 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / August 2007Maud de Holand, wife of Hugh de Courtenay, Knt., and Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny & St.-Pol
Dear Will ~ You've asked an excellent question. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Maud de Holand, King Richard II's half-sister, is known to have married twice, her second husband being Waleran III de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, who died in 1417. Waleran and Maud are known to have married at Windsor, Berkshire in Easter week, 1380. Maud was Count Waleran's first wife. She was buried at Westminster Abbey 23 April 1392. One of the pieces of evidence proving Maud and Waleran's marriage can be found in Barante, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2 (1824): 450-451, which presents the transcript of a contemporary letter of Waleran de Luxembourg dated 1403 written to King Henry IV of England, in which Waleran specifically states: "... moi, Waleran de Luxembourg, comte de Ligny et de Saint-Pol, considérant l'affinité, amour, et confédération que j'avais avec très- haut et puissant prince Richard, roi d'Angleterre, dont j'ai eu la soeur pour épouse."). Count Waleran subsequently married as his 2nd wife, Bonne of Bar, daughter of Robert I, Duke of Bar, which wife survived him. Count Waleran is known to have had one legitimate daughter, Jeanne, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, who was his heiress, and two illegitimate sons, Jean [seigneur of Hautbordin] and Simon [prévôt of Saint-Omer] by different mistresses (see Mémoires de la Societé des antiquaires de Picardie, 3rd ser. 6 (1880): 387-388). The sources that I've checked have generally stated that Count Waleran died with male issue, that he was married twice, and that he left a legitimate daughter and heiress, Jeanne, without naming which wife was the mother of Jeanne (see, for example, Count Waleran's biography in Michaud, Biographie universelle, ancienne et moderne, 28 (1820): 464- 466). The confusion over which wife was the mother of Jeanne is probably due to the lack of available information as to when Waleran's first wife, Maud de Holand, died, and also as to when his second marriage to Bonne of Bar occurred. One source I checked actually stated that Maud de Holand died without issue. All the sources I checked agree that Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne, married in1402 Antoine de Bourgogne. I assume the concrete date of this marriage comes from a published marriage settlement for this couple. My previous research established that Waleran's first wife, Maud de Holand, was buried at Westminster Abbey 23 April 1392 (see, for example, Hector Westminster Chronicle 1381-1394 (1982): 450-451, 488- 489; Taylor ed. The St. Albans Chronicle 1 (2003): 238). It appears that Count Waleran married his second wife, Bonne of Bar, about March 1401, when Bonne's father, Duke Robert, settled the castle, ville, and dependencies of Nogent-le-Rotrou on Waleran and his wife on "the occasion of their marriage." [Reference: Fret, Antiquités et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248]. Fret further discusses the subsequent history of Bonne, wife of Count Waleran. He says specifically that she died without issue ("... elle ne laissa point de posterité"). On Bonne's death, she was succeeded at Nogent by her brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar. Given these facts, it seems obvious that Maud de Holand, the first wife of Count Waleran, was the mother of Waleran's daughter and heiress, Jeanne de Luxembourg. The chronology is certainly acceptable. Also, we have a clear statement in print that Count Waleran's second wife, Bonne of Bar, died without issue and that Bonne's successor at Nogent was her brother, Louis, Cardinal of Bar. Interestingly, in the course of my research, I learned that it was an incident at Countess Maud's house at Lucheu in the county of Saint- Pol, followed by a duel for the honor of French knighthood, that was said to have given rise to the holding of the famous jousts at St. Inglebert in March-April 1390. Lastly, for those interested in such matters, a seal of Count Waleran has been preserved. A record of it can be found in De Raadt, Sceaux Armoriés des Pays-Bas et de Pays Avoisinants, 2 (1899): 396, as follows: Seal dated 1390: un lion couronné, à la queue fourchée, C: un dragon issant d'une cuve, S. deux griffons accroupis. Likewise, a second letter of Count Waleran dated 1406 can be found in Duchet & Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah. On Aug 17, 12:13 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote: Douglas can you confirm for us *how* you know that Maud had no issue by either marriage? > Thanks > Will Johnson Dear Newsgroup ~ As I survey the printed literature, I find much disagreement among the major sources in print about the Luxembourg family. As such, I believe we all can learn from the topic of this thread by studying the original documents of the period and comparing them against the printed secondary sources. In my own book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004), I state that Maud de Holand married (2nd) Waleran III de Luxembourg, Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol. I believe that information is correct. But I note that Anselme, Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub Ligny) says her name was"Mahaud de Roeux." This is clearly an error. And, this error is echoed in MANY sources which I have encountered. The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753]. To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay. When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux," or both. Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes" which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet & Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2 (1824): 450-451]. Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was " Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg. Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles. If Waleran III de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much like to know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his database and delete the error. Once again, I wish to extend my thanks to Will and Leo for bringing these matters to my attention. It's much appreciated. We're going to learn a lot from this thread, I can tell. And this is just the beginning. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Newsgroup ~ [...] The van de Pas database has strangely morphed this lady's name into "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." [ID #:I00026753]. <G> To date I have seen no record of where Maud de Holand is styled either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux." In any event, her title in her lifetime would been Lady Courtenay (from her 1st marriage), or Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol (from her 2nd marriage), but not "Dame de Roeux." At the time of her 2nd marriage, she would typically have been known in England as Lady Maud Courtenay, or Maud Lady Courtenay. When Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a contemporary document in which Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King Richard II of England, is called either "Mahaud de Roeux" or "Dame de Roeux," or both. <G> Next, I've identified Waleran of Luxembourg based on his own correspondence as "Count of Ligny and Saint-Pol, seigneur of Fiennes" which titles I cite for him in my book [see, for example, Duchet & Giry, Cartulaires de l'église de Térouane (1881): 285-286; Barante, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la maison de Valois, 1364-1477, 2 (1824): 450-451]. Yet the van de Pas database states that Waleran III de Luxembourg was " Comte de Luxembourg, St.Pol et Ligny." Since neither Waleran nor his father was Count of Luxembourg, I'm puzzled regarding the addition of this title to Waleran III de Luxembourg. <G> Again, when Leo has a moment, perhaps he would be so kind as to supply a contemporary document in which Waleran III de Luxembourg employed the title "Comte de Luxembourg" as one of his titles. <G> If Waleran III de Luxembourg was truly Count of Luxembourg, I'd very much like to know it. If he was not, then of course Leo should correct his database and delete the error. <G> [...] 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen ignoramus of the Jethro Clampett Insititue, their common alma mater. This too will come back to bite him, like that pesky varmit "veritas". Peter Stewart > Dear Newsgroup ~ > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Lux et Veritas et Libertas > Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced to > copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen ignoramus of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Peter Stewart The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit. DR >> Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced >> to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The word is spelled "institute" not "institue." Silly rabbit. Tell it to your fraternity buddy Hines, who loves nothing better than a typo - is the Clampett academy in the city he called "Bribane", by any chance? Peter Stewart >> Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced >> to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DR -------------------------------------------------------------- Well, as we all know: Stewart's noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no longer continue at Oxford. "Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart A Disability He STILL HAS... As We See In These NEWSGROUPS. Straight from the horse's own mouth: > I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings > of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I > have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum Look to your own typos, Hines - if a noodle has to be "discombobulated" to miss a letter, how do you account for your "Bribane"? No self-awareness = no shame = no sense. Peter Stewart >>> Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced >>> to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum Dear Leo ~ Thank you for your good response. Much appreciated. As you know, in my last post, I asked you to provide the newsgroup contemporary primary documentation to back up your statements that Maud de Holand, King Richard II's sister, was called "Maud de Roeux" or "Lady Maud de Holand Dame de Roeux." In your reply, I note that you have cited several secondary modern sources, which is all well and good. However, you've neglected to provide any contemporary primary documentation which is disappointing. I believe I'm correct in saying that Maud de Holand's correct name and titles in her lifetime would have been Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay (in right of her first marriage) or Maud de Holand, Countess of Saint- Pol and Ligny (in right of her second marriage). So far I haven't seen any rerference to her in any contemporary records either as Maud de Roeux, or Maud Dame de Roeux. The error of her being called Maud de Roeux appears to have started with Pere Anselme, who referred to her by this name, and who did not bother to name her parentage [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724 (sub Ligny)]. This is not the first error we have found in Anselme's work, nor will it be the last. Maud de Holand is named in the following contemporary records in her lifetime: Rymer, Fœdera, 7 (1728): 675 (Maud styled “sister” by King Richard II of England); Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1370–1374 (1914): 230, 420 (instances of Maud de Courtenay or "lady de Courtenay" styled “king’s kinswoman” by King Edward III of England). Further evidence of Maud de Holand's parentage, two marriages, and her issue can be found in a 15th Century manuscript entitled "Chronographia regum Francorum." For interest's sake, a copy of the pertinent part of this text which is in Latin is copied below. The text concerns Joan of Kent, Princess of Wales (died 1385), who was the wife successively of William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent, and Edward the Black Prince. This passage discusses Joan of Kent's issue by her Holand marriage, including her daughter, Maud de Holand, who is stated to have married first "lord Courtenay" and second "Waleran, Count of Saint-Pol." By Maud's second marriage to Count Waleran, she is stated to have been the mother of a single daughter (name not given), who is said to have married Antoine son of the Duke of Burgundy. This information is entirely correct. “… Hec, inquam, comitissa, consobrina regis Edowardi, tres maritos habuit: primus fuit comes Saresberiensis, qui in remotis existens et ibidem ultra debitam moram remanens, estimans ipsum esse mortuum Thomam de Holandia, militem multe strenuitatis famosum desponsavit; de quo plures liberos habuit; scilicet comitem Quenti qui successit et comitem de Hondiston fratres; duas filias, quarum prima Johannes, dux Britannie, comes Montisfortis, duxit in uxorem, de qua prole caruit; alteram nomine Matildem primo nupsit dominus de Courtenayo et eo mortuo Walrandus, comes Sancti Pauli, hinc prisionarius regis Anglie, postmodum habuit uxorem, ex qua unicam suscepit filiam, quam postea cum pervenit ad annos intelligibiles desponsavit Anthonius, filius ducis Burgundie, post primum natus.” [Reference: Moranville, ed., Chronographia regum Francorum, 2 (1893): 339–340]. Please note that there is NO reference in this source to Maud de Holand being called Maud de Roeux. Rather, Maud is simply presented as the daughter of Joan of Kent, by her 2nd husband, Thomas de Holand. This material, by the way, would be a new addition to Complete Peerage, 4 (1916): 325 (sub Devon), which mentions Maud de Holand's 2nd marriage to Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Ligny, but does not include any reference to their issue. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah P.S. I want to say again for much I enjoy the pictures/images that you've included in your genealogical database. They are really quite lovely. Leo van de Pas wrote: < Perhaps I am a fool to spell it out for Richardson but he, as usual, leaves a dirty taste in my mouth by his sneering and then not replying. < < As he full well knows, I am relying on the results of "hunters", something he aspires to be himself, and so he should not sneer at the work of real hunters. < < In the beautiful production of Richardson's "Plantagent Ancestry", which does have mistakes (but then the only person who does not make mistakes, usually doesn't make anything at all) on page 420, all he gives (in more detail then what I give here) about this lady is: < < Maud de Holand, married (1) Hugh de Courtenay (2) Valeran III de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Ligny, she was buried 23 April 1392 in Westminster Abbey. < < Let's start with < < Dr. A.W.E. Dek, "Genealogie der Graven van Holland", page 93 < Anton van Bourgondie, married (1) 21 February 1402 Johanna van Luxemburg, daughter of Walram III van Luxemburg, graaf van St.Pol en Mahaut de Reux (footnote 82, St.Marthe II page 1001) < This book shows four pages of sources. < < Europaische Stammtafeln, Isenburg, Volume III Tafel 109 < Under the heading "Die Grafen von Luxemburg in Ligny" we find < Valeram (Walram, Graf von Luxemburg in St.Pol und Ligny (this is how Isenburg gives it, but then he was only a Professor in history) < here is given only one wife, Mahaut de Roeux, and their daughter Johanna married Anton, Duke of Brabant. Sadly he does not give any additional information for this wife of Valeram. < He gives a general sources list to which is added a rather awkward detailed list. < < Europaische Stammtafeln, Schwennicke, Volume VI Tafel 28 < Valeran III married (1) 1374 Mahaut de Roeux who died before 13 April 1392; married (2) May 1393 Bona von Bar. Again no further details for Mahaut de Roeux. His daughter (clearly marked off as to be by the first wife): Jeanne Chatelaine de Lille who married Anton of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant < There are quite a few sources for Tafels 28 to 30. < < So far I have recorded three sources calling her Mahaut de Reux and Mahaut de Roeux. < < Burke's Peerage, 1938 page 802, here she is called Matilda, daughter of Thomas Holland (yes Holland) and in 1380 she married Waleran de Luxemburg, Count of Ligny and St.Paul (yes, St.Paul) < < Burke's Peerage, 1999, page 834, here she is Maud de Holand and is given "dead by 13 April 1392". < < The Complete Peerage, Volume IV page 325. < Here Hugh de Courtenay is given papal dispensation (5 September 1363) and marries about 1365 Maud, daughter of Thomas de Holand, Earl of Kent, by Joan, (afterwards Princess of Wales).....Maud as his widow married "in Easter week 1380, at Windsor, Waleran de Luxemburg, Count of Ligny and St.Pol, she died before 13 April 1392. < < What should have alerted the "trained historian and genealogist" is that in continental sources she is referred to as Mahaut de Roeux or Reux, while English sources stick to Matilde (de) Holand. There must be a reason for that. The French (infuriatingly) often refer to women by the name of properties, not the family name. For instance ES Volume III/4 Tafel 816 which displays the House of the Lusignans. Here Hugues who married Jeanne de Fougeres is shown witrh four daughters, two are simply given with their name but two are clearly named Marie de La Marche and Jeanne de La Marche. < < We only need to go to King Charles II's mistress Louise de Kerouaille. Her family name was Penancoet. < < In other words, was Maud/Matilda referred to by a property? I have presumed that to be the case. Richardson sneers at my conclusion, let him show I am wrong. And what about Edward III being faithful till Philippa's death, but still producing a bastard a few years before that death? < < With best wishes < Leo van de Pas, P.S. In my post just now I stated that Pere Anselme referred to Maud de Holand as "Maud de Roeux." He actually called her ""Mahaud de Roeux." Be it Maud or Mahaud, though, the "de Roeux" of her name is just plain wrong. DR Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. Special thanks go to Leo for his good response. Much appreciated. As I've searched for primary documentation for dates for Maud de Holand and her 2nd husband, Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint Pol and Ligny, and for their daughter, Jeanne, I've turned up MANY conflicting statements in print as to correct dates for the major events of the lives of these people. This post will discuss the two marriages of Count Waleran, and the correct marriage and death dates of Maud and Waleran's daughter, Jeanne de Luxembourg (wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant and Limburg, Count of Rethel). I've already posted chronological and other evidence which indicates that Jeanne de Luxembourg was almost certainly the daughter and heiress of Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol and Ligny, by his 1st wife, Maud de Holand, the half-sister of King Richard II of England. The evidence below will further solidify that position. We know that Count Waleran and his wife, Maud de Holand, were married in 1380, and that Maud de Holand died in 1392. I've seen many sources which state that their daughter, Jeanne, married in 1402 at Arras to Antoine de Bourgogne. As we will see below, that information is apparently correct. However, I've determined that Jeanne de Luxembourg and Antoine de Bourgogne were actually contracted to marry on 19 February 1393 [Reference: Willems, Les Gestes des Ducs de Brabant, 2 (1843): 679-681]. A full transcript of the marriage contract may be viewed at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=tXIBAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA679&dq=1393+Waleran+Luxem bourg#PPA813,M1 Please note that Google Book Search has the wrong title of the work by Willems listed at the top of its results page. Various online sources state that Count Waleran de Luxembourg married (2nd) 17 May 1393 Bonne de Bar, daughter of Robert I, Duke of Bar, by Marie, daughter of Jean II, King of France. I haven't yet found the documentation which proves this marriage took place on that date in 1393. However, the source, Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc, 1 (1871): 140-142 specifically states that Bonne de Bar and Count Waleran were contracted to marry in 1393. This information can be found at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=4TM4AAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA141&dq=Waleran+1393+Bonne If Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne, was contracted to marry in 1393, which is the same year Count Waleran married (or contracted to marry) his second wife, Bonne, then obviously Jeanne can not have been Bonne's daughter. Rather, Jeanne must therefore be the child of Count Waleran's previous marriage to Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay. Count Waleran and his second wife, Bonne, were definitely married sometime before October 1396, as Count Waleran, his wife, and his daughter are known to have attended the meeting of Richard II of England and King Charles VI of France held at Ardres in that month [see Annuaire-Bulletin Société de l'histoire de France (1881): 209- 224]. Count Waleran's daughter, Jeanne, was presumably brought to the meeting, she being the blood niece of King Richard II of England. See the following weblink for a copy of that article: http://books.google.com/books?id=dvkuAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA224&dq=%22Mahaud+de+Roeux%22# PPA3,M1 Pere Anselme states that Count Waleran and Bonne de Bar were married 2 June 1400 [Reference: Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724]. But he is clearly in error as to this marriage date for the reasons given above. As for the correct date of the marriage of Jeanne de Luxembourg and Antoine de Bourgogne, there is a modern source in print by Ernest Petit which covers all of the major events in this time perod for the reigning Dukes of Burgundy and their immediate families. This work is entitled Itinéraires de Philippe le Hardi et de Jean sans Peur, ducs de Bourgogne, 1363-1419 (1888). On page 324, it is stated that Antoine de Bourgogne and his wife, Jeanne de Luxembourg, were married at Arras on 25 April 1402. This work may be viewed at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=yMgvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA635&dq=Antoine+duc+Brabant+Je anne#PPP9,M1 Page 566-567 of this same work, Petit provides actual specifics regarding the documentation for the date of the marriage of Antoine de Bourgogne and Jeanne de Luxembourg. The information is taken from various contemporary accounts. Pere Anselme states that Jeanne de Luxembourg and Antoine de Bourgogne were married at Arras on 21 February 1402 [Reference: Histoire de la Maison Royale de France, 3 (1728): 724]. In this case, he is right about the place, but once again wrong about the date. This gives us room for pause before using Pere Anselme as a reliable source, as he has been found wrong at several points in his treatment of Luxembourg family. Lastly, in the index to the work by Petit, pg. 704, he states that Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, died 12 August 1407. Unfortunately, he does not include this event in the main body of his work, nor does he provide any documentation for the date as far as I can tell. This same death date is cited by Pere Anselme.and by L'art de vérifier les dates (1818): 399. As such, I assume the date is correct for Jeanne's death, but even so, I'd like to see primary documentation for this date. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~ As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also buried. The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows: Wauters cites as his source the following work: M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37. Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&q=J eanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&pgis=1 It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which work was published the following year in 1856. The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows: http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT51ztIC&pg=PA1&dq=Gachard+Analectes+histor iques#PPA129,M1 On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite [obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April 1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April 1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515. Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+1407+Tervueren&q=%22Le+1 2+ao%C3%BBt+1407%22&pgis=1#search Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne [John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above, is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah The only interest in this thread, from which Richardson confidently predicted that he would learn so much, is to see how long he will waste time on fumbling searches on the Internet for bits of information that are a matter of common record instead of discovering and focusing on the primary sources and standard historiography for the family he is trying to research. He hasn't yet come upon to the most relevant & useful works in any timeframe, even obsolete 19th-century books much less current studies. Some professional. Peter Stewart Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~ As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also buried. The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows: Wauters cites as his source the following work: M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37. Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&q=J eanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&pgis=1 It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which work was published the following year in 1856. The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows: http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT51ztIC&pg=PA1&dq=Gachard+Analectes+histor iques#PPA129,M1 On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite [obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April 1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April 1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515. Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+1407+Tervueren&q=%22Le+1 2+ao%C3%BBt+1407%22&pgis=1#search Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne [John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above, is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. In my last post, I mentioned the historian Wauters stated that Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, died at Tervueren 12 August 1407. Wauters in turn cited as his source, Gachard, who had published contemporary evidence which allegedly indicated that Jeanne's funeral took place at Tervueren in April 1407, not August 1407. I thought perhaps Gachard made a mistake with the April 1407 date. But checking further, I've now found yet another source that states that Jeanne de Luxembourg died 12 April 1407, not 12 August 1407. This source is: Festschrift für ernst Tappolet (1935), pg. 265. See the following weblink for a snippet view of this item: http://books.google.com/books?id=C58KAAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+Brabant+duchesse+1407&q= avril+1407&pgis=1#search And yet anoither source gives the death date of Jeanne de Luxembouerg as 12 April 1407: Stephanie Gaber, Historie de Carignan et du pays d'Yvois (1976), pg. 112. See the following weblink for a snippet view of this item: http://books.google.com/books?id=5fgaAAAAMAAJ&q=Jeane+Brabant+1407+Avril&dq=Jean e+Brabant+1407+Avril&pgis=1 If correct, then Jeanne de Luxembourg possibly died 12 April 1407, not 12 August 1407 as reported by Pere Anselme and many other sources. Another reference to Jeanne de Luxembourg's death is reportedly found in the source, Chroniques d'Enguerrand de Monstrelet, vol. 1, pg. 137. According to the index, this source allegedly states that Jeane died in 1406 [sic]. Regarding Jeanne de Luxembourg's place of burial, Wauters states she was buried at Tervueren. However, the following source states she was buried in the church "des Carmes" in Bruxelles. Bulletin de la Commission historique du déparatement du Nord 25 (1901): 118 The above source can be found at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=xzwDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&dq=Jeane+Brabant+1407+Avril Regardless, if Gachard's account is reliable, then Jeanne de Luxembourg was buried sometime in April 1407, at Tervueren, not in August 1407 at Bruxelles as claimed by other sources. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah <snip> > Bulletin de la Commission historique du déparatement du Nord 25 > (1901): 118 > > The above source can be found at the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=xzwDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA118&dq=Jeane+Brabant+1407+Avril Did you happen to glance at page 115 as well as 118? If so, you would have seen that Leuridan in 1901 named Waleran of Luxemburg's first wife as "Mahaut de Reus, fille de Thomas de Holland, comte de Kent, et sour utérine de Richard II, roi d'Angleterre" - the very point you are labouring vainly to present as a new determination of your own, as if no-one had ever studied this well-known lineage before; and the very designation you are claiming to be wrong in Leo's database, as if the lady could not have been simultaneously known as both "de Reus" (from a personal possession) and "de Holland" (from her father's surname). Where to from here, I wonder? Maybe it would be a good idea to apply some scholarly method for a change, and start by finding the main stream of primary and secondary materials for this family....all on your lonesome own. Peter Stewart >Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~ > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April >1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515. The French editor seems to have misunderstood the Dutch date. The Dutch introduction to the list of funeral expenses states that Madame Johanne, Duchess of Brabant (God be merciful to her) died in the year 1407, on the twelfth day of the month of August. The form "oexst" is "oogst" in modern Dutch, now meaning "harvest", but the word is originally from the Latin Augustus. You will find a useful list of Old Dutch names of the months here: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oudnederlandse_maandnamen The relevant column is the one labelled "Oud-Nederlandse naam". >Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of >Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean >de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay. gbh Dear gbh ~ Thank you very much for translating the Dutch text of the document n Analectes historiques. It's very much appreciated. Knowing that the contemporary text in Dutch specifically states that Duchess Jeanne died 12 August 1407 now explains why Wauters gave that as her death date, but cited this document whose introduction in French stated Jeanne's funeral took place in April, not August, 1407. The error in the introduction in Analectes historiques is an odd publication error to make, but I know they happen. All the same, I'm thankful that Gachard published this document in Analectes historiques and that Wauters cited it. At least Gachard got the text of the original document right. However, it does not explain why two other modern sources I found gave Jeanne's death as 12 April 1407, namely Festschrift für ernst Tappolet (1935) and Historie de Carignan et du pays d'Yvois (1976). I also found another modern source last night which was rather well researched which stated Duchess Jeanne died in 1406, no month or day, or source given. Needless to say, I'd have thought that Duchess Jeanne's death date and burial place would have been well known facts in secondary works by now, but they clearly are not. This should give all of us reason to pause before endlessly copying names and dates from secondary books without first checking contemporary records. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah < On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:29:22 -0000, Douglas Richardson < <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote: < < >Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. ~ < > < >As a followup to my post earlier today regarding the death date of < >Jeanne de Luxembourg, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke of Brabant < >and Limburg, I've found another statement in print that Duchess Jeanne < >died 12 August 1407. This new source is Wauters, Histoire des < >environs de Bruxelles, 3 (1855): 386-387. Wauters reports that Jeanne < >de Luxembourg died at Tervueren (or Tervuren), where she was also < >buried. < > < >The weblink to the Wauters material is as follows: < > < >Wauters cites as his source the following work: < > < > M. Gachard, Analectes historiques, in Bulletins de la Commission < >royale histoire, 2nd ser., vol. 7, pg. 37. < > < >Checking the internet, a snippet viiew of this particular text < >published in 1855 can be found at the following weblink: < > < <http://books.google.com/books?id=-CM0AAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne+avril +1407+Tervueren&q=Jeanne+avril+1407+Tervueren&pgis=1 < > < >It appears, however, that text of the same document also printed in a < >separate work entitled Analectes historiques, by M. Gachard, which < >work was published the following year in 1856. < > < >The weblink to the full text of this work is as follows: < > < >http://books.google.com/books?id=4fslHT51ztIC&pg=PA1&dq=Gachard +Analectes+historiques#PPA129,M1 < > < >On pages 129-133, there is a list of the expenses of the funeral rite < >[obsequies] of Jeanne de Saint-Pol, wife of Antoine de Bourgogne, Duke < >of Brabant, which funeral was celebrated at Tervueren (or Tervuren) in < >the month of April 1407. Please note that the date is given as April < >1407, not August 1407. The introduction to the abstracted document is < >written in French, and it says April 1407. However, the actual text < >is written in Dutch, which I do not read. Perhaps April 1407 is < >simply a typographical error for August 1407. If someone familiar < >with the Dutch language can read the text, I'd appreciate knowing if < >the date in the text itself is April or August 1407. The date April < >1407 is again repeated for this document in French on page 515. < < The French editor seems to have misunderstood the Dutch date. < < The Dutch introduction to the list of funeral expenses states that < Madame Johanne, Duchess of Brabant (God be merciful to her) died in < the year 1407, on the twelfth day of the month of August. < < The form "oexst" is "oogst" in modern Dutch, now meaning "harvest", < but the word is originally from the Latin Augustus. < < You will find a useful list of Old Dutch names of the months here: < http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oudnederlandse_maandnamen < < The relevant column is the one labelled "Oud-Nederlandse naam". < < >Elsewhere I find that the "distribution de draps" at the death of < >Duchess Jeanne [de Luxembourg] "survenue le 12 Août 1407" is < >mentioned on page 157 in the book, Le gouvernement du duché de Brabant < >au bas Moyen Âge, by Uyttebrouck. See the following weblink for that < >reference: < > < <http://books.google.com/books?id=oPIHAAAAMAAJ&dq=Jeanne +1407+Tervueren&q=%22Le+12+ao%C3%BBt+1407%22&pgis=1#search < > < >Lastly, I've located a contemporary letter in which Jean de Bourgogne < >[John of Burgundy], eldest son of Duchess Jeanne de Luxembourg above, < >is styled "your cousin" to Humphrey of Lancaster, Duke of Gloucester, < >younger brother of King Henry V of England [see Waurin, Recueil des < >croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, a present < >nomme Engleterre, 3 (Rolls Ser. 39) (1879): 159]. The two men were < >related within the 5th degree of kinship at least twice through Jean < >de Bourgogne's maternal grandmother, Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay. < > gbh Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. I had the opportunity today to check the Luxembourg chart in Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28. As expected, I found many of the usual errors that have appeared elsewhere in other secondary sources for the Luxembourg family. For example, Schwennicke says that the fist wife of Waleran de Luxembourg was "Mahaut de Roeux" and that they married in 1374. Actually Waleran de Luxembourg's first wife was Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, and they were married at Windsor, Berkshire in England in Easter week, 1380. She was never called "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error carried over from Pere Anselme. Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the statement that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, died 2 June 1400. This death date is clearly an error. Sadly, I see it has been repeated again in yet another modern source, Jan Hirschbiegel's Etrennes (2003), pg. 711, which is available online. My research indicates that Bonne de Bar survived her husband, Waleran de Luxembourg's death in April 1415. In May 1415, Bonne, then styled "Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, lady of Nogent-le-Rotrou, Gravelines, and Nanteuil," took legal action to obtain the assignment of 6,000 livres of rent which was granted to her by her contract of marriage dated 1393. She presented to the church of Nogent-le-Rotrou in Oct. 1417. She was living in 1419. [References: Fret, Antiquités et chroniques percheronnes (1840): 247-248; Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): 140-142]. Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to Bonne and Waleran [see Anselme, Hist. de la Maison Royale de France 3 (1728): 724]. If so, this is an error that simply won't die, as Bonne was neither married on that date or died on that date. As I have shown in an earlier post, Bonne and Waleran were clearly married sometime before October 1396, when they attended the meeting of King Richard II of England and King Charles VI of France at Ardres. Some sources state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt been able to confirm that date as of yet. In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like to have either of them with the proper documentation provided. Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on Schwennicke in the future. Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, first wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, in Barbara F. Harvey, Westminster Abbey and its Estates in the Middle Ages (1977): 378. The following is a weblink to that source: http://books.google.com/books?id=ftJBgWVzNd0C&pg=PA378&dq=Luxembourg+Harvey+West minster+Abbey+Estates&sig=FzkZJVu5063KzCTxFrLijWltCv8 Harvey states that King Richard II of England attended his sister, Maud's funeral at Westminster Abbey in 1392, which is doubtless correct. She cites as a source, Polychronicon by Ranulph Higden, which work was published many years ago in the Rolls series. I haven't yet seen this citation, but I assume it deals with the burial of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Newsgroup ~ Regarding the actual date of the marriage of Waleran de Luxembourg, Count of Saint Pol, and his second wife, Bonne de Bar, I find that the date of 17 May 1393 is given for this couple's marriage in the following source: Congrès Archéoloqique de France: Séances générales tenués à Périgueux et à Cambrai en 1858 (1859): 597–599. There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could well be correct. Elsewehere, it appears that Count Waleran and Bonne's marriage is discussed in some detail by Camille-Paul Joignon in her work entitled En plein cœur du Barrois (1951): 74-75. There is a snippet view of this work available at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=VxsbAAAAIAAJ&q=Bonne+Bar+1393&dq=Bonne+Bar+1393 &pgis=1 On page 75, Bonne's assignment of dower is discussed and the date of May 1393 is mentioned on that page. I presume a full view of the text would indicate the actual date of marriage of this couple and also cite the available documentation for the marriage. This book is not available locally to me. It is, however, available at the following five libraries: 1. Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305 United States 2. Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 United States 3. New York Public Library - Research New York, NY 10018 United States 4. University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3LU United Kingdom 5. Centre D'Etudes Super Renaissance Tours Cedex, 37013 France Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah > Dear Newsgroup ~ > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could > well be correct. And it could be totally incorrect. What kind of scholarship does the above statement evince? This trawl of secondary and tertiary sources simply underscores yet again the importance of relying on primary evidence. Fifty different assertions plucked at random from google books, each dated 400 or 500 years after the event in question, are little more than a waste of bandwidth. MAR >Dear Newsgroup ~ > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >There is no documentation provided for the cited date, but it could >well be correct. Do I detect a slight inconsistency in your approach? This undocumented date "could well be correct," but the use of the name Mahaut de Roeux, for which you have been unable to find any primary documentation, is undoubtedly "an error carried over from Pere Anselme." As far as I can see, unless one can cite primary sources for either claim, the former could be totally wrong and the latter perfectly correct. Tish Comments interspersed: > Dear Leo, Spencer, Will, etc. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Mahaut de Roeux" as far as I can tell. This is an error carried > over from Pere Anselme. If you can't tell definitively whether or not she was called by a certain designation, how exactly can you know this is an error, or indeed that it originated with Anselme? > Another of the more unfortunate errors in Schwennicke is the > statement that Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 1 (1871): > 140-142]. Strange that your "research", meaning a bit of desultory Googling, hasn't revealed to you when she did actually die. Be sure to tell us when you make this fabulous discovery about someone whose life details are already so well known. If you had gone about even your amateurish fumbling more conscientiously, you might have got your citation right - the extract for 1415 from _Annales historiques du Barrois_ by Vincent Servais was published in _Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de Bar-le-duc 2 (1872), not the preceding volume & year. If you then bothered to consult the whole published work, you would find correct information about Bonne's death: this is old news and is not going to be your original discovery. > Oddly enough, the death date of 2 June 1400 for Bonne de Bar is the > VERY SAME DATE as the marriage date Pere Anselme assigned to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > state that Bonne and Waleran were married 17 May 1393, but I haven'tt > been able to confirm that date as of yet. Be sure to let us know when you do, and where you found it. This again will not be news just because some others gave a wrong date. > In any event, if anyone has an exact marriage date or exact death date > of Bonne de Bar, 2nd wife of Waleran de Luxembourg, I'd surely like > to have either of them with the proper documentation provided. You have not provided the "proper documentation" for anything in this thread so far - why should someone else take the first such trouble for you? > Besides the other errors I've already noted, I find that Schwennicke > omits all mention of Count Waleran's two illegitimate sons, Jean and > Simon, both of whom were named in his will. One gets the impression > that Schwennicke thrrew his chart together without bothering to check > any primary documents. This gives us room for pause when relying on > Schwennicke in the future. Schwennicke certainly will have checked more primary documents than you have done. Strange that you have not discovered Waleran had three known illegitimate sons (all by different mothers), two of whom were named Jean. > Leaving Schwennicke aside for the time being, there is a useful > discussion of the 1392 burial of Maud de Holand, Lady Courtenay, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of Maud de Holand. If anyone has access to this work and wants to > post the reference, I'd be very grateful for it. You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't turned this up, the relevant text is: "Item xxiii. die Aprilis dominus noster rex apud Westmonasterium fecit solemnes immo sumptuosas exequias pro sorore sua Matilda comitissa sancti Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac aureis ac pauperum distributione". We know that she was dead by 13 April, because on that date her widower made a donation for a mass to be said for her soul in perpetuity. You can have the pleasure of discovering details for yourself. If you need a translation of the Latin, doubtless Hines will be ready & willing if not quite able to help. Peter Stewart <snip> >You have access to the work online, but, since your vapid Googling hasn't >turned this up, the relevant text is: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Pauli in cereis et luminaribus circa feretrum illius, in pannis nigris ac >aureis ac pauperum distributione". My Googling likewise failed to turn up this online source. Could you please help me with a URL? Tish > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My Googling likewise failed to turn up this online source. Could you > please help me with a URL? By all means - see http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-50264&M=tdm page 265. Most but not all of the Rolls Series volumes are digitised on Gallica, as Richardson ought to know from advice given in his many past failures to use this resource "professionally" (you are probably lucky enough, Tish, not to realise how comical that idea is). Peter Stewart >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >this resource "professionally" (you are probably lucky enough, Tish, not to >realise how comical that idea is). Many thanks. I wasn't aware that the British have to cross the channel, so to speak, to read this work online. Trust the perfidious French to get there first! Tish Dear Newsgroup ~ As a followup to my post regarding the erroneous death date of Bonne de Bar, Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, I've already posted records which show Countess Bonne survived her husband, Count Waleran, and was living as late as 1419. Another source which indicates that Countess Bonne was living at the time of her husband, Count Waleran's death in 1415 is the chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet [Reference: The Chronicles of Enguerrand de Monstrelet 4 (1810): 121-123, 404-405]. I find that Countess Bonne was still living on 23 January 1423/4, when her brother, Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar, gave Dun to her [Reference: Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres (1926): 117]. As such, there is no question that Schwennicke is badly in error when he states that Countess Bonne died 2 June 1400 [Reference: Schwennicke, Europäische Stammtafeln, 6 (1978): 28 (sub Luxemburg)]. Schwennicke took this date from Anselme who stated Bonne married on that date to Count Waleran. Countess Bonne neither died nor was married on that date. Where the date 2 June 1400 comes from, only God knows. It appears to have dropped from the heavens. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah < < I find that Countess Bonne was still living on 23 January 1423/4, when < her brother, Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar, gave Dun to her [Reference: < Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres (1926): 117]. Dear Newsgroup ~ There is further information regarding the gift in 1424 of Dun by Louis, cardinal-duc de Bar to his sister, Bonne de Bar, Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, which can be found in the following source: Mémoires de la Société d'Archéologie Lorraine, 3rd series 2 (1874): 479. This reference can be found online at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=1okEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA479&dq=Bonne+Bar+1436#PPA3,M1 >From this source, we learn that the gift from Cardinal-Duc Louis to his sister, Countess Bonne, was made for the term of her life only. Also, that Bonne de Bar subsequently gave her woods and her large and small "rappes" to the community of Mont on 1 July 1424. Finally, the following source states that Bonne de Bar died in 1436, when she was succeeded at Dun by [her great-nephew] Rene d'Anjou: Société des naturalistes et archéologues du nord de la Meuse, 12 (1900): 10. The above reference can be found online at the following weblink: http://books.google.com/books?id=vfEDAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA3-PA10&dq=Bonne+Bar+1436 Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah As a further postscript, I can further add that Bonne de Bar, Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, gave a rent of 60 sols on 6 May 1425, to Marie de Fains in recompensation for services rendered to her late mother and to her. See the following weblink for this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=d2AZAAAAIAAJ&dq=Bonne+Comtesse+Ligny&q=comtesse +Ligny&pgis=1#search Thus reference and the last one below are drawn from Volume 3 of Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres. Countess Bonne was a legatee in the 1430 will of her briother, Louis, Duc-Cardinal de Bar, who bequeathed her two books which had belonged to their mother, Marie of France [Reference: Réunion des sociétés des beaux-arts des départements salle de l'hemicycle, à l'école nationale des beaux-arts, 20th sesssion (1896): 283-285]. See the weblink below for this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=r4kDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA284&dq=Bonne+Comtesse+Ligny#P PA285,M1 Countess Bonne died sometime before 12 Feb. 1450/1, on which date she is called deceased. The following weblink gives this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=d2AZAAAAIAAJ&dq=Bonne+Comtesse+Ligny&q=feue+Bon ne&pgis=1#search Lastly, we come to Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands database hosted by the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy which database states that Bonne de Bar and her husband, Waleran de Luxembourg, were married at Saint- Mihiel on 2 June 1400. No source is given for this statement. We've already established that this date for this couple's marriage is incorrect. Mr. Cawley further states that Countess Bonne died "after 20 Nov 1400 or 1436 or after" and was buried at Pont-à-Mousson. No source is given for this statement either. Clearly the 1400 date is wildly incorrect, as we know that Countess Bonne survived her husband's death in 1415, and was still living in 1430, when she was named a legatee in her brother, Louis' will. It remains to be seen if Countess Bonne was living in 1436 (Cawley's SECOND approximated death date), and if she was buried at Pont-à-Mousson. With no primary or secondary sources cited by Mr. Cawley, this database remains of extremely limited usefulness. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah < Thus reference and the last one below are drawn from Volume 3 of < Chantilly. Les Archives. Le Cabinet des titres. For "Thus reference and the last one below," please read "This reference and the last one below" My apologies for the typo. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah <yet more worthless verbiage deleted> > With no primary or secondary sources cited by Mr. Cawley, this database > remains of extremely limited usefulness. You knew that already, so why on earth are you using it? Have you now been banned from the FHL? In any event, Cawley cites many primary and secondary sources for his database, whether or not he gives any for this particular section - the trouble is rather with the indiscriminate choice, and the incompetent use he makes, of these. But with Richardson now engaged on the slowest reinvention of the genealogical wheel that he has undertaken for some time, Cawley is apt to be outdone in uselessness and wasted effort. Peter Stewart Care should be taken to distinguish Bonne de Bar, dowager Countess of Ligny and Saint-Pol, from her great-niece, Jeanne de Bar, also Countess of Saint Pol, which Jeanne was living 25 January 1436, on which date her cousin, René d'Anjou, abandoned his rights to "the succession of the Countess of Saint-Pol, daughter of the deceased Robert de Bar, his uncle, in case she should come to die without heirs ["... dans le cas où elle viendrait à mourir sans hoirs."] [Reference: Henri Beaune & J. d'Arbaumont, Mémoires d'Olivier de La Marche, 2 (Paris, 1884): 57]. See the following weblink for this reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=Uau2jj7W6AcC&pg=RA1-PA57&dq=bonne+comtesse+Pol+1436 Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Dear Leo ~ Yes, this is exactly the information I requested. Thank you for your kind offer to help out. Much appreciated. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Aug 23, 12:23 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au> wrote: < I will give here what Volume 1.2 Tafel 231 gives. I gladly will try to scan < that part of the chart for you, tell me if you want this to be done < < Valeran III, 1371 Cte de Ligny et de Saint-Pol, CdF, born 1355, died chateau < d'Yvoy 22 April 1415, buried at Yvoy < Married (1) 1380 Mathilde de Holand, she dies before/olr about 13 April < 1392, widow of Hugh de Courtenay, daughter of Thomas, 1.Lord Holand and < Joan, 4.Cts of Kent(Anjou-Plantagenet; married 2nd Saint Mihiel (sic) 2 June < 1400 Bona von Bar, test 1436 buried Pont-a-Mousson, daughter of Duke Robert < I. < < children: < 1st marriage < 1.Jeanne chatelaine de Lille, Comtesse de Ligny et de Saint-Pol,. died 12 < August 1407, buried in Brussels, < married Arras 21 February 1402, Anton von Burgund.................etc. < < bastards < by Agnes de Brie < 2.Jean de Luxembourg batard de Saint Pol, he was legitimised and married < < by Marie de la Lausiere < 3.Simon de Luxembourg, he was legitimised but is recorded as unmarried < < Hope this helps? < Leo van de Pas < Canberra, Australia Hmmmmm... Silly rabbit indeed. But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT. How Sweet It Is! Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. Enjoy! DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum Exitus Acta Probat Ex Scientia Tridens "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote: >> Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced >> to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DR -------------------------------------------------------------- Well, as we all know: Stewart's noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no longer continue at Oxford. "Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart A Disability He STILL HAS... As We See In These NEWSGROUPS. Straight from the horse's own mouth: > I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings > of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I > have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum There is NOTHING more DEEEEEELIGHTFUL! than watching someone such as Stewart, who is trying to correct someone else -- take an egregious pratfall himself. KAWHOMP!!! Hoist With His Own Petar! Jolly Good Show! Great Entertainment! Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus. "I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of Wellington DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum John 5:14 Matthew 7:6 ------------------------------------------------ > Doesn't the US Navy have a support serivce [sic] for its mentally broken > and psychologically distressed ex-personnel? > > Peter Stewart -------------------------------------------- Hmmmmm... Silly rabbit indeed. But GREAT ENTERTAINMENT. How Sweet It Is! Victoria, it just doesn't get any better than this. Enjoy! DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum Exitus Acta Probat Ex Scientia Tridens "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message news:1187410133.700378.52550@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 17, 9:38 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote: >> Hines must be at his wit's end (i.e. his own fundament) if he is reduced >> to copying and endorsing a message from the all-time champeen [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DR -------------------------------------------------------------- Well, as we all know: Stewart's noodle was so badly damaged and discombobulated he could no longer continue at Oxford. "Quite right for once - I lost the ability to read." -- Peter Stewart A Disability He STILL HAS... As We See In These NEWSGROUPS. Straight from the horse's own mouth: > I have difficulty reading sometimes, unable to process even simple strings > of letters into words, and like other people with other disabilities I > have to take extra time & trouble to compensate. -- Peter Stewart 'Nuff Said. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.