose
title as Earl of Pembroke is murky in contemporary records is William
de Valence, the half-brother of King Henry III. He sometimes appears
as Earl, sometimes not. Some historians believe he was never
"officially" Earl of Pembroke.

So could Hugh de Claremont been an "unofficial" count?

I wish to thank Janet Wolfe for her assistance in this matter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Eric Kniffin]

Going off on a little bit of a tangent. But it's been 12 years since the last post, so I don't feel too terrible. :D

I'm seeing it mentioned in several places that Renaud, Count of Clermont fought at the Battle of Mortemer. Is Renaud the same Renaud as the father of Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis?

Wikipedia references Readings in Medieval History, edited by Patrick J. Geary. One of the notes for Guibert of Nogent's "Memoirs" says:
'The lord of Clermont-en-Beauvais was Renaud I, who fought at the battle of Mortemer in 1054 and was still alive in 1084.'
I assume he signed or witnessed something in 1084. But what?

Apparently, Geary knows something the author of the House of Clermont Wikipedia entry doesn't. Wiki says: 'The first Clermont for which there is any information is Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis (1030–1102), son of Renaud I.' And that sentence has a link to: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc429810574
I think that's the wrong link, however. https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/parclerdam.htm is better. Unfortunately, it doesn't help me. It says Renaud died after 1058. Sure, if he was still alive in 1084, he died after 1058. But that doesn't clear anything up.

Then there's the Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis entry at Wikipedia, which says Renaud lived 1010-1088. That's specific information about his death, not just 'alive after 1084'. That could connect the Renaud at Mortemer with Hugh's father. If I could read the source. But no source is given.

Or is it obvious to all of you that this is the one who fought at Mortemer is Hugh's father, because there was only one person with anything close to the name Renaud, Count of Clermont alive at that time?

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Going off on a little bit of a tangent. But it's been 12 years since the last post, so I don't feel too terrible. :D
I'm seeing it mentioned in several places that Renaud, Count of Clermont fought at the Battle of Mortemer. Is Renaud the same Renaud as the father of Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis?
'The lord of Clermont-en-Beauvais was Renaud I, who fought at the battle of Mortemer in 1054 and was still alive in 1084.'
I assume he signed or witnessed something in 1084. But what?
Apparently, Geary knows something the author of the House of Clermont Wikipedia entry doesn't. Wiki says: 'The first Clermont for which there is any information is Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis (1030–1102), son of Renaud I.' And that sentence has a link to: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/PARIS%20REGION%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc429810574
I think that's the wrong link, however. https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/parclerdam.htm is better. Unfortunately, it doesn't help me. It says Renaud died after 1058. Sure, if he was still alive in 1084, he died after 1058. But that doesn't clear anything up.
Then there's the Hugh I, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis entry at Wikipedia, which says Renaud lived 1010-1088. That's specific information about his death, not just 'alive after 1084'. That could connect the Renaud at Mortemer with Hugh's father. If I could read the source. But no source is given.
Or is it obvious to all of you that this is the one who fought at Mortemer is Hugh's father, because there was only one person with anything close to the name Renaud, Count of Clermont alive at that time?

Orderic Vitalis reported a long death-bed speech of William the
Conqueror mentioning that when King Henri I invaded Normandy (in 1054,
culminating in the battle at Mortemer) one part of his army was led by
his brother Eudes along with Renaud of Clermont.

This Renaud was royal chamberlain and lord (not count) of Clermont. We
don't know when he died. He may have been son or perhaps brother of a
royal butler named Hugues, but this is not certain.

Renaud's son Hugues (died ca 1103) was seigneur of Clermont by 1067 and
a co-seigneur of Creil by ca 1075 when he named himself in a charter as
son of the chamberlain Renaud. He too was not a count, but was
remembered by this title after it has been assumed by his son Renaud
(died by 1162).

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Ah! So there were at least two men named Renaud of Clermont at that time, and neither was Count. Thanks again.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Ah! So there were at least two men named Renaud of Clermont at that time, and neither was Count. Thanks again.

I don't know what post you are replying to here but I hope it isn't mine
in this thread - certainly I didn't mean to imply that there were two
Renauds of Clermont at the same time. The one in 1054, royal chamberlain
and father of Hugues, may possibly have been the son of a namesake but
this is just conjecture: then again, he may as I said earlier have been
the son or perhaps brother (or for all we know son-in-law) of the royal
butler Hugues who occurs around the same time.

The second Renaud was not a contemporary but a grandson of this Renaud
mentioned in 1054, and was the first to assume the title count of
Clermont ca 1103 when he married Adela, countess of Vermandois. It was
not unprecedented for a seigneur to take a comital title from his wife
and then apply it to his own seigneury.

The first Renaud (i.e. the 1054 seigneur of Clermont) was either dead by
May 1061, or at any rate no longer royal chamberlain from then. I don't
know where the idea came from that he lived until the 1080s or 1090s but
I suggest that this is most probably specious information repeated
without a medieval source.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Yes, well, in my defense, there are two Hughs, two Renauds, and I read it quickly because I had to leave for work. Lol

However, my primary question was: Was the Renaud who fought in the Battle of Mortemer the father of Hugh, who married Marguerite, daughter of Hilduin IV? And I believe the answer is Yes.

Annoying that Renaud is mistakenly called Count in some places.

But now I'd really like to know why Geary said he was still alive in 1084!

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Yes, well, in my defense, there are two Hughs, two Renauds, and I read it quickly because I had to leave for work. Lol
However, my primary question was: Was the Renaud who fought in the Battle of Mortemer the father of Hugh, who married Marguerite, daughter of Hilduin IV? And I believe the answer is Yes.
Annoying that Renaud is mistakenly called Count in some places.
But now I'd really like to know why Geary said he was still alive in 1084!

Yes, Renaud who fought at Mortemer in 1054 was the father of Hugues who
married Hilduin IV's daughter Marguerite.

The mistake about Renaud being still alive in 1084 was caused by a
misprint in *L'art de vérifier les dates*, vol. 3 (1818) p, 234, here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=5q6K8q_qRpYC&pg=RA1-PA234.

The assertion that Orderic placed Renaud as still living in 1084, and
that this was apparently not the last year of his life, is flatly wrong.
Orderic mentioned Renaud only in the reported death-bed speech of
William the Conqueror recalling that he had led part of Henri I's army
in February 1054, and that he escaped capture after the battle at
Mortemer by fleeing quickly. That is absolutely all that Orderic had to
say about him.

Père Anselme carelessly distorted this as indicating that Renaud was
still living in 1087, when William died - see here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=N0apH7T7cDIC&pg=PA45.

The editors of *L'art de vérifier les dates* relied on this old error
but misprinted the year as 1084 instead of 1087. Countless historians
have since repeated the mistake, many of them falsely attributing it to
Orderic.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

And on top of that, both of those sources call him "comte de Clermont". I guess we should be grateful that these folks have spent any time looking into these things and publishing it. But, wow.

As ever, I am grateful. I certainly wouldn't have known those sources were riddled with errors, even if I *had* managed to find my way to them while going from source to source.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
And on top of that, both of those sources call him "comte de Clermont". I guess we should be grateful that these folks have spent any time looking into these things and publishing it. But, wow.
As ever, I am grateful. I certainly wouldn't have known those sources were riddled with errors, even if I *had* managed to find my way to them while going from source to source.

I think it may be a little exaggerated to say that Père Anselme and Art
de vérifier les dates are "riddled" with errors - this particularly
avoidable error is not characteristic of either work.

Anselme (Pierre de Guibours) made the mistake in the 1674 edition (vol.
2 p. 17, here:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=naA08oEHtH4C&pg=PA17). The context
within William's death-bed narration should have been tipped him a hint
that the invasion of Normandy when Renaud led part of the royal army was
not in 1087, since the king at the time was plainly identified as "rex
Henricus", i.e. Henri I, who died in 1060.

Anselme was not usually so careless. When I saw the different year
wrongly stated in Art de vérifier les dates I wondered if 1084 might
have been a misprint for 1054 rather than for 1087, but this seems
unlikely since the record in Anselme had been accepted for more than a
century before this publication and ought to have been explicitly
corrected if that was the editors' intention. But again, the
Benedictines of Saint-Maur who originally compiled the series and the
revising editor Saint-Allais were conscientious scholars, not usually
prone to silently cadging outright errors from Anselme or other prior works.

The point is that everyone - including a medieval writer who may be the
sole source for some bit of information - is liable to make mistakes,
and no detail should be taken on trust without assessing where it came
from and how plausible it is.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Eric Kniffin
And on top of that, both of those sources call him "comte de
Clermont".  I guess we should be grateful that these folks have spent
any time looking into these things and publishing it.  But, wow.
As ever, I am grateful.  I certainly wouldn't have known those sources
were riddled with errors, even if I *had* managed to find my way to
them while going from source to source.

I think it may be a little exaggerated to say that Père Anselme and Art
de vérifier les dates are "riddled" with errors - this particularly
avoidable error is not characteristic of either work.
Anselme (Pierre de Guibours) made the mistake in the 1674 edition (vol.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=naA08oEHtH4C&pg=PA17). The context
within William's death-bed narration should have been tipped him a hint
that the invasion of Normandy when Renaud led part of the royal army was
not in 1087, since the king at the time was plainly identified as "rex
Henricus", i.e. Henri I, who died in 1060.

On second thoughts, Anselme may have been too brief more than he was
carelessly wrong when he said that Renaud occurs in 1087 as count of
Clermont - first because he is not actually titled count in Orderic's
version of William the Conqueror's dying speech, and secondly because
Anselme doesn't explicitly say that in 1087 Renaud was represented as
still living. This mistake was made by his subsequent editors, who
restated it clumsily, and then this borrowed error was absurdly
embellished in Art de vérifier les dates by placing the occurrence in
1054 yet asserting that Orderic also placed Renaud as still living in
1084 which appears not to have been the last year of his life.

Imagination of this kind is unbecoming in scholars.

By the way, Renaud's son Hugo has been wrongly conflated in some
obsolete works (and maybe some current genealogies) with his
contemporary in Norman Italy, Hugo, lord of Chiaromonte. They were
clearly not the same man: Renaud's son Hugo married Hilduin IV's
daughter Margaret and had at least eight children by her who were
married from the 1090s onwards. Hugo of Chiaromonte, known as the
One-eyed, married a lady named Gimarga and had a different set of
children who were already married by the 1080s.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

I suppose "riddled" might imply a greater numbers of errors. But there are only a handful of facts involved: name; title; date; the battle... And the title and date are wrong.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
I suppose "riddled" might imply a greater numbers of errors. But there are only a handful of facts involved: name; title; date; the battle... And the title and date are wrong.

Anselme and 'Art de vérifier les dates' are both vast compilations
giving details for a huge number of individuals over many centuries, and
of course both contain errors. I manage to make these frequently too,
though unlike their authors I'm not putting myself forward to posterity
as an expert in the subject.

A work that falls far short of acceptable standards in both respects,
the Medieval Lands database for instance, may be rightly described as
'riddled with errors', but I think this is going too far for most works
of ordinarily fallible research.

Of course, the level of scholarship had fallen off in France between the
time of Père Anselme himself (late 17th century) and the revised edition
of 'Art de vérifier les dates' (early 19th). In the meantime the French
had replaced the callous idiocy of the ancien régime with the vicious
idiocy of the Revolution, so we can hardly expect that any standards
would improve through that period.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Well, I have absolutely no experience with these things. I don't know what the sources are, or how to find out what they are. Other than by asking you and a few others who have responded to my posts. With your vastly greater experience, I'll take your word for these being relatively decent sources. And I'm glad you're here to get me through it all!

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Well, I have absolutely no experience with these things. I don't know what the sources are, or how to find out what they are. Other than by asking you and a few others who have responded to my posts.

This is the value of SGM in a nutshell - remembering, of course, that
posts here are no more reliable than other secondary works except that
they can be questioned, and if necessary corrected, immediately.

Knowledge in medieval genealogy can come to us by just two means, either
directly from a primary source or indirectly by deduction from
circumstances that are known from primary sources.

Secondary information is only reliable in so far as at least one primary
source is cited so that this can be verified, assessed, interpreted and
where possible compared with any other relevant source/s.

Everything beyond that is merely opinion, and an expert's may be no
better than anyone else's. Experience in this field is mostly useful in
learning where to look for primary sources and critical discussion of these.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart

Well, I have absolutely no experience with these things.  I don't know
what the sources are, or how to find out what they are. Other than by
asking you and a few others who have responded to my posts.

This is the value of SGM in a nutshell - remembering, of course, that
posts here are no more reliable than other secondary works except that
they can be questioned, and if necessary corrected, immediately.
Knowledge in medieval genealogy can come to us by just two means, either
directly from a primary source or indirectly by deduction from
circumstances that are known from primary sources.

A third means of transmission, less often encountered, is through modern
secondary reports of vanished medieval primary sources.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Thank you. Yes, having watched the discussions, ideas, and explanations going back and forth between some of you, I see the immense value of SGM.