A Hungarian marriage for Eadmund

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What do you think of the idea that Eadmund, Eadweard the Exile's brother, married a Hungarian princess, which is discussed in http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm? This was claimed by Aelred of Rievaulx, who got some of his information directly from King David of Scotland, Eadweard's grandson. This would explain all accounts of Agatha as a Hungarian princess as being the result of confusion between the two brothers. The idea that a daughter of Stephen I would be a chronologically unlikely wife for Eadweard or Eadmund has, IMO, been exaggerated. Gisela may very well have been one decade younger than her brother Heinrich II and have had a daughter about 1020. However, the other arguments against Eadweard as Stephen I's son-in-law are strong. Those, however, don't apply to Eadmund, who according to Aelred's account died shortly after the wedding. I agree with Stewart Baldwin that a Hungarian marriage for Eadmund is very plausible but unproven.

In my opinion Stewart Baldwin has treated the question very cogently -
there is just one point that I don't entirely agree with: "If Eadmund
did marry a Hungarian king's daughter, then confusion between the
brothers Eadmund and Eadweard would explain all of the appearances of
Agatha as the daughter of a Hungarian king". I'm not sure we can rule
out the possibility of an unwarranted but not necessarily confused idea
that the brothers had married sisters.

Peter Stewart

taf

2020-06-15 03:45:42 UTC

I would even not be surprised if the fact she was coming from the Hungarian royal court sufficed, after several steps remove both geographically and from source to source, in her being portrayed as daughter of the king. There are other instances where someone has been 'promoted' in this way (Zaida and just about all of the Byzantine brides in the west come to mind).

taf

Peter Stewart

2020-06-15 06:11:20 UTC

Yes, and perhaps it's still happening - Kushner descendants may one day
claim their ancestor Ivanka was daughter of a monarch, taking their cue
from him.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-15 10:14:39 UTC

I still think the idea of confusion between the two brothers is more likely. Aelred got some of his information directly from King David, Eadweard's grandson, and there was little reason for him to invent a marriage for Eadmund who is then said to have died shortly afterwards.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-15 11:31:41 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.

St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.

It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-15 11:47:18 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

Aelred's account omitted the brothers' time in Russia, then. Still, there doesn't seem to be much reason to invent such a short marriage for Eadmund.
Regardless, are you sure that those two children of Stephen were born in 1002-1004? According to the main Agatha page, a German chronicle reports that Stephen and Gisela married in 1009. Also, Heinrich II was born in 973 and Gisela may very well have been born a decade later. That makes it feasible for her to have had a daughter the same age or younger than Eadmund.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-15 12:12:18 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.

Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.

I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-15 12:34:46 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
Peter Stewart

First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.
Second, Vajay also accepted the 999 date but http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath000.htm under the "Hungarian Hypothesis" section notes that two German chronicles give 1006, instead. Both are plausible, IMO.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-16 00:26:47 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
Peter Stewart

First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.

Or as a widow at large she might have become the first human on Mars, or
whatever else suits a strained hypothesis. Children of St Stephen and
Gisela were not mere ciphers to be ascribed life stories that are not
recorded. The idea that one might have been a nun left in the convent
when her mother returned to Bavaria during the succession struggles for
the Hungarian throne, or stayed celibate when her marriage would have
been a momentous factor, or conveniently died without notice before this
came to be, is an overreach of speculation. It is far more likely, in
the context of the fishy vagueness about Agatha's parentage, that Edmund
and Edward were not considered good catches for royal marriages and that
the stories for each of them were hyped up without specifics before
telling to Aelred and others.

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Second, Vajay also accepted the 999 date but http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath000.htm under the "Hungarian Hypothesis" section notes that two German chronicles give 1006, instead. Both are plausible, IMO.

I haven't said anything about a 999 date so I suppose (without the
energy to check Vajay's work) that this is a typo for 997.

As for your confidence in "two German chronicles" giving "1006", I
suppose you must mean one German chronicle giving no date for the
marriage reported in direct connection to the baptism of Stephen and the
Christianisation of Hungary (Frutolf of Michelsberg, writing ca 1100)
that was followed a few decades later by another reporting this as a
past event under 1001 (Otto of Freising), that was reported in almost
the same words by two Austrian compilations (the annals of Admont and a
continuator of the Melk annals writing at Garsten) under 1009 as
referenced without context by Stewart Baldwin. The same past event had
been mentioned under 1029 by Wipo more than half a century before
Frutolf, while Sigibert of Gembloux (writing not long after Frutolf)
placed it under 1010.

Medieval historians were not exact chronologists, "IMO". Why do you
think I went to the trouble of linking to Regesta Imperii pages where
this question is directly canvassed with extensive sourcing? If you want
to keep raising discussions here, perhaps you might do at least some of
your own legwork occasionally, or failing that refrain from leaping to
assumptions about plausibility from inadequate research.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-16 06:56:20 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
Peter Stewart

First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.

I haven't said anything about a 999 date so I suppose (without the
energy to check Vajay's work) that this is a typo for 997.
As for your confidence in "two German chronicles" giving "1006", I
suppose you must mean one German chronicle giving no date for the
marriage reported in direct connection to the baptism of Stephen and the
Christianisation of Hungary (Frutolf of Michelsberg, writing ca 1100)
that was followed a few decades later by another reporting this as a
past event under 1001 (Otto of Freising), that was reported in almost
the same words by two Austrian compilations (the annals of Admont and a
continuator of the Melk annals writing at Garsten) under 1009 as
referenced without context by Stewart Baldwin. The same past event had
been mentioned under 1029 by Wipo more than half a century before
Frutolf, while Sigibert of Gembloux (writing not long after Frutolf)
placed it under 1010.
Medieval historians were not exact chronologists, "IMO". Why do you
think I went to the trouble of linking to Regesta Imperii pages where
this question is directly canvassed with extensive sourcing? If you want
to keep raising discussions here, perhaps you might do at least some of
your own legwork occasionally, or failing that refrain from leaping to
assumptions about plausibility from inadequate research.
Peter Stewart

I did check your Regesta Imperii link but didn't find the short argument totally convincing. Thanks for providing more details supporting the 997 date.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-16 07:19:02 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
Peter Stewart

First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.

I haven't said anything about a 999 date so I suppose (without the
energy to check Vajay's work) that this is a typo for 997.
As for your confidence in "two German chronicles" giving "1006", I
suppose you must mean one German chronicle giving no date for the
marriage reported in direct connection to the baptism of Stephen and the
Christianisation of Hungary (Frutolf of Michelsberg, writing ca 1100)
that was followed a few decades later by another reporting this as a
past event under 1001 (Otto of Freising), that was reported in almost
the same words by two Austrian compilations (the annals of Admont and a
continuator of the Melk annals writing at Garsten) under 1009 as
referenced without context by Stewart Baldwin. The same past event had
been mentioned under 1029 by Wipo more than half a century before
Frutolf, while Sigibert of Gembloux (writing not long after Frutolf)
placed it under 1010.
Medieval historians were not exact chronologists, "IMO". Why do you
think I went to the trouble of linking to Regesta Imperii pages where
this question is directly canvassed with extensive sourcing? If you want
to keep raising discussions here, perhaps you might do at least some of
your own legwork occasionally, or failing that refrain from leaping to
assumptions about plausibility from inadequate research.
Peter Stewart

I did check your Regesta Imperii link but didn't find the short argument totally convincing. Thanks for providing more details supporting the 997 date.

How could you possibly make up your mind sensibly without checking all
of the many sources cited? Do you imagine the Regesta Imperii authors
just poke a stick at dates? Are you going to tell us next that you don't
find Stephen's coronation in 1000 "totally convincing"?

You need to do a lot more homework before pitting hald-baked opinion
against the consensus of experts over centuries.

Peter Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-16 07:30:54 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

I didn't say it was not biologically feasible for St Stephen and Gisela
to have had a daughter born in the 1010s, I said it was implausible that
such a child would not be mentioned. If you want to study genealogy on
the basis that anything possible is therefore also plausible, I can't help.
Stephen and Gisela were most probably married at the beginning of
December 997, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0997-12-00_1_0_2_3_0_850_1246f.html?tx_hisodat_sources[action]=show&tx_hisodat_sources[controller]=Sources&cHash=61910789d45798083f434a04ffef5783#rinav.
Numerous sources connect the Christianisation of Hungary with the
baptism and marriage of Stephen, see
http://www.regesta-imperii.de/regesten/2-3-0-otto-iii/nr/0996-12-00-3-0-2-3-0-775-1217c.html?tx_hisodat_sources%5B%40widget_0%5D%5BcurrentPage%5D=16&cHash=76f01bb6cab3348619a14c8d5e4e6529&tx_hisodat_sources%5Baction%5D=show&tx_hisodat_sources%5Bcontroller%5D=Sources#rinav.
I will have to look up the source/s for Stephen's children born ca
1002/04 when I have more time.
Peter Stewart

First, I don't think it's implausible that such a daughter of Stephen wouldn't mentioned in the scanty Hungarian sources of the time. She might have died or became a nun after Eadmund's death.

I haven't said anything about a 999 date so I suppose (without the
energy to check Vajay's work) that this is a typo for 997.
As for your confidence in "two German chronicles" giving "1006", I
suppose you must mean one German chronicle giving no date for the
marriage reported in direct connection to the baptism of Stephen and the
Christianisation of Hungary (Frutolf of Michelsberg, writing ca 1100)
that was followed a few decades later by another reporting this as a
past event under 1001 (Otto of Freising), that was reported in almost
the same words by two Austrian compilations (the annals of Admont and a
continuator of the Melk annals writing at Garsten) under 1009 as
referenced without context by Stewart Baldwin. The same past event had
been mentioned under 1029 by Wipo more than half a century before
Frutolf, while Sigibert of Gembloux (writing not long after Frutolf)
placed it under 1010.
Medieval historians were not exact chronologists, "IMO". Why do you
think I went to the trouble of linking to Regesta Imperii pages where
this question is directly canvassed with extensive sourcing? If you want
to keep raising discussions here, perhaps you might do at least some of
your own legwork occasionally, or failing that refrain from leaping to
assumptions about plausibility from inadequate research.
Peter Stewart

I did check your Regesta Imperii link but didn't find the short argument totally convincing. Thanks for providing more details supporting the 997 date.

How could you possibly make up your mind sensibly without checking all
of the many sources cited? Do you imagine the Regesta Imperii authors
just poke a stick at dates? Are you going to tell us next that you don't
find Stephen's coronation in 1000 "totally convincing"?
You need to do a lot more homework before pitting hald-baked opinion
against the consensus of experts over centuries.
Peter Stewart

I do not wish to start a fight, but I think you are being too harsh on me.
It wouldn't have been possible for me to check all the many sources of those pages.
As you recently said, I do have time and resource constraints.
That being said, maybe I shouldn't have replied so hastily, and for that I do apologize.

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-16 08:14:11 UTC

BTW, what do you think of Jetté's argument that Eadweard or Eadmund couldn't have been sons-in-law or brothers-in-law of Peter Orseolo or Aba Samuel for political reasons, which is discussed in the main Agatha page under the "A variation of the Hungarian Hypothesis" section.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-16 08:54:02 UTC

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I do not wish to start a fight, but I think you are being too harsh on me.
It wouldn't have been possible for me to check all the many sources of those pages.
As you recently said, I do have time and resource constraints.
That being said, maybe I shouldn't have replied so hastily, and for that I do apologize.

Perhaps I was too harsh, but in any event there is no need to apologise
for disagreeing with me - I do this myself quite often.

The dating of Stephen I's marriage is not conclusively established, but
most historians opt for 997, some for 996. The circumstantial evidence
is strong enough to make a date after his coronation extremely implausible.

Gisela was most probably born ca 980/85. Her two legitimate brothers
were born in 973 and 974/76 respectively, and it is likely that she was
not long past the youngest marriageable age when chosen by Otto III as
bride for Stephen on his conversion. The Ottonians did not leave their
daughters destined to have husbands waiting longer than necessary.

Peter Stewart

j***@gmail.com

2020-06-16 13:29:51 UTC

I think Peters point is that nobody would spend one hour researching physics and say they don't find the theory of gravity convincing and publish an alternative.

Things in well studied places (with lots of citations) deserve to be referenced before being refuted. If the time or resources aren't available to dig into it, it's probably best to attack less studied areas as a better use for your time and energy.

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-16 20:21:48 UTC

I don't think that's a good analogy, Joe. Genealogy and physics are very different fields. The first has a lot more of uncertainties than the second. Indeed, theory of relativity is a theory in the scientific sense, not in the colloquial and genealogical sense. Also, I was partially basing myself on Stewart Baldwin, who is an expert and has read a lot of primary sources. It, however, turner out that, in this case, his two primary sources were wrong.
(As an aside, I'm sorry that I can't quote you. The new Google Groups is awful.)

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-16 20:25:19 UTC

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I don't think that's a good analogy, Joe. Genealogy and physics are very different fields. The first has a lot more of uncertainties than the second. Indeed, theory of relativity is a theory in the scientific sense, not in the colloquial and genealogical sense. Also, I was partially basing myself on Stewart Baldwin, who is an expert and has read a lot of primary sources. It, however, turner out that, in this case, his two primary sources were wrong.
(As an aside, I'm sorry that I can't quote you. The new Google Groups is awful.)

Fortunately, I've finally managed to fix the Google Groups problem.

j***@gmail.com

2020-06-16 23:32:43 UTC

I don't neccesarilly agree that theoretical physics has more certainties than genealogy. Both live and die based on new evidence coming to light. In physics this evidence typically comes in the form of experiment and observation, and genealogy this evidence comes from records.

But my advice stands...that digging into areas that have not already had literally exhaustive study over centuries may prove to be more fruitful for new discoveries for you. There are so many unreviewed medieval documents available for a few clicks now in various British archives online. Many that have not yet been scanned online, digital copies can be ordered at a small cost.
Your questions are good and I'm not criticizing you, just trying to offer advice that may lead to better results for you and your time.
Joe C

Peter Stewart

2020-06-17 00:07:59 UTC

Joe's analogy seems fine to me - the theory of relativity, for instance,
takes into account phenomena of time but leaves a huge uncertainty with
the nature of time. Einstein applied the evidence he needed for his
purpose, and physicists have been butting heads against each other and
brick walls ever since trying to find a way through the limitations he
left unstudied.

Similarly with medieval genealogy, some of the most persistent questions
arise from very bright minds seizing on evidence that suits their line
of enquiry and drawing speculations from it while disregarding more that
is left in the dark.

The most fatuous and time-wasting topics that come up here - such as the
supposed Byzantine ancestry of Charles 'Constantine' of Vienne or the
alleged 'English family' of Godfrey de Bouillon - started from clever
people inflating their half-researched opinions into balloons of foolish
conjecture. Einstein of course was no fool, and his wisdom far
transcended cleverness, so the analogy in these extreme cases is not
perfect, but there were plenty of other physicists whose names are
forgotten who frittered their careers away chasing after
will-o'-the-wisp theories from insufficient assessment of evidence.

We can all fall into this, but preventing its becoming a habit is part
of why I come to SGM where anything I write or read can be reviewed and
criticised by everyone taking part in discussions.

The Regesta Imperii pages I linked to were written by Mathilde Uhlirz in
*Die Regesten des Kaiserreiches unter Otto III, 980 (983)-1002* (1956),
and apart from the centuries of scholarship behind her work it has been
subject to close scrutiny by experts over the past 64 years without
substantive contradiction on this matter. Of course that does not make
it unquestionably right, but ought to mean that anyone wanting to
promote opinion countering it is under an obligation to study her
evidence rather than just glance at the tip of the iceberg in her
commentary. That is what I found irritating enough to be perhaps unduly
harsh in response.

Peter Stewart

zglorgy

2020-06-17 07:56:40 UTC

Just to Say.
The Charles Constantine controversy taught me a lot.
I learnt so much thanks to this controversy and all its contributors. i am a better genealogist (and .. citizen) thanks to that. It was not a waste of Time... But a methodology lesson

Jl

Andrew Lancaster

2020-06-17 18:30:56 UTC

I would like to emphasize my agreement. There is an obvious comparison to make.

Both Medieval Genealogy and Einsteinian Physics are, when you boil it down, about relative - ity.

...I had children quite some time back, and the Dad jokes started then. Sorry.

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-18 09:09:47 UTC

I wonder if Stewart Baldwin has read this thread and, if so, whether he has any thoughts on it.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-16 02:34:30 UTC

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

The source for these unnamed children is a sermon written at the end of
the 15th century by Pelbartus of Temesvár, stating that St Stephen's
"little sons, that is Otto and others, whose names we do not know, died
long before his death" [as translated from Latin (that I haven't seen)
by Moriz Wertner: "mert kis fiai, t. i. Ottó és mások, kiknek neveit nem
ismerjük, sokkal hálala előtt hunytak el"].

If Otto existed, he was presumably named after Emperor Otto III who died
in 1002. In the confraternity book of St Peter's abbey at Salzburg,
compiled in 1004, a line has been erased under the names of Stephen and
Gisela, which may originally have given one (or perhaps more) of these
children's names. But this is not sufficient evidence to place the birth
of offspring possibly known to Pelbartus from source/s since lost within
the timeframe "ca 1002/04" as in my post above.

If Pelbartus was correct about their existence - and we cannot know this
- there must have been at least three children (literally sons) who died
"long before" 1038, none of whom can be considered very likely to have
been a daughter much less married to Edmund who was born in 1016.

The only unnamed daughter explicitly ascribed to St Stephen was a
mistake - Daniel Cornides and other historians took "nepos" in a
chronicle to mean that St Stephen had a grandson named Csanád whose
father Dobuka was presumed to have been the husband of a daughter -
however, Csanád was actually a first cousin of St Stephen on his
mother's side.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2020-06-16 05:48:16 UTC

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What do you think of the idea that Eadmund, Eadweard the Exile's
brother, married a Hungarian princess, which is discussed in
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm?
This was claimed by Aelred of Rievaulx, who got some of his
information directly from King David of Scotland, Eadweard's
grandson. This would explain all accounts of Agatha as a
Hungarian princess as being the result of confusion between the
two brothers. The idea that a daughter of Stephen I would be a
chronologically unlikely wife for Eadweard or Eadmund has, IMO,
been exaggerated. Gisela may very well have been one decade
younger than her brother Heinrich II and have had a daughter
about 1020. However, the other arguments against Eadweard as
Stephen I's son-in-law are strong. Those, however, don't apply to
Eadmund, who according to Aelred's account died shortly after the
wedding. I agree with Stewart Baldwin that a Hungarian marriage
for Eadmund is very plausible but unproven.

I would even not be surprised if the fact she was coming from the
Hungarian royal court sufficed, after several steps remove both
geographically and from source to source, in her being portrayed as
daughter of the king. There are other instances where someone has
been 'promoted' in this way (Zaida and just about all of the
Byzantine brides in the west come to mind).
taf

I still think the idea of confusion between the two brothers is more
likely. Aelred got some of his information directly from King David,
Eadweard's grandson, and there was little reason for him to invent a
marriage for Eadmund who is then said to have died shortly afterwards.

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.
Peter Stewart

By the way, this unreliable dating came from Szabolcs de Vajay's
'Großfürst Geysa von Ungarn: Familie und Verwandtschaft' in
*Sudöst-Forschungen* 21 (1962), nos. 17 and 18 on p. 69 here:
https://www.osmikon.de/Vta2/bsb00093083/ostdok:3739639?page=79&c=solrSearchOstdok.

On p. 68, no. 7, Vajay placed the marriage of Stephen and Gisela in 996
after betrothal in 995 (both dates probably a year too early, as
carefully outlined in the Regesta Imperii pages linked before), here:
https://www.osmikon.de/Vta2/bsb00093083/ostdok:3739639?page=78&c=solrSearchOstdok.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

2020-06-15 11:48:13 UTC

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What do you think of the idea that Eadmund, Eadweard the Exile's
brother, married a Hungarian princess, which is discussed in
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm? This
was claimed by Aelred of Rievaulx, who got some of his information
directly from King David of Scotland, Eadweard's grandson. This
would explain all accounts of Agatha as a Hungarian princess as
being the result of confusion between the two brothers. The idea
that a daughter of Stephen I would be a chronologically unlikely
wife for Eadweard or Eadmund has, IMO, been exaggerated. Gisela may
very well have been one decade younger than her brother Heinrich II
and have had a daughter about 1020. However, the other arguments
against Eadweard as Stephen I's son-in-law are strong. Those,
however, don't apply to Eadmund, who according to Aelred's account
died shortly after the wedding. I agree with Stewart Baldwin that a
Hungarian marriage for Eadmund is very plausible but unproven.

I would even not be surprised if the fact she was coming from the
Hungarian royal court sufficed, after several steps remove both
geographically and from source to source, in her being portrayed as
daughter of the king. There are other instances where someone has
been 'promoted' in this way (Zaida and just about all of the
Byzantine brides in the west come to mind).
taf

I still think the idea of confusion between the two brothers is more
likely. Aelred got some of his information directly from King David,
Eadweard's grandson, and there was little reason for him to invent a
marriage for Eadmund who is then said to have died shortly afterwards.

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.

Needless (I thought, perhaps wrongly) to say, Aelred did not confuse the
two brothers, since he said that one was married to a Hungarian king's
daughter and the other to a German emperor's brother's daughter. St
Stephen, of course, was not supposed to have been the brother of an emperor.

Pete Stewart

Paulo Ricardo Canedo

2020-06-15 11:56:32 UTC

Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
What do you think of the idea that Eadmund, Eadweard the Exile's
brother, married a Hungarian princess, which is discussed in
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm? This
was claimed by Aelred of Rievaulx, who got some of his information
directly from King David of Scotland, Eadweard's grandson. This
would explain all accounts of Agatha as a Hungarian princess as
being the result of confusion between the two brothers. The idea
that a daughter of Stephen I would be a chronologically unlikely
wife for Eadweard or Eadmund has, IMO, been exaggerated. Gisela may
very well have been one decade younger than her brother Heinrich II
and have had a daughter about 1020. However, the other arguments
against Eadweard as Stephen I's son-in-law are strong. Those,
however, don't apply to Eadmund, who according to Aelred's account
died shortly after the wedding. I agree with Stewart Baldwin that a
Hungarian marriage for Eadmund is very plausible but unproven.

I would even not be surprised if the fact she was coming from the
Hungarian royal court sufficed, after several steps remove both
geographically and from source to source, in her being portrayed as
daughter of the king. There are other instances where someone has
been 'promoted' in this way (Zaida and just about all of the
Byzantine brides in the west come to mind).
taf

I still think the idea of confusion between the two brothers is more
likely. Aelred got some of his information directly from King David,
Eadweard's grandson, and there was little reason for him to invent a
marriage for Eadmund who is then said to have died shortly afterwards.

According to Aelred the brothers were sent on _as boys_ to the king of
Hungary to be brought up, and he adopted them as his own sons ("Rex uero
Suauorum nobilium puerorum miseratus erumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos
destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne suscepit, benginus fouit,
benignissime sibi in filios adoptauit"). If this is to be credited, and
given that Edmund must have been born in 1016 and Edward was either his
younger twin or born posthumously in the following year, the king can
only have been St Stephen. Peter Orseolo did not become king of Hungary
until the autumn of 1038, and Aba Samuel in the summer of 1041 - each
years too late to have generously received and adopted the exiled
English brothers as boys.
St Stephen had two children whose gender is unknown, either or both of
whom may have been daughters, but they were born ca 1002/04 and survival
to marriageable age is highly uncertain. It is scarcely credible that
the king would have given one of them as bride to an exile 12-14 years
her junior. It is almost equally implausible that he had an unmentioned
daughter around a decade or so younger than these children - who may
both have been male anyway for all we know.
It seems more likely to me that the life history of the exiles had been
embellished before Aelred heard it, as evidently had the background of
Agatha whom he described with unhelpful vagueness as a brother's
daughter to an emperor Heinrich.

I already knew that Aelred did not confuse the two brothers. However, as Aelred assigns a Hungarian marriage for Eadmund and other sources do so for Eadweard makes it plausible that those other sources confused the two brothers.

Peter Stewart

2020-06-15 12:26:59 UTC