Person Page - 149

     Anne Croft married Sir Thomas Blount of Kinlet, son of Sir Humphrey Blount of Sodington & Kinlet and Elizabeth Winnington.^1,2

Anne Croft died on 27 September 1549.²

     Agatha (?) of Poland was born circa 1014; Genealogics says she was b ca 1021/1025, but recent evidence presented by Guido & Ravilious argues that she was betrothed to Emeric/Imre of Hungary ca 1022. So she must have been born soon after her parents' marriage c 1013.^1,3 She married Edward "The Exile" (?) the Aetheling, son of Edmund II "Ironside" (?) King of England and Ealdgyth (Edith) (?) Queen of England, at Kyiv (Kiev), Ukraine (now).^5,6,1,7

Agatha (?) of Poland died circa 1070.¹
      ; Per Genealogy.EU: "Edward "the Exile", styled Atheling and adopted as King Edward the Confessor's heir, *1016, +London 1057, bur Old St.Paul's Cathedral; m. in Kiev Agatha of Kiev (+before 1093)."⁶

; Per The Henry Project (Appendices Page):
     "Agatha, Wife of Eadweard the Exile.
(Because of the length, the discussion appears on two pages. This is the Appendices page, which also includes the Bibliography. The main discussion appears on the other page.)
Appendices
     "Appendix 1: Agatha and Onomastics
     "Appendix 2: Was Eadmund married to a Hungarian princess?
     "Appendix 3: The meaning of germanus
     "Appendix 4: The mother and half-brothers of Heinrich III
     "Appendix 5: Who were the queens of Hungary during this period?
     "Appendix 6: Who was the king Malesclodus who appears in the Laws of Edward the Confessor?
Appendix 1: Agatha and Onomastics
     "At the time that Eadweard the Exile married his wife Agatha, the name Agatha was very uncommon in Western Europe. Thus, since it was extremely common for individuals to be named after older relatives, it is natural that those interested in Agatha's ancestry should ask where she got her name, and should investigate whether or not the name appears in the family of any proposed parent who is conjectured for her. Also, it has been noted that two of her children, Margaret and Christina, have then uncommon names that cannot be readily explained as coming from relatives of their father Eadweard, and that three children of Margaret, Alexander, David, and Mary, have then uncommon names which do not appear among known or likely relatives of either Margaret's father Eadweard or her husband Malcolm III.
     "Jetté was the first to advance onomastics in favor of the Russian Hypothesis [Jetté (1996), 424-6], followed by Ingham and Humphreys [Ingham (1998a, 1998b), Humphreys (2003, 2004)], but the onomastic argument was pressed the hardest by Pavsic [Pavsic (2001)]. The overuse of onomastic arguments (especially by Pavsic) was criticized by Parsons [Parsons (2002)]. Later, the Bulgarian Hypothesis also made major use of onomastic arguments [Mladjov (2003)].
     "Even in a well documented age, the use of onomastic evidence in genealogy is full of pitfalls. In a poorly documented age, onomastic evidence would be difficult to use even if there had been specific rules which were always followed, and there were no such rules. What we have during the period in question is a strong tendancy for children to be named after close relatives. This tendancy is stronger among elder children than it is among younger children (when some of the available names have already been used for siblings). Onomastic patterns were more constant in some families than they were in others. However, exceptions to the pattern were not infrequent. To give two examples, children were sometimes named after unrelated godparents or after the saint on whose feast day they were born.
     "Onomastic evidence has been argued in both positive and negative ways. In positive arguments via onomastic evidence, a (preferably uncommon) name or set of names is observed to be present in two different families, and as a result it is hypothesized that the two families were closely related, and further evidence is sought to either solidify or rule out such a relationship. In negative arguments using onomastic evidence, it is argued that certain individuals were probably not closely related because the names occurring in the families do not match well. We will start with onomastics as positive evidence, and then discuss its use as negative evidence.
     "When used properly, onomastic clues sometimes provide good evidence in genealogy. However, it is not difficult to find examples where onomastic evidence has been misused. A simple example of incorrect use of onomastic evidence regards the discussion by Jetté of the names Margaret and Christina [Jetté (1996), 425]. The two names Margaret and Christina are rare in Europe in the eleventh century, and the only other place where they are found together is in the family of Inge I (d. ca. 1116), king of Sweden, who had two daughters of those names [Kønigsfeldt (1856), table 12, 152-3]. According to the reasonably well documented genealogy of the Swedish royal family, Inge was the grandnephew of Ingegerde of Sweden, wife of Iaroslav I of Kiev [ibid., table 12, 151-2]. Thus, the argument goes, this is supposedly evidence in favor of the Russian Hypothesis that Iaroslav and Ingegerde were the parents of Agatha. The flaw in this argument was pointed out by Faris and Richardson [Faris-Richardson (1998), 229]. The problem with Jetté's logic is revealed when we ask the question "Who was named after whom?" Agatha's daughters were obviously not named after the two Swedish princesses, who were not even born at the time. It would also be very difficult to argue that the Swedish princesses were named after Agatha's daughters, since children are seldom named after distant (alleged) cousins. According to the Russian Hypothesis, the alleged common ancestor of the two Margarets and two Christinas would be Olaf of Sweden, but no Margaret and Christina are known from the immediate families of Olaf and his wife who would explain the supposed inheritance of these names. In fact, on the Swedish side, the names of Margaret and Christina could very well have come from the apparently unknown family of Inge's second wife Helene, who was the mother of these two daughters [Kønigsfeldt (1856), table 12, 152 & n. 51]. Since none of the proposed parents of Agatha is known to have had a Margaret or Christina in their immediate family, this line of onomastic research is at a current dead end.
     "A similar flaw invalidates Pavsic's claim that the existence of Agatha of Kiev, daughter of Vladimir II, son of Vsevelod I, son of Iaroslav I gives support to the existence of a daughter of Iaroslav named Agatha [Pavsic (2001), 61, 86]. Without direct proof that the name Agatha had already appeared in the family of Iaroslav I at the time of the birth of the elder Agatha, there is no onomastic evidence for placing Agatha in Iaroslav's family. The existence of an individual generations after the fact does not constitute good evidence. It is true that if the interesting conjecture of Jackman and Humphreys that Iaroslav was a son of Anna of Byzantium is valid, Iaroslav would have had a grandaunt named Agatha [Jackman (2000), 47; Humphreys (2004), 284-5; Jackman (2008), 66-75], which would in turn be onomastically favorable to the Russian Hypothesis. However, that conjecture is extremely speculative, and as it stands, the only one of the proposed theories for which the presence of the name Agatha can be regarded as an onomastic positive is the Bulgarian Hypothesis, which would make Eadweard's wife Agatha the granddaughter of another Agatha.
     "After noting that the elder children of Agatha's daughter Margaret were named after members of the English royal family, Pavsic states that "(t)he names given to the other three (Alexander, David, Mary) were alien to Scotland and England, and thus must have been inherited from the family of Margaret's mother, Agatha." [Pavsic (2001), 57] In fact, this is a serious overstatement, and these names appear to be at too distant a generation to provide any convincing onomastic evidence about Agatha's origin. Pavsic seems to be making two underlying assumptions here for which the evidence is insufficient. First, he is apparently assuming that the family of Malcolm III's mother is known and can be ruled out as a source for these names. In fact, the earliest testimony that we have about Malcolm's mother is from the fourteent century , and there is no certain evidence about her origin [see the page of Malcolm's mother Suthen]. The second apparent assumption is that these children were necessarily named after close relatives of one of their grandparents. The closest theoretical possibility of onomastic influence regarding these names is that Iaroslav I had a half-brother Gleb whose baptismal name was David [Ingham (1998a), 219-220]. The next closest possibility is that under the Bulgarian Hypothesis, Agatha's conjectured father Gavril Radomir had an uncle named David [Mladjov (2003), 74]. Thus, for example, if the Russian Hypothesis were true, it could be suggested that David I of Scotland was named after the baptismal (not given) name of a half-brother of his great-grandfather. Or, if the Bulgarian Hypothesis were true, David I would supposedly be named after a brother of his great-great-grandfather. These are very tenuous connections, not at all convincing as onomastic evidence. Agatha's grandchildren were in all probability born in Scotland, and there is no good reason to believe that the baptismal names of obscure Russian (presumed) relatives played a significant role in their naming. At the time Agatha's grandchildren Alexander and David were born, their parents already had numerous sons, and they may have been looking outside their family for names. The Biblical king David is an obvious candidate in the case of David I.
     "Thus, the use of onomastic evidence as positive evidence leaves us with very little. The name Agatha gives us one "plus" in the column of the Bulgarian Hypothesis (which would seem to be cancelled by "minuses" in other, non-onomastic evidence, as discussed elsewhere on these pages), with no other Agathas in the candidate families to offer support. The names Margaret and Christina do not appear as close relatives of proposed parents of Agatha, and examples named David are too far removed in number of generations to be convincing.
     "This brings us to the use of onomastic evidence as negative evidence. It has been suggested that some of the hypotheses can be ruled out as improbable because the use of the name Agatha cannot be readily explained under these hypotheses. In fact, we have already seen that the only hypothesis for which the name Agatha is clearly present among close relatives of the proposed parents is the Bulgarian Hypothesis. Yet, the Bulgarian Hypothesis is weak in other ways, and is far from being the most likely of the available conjectures. Thus, we would like to know the degree to which the lack of an obvious onomastic match can be regarded as negative evidence for a relationship. Thinness of records makes the use of onomastic evidence as negative evidence less reliable, for there is no guarantee that the relative after whom somebody was named actually appears in the records. Thus, negative onomastic evidence is the most useful when the names of the parents and siblings of the putative parents are well documented.
     "This last point is most relevant in the attempt to use the name Agatha as evidence against the German Hypothesis, which suggests that Agatha is a daughter of Liudolf von Braunschweig. In fact, there seems to be no proof of the identity of the paternal grandparents of Liudolf, and we likewise have nothing but unconfirmed conjectures for the parentage of Liudolf's wife Gertrude. Given these uncertainties, how can we say with confidence that Liudolf and /or Gertrude had no relative named Agatha? This shows how difficult it is to get negative information from onomastics in a poorly documented period.
     "However, there is another facet to this argument which has not yet been mentioned, which might be called geographical onomastics. The names Agatha, Margaret, and Christina were rare in Germany at the time, but they were more common in Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire. Ingham has noted that these names were in the Russian Litany of All Saints of the eleventh or twelfth centuries [Ingham (1998a), 220]. Thus, the name Agatha was a more likely name for a child born in the east than one born in the west. This tilts the evidence slightly in favor of the "eastern" theories (Russian Hypothesis, Polish Hypothesis, etc.) compared to the "western" ones (German Hypothesis, Bruno Hypothesis, etc).
     "There are two different arguments which, if valid, would remove this negative evidence from the German Hypothesis, but neither of them are convincing. Donald C. Jackman, who accepts the German Hypothesis as proven, gives Liudolf's father Bruno a conjectured distant Byzantine ancestry, and would explain Agatha's name on that basis [Jackman (2000), 40-1, 56]. However, this supposed Byzantine ancestry is based on unconvincing evidence. On the other hand, Faris and Richardson speculated that if Agatha was first married to a Russian and then to Eadweard, the name Agatha might have been given to her at her first marriage, and she would have been born with a different (presumably German) name. As they acknowledge, this scenario is very speculative, and there is no direct evidence for it [Faris-Richardson (1998), 233-4].
     "Thus, for the most part, onomastics provides no major evidence in the problem of Agatha's origin. It is a definite plus for the Bulgarian Hypothesis but does not offer any significant evidence in support of any of the other hypotheses. However, it does slant things slightly in favor of the "eastern" hypotheses versus the "western" hypotheses.
Appendix 2: Was Eadmund married to a Hungarian princess?
     "Ailred of Rievaulx, who personally knew Agatha's grandson king David I of Scotland, states that Eadmund, brother of Eadweard the Exile, was married to the daughter of the king of Hungary, and died shortly thereafter ["Porro Edmundo filiam suam [i.e., of the king of Hungary] dedit uxorem; Edwardo filiam germani sui Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium junxit. Sed paulo post Edmundus de temporalibus ad æterna transfertur: Edwardus sospitate et prosperitate fruitur." Ailred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, PL 195: 733]. Did such a marriage occur? If so, how does that affect the arguments involving Eadweard's marriage? Note that if the Hungarian king in question is identified as Stephen I, then Ailred's statement could clearly be regarded as a variant of the Hungarian Hypothesis, and thus much of the discussion for that hypothesis is likewise relevant here.
     "Often overlooked, Ailred's statement has not completely escaped notice. Lappenberg accepted the marriage, identifying Stephen I as the Hungarian king, and stated that Eadmund's widow married Eppo of Nellenburg and was the mother of St. Eberhard [Lappenburg (1843-81), 243]. Searle included the marriage in his tables, and gave Eadmund's wife the name Hedwig [Searle (1899), 350]. Ritchie comments on the distinction that Ailred makes between the wives of Eadmund and Eadweard [Ritchie (1954), 391]. Ronay not only accepts the marriage, but devotes an entire chapter to it, embellishing the story in the same way that he does throughout the book [Ronay (1989), 102-8]. Keynes mentions the marriage as an additional detail of Ailred which "may be reliable" [Keynes (1985), 367-8 n. 15].
     "First, we can eliminate Lappenberg's red herring that Eadmund's widow was the mother of St. Eberhard. According to the life of Eberhard, he was the son of Eppo, count of Nellenburg, by his wife Hedwig, daughter of Stephen (I), king of Hungary and his wife Gisela [Vita B. Eberhardi Monachi, AASS Apr., 1: 670]. In a notice in the autograph copy of Bernold's chronicle at the monastery of St. Salvatore in Schaffhausen, there is a statement that count Ebbo of Nellenburg was married in 1009 to Hedwig, consobrina of king Heinrich [Bernold, Chronicon (Annales Scafhusenses), s.a. 1009, MGH SS 5: 388; Hirsch (1862-75), 1: 539]. St. Eberhard is apparently the count Eberhard who appears in a document of 1037 [ibid., 1: 540], and St. Eberhard was recently deceased in 1079, having been 60 years old. Thus, Eberhard's mother could hardly have been married to Eadmund, who was born in 1016.
     "As noted in the discussion of the Hungarian Hypothesis, Stephen I could plausibly have been the father of a daughter the same age as or younger than Eadmund, although it is likely that his children were somewhat older. Furthermore, if Eadmund died as a son-in-law of Stephen I before Stephen's death in 1038, then there is no reason to expect that he would have appeared in the scanty Hungarian sources. Thus, the absence of any mention of such a marriage in continental sources would be easier to explain in Eadmund's case than it would be in Eadweard's case. Since the name of the Hungarian king who was Eadmund's supposed father-in-law is not specified by Ailred, the possibility that he was Peter Orseolo or Aba Samuel could also be considered. Far too little is known about the chronology of these two monarchs to decide if either one of them could make a chronologically feasible father-in-law of Eadmund, but there seems to be little evidence that would rule out either one of these possibilites.
     "So did Eadmund marry a daughter of a Hungarian king? A positive answer to this question would help to clarify some of the puzzling contradictions about Agatha's origin. 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. Ronay implied this confusion when he assigned Geoffrey Gaimar's confused and unreliable story of the Hungarian marriage of Margaret's father to Margaret's uncle instead [Ronay (1989), 102-8]. A Hungarian marriage for Eadmund is very plausible, but the evidence falls short of proof.
Appendix 3: The meaning of germanus
     "One important issue in the Agatha controversy has been the meaning of the statement that "Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici, in matrimonium accepit." [John Worc. s.a. 1017 (1: 181)] In particular, what information does the word germanus (genetive singular germani) give us? As a noun, the classical Latin meaning of germanus is "full brother" (i.e., a brother having both parents in common), while the corresponding feminine form germana means "full sister". As an adjective, it can mean "of the same parents", "genuine", or "true", and capitalized, it can mean "German".
     "Grammatically, in the sentence in question, it is ambiguous whether germani is a genetive noun modifying filiam, or a genetive adjective modifying the genetive noun imperatoris. Thus, since there was no standard convention for capitalization in medieval manuscripts, the words "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici" have sometimes been interpreted as "daughter of the German emperor Heinrich." However, it would be extremely rare during that time for the "Roman" emperor to be referred to as the "German emperor". Such nomenclature is not used by John of Worcester. Also, there is no emperor Heinrich who would make a believable father for Agatha. Thus, the meaning "German" for this instance of the word germanus can be rejected with confidence.
     "In fact, it is widely agreed that the word germanus, as it appears in this sentence, refers to a genealogical relationship. But what relationship? The usage of medieval Latin often varies from that of classical Latin. Various opinions on the meaning of the word have been stated by authors writing on Agatha. Fest said that the word germanus could mean brother, but could also mean "brother-in-law" [Fest (1938), 125 (not seen by me), quoted by Herzog (1939), 33, n. 3]. Moriarty states that "(t)he word 'germani' is a vague one" [Moriarty (1952), 56]. Ritchie states that the term means "full brother" [Ritchie ((1954), 390]. Vajay, who was mainly concerned with eliminating the "brother-in-law" possibility mentioned by Fest, is not very clear about his definition of the word, but he cited an entry in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae indicating that the definition included siblings and half-siblings ["Germanus-a-um. ... I: spectat ad fraternitatem. A: ... sensu stricto de iis qui naturali fraternitatis vinculo continentur, plerumque de fratribus (sororibus), qui ex iisdem parentibus orti sunt ... de iis denique, qui ab eadem matre diversoque patre geniti sunt ..." Vajay (1962), 78 n. 27, citing Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1919), 5: 1914 (not seen by me); (trans.: I: it refers to brotherhood. A: ... in the strict sense concerning those who are held together by bonds of natural (i.e., by birth) brotherhood, generally concerning brothers (sisters), who spring from the same parents ... finally concerning those, who are born of the same mother or father ...)]. Ronay regularly translates the word germanus as "kinsman", but states that "(i)n medieval Latin germanus meant brother or cousin, even in the vaguest formulation a close blood relation but never a relation by marriage." [Ronay (1989), 111, passim] Jetté does not discuss the word, but translates it as "brother" [Jetté (1996), 420]. Ingham follows Ronay in translating the word germanus from John of Worcester as "kinsman" [Ingham (1998b), 248 & n. 46], but then states that "John himself surely intended germanus to mean 'blood brother.' " [ibid., 249] He is right in stating that more evidence is needed on the subject [ibid., 260]. Humphreys translates germanus as "close male relation (brother?)" [Humphreys (2003), 32].
     "Since there appeared to be no studies on how the word germanus was used by John of Worcester, I decided to do such a study. With the assistance of the Google Books website, I searched for various declensions of the word germanus and of its corresponding feminine form germana in John of Worcester's work, turning up 55 examples [John Worc., i, 26 (2), 30, 32, 44, 58, 60, 65, 70, 101 (2), 117, 118 (2), 121, 130, 134, 137, 138, 144, 162, 180, 181 (2), 182, 193, 211, 212, 223, 226, 261, 265, 269, 272 (2), 273, 274 (3), 275; ii, 11, 19, 20, 21, 27, 34, 40 (3), 45, 49, 50 (2), 225]. I did a page-by-page search for the word for about fifty pages without finding any instances not found by the other search, so the list is likely to give a large majority of the occurrences of the word, although it is hard to rule out the possibility that a few examples were missed. The feminine form germana was included to increase the sample size, because it would have almost certainly been treated as analogous to the masculine form. Of the 55 occurrences, two concerned Agatha, one from the main body of the work and one from the genealogical appendix [ibid., 1: 181, 275]. This leaves 53 instances to study John's use of the word.
     "Of these 53 cases, all but one involve individuals who are stated to have been siblings by various secondary sources [mostly Searle (1899)]. This is strong evidence that John of Worcester considered germanus to mean "brother" and germana to mean "sister". In some of these cases, this reasoning could be considered circular, if, for example, John of Worcester's statement that A was a germanus of B is the primary source for the statement in a secondary source that A and B were siblings [e.g., "... clitonem Cinehardum, regis videlicet Sigeberti germanum..." John Worc., s.a. 784 (1: 60); Searle (1899), 339]. However, even in these cases, it shows that it has been common among scholars to translate germanus as "brother". In fact, some of John of Worcester's references to the word also give other information which directly verifies the sibling relation [e.g., "Ingels et Ine, ille famosus Occidentalium Saxonum rex, germani duo fuerunt... qui fuerunt filii Coenred..." John Worc. s.a. 849 (1: 70-1)], and some are evidently a direct translation of the Anglo-Saxon words bróðor (brother) or sweostor (sister) from a version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [e.g., "Aþulf ealdormon Ealhswiðe broðor" ASC(A), s.a. 903; "dux Athulfus, Ealhswithæ reginæ, matris regis Eadwardi, germanus" John Worc., s.a. 903 (1: 118).
     "Other than the two references to Agatha, the one case not involving verified siblings occurs under the year 694, where a certain Mul, previously called a brother (frater) of the West-Saxon king Ceadwalla ["Ceadwallæ regis West-Saxonem fratrem Mul" John Worc., s.a. 687 (1: 40)], is called a germanus of Ine, Ceadwalla's successor ["Cantwarienses, facta pace cum Ine West-Saxonum rege, III.DCC.L. libras illi dedere; quia, ut prælibavimus, Mul germanum suum combussere." John Worc. s.a. 694 (1: 44)]. Now, assuming that the West-Saxon genealogies (perhaps not reliable) are accepted, Ceadwalla and Ine had different fathers, who were themselves distant cousins [see Searle (1899), 330-5]. Thus, in order to make Mul a brother of both Ceadwalla and Ine, one would have to conjecture either that Ceadwalla and Ine were half-brothers through their mother or that Mul was a half-brother of both Ceadwalla and Ine on different sides. This seems rather unlikely, and we would therefore appear at first glance to have a case in which distant cousins were called germani. However, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 694, John's probable source, has no mention of the relationship between Ine and Mul ["Her Cantware geþingodan wiþ Ine, & him gesaldon .xxx. m. forþon þe hie ær Mul for bærndon."ASC(A) s.a. 694], and it seems likely that the appearance of the word germanum in John's 694 entry is a result of a confusion (by either John or his source) between Ine and his predecessor Ceadwalla. Thus, except for this single example which is probably an error, there seems to be little reason to doubt that John of Worcester intended germanus to mean "brother", and we can reject the attempts to give germanus as used by John of Worcester a looser translation such as "relative".
     "Just as important for the Agatha controversy is the question of whether germanus/germana necessarily means "full sibling" or whether the meaning of "half-sibling" is allowed. Of the 52 occurrences of germanus/germana where siblings were involved, many were full siblings, and many of the cases are undetermined because only one parent is known. However, at least two of the occurrences involve individuals who were verifiably half-siblings. Under the year 672, John states that the abbess St. Æbbe was a germana of kings Osweald and Oswiu of Northumbria ["Sanctæ Æbbæ abbatissæ, videlicet sancti Oswaldi et Oswiu regum germanæ" John Worc. s.a. 672 (1: 30)]. However, in his life of St. Cuthbert, Bede states that Æbbe was a uterine sister of Oswiu ["Æbbe... erat soror uterina regis Osuiu." Vita S. Cudbercti, x, 16, Bede, Opera Minora, 68]. Now, John on an earlier occasion states that Osweald, Oswiu, and Æbbe (among others) were all children of Æthelfrith ["Æthelfrith ... XXIV. annis tenuit; cui sunt geniti VII. filii, Eanfrith, Oswald, Oslaf, Oswiu, Offa, Oswudu, Oslac, et una filia Æbbe nomine." John Worc. s.a. 593 (1: 9-10)]. Thus, it could be argued that John intended to make Æbbe a full sister of Osweald, due to his mistake in making Æbbe a daughter of Æthelfrith. Another example is that John makes Ludwig (Louis) the German a germanus of Charles (Karl) the Bald, whereas they were half-brothers ["... qui Karolus [Charles the Fat] Luduwici regis filius erat; ipse vero Luduwicus germanus fuit Karoli regis Francorum, patris Juthittæ prædictæ; qui duo germani fuerunt filii Luduwici..." John Worc. s.a. 885 (1: 101); for the relationship of these two half-brothers, see the page of emperor Louis the Pious]. Thus, it would appear that John was allowing the definition of germani to extend to half-brothers. In the other hand, it might be argued here that the word germanus means that John thought that Ludwig and Charles were full brothers. If so, it still illustrates how men who were only half-brothers could turn up as germani in the records.
     "In a long article on relationship terms in 1913, Joseph Depoin discussed the word germanus in some detail [Depoin (1913), 59-63]. He offers several examples where half-brothers with the same father are called germani. For example, Grifo, half-brother of Pépin "the Short", is called his germanus in the Annales Regni Francorum under the year 753, although the related so-called Annals of Einhard calls him a frater ["Pippinus rex ... Grifo ... germanus eius ..." Ann. Reg. Franc., s.a. 753, ARF 10; cf. "Pippinus rex ... fratris sui Grifonis ..." Ann. Einhard., s.a. 753, ARF 11; Depoin (1913), 60]. Also, a charter of Charles the Bald for the church of Nevers calls his half-brother Pépin of Aquitaine "germanus noster Pepinus" [Depoin (1913), 60]. Depoin's conclusion was that germanus meant specifically "brother having the same father". His main evidence for this was a tenth century piece from the cartulary of Cormery in which an abbot Robert refers to his full brother Gérard as his "frater germanus et uterinus" [Depoin (1913), 59]. The logic behind this is that since frater uterinus means "brother having the same mother", frater germanus must mean "brother having the same father". While this may be the meaning in this particular instance, Depoin does not make a convincing case that this practice was uniform.
     "In fact, there are cases in which the word germanus is evidently allowed to include cases where the individuals have only the same mother in common. An example of this comes from Adam of Bremen, where Cnut of England and Denmark and Olaf of Sweden are called germani fratres ["Eodemque tempore memorabiles aquilonis reges obierunt Chnut et Olaph, germani fratres." Adam of Bremen, ii, 71, MGH SS 7: 332]. It would be hard to argue here that Adam thought that Cnut and Olaf had the same parents, for elsewhere in the same work Adam states that after the death of Erik (Olaf's father), Svend married Erik's widow, the mother of Olaf, by whom he had Cnut ["Post mortem diu optatam Herici Suein ... accepit uxorem Herici relictam, matrem Olaph, quae peperit ei Chnut." Adam of Bremen, ii, 37, MGH SS 7: 319]. Thus, Adam thought that Olaf anf Cnut had only a mother in common, and yet he thought it appropriate to call them germani fratres. Another example comes from the tenth century life of abbot John of Gorze, where it is stated that bishop Adalbero I of Metz had several fratres ex matre, who are then referred to as germani. ["... quod fratres ei plures ex matre erant ... ipsis germanis ..." Vita Ioh. Gorz., c. 110, p. 139; also at MGH SS 4: 368]. This passage was noted by Depoin, who explained it by suggesting that Adalbero's father Wigeric had sons by another wife previous to his wife Cunégonde (Adalbero's mother), and that in this case fratres ex matre was being used to distinguish Adalbero's full brothers from his brother(s) who had only the same father [Depoin (1913), 60]. However, this explanation is undermined by the fact that there is no proof that Wigeric had a wife previous to Cunégonde, while Cunégonde is known to have had two husbands [see the pages of Cunégonde and Wigeric for furhter details]. Thus, the natural conclusion is that at least one of these fratres ex matre had a different father from Adalbero, for otherwise there is no clear need for the qualification ex matre.
     "One thing that needs to be emphasized is that there was no direct method of enforcement which would compel authors or scribes to use the "right" definition of such a word. Nevertheless, we generally expect that most authors having a reasonable reputation at least exercised some degree of care in their use of words. But how much care? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a hypothetical writer intends to use the strictly defined version of germanus (meaning full brother), and also uses the word frater (meaning either full brother or half-brother). How would this work in practice? If our author is very careful and diligent, but also wants to convey as much information as possible, he probably uses germanus for those cases in which he is certain that the individuals had two parents in common, and frater for all cases where they are half-siblings or he is uncertain. What happens if he doesn't remember if the two individuals were full brothers or half-brothers, but knows where to find out? Does he just play it safe and call them fratres, or does he check his sources to see if the word germanus is appropriate? Clearly, this might well depend on whether the information is easily at hand or requires significant effort to find. But would the typical author be that careful in all cases? If a moderately careful writer knew that two men had one parent in common, but had no specific information about the other parent(s), would such an author always avoid calling the individuals germani? If the answer to this last question is "no" (which seems to be the case), then we can see how in practice, germanus might be used as almost interchangeable with frater, so that half-brothers can appear as germani, as in the examples provided.
     "For the Agatha controversy, however, the most important question is how John of Worcester used the word germanus. We have already seen that he evidently considered germani/germanae to be siblings, for the one exception to this is more likely an error than a deliberate description of distant cousins as germani. But did he consider germani/germanae to be full siblings or did he consider the word to extend to half-siblings? If the former, how careful was he? We have already seen examples of John using the word germanus/germana for half-siblings, and there were other cases where he probably had no information whether or not siblings were full siblings and yet still used the word germanus or germana (e.g., the case cited above involing Cyneheard and Sigebert). Thus, either he intended the word germanus to extend to half-siblings or he was not always one hundred per-cent careful to distinguish between the words germanus and frater.
     "So, what should be concluded from John of Worcester's statement that Agatha was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici". Taking the statement of John's genealogical appendix at face value that the Heinrich in question was the emperor Heinrich III, we run into the fact that Heinrich had no germani in the strictest sense of the word, i.e., no full brothers. However, he did have three known half-brothers through his mother [see Appendix 4]. This would seem to lead to four main possibilities:
1. The word germanus meant "brother" and Agatha was the daughter of a half-brother of Heinrich III.
2. The word germanus referred to a more distant relationship and Agatha was the daughter of some other relative of Heinrich III.
3. The statement was not referring to Heinrich III, and one of the first two possibilites holds for some other emperor.
4. The statement of John of Worcester about the origin of Agatha is inaccurate and/or unreliable.
     "Options number (2) and (3) have sometimes been preferred as a method for reconciling the evidence of John of Worcester with some other theory [e.g., Ritchie (1954), 392; Parsons (2002), 52-4; Mladov (2003), 56; Ravilious (2009), 73, 76]. However, as we have seen, John's typical use of the term germanus means a sibling, making item number (2) improbable. And John's explicit mention of Heinrich III in his genealogical appendix seriously undermines any attempt to argue item number (3). Thus, it is highly probable that one of the options (1) or (4) is true. Another way of stating the same conclusion would be as follows: If the statement of John of Worcester that Agatha was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici" is reliable (a hypothesis which can be plausibly argued either way), then the likely conclusion is that Agatha is a daughter of one of the half-brothers of Heinrich III.
Appendix 4: The mother and half-brothers of Heinrich III
     "The empress Gisela, mother by the emperor Konrad II of the emperor Heinrich III, had two additional husbands prior to Konrad II, and had sons by each marriage. In the German Hypothesis discussed above, these half-brothers of Heinrich III are candidates for the father of Agatha. Thus, it is interesting to know what can be discovered about Gisela and these elder sons (questions of chronology being the most important), independent of the sources mentioning Agatha. There is insufficient discussion of these matters by the main sources arguing in favor of the German Hypothesis [Herzog (1939); Vajay (1962); Ronay (1984); Ronay (1985); Faris & Richardson (1998)]. However, there is a voluminous literature on Gisela's family [e.g., Hirsch (1862-75), 1: 461-6; Böttger (1865), 450-498; Rieckenberg (1952); Dobbertin (1962), 48-51; Dobbertin (1972), 63-4; Hlawitschka (1987), 126-144; the last of which gives a good overview of the literature].
     "Among the earlier sources, only Annalista Saxo mentions both of the two previous marriages of Gisela ["... et Heinricum, filium suum ex Gisla, regem fecit. ... Gisla nupsit primum Ernesto, filio Liuppaldi marchionis, genuitque illi Herimannum ducem Suevorum. Duce Ernesto defuncto, accepit eam uxorem comes Bruno de Bruneswic, peperitque illi Liudolfum comitem. Comite Brunone etiam defuncto, duxit eam violenter Conradus suus cognatus, genuitque ex ea hunc de quo loquimur Heinricum." Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1026, MGH SS 6: 676; "Eo anno Liudolfus comes Saxonicus, filius Brunonis de Bruneswic et Gisle inperatricis, 9. Kal. Maii inmatura morte cum maximo suorum conprovincialium merore obiit. Et eius frater Herimannus dux Alemannie, filius Ernesti ducis et eiusdem Gisle inperatricis, inperatoris expedicionem in Romanie partes secutus, subita infirmitate preventus, bonis flebilis omnibus, 16 Kal. Iulii de hac vita decessit. Hi ambo privigni erant inperatoris Conradi, fratres Heinrici regis ex matre inperatrice. Genuit autem Liudolfus ex Gertrude comitissa Brunonem, qui iuxta villam Niethorp occisus est, et Ekbertum seniorem marchionem." ibid., s.a. 1038, MGH SS 6: 682]. Note that the 1026 entry states that Gisela was married first to Ernst (I) von Schwaben, second to Bruno von Braunschweig, and third to Konrad, clearly identified as emperor Konrad II in the 1038 entry. The entry also gives one son for each of the three marriages. The fact that Liudolf was a stepson (privignus) of Konrad II and a brother of Hermann IV of Swabia is verified by the Annals of Hildesheim ["Liudolfus comes, privignus imperatoris, 9. Kal. Maii inmatura morte obiit. Et eius frater Herimannus, Alaemanniae dux, subita infirmitate praeventus, bonis flebilis omnibus 16. Kal. Iulii denotavit." Ann. Hildesheim., s.a. 1038, MGH SS 3: 102], and by several other sources mentioned below. Also, Thietmar of Merseburg states that Konrad married the widow of duke Ernst ["Sauciatas est ibi Cono, cui iam inclite nupsit neptis sua, Ernesti ducis vidua." Thietmar, Chron., vii, 45, MGH SS 3: 856].
     "An additional brother Ernst II, son of Gisela by Ernst I von Schwaben, is revealed by other sources. Hermann von Reichenau (Herimannus Augiensis) states that duke Ernst I was succeeded by his son and that his widow married the future emperor Konrad, that duke Ernst II (d. 1030) was a stepson of Konrad II, and that duke Hermann IV was his brother ["Ernust dux Alamanniae in venatu ab Adalberone comite, feram appetente, sagitta vulneratus interiit, et ducatum eius filius aequivocus, viduam vero Giselam Counradus, filius Heinrici filii Ottonis ducis, futurus postea imperator, accepit." Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1015, MGH SS 5: 119; "Rebellio et discordia multa contra Counradum regem a patruele eius Counrado et Ernusto duce Alamanniae, privigno eius, Welph quoque Suevigena comite et aliis pluribus facta." ibid., s.a. 1025, MGH SS 5: 120; "Ernust dux cum exilio relaxatus ducatum suum recepisset, pravorum consilio usus, et denuo imperatori refragatus, ducatu privatur, et frater eius iunior Herimannus dux Suevorum efficitur. ... Ernust ..., cum aliis ceciderunt." ibid., s.a. 1030, MGH SS 5: 121]. Wipo, in his life of Konrad II, also confirms that Ernst II was a brother of the future Heinrich III through his mother, and that Ernst II and Hermann IV were brothers ["Sed dux Ernustus ..., interventu matris suae reginae et fratris sui Heinrici adhuc parvuli ..." Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 10 (an. 1025), MGH SS 11: 264; "Imperator vero ducatum Alamanniae Herimanno iuniori, fratri eiusdem Ernusti, dedit, eumque Warmanno Constantiensi episcopo commendavit." Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 25 (an. 1030), MGH SS 11: 268].
     "Little that is certain is known of Gisela's husband Bruno von Brauschweig. He mainly appears when the parentage of his son Liudolf is being given, and identification with men named Bruno in other records is not certain. Liudolf appears on 1 July 1028 as a witness to an act of his stepfather Konrad II, where he is called a privignus of the emperor ["Liudulfus comes privignus imperatoris" Hlawitschka (1987), 127 n. 55, citing MGH DD K II, 124]. He died on 15 or 23 April 1038 [Ann. Hildesheim., s.a. 1038, MGH SS 3: 102, see above; Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1038, MGH SS 6: 682, see above; both of these sources give 23 April; the Weissenburg necrology gives 15 April: "xvii. kal. mai. ... Liutolfus filius Gisilæ imperatricis" Fontes rerum Germ., 4: 311; Breßlau (1879-84), 2: 329 n. 1; for Liudolf as margrave in Friesland, see Böttger (1865), 490ff.]. As noted above, Liudolf's wife was named Gertrude [Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1038, MGH SS 6: 682; for a discussion of her possible parentage (which I did not find convincing), see Hlawitschka (1987), 144-8]. Liudolf's son Ekbert is mentioned in an act of Heinrich III dated 1051 and in an act of Heinrich IV dated 3 July 1057 ["... comitatum, quem Brvn eiusque filius scilicet noster frater Livtolfus, nec non et eius filius Echbreht comites ..." Hlawitschka (1987), 127 n. 54, citing MGH DD H III, 279; "... comitatum, quem Brvn eiusque filius scilicet patruus noster Livtolfus, nec non et eius filius Echbreht comites ..." Hlawitschka (1987), 127 n. 53, citing MGH DD H IV, 22]. Annalista Saxo mentions Liudolf's sons Bruno and Ekbert in the entry for 1057 ["... a Brunone et Ecberto comitibus, filiis Liudolfi de Bruneswic, qui fuerat patruus regis..." Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1057, MGH SS 6: 692]. Bruno and Gisela have been given additional conjectural children by some. Jackman gives Gisela and Bruno a daughter who married Konrad von Haldensleben [Jackman (2000), 23, 50, 53; Genealogia comitum Neuburgensium sive Formbacensium, MGH SS 24: 77 shows Gertrud, wife of Friedrich von Formbach and said by another source to be a daughter of Konrad, as a neptis of Heinrich III; the table at p. 53 apparently also shows Friedrich's father Thiemo as a son of Bruno and Gisela, but this appears to be an error in printing the table and not a relationship that was intended by the author; the wife of Konrad is also sometimes placed as a daughter of Gisela's son Liudolf, see Vajay (1971), 254]. Böttger gives Gisela and Bruno a daughter Gisela, who married Bertold, count of Sangerhausen [Böttger (1865), 457-8, based on a late chronicle].
     "Gisela was already married to Ernst in 1012 when, on the death of her brother Hermann III (d. 1 April 1012), duke of Swabia, her husband Ernst succeeded as duke ["Herimannus quoque iunior dux Alamanniae defunctus, Ernustum, sororis suae Giselae maritum, successorem accepit." Herimannus Augiensis, Chronicon, s.a. 1012, MGH SS 5: 119; for the date of death of Hermann III, see Stälin (1841), 473 n. 3]. Ernst I was killed by an arrow on 31 May1015, and was succeeded by his son Ernst II, who was still very small ("parvulus") Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1015, MGH SS 5: 119, see above; "Ernist dux sagitta occisus est, et filius eius parvulus successit." Ann. Einsidlenses, s.a. 1015, MGH SS 3: 144; "... 2. Kalendas Iunii discessit, sepultus in Wirciburg iuxta patrem suum marc[hionem Liupoldum..." Thietmar, Chron., vii, 10, MGH SS 3: 841; "II. K. [Jun.] Ernost dux" Calend. Merseb., 115; "ii. kal. iun. Ernust dux" Kal. Nec. Inf. Mon. Ratisponae, Fontes rerum Germ. 3: 484]. According to Wipo, remarking on events between death of Heinrich II on 13 July 1024 and the election of Konrad II on 4 September 1024, Ernst II was still under the guardianship of his uncle archbishop Poppo at that time ["Treverensem quoque archiepiscopatum gubernavit Poppo, frater Ernusti ducis, vir pius et humilis, qui eodem tempore filium fratris sui, ducem Ernustum, cum ducatu Alamannico sub tutela habuit." Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 1, MGH SS 11: 256]. However, in 1025 Ernst II rebelled against his stepfather Konrad II [Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1025, MGH SS 5: 120, see above]. In 1030, Ernst II was deprived of the duchy of Swabia, and he was killed on 17 August that year [Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1030, MGH SS 5: 121, see above; on the date of death, see Breßlau (1879-84), 1: 303 n. 1]. On hearing of the death of his stepson, the emperor Konrad II is said to have made the remark: "Seldom do rabid dogs enlarge the brood." ["Hoc cum nunciatum esset imperatori, fertur dixisse: 'Raro canes rabidi foeturam multiplicabunt.' " Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 28 (an. 1030), MGH SS 11: 269]. This has often been taken to imply that Ernst II had no children [Dobbertin (1962), 49 n. 21; Hlawitschka (1987), 131; on the claim that Ernst married and had children, see also Breßlau (1879-84), 1: 468-72]. According to Wipo, Ernst's brother Hermann IV was under the guardianship of bishop Warmann of Konstanz at the time he succeeded his brother as duke of Swabia ["... Warmanno Constantiensi episcopo, qui tunc vice ducis Herimanni Alamanniam gubernabat..." Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 28 (an. 1030), MGH SS 11: 269; see also ibid., c. 25 (an. 1030), MGH SS 11: 268, quoted above]. According to Annalista Saxo and the Annals of Hildesheim, Hermann died on 16 June 1038 [Annalista Saxo, s.a. 1038, MGH SS 6: 682, see above; Ann. Hildesheim., s.a. 1038, MGH SS 3: 102, see above]. Hermann von Reichenau gives the date as 28 July 1038 ["Herimannus quoque, dux Alamanniae, suis admodum flebili morte 5. Kal. Aug. occumbens, Tridenti tumulatus est." Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1038, MGH SS 5: 123].
     "Gisela's marriage with Konrad occurred probably late in 1016 or early in 1017. Their son, the future Heinrich III, was born on 28 October 1017 [Wipo states that Heinrich was in his eleventh year when he was consecrated as (joint-)king on Easter 1028: "Anno Domini 1028 indictione 11. imperator Chuonradus filium suum Heinricum, magni ingenii et bonae indolis puerum aetate undecim annorum... Tunc in principali dominica paschae consecratus et coronatus..." Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 23, MGH SS 11: 267-8; Berthold places his death in his thirty-ninth year: Steindorff (1874-81), 1: 2 n. 1, citing MGH SS 5: 270 (the latter not checked by me); "... die natalitio apostolorum Simonis et Iudae, quo scilicet die etiam natus fuerat, sepulturae est traditum." Lambert von Hersfeld, Annales, s.a. 1056, MGH SS 5: 157-8; "Idem imperator 3. Non. Octobr. defunctus, anno aetatis suae 41. in die natalis sui, hoc est 5. Kalend. Novemb. Spirae a papa sepelitur..." Annales Augustani, s.a. 1056; the "aetatis suae 41" of the last source will not stand against the combined testimony of Wipo and Berthold, since there is not sufficient time between the death of Ernst of Swabia (31 May 1015) and 28 October 1015 for the marriage of Gisela and Konrad and the birth of Heinrich III; see also Steindorff (1874-81), 1: 2 n. 1]. Konrad and Gisela also had two daughters: Beatrix [Ann. Quedl., s.a. 1025, MGH SS 3: 90], and Mathilde, who was betrothed to king Henri I of France, but died before the marriage took place [Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 32, MGH SS 11: 271]. Konrad II died on 4 June 1039 ["feria 2. hora diei 6. 2. Non. Iun. mense ... exspiravit." Ann. Hildesheim., s.a. 1039, MGH SS 3: 102; "... ex hac vita migravit 2. Non. Iunii, feria 2, indictione 7. [1039]" Wipo, Vita Chuonradi imp., c. 39, MGH SS 11: 274; Breßlau (1879-84), 2: 335 n. 2]. Gisela died on 14×5 February 1043 ["Gisela imperatrix apud Goslare ... 16. Kal. Mart. decessit..." Herimannus Aug., Chronicon, s.a. 1043, MGH SS 5: 124; most necrologies give 15 February, Steindorff (1874-81) 1: 173 n. 1].
     "The main points of controversy surrounding Gisela's family are raised in the following two related questions:
** When was Gisela born?
** What was the order of Gisela's marriages?
     "Before 1900, it was widely believed, based on numerous indications, that Gisela had been born around 989 or 990, i.e., about the same time as her third husband Konrad II. In 1900, the imperial graves in the cathedral of Speyer were opened, and a lead plaque was found which included a birthdate for Gisela. The main part of the inscription reads as follows.
     "This statement on this plaque, if correct, would place the birth of Gisela on 11 November 999, about a decate later than had previously been thought before the plaque's discovery. This has serious implications for the chronology of Gisela's children, which in turn would have definite consequences with regard to the German Hypothesis for the parentage of Agatha. As noted above, Gisela's son Heinrich III was born on 28 October 1017, and she had at least three sons born prior to Heinrich. Thus, if the plaque's birthdate were correct, Gisela would have been married to Ernst at the age of twelve or so, and would have had four children by her eighteenth birthday. In order for this to be at all believable, her three previous sons would have had to be born in rapid succession. Since there could be no child by a marriage previous to the one with Ernst, the marriage with Bruno would have to be the middle marriage, and thus supporters of a 999 birthdate for Gisela by necessity place the birth of Ernst II in 1014, Hermann in 1015, and Liudolf in 1016 [Brandenburg (1964), 8, 97; Dobbertin (1962), 49, 51; Dobbertin (1972), 63)]. The implications for the German Hypothesis are easy to see: If Gisela were born in 999, then the German Hypothesis would have a "tight" chronology (e.g., with Liudolf having Agatha ca. 1035 aged about 19, Agatha having Margaret ca. 1053 aged about 18, and Margaret having her first child ca. 1071 aged 18).
     "However, there are problems with the 999 birthdate, and also with the claim that the marriage to Bruno was the middle marriage. A number of indications that Gisela was significantly older than the supposed 999 birthdate, and that she was married to Bruno before she married Ernst, are given in the following list [see Hlawitschka (1987), 132-144].
     "To these reasons, one can add that the sources giving an early birthdate for Gisela or giving Bruno as the middle husband are not ideal. The lead plaque was clumsily made, and shows signs of having been made in great haste, undermining its reliability [Rieckenberg (1952), 536; Hlawitschka (1987), 133, 141]. Supporters of the date on the plaque point out that the most likely errors in copying the date would not produce an error of ten years [Dobbertin (1972), 63]. However, since the plaque was evidently made in a hurry, the date itself could have been hastily miscalculated. Also, as a source, Annalista Saxo is reasonably reliable, but it is not contemporary. Accidently mixing the order of three husbands is an error that could easily be made in such a work.
     "Thus, we are confronted with two sources making direct statements that Gisela was born in 999 and that Bruno was the middle husband, which are countered by numerous pieces of indirect evidence. While these pieces of evidence can be individually explained away with varying degrees of plausibility, their combined weight is quite strong. Thus, it must be concluded with a very high degree of probability that Gisela was born a decade or so earlier than 999, and that Bruno was her first husband. Her son Ernst was probably born about 1010 or earlier, and her son Liudolf a few years earlier than that. Once it is seen that the statements of the lead plaque about the birthdate of Gisela and of Annalista Saxo regarding the order of the marriage need to be set aside, these dates fit the remaining evidence fairly well.
     "It should be noted here that Liudolf has acquired other conjectured daughters who would then be sisters (or conjectured sisters) of Agatha if the German Hypothesis holds true. While none of these cases has any significant relevance to the case of Agatha, a couple of these supposed daughters merit a brief description here.
     "Of these, the most notable is Ida von Elsdorf, herself the subject of a significant literature [see, e.g., Krause (1875); Dobbertin (1962); Dobbertin (1972); Hlawitschka (1987), 128-155]. The apparent key to her ancestry is the statement of Albert von Stade, written two centuries after her birth, that she was a daughter of a brother of emperor Heinrich III and of a sister of pope Leo IX ["Hec [Ida] fuit filia fratris imperatoris Heinrici III, filia quoque sororis Leonis pape, qui et Bruno." Albert von Stade, Annales Stadenses, s.a. 1112, MGH SS 16: 319]. Thus, by process of elimination, because Heinrich's brothers Ernst II and Hermann IV are improbable candidates for the father of Ida, she has often been placed as a daughter of Liudolf [e.g., Krause (1875); Hlawitschka (1987), 128-155]. However, there is a chronological problem. Ida had a son Ekbert who was killed before 1054, evidently older than a mere child [Albert von Stade, Annales Stadenses, s.a. 1112, MGH SS 16: 319; Ida's avunculus Leo IX (d. 1054) was still pope at the time]. If Gisela were born in 999, then it would be clearly impossible for Ida to be her granddaughter. The chronology is extremely tight even if the birth of Gisela is placed a decade earlier. Dobbertin, who accepts the 999 birthdate of Gisela, would make Ida a stepdaughter of Liudolf by identifying Liudolf's wife Gertrude with the Gertrude, daughter of Ekbert, who was divorced from her husband Gottschalk in 1018 ["... Bernwardus episcopus ... Godescalcum, Eggihardi praesidis filium, et Gerdrudam, Egberhdi comitis filiam, separavit." Ann. Hildesheim., s.a. 1018, MGH SS 3: 95; Dobbertin (1962), 63-5]. By making Ida a daughter of Gottschalk and Gertrude, he is making Gertrude much older than her supposed second husband. Much is made uncertain by the lateness of Albert von Stade as a source, and the parentage of Ida seems inconclusive.
     "Another supposed daughter of Liudolf, conjectured by Vajay, is Mathilde, first wife of king Henri I of France, who should not be confused with another Mathilde mentioned above, daughter of Konrad II and Gisela, and briefly betrothed to Henri I before her premature death. Mathilde, first wife of Henri I of France, died at Paris in 1044, and is called "ex Caesarum progenie" by the Miracles of St. Benedict ["... anno Dominicæ Incarnationis millesimo quadragesimo quarto ... Mahildis regina Parisiis obiit, quam ex Cæsarum progenie matrimonio sibi asciverat præfatus rex; susceptaque regia ex ea prole, hominem decessit, monasterio Sancti Dionysii tradita sepulturae." Mirac. S. Benedict, vii, 3 (p. 252)]. She appears in two Fleury chronicles as a "neptis" of Heinrich III ["Idem rex Henricus neptem Henrici Alamannorum imperatoris duxit in uxorem: ex qua filiam unam procreavit; quæ infra lustrum defuncta est, matre ejus paulo post eam subsequente." RHF 11: 157; similarly, RHF 11: 276]. Vajay interprets this evidence as implying that Mathilde was a daughter of one of the siblings of Heinrich III, and settles on Liudolf as the father [Vajay (1971)]. Although not impossible, the evidence is less than convincing. The word "neptis" does not necessarily mean daughter of a sibling, and can often have a wider meaning.
     "With regard to Agatha, the most important conclusion of this Appendix is that there appear to be no major chronological problems with making Agatha a daughter of Liudolf. Indeed, the chronology of placing Agatha as a daughter of Liudolf is not so tight as Jetté would have us believe [Jetté (1996), 422].
Appendix 5: Who were the queens of Hungary during this period?
     "William of Malmesbury states that Agatha was a sister of the queen of Hungary, without identifying the queen ["... Hunorum regem petierunt; ubi, dum benigne aliquo tempore habiti essent, major diem obiit, minor Agatham reginæ sororem in matrimonium accepit." Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum, c. 180 (vol. 1, p. 218)]. Thus, it is of interest to know who the Hungarian queens were during this period. Unfortunately, the period is not very well documented, so there is no guarantee that this outline covers all women who were married to a hungarian king of the period.
Stephen (István) I (997-1038)
     "Stephen I (St. Stephen) was married to Gisela, sister of the emperor Heinrich II, documented by numerous sources [e.g., "Quorum regi, Stephano ex baptismate vocato, decenterque christianissimo, dedit memoratus imperator Henricus germanam suam in uxorem." Rodulfus Glaber, iii, 2 (p. 52); "... sororem suam Giselam Stephano regi eorum matrimonio copulavit." Adalbert, Vita Heinrici II imp., c. 30, MGH SS 4: 810; "Ad consortium vero regni praecipue causa sobolis propagandae sororem Romanae dignitatis augusti, videlicet Heinrici, qui ob mansuetudinem morum Pius est appellatus, Gislam nomine, sibi in matrimonio sociavit..." Vita Stephani Regis Ungariae, c. 10, MGH SS 11: 234; "Heinricus rex sorore sua Gisila Stephano regi Ungarorum data in uxorem, tam eum quam totum regnum eius ad fidem Christi vocavit." Auctarium Garstense, s.a. 1009, MGH SS 9: 567; similarly Ann. Admuntenses, MGH SS 9: 574]. Agatha was obviously not old enough to be a sister of Gisela.
Peter Orseolo (1038-41, 1044-6)
     "If Peter had a wife while he was king, it is not clear that any good documentation exists for her. He is often given a wife Tuta, who is supplied with various origins, but Tuta is sometimes given as a wife of Béla I instead.
     "After his exile and blinding, Peter married Judith von Schweinfurt, widow of Bretislav of Bohemia (d. 1055), a daughter of Heinrich von Schweinfurt and a sister of Otto von Schweinfurt ["Bracilaus, Boemie ducis Odolrici filius, Iudhitam, sororem Ottonis de Suinvorde, filiam sepedicti marchionis Heinrici, de monasterio ubi erudiabatur rapuit..." Ann. Saxo, s.a. 1021, MGH SS 6: 675]. Cosmas makes her incorrectly a daughter of Otto von Schweinfurt [Cosmas, Chron. Boemorum, i, 40, s.a. 1020, MGH SS 9: 62; ii, 14, s.a. 1055, MGH SS 9: 76; "4. Nonas Augusti Iudita coniunx Bracizlavi, ductrix Boemorum, obiit, quam quia filius suus Spitigneus eiecerat de regno suo, cum non posset aliter ulcisci iniuriam suam in filio, ad contumeliam eius et omnium Boemorum nupserat Petro regi Ungarorum." Cosmas, Chron. Boemorum, ii, 17, s.a. 1058, MGH SS 9: 78; similarly Ann. Saxo, s.a. 1058, MGH SS 6: 692]. Judith was not technically queen of Hungary, since she married her husband after he had been dethroned.
Aba Samuel (1041-4)
     "Nothing certain is known about the wife or wives (if any) of Aba Samuel. The thirteenth century chronicler Simon of Kéza calls him a sororius of Stephen I, which appears to be the basis of claims that Aba Samuel married a sister of Stephen ["... quemdam comitem nomine Abam sororium sancti regis Stephani ..." Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, ii, 25, Chron. Hung., 80; Steindorff (1874-81), 1: 120 n. 1].
Andrew (András) I (1046-60)
     "The parentage of the wife of Andrew I as a daughter of Iaroslav I of Kiev is well documented by a statement of Adam of Bremen, a nearly contemporary source ["Haroldus a Graecia regressus, filiam regis Ruziae Gerzlef uxorem accepit. Alteram tulit Andreas, rex Ungrorum, de qua genitus est Salomon. Terciam duxit rex Francorum Heinricus, quae peperit ei Philippus." Adam of Bremen, iii, 11, Scholia 63, MGH SS 7: 339]. Her name is usually given as Anastasia, but I do not know a primary source for that name.
Béla I (1060-3)
     "The parentage of the wife of Béla I as a daughter of Mieszko II of Poland is given by the thirteenth century chronicler Simon of Kéza ["... ubi Bela Pomeranie ducem duello deuincens, filia Miske sibi datur in uxorem." Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, ii, 27, Chron. Hung., 80]. Her name is usually given as Richenza, but I do not know a primary source for that name. Parsons states that she died before the accession of Béla [Parsons (2002), 46]. Béla is also sometimes given another queen named Tuta, who is otherwise often assigned as a wife of Peter Orseolo.
Salomon (1063-74)
     "Numerous sources document the wife of king Salomon as a daughter of the emperor Heinrich III, and some sources give her name as Judith. After the death of Salomon, she married (2), Wladyslaw I, king of Poland "His diebus legati Ungrorum sepissime veniebant pacemque fieri postulabant, et, ut haec verior firmiorque haberetur in posterum, regis sororem, filio domini sui, nomine Salomoni, dari postulabant in coniugium." Ann. Altahens. Maj., s.a. 1058, MGH SS 20: 809; "Andreas Pannoniae rex, cum prius pacem pactumque per legatos cum Henrico rege confirmasset, etiam sororem eius minorem filio suo adhuc puero sponsam obtinuit." Chron. Herimann. Cont., s.a. 1059, MGH SS 13: 731; "Andreas Pannoniae rex, cum prius pacem pactumque per legatos cum Heinrico rege confirmasset, etiam sororem eius minorem Iuditham filio suo Salomoni adhuc puero sponsam obtinuit." Berthold, Annales, s.a. 1059, MGH SS 5: 271; "Ungari contra Salomonem regem suum rebellionem meditantur; sed terrore Heinrici imperatoris, cuius soror nupserat Salomoni, refrenantur."; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronica, s.a. 1070, MGH SS 6: 362; "... Wladislavus dux..., sororem imperatoris tertii Henrici, uxorem prius Salemonis Ungariae regis, in matrimonium desponsavit..."[ Chron. Polon., ii, 1, MGH SS 9: 445; "[Vladislaus] ... esset coniugalis viduitas, regis Ungarie Salomonis relicte, tercii Henrici imperatoris sorori coniugatur, item Iudite..." Chron. Polono-Silesiacum, MGH SS 19: 560]. Simon of Kéza calls her Sophia ["... donec Sophiam suam filiam Salomoni regi, de Alamannia ductam traderet in uxorem..." Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, ii, 30, Chron. Hung., 84]. Agatha was too old to be a sister of Judith.
Appendix 6: Who was the king Malesclodus who appears in the Laws of Edward the Confessor?
     "According to the so-called Laws of Edward the Confessor, dating from 1115×50 (probably 1130×5), Eadweard the Exile took refuge with Malesclodus, rex Rugorum, "quam nos uocamus Russeiam." [Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35-35.1 (p. 664)]. The identity of Malesclodus was discussed by Liebermann [Liebermann (1896), 37-8]. The title "rex Rugorum" was generally applied to the Russian rulers, so that the gloss "quam nos uocamus Russeiam" is just the usual interpretation. Nevertheless, some authors have interpreted it differently. According to Stubbs, some manuscripts of Roger de Hoveden give the variants "Dogorum" and "Hunnorum" [Stubbs, Intro. to Rog. Hoveden, 2: lxxxvi, n. 2, although the latter variant is not given in the critical apparatus at 2: 236]. William Stubbs, presumably interpreting Rugorum by Rugia (Rügen), states: "The passage is generally explaioned of Stephen king of Hungary, but it is surely very obscure. Is there confusion with Godescalc, prince of the Wends?" [ibid., lxxxvi, n. 2]. Johannes Steenstrup would interpret John of Worcester's rex Suuavorum and William of Malmesbury's rex Swevorum as rex Sclavorum (king of the Slavs), and would then interpret Malesclodus as being Mieszko of Poland [Steenstrup (1876-82), 3: 305-7]. John Ravilious would take this further and make Mieszko II the father of Agatha (i.e., the Polish Hypothesis discussed above) [Ravilious (2009), 75-6]. Among contemporary Russian princes, the name Mstislav (a brother of Iaroslav I) would at first glance seem to be the best match to Malesclodus [Ingham (1998b), 254-5, n. 60].
     "However, there are also good reasons for identifying Malesclodus with Iaroslav I of Kiev. A monk of St. Denis, in giving the parentage of Anna, wife of Henri I of France, calls her father Bullesclot, king of Russia ["Hic ex Anna, filia regis Russie nomine Bullesclot, genuit Philippum regem et Hugonem Magnum, Virmandensem postea comitem." Historia Regum Francorum Monasterii Sancti Dionysii, MGH SS 9: 404; Ingham notes that Bullesclot suggests the name Boleslav]. This is a clear reference to Iaroslav. Orderic Vitalis, describing the same marriage, gives Iaroslav the name Julius Clodius in his additions to Gesta Normannorum Ducum ["Mathildem, Iulii Clodii regis Rugorum filiam, in matrimonio habuit, ex qua duos filios Philippum et Hugonem unamque filiam genuit." GND (Orderic) vii, 12(28) (vol. 2, pp. 152-3)], and Julius Claudius in his ecclesiatical history ["Henricus autem, Francorum rex, Bertradam, Julii Claudii regis Russiæ filiam, uxorem duxit, quæ Philippum, et Hugonem Magnum, Crispeii comitem, peperit." OV vii, 1 (3: 159)]. Orderic was obviously confused about the name of Henri's wife, calling her Mathilde on one occasion (the name of Henri's other wife previous to Anna) and Bertrada on another (the name of one of the wives of Henri's son Philippe I). Except for the initial consonant, the name Malesclodus matches well with Bullesclot and Julius Clodius. This, combined with the fact that Malesclodus is described as rex Rugorum, makes it more likely than not that Malesclodus refers to Iaroslav I. Nevertheless, some uncertainty remains.
Bibliography
AASS = Acta Sanctorum.
ARF = Georg Pertz & Friedrich Kurze, Annales Regni Francorum (Annals of the kingdom of the Franks), (MGH SRG 6, Hannover, 1895).
ASC = Charles Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles parallel, based on the earlier edition by John Earle, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1892-9). ASC(A) indicates the "A" manuscript of the chronicle, and similarly for the other manuscripts.
ASC-D (Cubbin) = G. P. Cubbin, ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - A Collaborative Edition (vol. 6: MS D; Cambridge, 1996).
ASC(Eng) = Michael Swanton, ed. & trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (London, 2000).
Baverstock (1832) = J. H. Baverstock, Some Account of Maidstone in Kent (London, 1832).
Bede, Opera Minora = Joseph Stevenson, ed., Venerabilis Bedæ Opera Historica Minora (London, 1841).
Böttger (1865) = H. Böttger, Die Brunonen, Vorfahren und Nachkommen des Herzogs Ludolf in Sachsen (Hannover, 1865).
Brandenburg (1964) = Erich Brandenburg, Die Nachkommen Karls des Großen (Frankfurt, 1964).
Breßlau (1879-84) = Harry Breßlau, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Konrad II., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879-84).
Burke (1848-51) = John Burke & John Bernard Burke, The Royal Families of England, Scotland, and Wales, 2 vols. (London, 1848-51).
Calend. Merseb. = Ludwig Hesse, "Calendrium Merseburgense", Zeitschrift für Archivkunde, Diplomatik und Geschichte 1 (1834): 101-150.
Chron. Hung. = M. Florianus, ed., Chronica Hungarorum (Leipzig, 1883).
Chron. Melrose = Joseph Stevenson, ed., Chronica de Mailros (Edinburgh, 1835).
Cornides (1778) = Daniel Cornides, Regum Hungariae qui seculo XI. regnavere, genealogiam illustrat..." (Posonii & Cassoviae, 1778). [This reference was pointed out by Todd Farmerie.]
Depoin (1913) = Joseph Depoin, "Les relations de famille au Moyen Age", Mémoires de la Société Historique et Archéologique de Pontoise et du Vexin 32 (1913): 27-85. The version available on the Google Books website is missing two pages of the discussion of the word germanus. The version available on the Gallica website has these pages.
Dobbertin (1962) = Hans Dobbertin, "Das Verwandtschaftsverhältnis der 'schwäbischen' Edlen Ida von Elsdorf zum Kaiserbruder Ludolf IV. von Braunschweig (+1038) und zu Papst Leo IX. (+1054)". Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 43 (1962): 44-76.
Dobbertin (1972) = Hans Dobbertin, "Neues über Ida von Elsdorf", Braunschweigisches Jahrbuch 53 (1972): 49-67.
Faris-Richardson (1998) = David Faris & Douglas Richardson, "The Parents of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile", New England Historical and Genealogical Register 152 (1998): 224-235.
Felch (1894) = W. Farrand Felch, "The Ancestry of Agatha", Notes and Queries 8th ser. 5 (1894): 421-3, 461-2; 6 (1894): 2-3.
Fest (1938) = Sándor Fest, "The Sons of Eadmund Ironside, Anglo-Saxon King at the Court of Saint Stephen", Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis 4 (1938), 115-46.
Fontes rerum Germ. = Johann Friedrich Boehmer, Fontes rerum Germanicarum, 4 vols. (Stuttgart & Tübingen, 1843-68).
Freeman (1870-9) = Edward A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England (5 vols. + index vol., Oxford, 1870-9).
Gaimar = Thomas Duffus Hardy & Charles Trice Martin, ed. & trans., Lestorie des Engles solum la translacion Maistre Geffrei Gaimar, 2 vols. (London 1888-9). Cited by line number, which is the same in both text (volume 1) and translation (volume 2).
GND = Guillaume de Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, as edited in Elisabeth van Houts, ed. & trans., The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, 2 vols., (Oxford, 1992). Citation is by book and chapter of Guillaume's work, with the volume and page number of the edition by van Houts in parentheses.
GND (Orderic) = Additions to GND by Orderic Vitalis.
Guillaume de Poiters = R.H.C. Davis and Marjorie Chibnall, ed. & trans, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers (Oxford, New York, 1998).
Heimskringla = Lee M. Hollander, ed. & trans., Heimskringla (Austin, 1964).
Herzog (1939) = Herzog József, "Skóciai Szent Margit származásának kérdése" [The problem of St. Margaret of Scotland's Scottish origins], Turul 53 (1939): 1-42.
Hirsch (1862-75) = Siegfried Hirsch, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1862-4; Leipzig, 1875).
Hlawitschka (1987) = Eduard Hlawitschka, Untersuchungen zu den Thronwechseln der ersten Hälfte des. 11. Jahrhunderts und zur Adelsgeschichte Süddeutschlands (Sigmaringen, 1987).
Hooper (1985) = Nicholas Hooper, "Edgar the Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon Prince, Rebel and Crusader", Anglo-Saxon England 14 (1985): 197-214.
Humphreys (2003) = William Humphreys, "Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret: The Slavic versus Salian solutions - a critical overview", Foundations 1 (2003): 31-43.
Humphreys (2004) = William Humphreys, "Agatha 'the Greek' - Exploring the Slavic Solution", Foundations 1 (2004): 275-290.
Ingham (1998a) = Norman W. Ingham, "A Slavist's View of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, as a Possible Daughter of Yaroslav the Wise", New England Historical and Genealogical Register 152 (1998): 216-23.
Ingham (1998b) = Norman W. Ingham, "Has a missing daughter of Iaroslav Mudryi been found?" Russian History 25 (1998): 231-270.
Jackman (2000) = Donald C. Jackman, "A Greco-Roman Onomastic Fund", in Keats-Rohan & Settipani, eds., Onomastique et Parenté dans l'Occident médiéval (Oxford, 2000), 14-56.
Jackman (2008) = Donald C. Jackman, Comparative Accuracy (Historicity vol. 1, State College, PA, 2008).
Jetté (1996) = René Jetté, "Is the Mystery of the Origin of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, Finally Solved?" New England Historical and Genealogical Register 150 (1996): 417-432.
John Worc. = Benjamin Thorpe, ed., Florentii Wigorniensis monachi chronicon ex chronicis, 2 vols., (London, 1848-9). (The work formerly attributed to Florence of Worcester is now generally attributed to John of Worcester.)
Katona (1779) = István Katona, Historica critica (Pest, 1779). [I have not seen this. Cited in Herzog (1939), 1. This reference was pointed out by Todd Farmerie.]
Ker (1957) = N. R. Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford, 1957).
Keynes (1985) = Simon Keynes, "The Crowland Psalter and the Sons of King Edmund Ironside", Bodleian Library Record 11 (1985): 359-70.
Kønigsfeldt (1856) = J. P. F. Kønigsfeldt, Genealogisk-Historiske Tabeller over de Nordiske Rigers Kongeslægter (Copenhagen, 1856).
Krause (1875) = K. C. H. Krause, "Ida von Elsthorpe und ihre Sippe", Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte 15 (1875): 639-648.
Lappenberg (1834-1881) = J. M. Lappenberg, A History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings (translated by Benjamin Thorpe, new edition by E. C. Otté), 2 vols. (London, 1881, orig. pub. 1834).
Lauder-Frost (2002) = Gregory M. S. Lauder-Frost, "Agatha - The Ancestry Dispute", The Scottish Genealogist 49 (2002): 71-2.
Laws Edw. Conf. = Leges Edwardi Confessoris, in Liebermann (1903), 1: 627-672.
Liebermann (1896) = F. Liebermann, Über die Leges Edwardi Confrssoris (Max Niemeyer, 1896).
Liebermann (1903) = F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (vol. 1, Max Niemeyer, 1903).
MGH DD = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Diplomata series. (K II = Konrad II; H III = Heinrich III; etc.)
MGH SS = Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores series.
Mirac. S. Benedict = E. de Certain, ed., Les Miracles de Saint Benoit (Paris, 1858).
Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica NS 2 (1877): 58.
Mladjov (2003) = Ian S. R. Mladjov, "Reconsidering Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile", The Plantagenet Connection 11 (2003): 1-85.
Moriarty (1952) = G. Andrews Moriarty, "Agatha, Wife of the Atheling Eadward", New England Historical and Genealogical Register 106 (1952): 52-61.
Moriarty (1957) = G. Andrews Moriarty, "Mathilda, wife of Guigues VIII, Count of Albon", New England Historical and Genealogical Register 111 (1957): 265-7.
Nob. Univ. France = Nobilaire universel de France (Paris, 1840).
Onom. Anglo-Sax. = William George Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897). Anglo-Saxon names have been given the spelling which appears in this source.
OV = Augustus le Prevost, ed. Orderici Vitalis Historiæ Ecclesiasticæ, 5 vols. (Paris, 1838-55); also available in Marjorie Chibnall, ed. & trans., The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969-80). As I do not have easy access to all volumes of Chibnall's edition, citations here are given from Prevost's edition.
Parsons (2002) = John Carmi Parsons, "Edward the Aethling's Wife Agatha", The Plantagenet Connection 10 (2002): 31-54.
Pavsic (2000) = Janko Pavsic, "Agafja ou Agatha?", Mémoire de la Société généalogique canadienne-française 51 (2000): 287-308. [I have not seen this version of the article, but I have seen the English translation in Pavsic (2001)]
Pavsic (2001) = Janko Pavsic, "Agatha: The Onomastic Evidence", The Plantagenet Connection 9 (2001): 56-100. [English translation of Pavsic (2000)]
PL = P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, series Latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844-1859).
Pray (1763) = György Pray, Annales regum Hungariae (Vienna, 1763). [This reference was pointed out by Todd Farmerie.]
Ravilious (2009) = John P. Ravilious, "The Ancestry of Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret of Scotland", The Scottish Genealogist 55 (2009): 70-84.
Redlich (1940) = Marcellus D. R. von Redlich, "The Parentage of Agatha, wife of Prince Edward the Exile", National Genealogical Society Quarterly 28 (1940): 105-9.
Rieckenberg (1952) = Hans Jürgen Rieckenberg, "Das Geburtsdatum der Kaiserin Gisela", Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 9 (1952): 535-8.
Ritchie (1954) = R. L. Græme Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954).
Rodulfus Glaber = Maurice Prou, ed., Raoul Glaber - les cinq livres de ses histoires (900-1044) (Paris, 1886).
Rog. Hoveden = William Stubbs, ed., Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Houedene, 4 vols. (Rolls Series 51, 1868-71).
Ronay (1984) = Gabriel Ronay, "Edward Aetheling, Anglo-Saxon England's Last Hope", History Today 34.1 (Jan. 1984): 43-51.
Ronay (1989) = Gabriel Ronay, The Lost King of England: The East European Adventures of Edward the Exile (Woodbridge, 1989).
Searle (1899) = William George Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899).
Sim. Durh. = Thomas Arnold, ed., Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia, 2 vols. (Rolls Series 75, 1882-5).
Stälin (1841) = Christoph Friedrich Stälin, Wirtembergische Geschichte (Erster Theil, Stuttgart & Tübingen, 1841).
Steenstrup (1876-82) = Johannes C. H. R. Steenstrup, Normannerne, 4 vols. (Copenhagen, 1876-82).
Steindorff (1874-81) = Ernst Steindorff, Jahrbücher des Deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III, 2 vols., (Leipzig, 1874-81).
Suhm (1787) = Peter Friderich Suhm, Historie af Danmark (vol. 3, Copenhagen, 1787).
Vajay (1962) = Szabolcs de Vajay, "Agatha, Mother of Saint Margaret Queen of Scotland", Duquesne Review: A Journal of the Social Sciences 7.2 (1962): 71-87. [The page range has been frequently but incorrectly cited as 71-80]
Vajay (1971) = Szabolcs de Vajay, "Mathilde, reine de France inconnue: Contribution à l'histoire politique et sociale du royaume de France au XIe siècle", Journal des Savants 1971, 241-260.
Vita Ioh. Gorz. = Michel Parisse, ed. & trans., La Vie de Jean, abbé de Gorze (Picard, 1999) [Vita Iohannis Gorziensis, Latin with parallel French translation; also edited (Latin only) by Georg Heinrich Pertz, MGH SS 4: 335-377; citations are by chapter number and page in Parisse's edition].
Whitelock (1979) = Dorothy Whitelock, English Historical Documents (vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1979).
Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum = William Stubbs, ed., Willelmi Malmesbiriensis Monachi De gestis regum Anglorum. libri quinque; Historiæ Novellæ libri tres, 2 vols. (Rolls series 90, 1887-9). [I lack easy access to the more recent edition of William of Malmesbury's work edited by Mynors, Thomson, & Winterbottom.]
Wunder (1975) = Gerd Wunder, "Die letzten Prinzen des angelsächsischen Königshauses", Genealogisches Jahrbuch 35 (1975): 81-9.
I would like to thank John Ravilious for providing me with a copy of his article, and James Hansen for providing me with a copy of the Fest article.
Compiled by Stewart Baldwin
     "First uploaded 20 June 2010.
     "Minor revision uploaded 27 June 2010 (added early references, courtesy of Todd Farmerie).
     "Minor revision uploaded 4 July 2010."⁸

; Per Genealogics:
     "Agatha was born about 1021/1025. There have been many claims and hypotheses about her parentage, but a recent plausible case has been made by John P. Ravilious in _The Scottish Genealogist,_ Quarterly Journal of the Scottish Genealogy Society, that she was a daughter of Mieszko II Lambert, king of Poland, and Richeza de Lorraine, making her a sister of Richeza of Poland, the wife of Béla I, king of Hungary. Ravilious and Michael Anne Guido subsequently published an article in _Foundations,_ the journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, setting forth further evidence concerning the hypothesised Polish parentage of Agatha, including the derivation of the name Agatha (and of her putative sister Gertruda of Poland) from the names of saints associated with the abbey of Nivelles.
     "Agatha married Edward Atheling of Wessex, son of Edmund II Ironside, king of England, and his wife Ealdgyth. They had three children of whom only their daughter Margaret would have progeny, marrying Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, Malcolm III Canmore, king of Scots.
     "After the successful invasion of England by Knud 'den Store' and his succession to Edward's father Edmund II Ironside, Knud had expelled Edward and his brother Edmund, sending them to Olof III 'Skötkonung', king of Sweden, who sent them on to Kiev, where his daughter Ingegerd was the spouse of Grand Duke Jaroslav I Vladimirovitch and the mother-in-law of the exiled András, then prince of Hungary, from a younger branch of the Arpád dynasty, who had claimed the throne when the older line became extinct with the death of King Stephan I. András and his younger brothers Levente and Béla had been exiled from Hungary, fearing for their lives. Béla and Levente fled to Poland, where Béla married Richeza, daughter of Mieszko II Lambert. Some sources indicate that Edward travelled to Hungary in 1046, when the brothers András and Béla returned there from exile.
     "The argument over whether Edward's wife Agatha was Mieszko II's daughter, rather than (say) a Hungarian noblewoman Edward met in Hungary and married there, may never be fully resolved, but the circumstances and timing of his move appear relevant. If Edward was already married when he moved to Hungary that would seem at least consistent with the argument that Agatha was Mieszko II's daughter, as Edward and Agatha's daughter Margaret was born about 1045.
     "At some stage in the mid 1050s Edward took his family home to England. In 1057 the brothers András and Béla fell out and Béla rebelled when András had his five-year-old son Salomon crowned as his successor, displacing Béla. It has been argued that András' act may have precipitated Edward's decision to leave: if Agatha had been András' sister-in-law, and aunt of Salomon, his act would have strengthened her bonds and those of her husband Edward to Hungary's future; on the other hand, if Agatha was a sister-in-law to Béla (husband of Richeza of Poland) she and Edward would most likely have been inclined to leave Hungary at the time of Béla's rebellion against his brother.
     "On the other hand, some sources indicate that when King Edward the Confessor learnt that Edward, son of his half-brother Edmund 'Ironside', was still alive, he recalled him to England in 1056, and named him his heir. This 'pull' motive would tend to negate the force of the 'push' motive related to events in Hungary. However, more damaging to the 'push' argument if true is that, according to some sources, when Edward was summoned to England he was in the custody of Emperor Heinrich III. Heinrich died in October 1056, which would suggest that Edward would have left Hungary in early 1056 at the latest.
     "Edward died in London in 1057, a few days after his return. Agatha died about 1070."¹

; Per Wikipedia:
     "Agatha (before 1030 – after 1070) was the wife of Edward the Exile (heir to the throne of England) and mother of Edgar Ætheling, Saint Margaret of Scotland and Cristina of England. Her antecedents are unclear and the subject of much speculation.[1]
Life
     "Nothing is known of Agatha's early life, and what speculation has appeared is inextricably linked to the contentious issue of Agatha's paternity, one of the unresolved questions of medieval genealogy. As the birth of her children is speculatively placed at around the year 1045, her own birth was probably before about 1030. She came to England with her husband and children in 1057, but was widowed shortly after her arrival. Following the Norman conquest of England, in 1067 she fled with her children to Scotland, finding refuge under her future son-in-law Malcolm III. Simeon of Durham[2] carries what appears to be the last reference to her in 1070.[3]
Origin
Medieval sources
     "Agatha's origin is alluded to in numerous surviving medieval sources, but the information they provide is sometimes imprecise, often contradictory, and occasionally demonstrably false. The earliest surviving source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, along with John of Worcester's Chronicon ex chronicis and its associated genealogical tables (sometimes named separately as Regalis prosapia Anglorum), Symeon of Durham (thaes ceseres maga) and Ailred of Rievaulx describe Agatha as a kinswoman of an "Emperor Henry", the latter explicitly making her daughter of his brother (filia germani imperatoris Henrici). It is not clear whether the "Henry" mentioned was Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor or Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, although John of Worcester in Regalis prosapia Anglorum specifies Henry III.
     "Later sources of dubious credibility such as the Chronicle of Melrose Abbey call her daughter of Henry, while Matthew of Paris calls her the emperor's sister (soror Henrici imperatoris Romani). Geoffrey Gaimar in Lestoire des Engles states that she was daughter of the Hungarian king and queen (Li reis sa fille), although he places the marriage at a time when Edward is thought still to have been in Kiev, while Orderic Vitalis in Historiae Ecclesiasticae is more specific, naming her father as king Solomon (filiam Salomonis Regis Hunorum), even though he was actually a contemporary of Agatha's children. William of Malmesbury in De Gestis Regis Anglorum states that Agatha's sister was a Queen of Hungary (reginae sororem) and is echoed in this by Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, while, less precisely, Ailred says of Margaret that she was derived from English and Hungarian royal blood (de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum extitit oriunda).
     "Finally, Roger of Howden and the anonymous Leges Edwardi Confessoris indicate that while Edward was a guest of Kievan "king Malesclodus" he married a woman of noble birth (nobili progenio), Leges adding that the mother of St Margaret was of Rus royal blood (ex genere et sanguine regum Rugorum).[4]
Onomastics
     "Saint Margaret of Scotland, whose name has been suggested to provide a clue to her mother Agatha's Eastern origin.
Onomastic analysis has also been brought to bear on the question. The name Agatha itself is rare in western Europe at this time. Likewise, those of her children and grandchildren are either drawn from the pool of Anglo-Saxon names to be expected given her husband's membership of the royal family of Wessex, or else are names not typical of western Europe. There is speculation that the latter derive from Agatha's eastern European ancestry. Specifically, her own name, the names of her daughters Cristina and Margaret, and those of her grandchildren Alexander, David, and Mary, have been used as possible indicators of her origins.
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
German and Hungarian theories
     "While various sources repeat the claims that Agatha was daughter or sister of either Emperor Henry, it seems unlikely that such a sibling or daughter would have been ignored by the German chroniclers.[5]
     "The description of Agatha as a blood relative of "Emperor Henry" may be applicable to a niece of either Henry II or Henry III, Holy Roman Emperors (although John of Worcester in Regalis prosapia Anglorum specifies Henry III). Early attempts at reconstructing the relationship focused on the former. Georgio Pray (1764, Annales Regum Hungariae), P.F. Suhm (1777, Geschichte Dänmarks, Norwegen und Holsteins) and Istvan Katona (1779, Historia Critica Regum Hungariae) each suggested that Agatha was daughter of Henry II's brother Bruno of Augsburg (an ecclesiastic described as beatae memoriae, with no known issue), while Daniel Cornides (1778, Regum Hungariae) tried to harmonise the German and Hungarian claims, making Agatha daughter of Henry II's sister Giselle of Bavaria, wife of Stephen I of Hungary.[6] This solution remained popular among scholars through a good part of twentieth century.[7]
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
     "As tempting as it may be to thus view St. Margaret as a granddaughter of another famous saint, Stephen of Hungary, this popular solution fails to explain why Stephen's death triggered a dynastic crisis in Hungary, or at least that Agatha's family failed to play a role in that strife. If St. Stephen and Giselle were indeed Agatha's parents, her offspring would have had a strong claim to the Hungarian crown. Actually, there is no indication in Hungarian sources that any of Stephen's children outlived him. Likewise, all of the solutions involving Henry II would seem to make Agatha much older than her husband, and prohibitively old at the time of the birth of her last child, Edgar.
     "Based on a more strict translation of the Latin description used by John of Worcester and others as well as the supposition that Henry III was the Emperor designated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, genealogist Szabolcs de Vajay popularised another idea first suggested in 1939. In that year, Jozsef Herzog published an analysis suggesting that Agatha was daughter of one of Henry's half-brothers, born to his mother Gisela of Swabia by her earlier marriages to Ernest I of Swabia and Bruno of Brunswick, probably the former based on more favourable chronology.[8] De Vajay reevaluated the chronology of the marriages and children of Gisela and concluded that Agatha was the daughter of Henry III's elder (uterine) half-brother, Liudolf, Margrave of Frisia.[9] This theory saw broad acceptance for thirty years[10] until René Jetté resurrected a Kievan solution to the problem,[11] since which time opinion has been divided among several competing possibilities.[12]
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
Kievan theory
     "Jetté pointed out that William of Malmesbury in De Gestis Regis Anglorum and several later chronicles unambiguously state that Agatha's sister was a Queen of Hungary. From what we know about the biography of Edward the Exile, he loyally supported Andrew I of Hungary, following him from Kiev to Hungary in 1046 and staying at his court for many years. Andrew's wife and queen was Anastasia, a daughter of Yaroslav the Wise of Kiev by Ingigerd of Sweden. Following Jetté's logic, Edward's wife was another daughter of Yaroslav.
     "This theory accords with the seemingly incongruous statements of Geoffrey Gaimar and Roger of Howden that, while living in Kiev, Edward took a native-born wife "of noble parentage" or that his father-in-law was a "Rus king".[13]
     "Eduard Hlawitschka also identifies Agatha as a daughter of Yaroslav, pointing out that Adam of Bremen,[14] who was well-informed on North-European affairs noted around 1074 that Edward was exiled in Russia (E an unknown date mund, vir bellicosus, in gratiam victoris sublatus est; filii eius in Ruzziam exilio dampnati)[14] and that the author of Leges Edwardi confessoris, who had strong ties with Agatha's children, Queen Margaret of Scotland and her sister Cristina, and could thus reasonably be expected to be aware of their descent, recorded around 1120 that Edward went to the land of the Rus and that there he married a noble woman.[15][14]
     "Onomastics have been seen as supporting Jetté's and Hlawitschka's theory.[16][17] Among medieval royalty, Agatha's rare Greek name is first recorded in the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium; it was also one of the most frequent feminine names in the Kievan Rurikid dynasty.[18] After Anna of Byzantium married Yaroslav's father, he took the Christian name of the reigning emperor, Basil II, while some members of his family were named after other members of the imperial dynasty. Agatha could have been one of these.[19]
     "The names of Agatha's immediate descendants — Margaret, Cristina, David and Alexander — were likewise extraordinary for Britain at that time. They may provide a clue to Agatha's origin. The names Margaret and Cristina are today associated with Sweden, the native country of Yaroslav's wife Ingigerd.[20] The name of Margaret's son, David, mirrors that of David of Hungary, like his elder brother Solomon a son of Andrew I of Hungary and Anastasia of Kiev.[21][22] Furthermore, the first saint of the Rus (canonized ca. 1073) was Yaroslav's brother Gleb, whose Christian name was David.
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
     "The name of Margaret's other son, Alexander, may point to a variety of traditions, both occidental and oriental: the biography of Alexander the Great was one of the most popular books in eleventh-century Kiev, and it was a common name in the Greek-influenced Orthodox tradition. Humphreys would review the two main types of hypotheses, which he called the Salian and the Slavic theories, and pointed out that the critical evidence in weighing them is whether one accepts the testimony of John of Worcester (Salian) or William of Malmesbury (Slavic) as representing the earliest, most accurate version of her ancestry. He would later point out the occurrence of the name Maria in the next generation of the Kievan dynasty, and suggested that Agatha could instead have been sister of the Byzantine wife of Vsevolod I of Kiev, that the tradition of imperial connections had confused which Empire was involved. However, he subsequently studied the sources and particularly the chronology of this dynasty in more detail and concluded that this solution was unlikely, though he did favor a reconstruction making Yaroslav the son, rather than the step-son, of the Byzantine princess Anna Porphyrogeneta.[23]
     "One inference from the Kievan theory is that Edgar Ætheling and St. Margaret were, through their mother, first cousins of Philip I of France. The connection seems too notable to be omitted from contemporary sources, yet we have no indication that medieval chroniclers were aware of it. The argumentum ex silentio leads critics of the Kievan theory to search for alternative explanations.
Bulgarian theory
     "In response to the recent flurry of activity on the subject, Ian Mladjov reevaluated the question and presented a completely novel solution.[24] He dismissed each of the prior theories in turn as insufficiently grounded and incompatible given the historical record, and further argued that many of the proposed solutions would have meant that later documented marriages would have fallen within the prohibited degree of kinship, yet there is no record the issue of consanguinity was ever raised with regard to these marriages. He argued that the documentary testimony of Agatha's origins is tainted or late, and concurred with Humphreys' evaluation that the names of the children and grandchildren of Agatha, so central to prior reevaluations, may have had non-family origins (for example, Pope Alexander II, having played a critical role in the marriage of Malcolm and Margaret, may have inspired their use of that name). However, he then focused in on the name of Agatha as being critical to determining her origin. He concluded that of the few contemporaries named Agatha, only Agatha Chryselia, the wife of Samuel of Bulgaria could possibly have been an ancestor of Edward the Exile's spouse. Some of the other names associated with Agatha and used to corroborate theories based in onomastics were present within the Bulgarian ruling family at the time, including Mary and several Davids. Mladjov inferred that Agatha was granddaughter of Agatha Cryselia, daughter of Gavril Radomir, Tsar of Bulgaria by his short-lived first marriage to a Hungarian princess thought to have been the daughter of Duke Géza of Hungary. This hypothesis has Agatha born in Hungary after her parents divorced, her mother being pregnant when she left Bulgaria, yet would entail her mother naming her after the mother of the Bulgarian prince who had just rejected her. Traditional dates of this divorce would seem to preclude the suggested relationship, but the article re-examined some long-standing assumptions about the chronology of Gavril Radomir's marriage to the Hungarian princess, and concludes that its dating to the late 980s is unsupportable, and that its dissolution belongs in c. 1009-1014. The argument is based almost exclusively on the onomastic precedent but is said to vindicate the intimate connection between Agatha and Hungary attested in the Medieval sources. Mladjov speculates further that the medieval testimony could largely be harmonized were one to posit that Agatha's mother was the same Hungarian princess who married Samuel Aba of Hungary, his family fleeing to Kiev after his downfall, thereby allowing a Russian marriage for Agatha.
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
     "This solution fails to conform with any of the relationships appearing in the primary record. It is inferred that the relative familiarity with Germany and unfamiliarity with Hungary partly distorted the depiction of Agatha in the English sources; by this reconstruction she would have been niece of the King of Hungary (Stephen I), who was himself the brother-in-law of the Holy Roman Emperor (Henry II, and therefore kinsman of Henry III).
Other theories
     "In 2002, in an article meant not only to refute the Kievan hypothesis, but also to broaden the field of possible alternatives beyond the competing German Imperial and Kievan reconstructions, John Carmi Parsons presented a novel possibility. He pointed out that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle represents the earliest surviving testimony, and argues that it was contemporary with Agatha and was very probably well informed in reporting an Imperial kinship. Parsons stresses that the sources claiming Russian parentage for Agatha, and her kinship with a Hungarian queen, are of much later date, and consequently likely to be less reliable than a source contemporary with her. Purely in an attempt to show that not all avenues have been fully pursued in the effort to identify Agatha, Parsons pointed to the documented existence of a German Count Cristinus, whose given name might explain the name Christina for Agatha's daughter. Count Cristinus married a Saxon noblewoman, Oda of Haldensleben, who is hypothesized to have been maternally a granddaughter of Vladimir I of Kiev by a German kinswoman of Emperor Henry III. Parsons also noted that Edward could have married twice, with the contradictory primary record in part reflecting confusion between distinct wives.[25]
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
     "Recently, a Polish hypothesis has appeared. John P. Ravilious has proposed that Agatha was daughter of Mieszko II Lambert of Poland by his German wife, making her kinswoman of both Emperors Henry, as well as sister of a Hungarian queen, the wife of Béla I.[26] Ravilious and MichaelAnne Guido subsequently published an article setting forth further evidence concerning the hypothesized Polish parentage of Agatha, including the derivation of the name Agatha (and of her putative sister Gertrude of Poland) from the names of saints associated with the abbey of Nivelles. This argument is further supported by the replacement by Andrew I of Hungary (husband of Anastasia of Kiev) of his brother Bela as his heir apparent with his young son Salomon in 1057. If Agatha had been Andrew's sister-in-law, and aunt of Salomon, this act by King Andrew would have strengthened her bonds and those of her husband Edward to Hungary's future: however, if Agatha was a sister-in-law to Bela (husband of Richeza of Poland) she and Edward would most likely have been inclined to leave Hungary in 1057 at the time of Bela's rebellion.[27]
     (See original Wikipedia rticle for chart here)
Notes and references
1. Lauder-Frost, Gregory M.S., FSA Scot.,"Agatha - The Ancestry Dispute" in The Scottish Genealogist, Edinburgh, Sept 2002, vol.xlix no.3, p.71-2.
2. Historia Regum, vol.II, pp. 190-192
3. Foundations(Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), vol. 1, no. 4, July 2004, pp. 302-303, ISSN 1479-5078
4. René Jetté, "Is the Mystery of the Origins of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, Finally Solved?", in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 150 (October 1996), pp. 417-432; Gabriel Ronay, The lost King of England : the East European adventures of Edward the Exile, Woodbridge, Suffolk; Wolfeboro, N.H., USA : Boydell Press, 1989, ISBN 0-85115-541-3, pp. 109-121
5. Edward Augustus Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England: its causes and its results, Third Edition, Revised, Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1877, pp. 668-673.
6. Ronay, The lost King of England, pp. 109-121.
7. e.g. Sandor Fest, "The sons of Edmund Ironside Anglo-Saxon King at the Court of St. Stephen", in Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis vol. 4 (1938), pp. 115-145; G. Andrews Moriarty, "Agatha, wife of the Atheling Eadward", in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 106 (1952), pp. 52-60; Gregory Lauder-Frost, "Agatha-The Ancestry Dispute", in The Scottish Genealogist, Vol. 49, No.3 (September 2002), pp. 71-72.
8. Jozsef Herzog, "Skóciai Szent Margit származásának kérdése" [The problem of St Margaret of Scotland's Scottish origins], in Turul vol. 53 (1939), pp. 1-42; Marcellus D. R. von Redlich, "The Parentage of Agatha, Wife of Prince Edward the Exile", National Genealogical Society Quarterly, vol. 28 (1940), pp. 105-109; G. Andrews Moriarty, "Agatha, wife of the Atheling Eadward", in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 106 (1952), pp. 52-60; Szabolcs de Vajay. "Agatha, Mother St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland", in Duquesne Review, vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 1962), pp. 71-80; Gábor Klaniczay, Holy rulers and blessed princesses: dynastic cults in medieval central Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 132-133 [1]
9. Szabolcs de Vajay. "Agatha, Mother St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland", in Duquesne Review, vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 1962), pp. 71-80.
10. e.g. Ronay, The lost King of England; Frederick Lewis Weis, Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists who came to New England between 1623 and 1650, sixth edition, Walter Lee Sheppard, ed., p. 3.
11. René Jetté, "Is the Mystery of the Origins of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, Finally Solved?", in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 150 (October 1996): 417-432.
12. David Faris and Douglas Richardson supported the Liudolf connection, "The Origin of Agatha-The Debate Continues: The Parents of Agatha, Wife of Edward The Exile" in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 152, (April 1998). Norman Ingham supported Jetté in two articles: "A Slavist's View of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, as a Possible Daughter of Yaroslav the Wise" in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, vol. 152 (1998), pp. 216-23; "Has a Missing Daughter of Iaroslav Mudryi Been Found?" in Russian History, vol. 25 (1998 [pub. 1999]), pp. 231-70. Gregory Lauder-Frost, summarized numerous early sources and the various theories: "Agatha-The Ancestry Dispute", in The Scottish Genealogist, Vol. 49, No.3 (September 2002), pp. 71-72. He follows Moriarty in discounting the Herzog/de Vajay theories, both leaning towards Saint Stephen as her father.
13. It has been suggested that Agatha is one of four or five daughters of Yaroslav shown next to him in the eleventh-century fresco in the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. It is known that Yaroslav's other daughters married Henry I of France and Harald III of Norway. At the time of their marriages, both Harald and Andrew were just like Edward, landless claimants to foreign thrones who found shelter and support in distant but powerful Kiev.
14. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Die ahnen der hochmitterlaterlichen deutschen Konige, Kaiser und ihrer Gemahlinnen, Ein kommetiertes Tafelwerk, Band I: 997-1137, Teil 2, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2006, p.622.
15. usque ad terram Rungorum, quam nos uocamus Russeaim, Aedwardus accepit ibi uxorem ex nobili genere, de qua ortus est ei Eadgarus atheling et Margareta regina Scotie et Cristina soror eius.
16. Pointedly criticized by John Carmi Parsons in his article "Edward the Aetheling's Wife, Agatha", in The Plantagenet Connection, Summer/Winter 2002, pp. 31-54. Donald C. Jackman, "A Greco-Roman Onomastic Fund", in Onomastique et Parente dans l'Occident medieval, Prosographica et Genealogica, Vol. 3 (2000), pp. 14-56, shows several genealogical groupings of individuals in Germany at this time, including another Agatha, with seemingly Eastern names. He indicates several possible sources (e.g. the marriages of Emperor Otto II and of Vladimir I of Kiev, and the supposed marriage of Emperor Louis the Blind, to Byzantine brides) for the introduction of these names into the western European dynasties.
17. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Die ahnen der hochmitterlaterlichen deutschen Konige, Kaiser und ihrer Gemahlinnen, Ein kommetiertes Tafelwerk, Band I: 997-1137, Teil 2, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2006, pp.629-630.
18. ?.?. ???????, ?.?. ?????????. ????? ????? ? ??????? ?????? ? X-XVI ??.: ????????????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????????????. Moscow: Indrik, 2006. ISBN 5-85759-339-5. Page 463.
19. According to one theory, Agatha was not a daughter but sister of Yaroslav. Indeed, the last wife of Yaroslav's father, Vladimir I, seems to have been a German princess, who could have been described as "filia germani imperatoris Henrici". It is generally accepted that their daughter Dobronega married Casimir I of Poland about the same year when Edward is thought to have married Agatha (judging by the date when their eldest child was born). If Agatha was Yaroslav's sister (rather than daughter as Jette thought), she would still have close ties to the Hungarian royal family. For instance, one of Yaroslav's sisters was the wife of Ladislas the Bald, a paternal uncle of Andrew I.
20. It has been argued that Ingigerd's original Christian name was Margaret. Whatever the truth, the names Margaret and Cristina were not explicitly recorded in Sweden before the twelfth century. For details, see: ?.?. ?????????. ??????????-??????-????: ????????-?????????????? ??????. Moscow, 2002. Pages 60-61.
21. Current scholarship traces these names to the famous oration of Ilarion of Kiev, in which he likened Vladimir (i.e., grandfather of Andrew's wife) to the victorious David and Yaroslav (i.e., Andrew's father-in-law) to the wise Solomon. The comparison became so popular that later historians assigned to Yaroslav the sobriquet "Wise".
22. Hlawitschka, Eduard, Die ahnen der hochmitterlaterlichen deutschen Konige, Kaiser und ihrer Gemahlinnen, Ein kommetiertes Tafelwerk, Band I: 997-1137, Teil 2, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover 2006, p.629.
23. William Humphreys, "Agatha, mother of St. Margaret: the Slavic versus the Salian solutions - a critical overview", Foundations, 1(1):31-43; Joseph Edwards, "Editorial", Foundations, 1(2):74; William Humphreys, "Agatha ‘the Greek’ – Exploring the Slavic solution", Foundations, 1(4):275-288.
24. Mladjov, Ian. "Reconsidering Agatha, Wife of Eadward the Exile", in The Plantagenet Connection, vol. 11, Summer/Winter 2003, pp. 1-85. See also a summary in "The Bulgarian Descent of HM Simeon II", in Sega: April 13, 2002 and here.
25. Parsons, "Edward the Aetheling's Wife, Agatha", pp 52-54.
26. John P. Ravilious, "The Ancestry of Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret of Scotland", The Scottish Genealogist, vol. 56, pp. 70-84.
27. MichaelAnne Guido and John P. Ravilious, "From Theophanu to St. Margaret of Scotland: A study of Agatha's ancestry", Foundations, vol. 4(2012), pp. 81-121.
External links
** Agatha 2 at Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England: http://www.pase.ac.uk/jsp/persons/CreatePersonFrames.jsp?personKey=18343
** the Henry Project entry about Agatha: http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath000.htm.⁹ "

Reference: Genealogics cites:

; Per The Henry Project Main Page):
     "Agatha, Wife of Eadweard the Exile.
     "Because of the length of the discussion, the article on Agatha has been divided into two pages. The other page contains the Appendices. See: http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm
     "Agatha married Eadweard "the Exile" sometime before his return to England in 1057. She was still living in 1067, when she accompanied her children as a refugee into Scotland [ASC(D) s.a. 1067 (p. 201); Sim. Durh., c. 155 (2: 190)].
Date of birth: Say 1015×1035?
Place of birth: Unknown.
     "Given the surviving evidence, the best we can hope for is to give a range of dates in which Agatha's birth probably occurred, based on the slim evidence that exists for the ages of her children. Her son Eadgar Ætheling was said by Orderic Vitalis to have been the same age as Robert of Normandy, son of William the Conqueror ["... ducemque sibi coævum ..." OV x, 11 (vol. 4, p. 70)]. Robert was the eldest son (and probably the eldest child) of a marriage which occurred between 1049 and 1053, and probably in 1050 or 1051 [see the page of William I], thus born probably between 1050 and 1054, and such a birthdate would fit well for Eadgar, whom the contemporary Guillaume de Poitiers calls a "puer" in referring to events of 1066 ["Regem statuerant Edgarum Athelinum, ex Edwardi Regis nobilitate annis puerum." Guillaume de Poitiers, ii, 28 (pp. 146-7); see also ibid., ii, 35 (pp. 162-3)], making it unlikely that Eadgar was born before 1050. Agatha's daughter Margaret was married to Malcolm III of Scotland, probably in about 1070 [see the page of Malcolm III for a discussion of this date]. If we assume that Agatha and Margaret did not marry before the age of 17 and did not have a child before the age of 18, then that would place Agatha's birth in 1035 or before, with dates a year or two later possible but highly improbable, and with a birth in 1030 or before providing a more comfortable margin. In the other direction, although it seems very unlikely that Agatha was older than her husband (born 1016×7), the possibility that she was born a decade earlier cannot be strictly ruled out. Jetté places the marriage of Margaret about 1067 ("about ten years" after 1057). This is probably a few years too early [Freeman (1870-9), 4: 783-7; see the page of Malcolm III]. Because Malcolm asked for the permission of Margaret's brother Eadgar to marry her, and because "enough was known about his [Edgar's] personality to separate him from the throne of England in 1066", Jetté argues that the eldest of Margaret's children was born between 1045 and 1050 "at the latest" and thus that Agatha "cannot be born after 1030 and that she was more likely born around 1020" [Jetté (1996), 420]. However, although Agatha may have been born that early, there seems to be no reason to insist on it.
Date of death: After 1067.
Place of death: Unknown.
     "As noted above, Agatha was still living in 1067. Ingham places her death about 1068, saying that she is thought to have been deceased before her daughter married king Malcolm [Ingham (1998b), 240 & n. 32]. The reason for this belief would appear to be the fact that Malcolm asked Eadgar for his sister's hand [ASC(D) s.a. 1067]. The Crowland Psalter has the addition of the obituary under 18 March of a person whose name starts with "A", in the same hand as additions giving the obituaries of Eadweard and his brother Eadmund [Keynes (1985), 359-60]. This could be the date of Agatha's death, but the obituary could also be that of Eadweard's mother Ealdgyth (Aldgitha).
Father: Unknown.
Mother: Unknown.
     "There have been a number of mutually contradictory theories regarding the origin of Agatha, and a definitive solution is still lacking. The alternatives are discussed in detail in the Commentary section.
Spouse: Eadweard "the Exile", d. 19 April 1057.
Children: See the page of Eadweard "the Exile" for details. http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/edwar000.htm
Commentary
     "The case for Agatha's parentage, which still lacks a definitive resolution, requires a detailed discussion. First, a chronological outline of some of the main developments in the research of Agatha's origins will be given, concentrating on the more recent period. Second, a transcript of the more important primary sources will be given. Third, the numerous theories regarding Agatha's parentage will each be briefly described. This will be followed by the main discussion, and a page of appendices discussing related matter.
Researching Agatha: a chronology
     "The problem of Agatha's origin has been researched often, and no attempt is made here to include all modern scholarship on the subject in this mainly chronological outline. Certainly, this outline will be more complete for the more recent period, and it is quite likely that earlier modern references than the ones given here could be given. For convenience of reference, some of the main hypotheses which have been proposed have been given labels such as the "German Hypothesis" or the "Russian Hypothesis" to simplify the discussions below.
     "Late medieval writers were generally content to repeat the vague or incorrect accounts of one of the early medieval authors discussed below. Finally, some scholars attempted to deduce a specific parentage for Agatha from the available evidence. In 1763, György Pray argued that Agatha was a daughter of bishop Bruno of Augsburg, brother of emperor Heinrich II [Pray (1763), 1: 27-8]. I refer to this hypothesis as the "Bruno Hypothesis" in the discussions below. In 1778, Daniel Cornides concluded that Agatha was a daughter of king István (Stephen) I of Hungary by his wife Gisela, sister of the emperor Heinrich II [Cornides (1778), 232-9]. This theory will be called the "Hungarian Hypothesis". In 1779, István Katona supported the Bruno Hypothesis, as did Peter Friedrich Suhm in 1787 [Katona (1779), 1: 260-3; 2: 97-107, not seen by me, cited by Herzog (1939), 1; Suhm (1787), 3: 726]. This hypothesis was noted (but not explicitly endorsed) by Lappenberg (who called Agatha a relative of the emperor) in 1834 [Lappenberg (1834-81), 2: 243 n. 4] and by Thorpe in 1848 [John Worc. 1: 181 n. 3]. In 1877, in his History of the Norman Conquest of England, Edward A. Freeman concluded that Agatha was "most probably a niece" of emperor Heinrich II [Freeman (1870-9), 2: 376, 671-2]. In 1879, Harry Breßlau concluded that Agatha was a daughter of Stephen of Hungary, i.e., the Hungarian Hypothesis [Breßlau (1879-84), 1: 102 n. 1]. In 1938, Sándor Fest also argued that Agatha was a daughter of Stephen of Hungary [Fest (1938)]. In 1939, in a long article published in the Hungarian genealogy and heraldry journal Turul, József Herzog introduced what is here called the "German Hypothesis", which suggests that Agatha was a daughter of one of the maternal half-brothers of emperor Heinrich III [Herzog (1939)]. Unfortunately, I am unable to read the Hungarian in which this work is written, so I must depend on other reports about what Herzog said. Von Redlich and Moriarty both seem to suggest that of the three half-brothers of Heinrich III, Herzog preferred the candidacy of Ernst II, duke of Swabia, as the father of Agatha [Redlich (1940), 107; Moriarty (1952), 52]. Vajay states that Herzog "hesitates between Liudolf of Westfiresland and Ernest of Swabia, as possible fathers for Agatha." [Vajay (1962), 79, n. 34] In a short article in 1940, Marcellus von Redlich mentioned the problem of Agatha's origin, listed the candidates for Agatha's father of which he was aware (Emperor Heinrich II, Bruno of Augsburg, Stephen of Hungary, Salomon of Hungary, Iaroslav of Russia, the half-brothers of Heinrich III), and stated as his preference the version of the German Hypothesis in which Ernst is the father (called here the "alternate" version of the German Hypothesis), giving brief reasons (based mostly on secondary sources) for rejecting the others [Redlich (1940)]. In 1952, G. Andrews Moriarty discussed the problem of Agatha's origin, mentioning the alternatives that had been proposed by Freeman, Fest, and Herzog. After rejecting the others, Moriarty stated that Fest's conclusion that Agatha was a daughter of Stephen of Hungary was "highly probable and conclusive." [Moriarty (1952), 60] In 1954, R. L. Græme Ritchie, in an appendix to his book The Normans in Scotland, considered the parentage of Agatha, and after rejecting the Hungarian Hypothesis, concluded that the Bruno Hypothesis was "perfectly tenable" [Ritchie (1954), 392]. In 1962, Szabolcs de Vajay presented arguments against the Hungarian Hypothesis (mainly citing only secondary sources written in Hungarian), and supported the variant of Herzog's theory in which Liudolf of Braunschweig was presented as the father of Agatha [Vajay (1962)]. The paper was widely cited, and a significant number of authors regarded the matter as having been settled by Vajay's paper. This is the "main" variation of the "German Hypothesis". A 1971 paper by Vajay has more information on Liudolf's supposed daughters, but contains nothing new relevant to Agatha's parentage [Vajay (1971)]. Although I have become convinced from my research that the German Hypothesis is the most likely alternative from among the numerous weak choices, Vajay's discussion and documentation is inadequate on several points, especially with regard to the family of the empress Gisela (Liudolf's mother). In 1975, Gerd Wunder, accepting Vajay's version of the German Hypothesis, suggested that Agatha had had an earlier marriage to Vladimir of Novgorod (1020-52), son of Iaroslav [Wunder (1975)]. This would explain how Agatha arrived in Russia, where Eadweard is believed to have been married, but Wunder conceded that there was no source to prove his unconvincing theory. In 1984, Gabriel Ronay published an article on Eadweard the Exile [Ronay (1984)] and then followed it up with a book which went into much more detail [Ronay (1989)]. Both the article and the book argue for the German Hypothesis. The documentation is usually inadequate, and the author frequently takes liberties with his sources. The book often reads more like historical fiction than history. In 1996, René Jetté published an article in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register suggesting that Agatha was a daughter of Iaroslav I of Russia [Jetté (1996)]. At the time the article appeared, it was widely thought that this theory was a new one, but Pavsic later cited an example to show that the theory had been around since at least the nineteenth century [Pavsic (2001), 82 n. 67]. Jetté's theory is here called the "Russian Hypothesis".
     "Jetté's article appears to have opened the floodgates, for in the next ten years there appeared as many articles on Agatha's origin as had appeared in the previous sixty years. It would seem that at least part of this surge in activity can be attributed to the internet. In 1995, the year before Jetté's article appeared, the internet newsgroup soc.genealogy.medieval and the internet mailing list GEN-MEDIEVAL made their first appearance. While soc.genealogy.medieval and GEN-MEDIEVAL are technically different entities, they are "gated" so that all messages from one are sent to the other, so that they act together as one big message board. Even before the appearance of Jetté's article, someone who was familiar with Jetté's research was posting "teasers" to soc.genealogy.medieval, stating that a new solution to Agatha's parentage was forthcoming. Within a few days after the issue containing the article arrived in the mailboxes of subscribers, brief outlines of the main arguments were appearing in the newsgroup, so that a wide circle of genealogists, including many who did not subscribe to the Register, became quickly aware of the new research. Follow-up articles were mentioned on the newsgroup as soon as they appeared, and this no doubt contributed to the momentum. However, one also gets the feeling that the appearance of Jetté's article altered the common impression that the matter had been "settled", and that this has encouraged genealogists to try to find new solutions to the problem.
     "In 1998, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register published an article by David Faris and Douglas Richardson which severely criticized Jetté's article, and argued that the German Hypothesis was correct. There was no attempt to review the basic evidence, and most of the paper was spent criticizing specific points in Jetté's article. Also in 1998, Norman W. Ingham published two articles strongly supporting the Russian Hypothesis. One, in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, concentrated mainly on the onomastic evidence relevant to the problem [Ingham (1998a)]. The longer (and more important) article, in Russian History, has given what is to date the most detailed discussion in favor of the Russian Hypothesis and also the most ardent criticism (at times excessive) of the German Hypothesis [Ingham (1998b)]. In 2000, Janko Pavsic supported the Russian Hypothesis and argued against the German Hypothesis, in a paper that concentrated on generally unconvincing onomastic arguments [Pavsic (2000); English translation in Pavsic (2001)]. In 2002, an article by John Carmi Parsons strongly criticised Janko Pavsic's article [Parsons (2002); in a bizarre blunder, the author of the previous paper was misnamed "Pavel Javsic", with the incorrect surname appearing throughout the paper]. The article contains a good discussion of how genealogical arguments involving onomastics are often pressed to far. The author concluded that the case was not proven either way (referring to the German Hypothesis and the Russian Hypothesis), and ended by offering two additional theories "to indicate just how far we are from the last word on this question." [Parsons (2002), 52] One theory suggested that Edward may have married twice. The other suggested that Agatha may have been the daughter of a count Cristinus (the "Cristinus Hypothesis"). Neither of these theories was pressed as being definitive. Also in 2002, Gregory Lauder-Frost published a two-page article pointing out the controversy which had developed regarding Agatha's origins [Lauder-Frost (2002)]. Several of the recently published papers were briefly mentioned, and the author expressed a preference for the Hungarian Hypothesis. In 2003, a long article on Agatha's origins by Ian Mladjov appeared. The article gave a very good outline of the main research on Agatha during the past fifty years, and concluded by offering yet another theory on her origin, here called the "Bulgarian Hypothesis". This hypothesis suggests that Agatha was a daughter of Gavril Radomir (d. 1015), king of Bulgaria, a maternal granddaughter of king Géza I of Hungary (d. 997), and a stepdaughter of Aba Samuel (d. 1044), another king of Hungary. It also makes her a paternal granddaughter of another woman named Agatha [Mladjov (2003)]. This paper is hindered in many places by the appearance of spaces where accented characters should have appeared instead. This does not seem to be the author's fault, but appears to be the result of poor production standards by the publisher in the printing of the article. In 2003, an article by William Humphreys argued in favor of the Russian Hypothesis [Humphreys (2003)]. In a follow-up article in 2004, Humphreys proposed as an alternate hypothesis the possibility that Agatha was a sister of Anastasia, wife of Iaroslav's son Vsevelod (d. 1093), and apparently daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX "Monomachos" (the "Byzantine Hypothesis") [Humphreys (2004), 280]. However, the author regarded this as less likely than the Russian Hypothesis [ibid., 287]. The main thrust of the article is that Agatha might have had Greek ancestry, for he also suggests that Iaroslav may have been the son of Anna of Byzantium [ibid., 284-5]. In 2009, John P. Ravilious proposed what is here called the "Polish Hypothesis", in which Agatha is conjectured to be a daughter of duke Mieszko II of Poland by his wife Richenza, granddaughter of the emperor Otto II by his Byzantine wife Theophanu [Ravilious (2009)].
The Sources
     "Here, we give an outline of the main primary sources for the parentage of Agatha, and for the exile of the sons of Eadmund Ironside. There are numerous sources other than the ones which are listed here, but the other sources which are of any value have taken their information from one of the sources given below.
Adam of Bremen
     "Adam of Bremen, writing about 1070, states that Eadmund (Ironside, here wrongly described as a brother of Æthelred II) was killed by poison, and that his sons (unnamed) were condemned to exile in Russia ["Frater Adelradi Emund, vir bellicosus, in gratiam victoris veneno sublatus est; filii eius in Ruzziam exilio dampnati." Adam of Bremen, ii, 51, MGH SS 7: 324]. Although he gives no information on Agatha, Adam's account is important in giving early testimony that the exile of Eadmund's sons included time in Russia.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
     "Accounts in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entered under the years 1057 and 1067, but not contemporary with those dates (having been written perhaps soon after 1100, perhaps a bit earlier), are the first to give Agatha's name and information about her origin. The 1057 entry gives Agatha's name and states that she was a relative of the emperor (unnamed) "Her com Eadward æþeling to Englalande se wæs Eadwerdes broðor sunu kynges Eadmund 'cing'; Irensid wæs geclypod for his snellscipe. Þisne æþeling Cnút hæfde forsend on Ungerland to beswicane. Ac he þær geþeh to godan men, swa him God uðe, & him wel gebyrede[. swa þ. he begeat þæs caseres mága to wife, & bi þære fægerne bearnteam gestrynde, seo wæs Agathes gehaten." ASC(D) s.a. 1057 (Translation: "Here the ætheling Edward came to England; he was son of King Edward's brother Edmund, [who] was called 'Ironside' for his bravery. King Cnut had sent this ætheling away into Hungary to betray, but he there grew to be a great man, as God granted him and became him well, so that he won the emperor's relative for wife, and by her bred a fine family; she was called Agatha." ASC(Eng), 187-8)]. The 1067 account states rather vaguely that Margaret's mother's (i.e., Agatha's) family goes back to the emperor Heinrich (which Heinrich is not stated) ["... & hire modor cynn gæð to Heinrice casere þe hæfde anwald ofer Rome." ASC(D) s.a. 1067 (p. 202) (Translation: "... and her [i.e., Margaret's] mother's family goes back to the emperor Henry who had dominion over Rome." ASC(Eng), 202)]. Only the Hungarian exile is mentioned.
John ("Florence") of Worcester
     "According to the chronicle of John of Worcester (1118?, often attributed to "Florence" of Worcester), king Cnut sent the sons of Eadmund, Eadweard and Eadmund, to the king of the Swedes to be killed, but the king of the Swedes instead sent them to Salomon, king of Hungary, who brought them up. Eadmund died, but Eadweard married Agatha, daughter of a "germanus" of the emperor Heinrich ["Dedit etiam consilium Edricus, ut clitunculos, Eadwardum et Eadmundum, regis Eadmundi filios, necaret; sed quia magnum dedecus sibi videbatur ut in Anglia perimerentur, parvo elapso tempore, ad regem Suanorum occidendos misit; qui, licet foedus esset inter eos, precibus illius nullatenus voluit acquiescere, sed illos ad regem Ungariorum, Salomonum nomine, misit nutriendos, vitæque reservandos: quorum unus, scilicet Eadmundus, processu temporis ibidem vitam finivit; Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici, in matrimonium accepit, ex qua Margaretam Scottorum reginam, et Christinam sanctimonialem virginem, et clitonem Eadgarum suscepit." John Worc. s.a. 1017 (1: 181)]. John's genealogical appendix has the same statement, this time with Heinrich identified as the emperor Heinrich III ["Eadwardus vero Agatham, filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici III., in matrimonium accepit, ex qua Margaretam reginam Scottorum, et Chrisianam virginem, et clitonem Eadgarum, suscepit." John Worc. 1: 275]. It should be noted here that John has misnamed the Hungarian king, as Salomon did not reign until years later. Simeon of Durham has the same statement, obviously copied directly from the work of John ["Eadwardus vero Agatham filiam Germani imperatoris Henrici in matrimonium accepit." Sim. Durh., Hist. Regum, c. 130 (2: 155)]. Another twelfth century source which evidently copied from John is the Chronicle of Melrose [Chron. Melrose, s.a. 1017 (pp. 43-4)].
     "Note from the capitalization of the entry just quoted that the editor of Simeon of Durham was interpreting the sentence as meaning "Indeed, Eadward took in marriage Agatha, a daughter of the German emperor Heinrich." Such a reading of the word germanus is the origin of the theories that Agatha was a daughter of either Heinrich II or Heinrich III, both known to be false relationships. In fact, the word used here is not "Germanus" the geographical adjective, but "germanus" the relationship term, and the correct translation seems to be "Indeed, Eadward took in marriage Agatha, daughter of a germanus of the emperor Heinrich." The meaning of "germanus" is discussed in Appendix 3.
William of Malmesbury
     "William of Malmesbury, in his Gesta Regum Anglorum, written in 1125, states that Eadmund Ironside's sons Eadwig [Edwius, a mistake for Eadmund] and Eadweard were sent to the king of Sweden to be killed, but that being spared by his mercy, they went to the king of Hungary, where the elder died and the younger brother (presumably Eadweard) married Agatha, sister of the queen ["Filii ejus Edwius et Edwardus, missi ad regem Swevorum ut perimerentur, sed miseratione ejus conservati, Hunorum regem petierunt; ubi, dum benigne aliquo tempore habiti essent, major diem obiit, minor Agatham reginæ sororem in matrimonium accepit." Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum, c. 180 (vol. 1, p. 218)]. Here, Eadweard's brother is incorrectly called Eadwig.
Orderic Vitalis
     "Orderic Vitalis, writing between 1124 and 1142, states that Cnut sent the boys Eadmund and Eadweard to Denmark, and ordered his brother Svend [sic] king of Denmark (presumably a mistake for Harald, king of Denmark) to kill them, but that he sent the boys to the king of the "Huns" (i.e., Hungarians), where Eadmund died an untimely death. He then states that Eadweard married a daughter of the king of the Hungarians, and that Eadweard himself reigned over the Hungarians ["Eduardum vero et Edmundum filios Edmundi, elegantes albeolos, in Daciam relegavit, et Sueno regi Danorum fratri suo, ut eos interficeret, mandavit. At ille generosos et innocentes pueros nequiter necare contempsit, sed orta occasione regi Hunorum illos quasi nepotes suos obsides dedit. Ibi Edmundus clito immatura morte obiit. Eduardus vero Dei nutu filiam regis in matrimonium accepit, et super Hunos regnavit. Edgarum vero Adelinum, et Margaritam reginam Scotorum, et Christianam sanctimonialem genuit..." OV, i (vol. 1, p. 178)]. On another occasion Orderic names Eadweard's father-in-law as king Salomon, a chronological impossibility ["Haec [Margarita] nimirum filia fuit Eduardi, regis Hunorum, qui fuit filius Edmundi cognomento Irnesidæ, fratris Eduardi regis Anglorum, et exul conjugem accepit cum regno filiam Salomonis regis Hunorum." ibid., viii, 22 (vol. 3, p. 398)].
Laws of Edward the Confessor
     "The so-called Laws of Edward the Confessor, actually dating from Norman times, 1115×50 (probably 1130×5), state that Eadweard took refuge in Russia, that he was decently retained there by the Russian king Malesclodus, and that he was married there to a wife of noble descent ["Iste supradictus Eadmundus habuit filium quendam, qui uocatus est Eadwardus. Qui, mortuo patre, timore regis Cnuti aufugit de ista terra usque ad terram Rugorum, quam nos uocamus Russeiam. Quem rex ipsius terre, Malesclodus nomine, ut audiuit et intellexit, quis et unde esset, honeste retinuit eum. Et ipse Ædwardus accepit ibi uxorem ex nobili genere, de qua ortus est ei Eadgarus aðeling et Margareta regina Scotie et Cristina soror eius." Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35-35.1 (p. 664)]. This passage was also contained in the chronicle of Roger de Hoveden, where some manuscripts read "... ad regnum Dogorum, quod nos melius vocamus Russiam. Quem rex terræ Malescoldus nomine..." [Rog. Hoveden, Legal Appendix to Chronica, 2: 236]. The identity of Malesclodus is discussed in Appendix 6. An interpolation following "Cristina soror eius" in the above passage, dated about 1210 [Liebermann (1903), xxxiv], states that Margaret's mother was in origin and blood of the kings of the Russians ["Fuitque predicta Margareta generosa ualde et optima, scilicet ex parte patris ex nobili genere et sanguine regum Anglorum-Britonum, ex parte uero matris ex genere et sanguine regum Rugorum..." Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35.1*** (p. 664)]. This is apparently intended to imply that Margaret's mother was a daughter of Malesclodus, although that is not explicitly stated. This interpolation does not occur in Roger de Hoveden's work.
Geoffrey Gaimar
     "Geoffrey Gaimar wrote his Lestorie des Engles probably after 1135 and certainly before 1147. Geoffrey has a long legendary account of the sons of Eadmund Ironside, whom he incorrectly calls Eadgar and Æthelred ["Li vns ert Edgar apelez, / Li altres out nun Edelret:" ("One was called Eadgar, / The other's name was Æthelred") Gaimar 4516-7]. Of these, it is Eadgar who is later stated to be the father of Margaret and Eadgar the Ætheling [Gaimar 4647-4652], so it is evidently he who is intended to be identified with Eadweard the Exile. According to Geoffrey's story, the two boys were entrusted to a Dane named Walgar, and sent to Denmark, where they remained for twelve years [Gaimar 4503-4522]. After this time, Cnut heard from his wife Emma that the English wanted to make the boys king, so Cnut ordered that they should be maimed [Gaimar 4567-70]. Walgar, warned of the plot, fled with the boys to Hungary, passing through Russia on the way ["Si espleita son errer. / Ken sul cinc iurs passat Susie, / E vint en terre de Hungrie. / Le siste iur est ariuez / De suz Gardimbre, la citez: / Li reis i ert e la raine, / A ki Hungrie estait acline." ("He [Walgar] so well accomplished his journey / That in only five days he passed Russia, / And came to the land of Hungary. / The sixth day he arrived / Beneath the city of Gardimbre. / The king was there and the queen, / To whom Hungary was subject.") Gaimar 4582-8]. Walgar then entrusted the boys to the king of Hungary, telling him that they were the rightful heirs of England [Gaimar 4592-4618]. After three years "Eadgar" became a lover of the daughter of the king (presumably of Hungary) and the lady became pregnant ["Edgar out nun, mult fu senez. / La fille al rei en fist son dru; / E cil lamat, co fu seu: / Ainz ke passast tut lan enter, / Avint la dame a enceinter." ("Eadgar was his name. He was well favoured. / The king's daughter took him for her lover. / And he loved her; this was known; / Before a whole year had passed, / The lady became pregnant.") Gaimar 4624-8]. Then the king gave his daughter to "Eadgar" and made him his heir ["Li reis sa fille a Edgar donat: / Veanz sa gent cil lespusat; / E li reis fist a tuz sauer, / Apres son iur sait Edgar heir:" ("The king gave his daughter to Eadgar. / Before his people, he married her, / And the king gave all to know / That Eadgar should be his heir after his days.") Gaimar 4639-42]. "Eadgar" and his wife become the parents of Margaret and Eadgar the Ætheling ["De cest Edgar e de sa femme, / Eissit la preciose gemme, / Margarete lapelat lom, / Raine en fist rei Malcolom. / Ele aueit vn son frere ainnez, / Edgar lAdeling estait nomez." ("From this Eadgar and his wife / Issued the precious gem, / Margaret they called her. / King Malcolm made her his queen. / She had an elder brother, / Eadgar the Ætheling was he named.") Gaimar 4646-4652]. Then, after the death of their father, Margaret and Eadgar the Ætheling are sent for by the English, but on the way there a storm drives them to Scotland, where Malcolm seizes them and marries Margaret [Gaimar 4657-4662]. Although Geoffrey clearly used sources which are now lost, his work has such large doses of legend and romance that he is not a trustworthy source. His account of the exile of Eadmund Ironside's sons clearly has a large dose of fiction, and any attempt to disentangle truth from Geoffrey's fictionalized account in order to use them as "evidence" is fraught with difficulties.
Ailred of Rievaulx
     "The Genealogia Regum Anglorum was written in 1153 or 1154 by Ailred of Rievaulx, who was brought up in the Scottish royal household and got some of his information directly from king David, grandson of Agatha [Ingham (1998), 249]. Unfortunately, the information he gives is contradictory. On one occasion he states that Agatha's daughter Margaret was descended from the royal seed of the English and the Hungarians ["Hanc religiosa regina Margareta, hujus regis mater, quæ de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum exstitit oriunda, allatam in Scotia quasi munus hæreditarium transmisit ad filios." Ailred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, PL 195: 715]. Thus, in this statement, he appears to be implying that Agatha was of Hungarian royal descent.
     "Ailred's next statement not only contradicts the previous statement, but gives a marriage to Eadweard's brother Eadmund, stating that the Hungarian king gave his daughter to Eadmund as a wife ["At puerulos filios Edmundi ferire metuens præ pudore, ad regem Suavorum eos interficiendos transmisit. Rex vero Suavorum nobilium puerorum miseratus ærumnam, ad Hungariorum regem eos destinat nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne accepit, benignius fovit, benignissime sibi in filios adoptavit. Porro Edmundo filiam suam dedit uxorem; Edwardo filiam germani sui Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium junxit. Sed paulo post Edmundus de temporalibus ad æterna transfertur: Edwardus sospitate et prosperitate fruitur." Ailred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, PL 195: 733] The awkward sentence giving the marriage of Eadweard ("Edwardo filiam germani sui Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium junxit.") would appear to translate as "He [i.e., the Hungarian king] joined the daughter of his 'germanus' the emperor Heinrich in marriage to Eadweard." A way out of this awkwardness is provided by some marginal notes which appear in the Hengwrt MS. version of Henry of Huntingdon's Historiæ Anglorum, in a hand of ca. 1200, which were published by Arnold in his edition of Henry's work. These passages are obviously taken from a version of Ailred's work, and the one relevant here reads as follows: "At puerulos, scilicet filios Edmundi, ferire metuens pro pudore, ad regem Swanorum eos interficiendos transmisit. Rex vero Swanorum nobilium puerorum miseratus ærumnam ad Hungariorum eos regem destinavit nutriendos. Quos ipse benigne susceptos benignius fovit, benignissime sibi in filios adoptavit. Porro Edmundo filiam suam dedit uxorem, Edwardo filiam germani Henrici imperatoris in matrimonium junxit. Sed paulo post Edmundus de temporalibus ad æterna transfertur; Edwardus sospitate et prosperitate perfruitur." [H. Hunt., p. 296 (the first appearance of "ad" appears in the printed edition as "sd", apparently a printing error)] The absence of the word "sui" then leads to the more natural translation "He joined the daughter of a 'germanus' of the emperor Heinrich in marriage to Eadweard." This reading is confirmed by another statement of Ailred in the Genealogia ["... Edwardum cum uxore sua Agatha germani sui filia liberisque ejus, Edgaro Edeling, Margareta atque Christina..." ("sui" refers to the emperor) Ailred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, PL 195: 734], as well as a vaguer statement by Ailred in his Life of Edward the Confessor, which states that the Roman emperor gave his relative ("cognata") in marriage to the son of Eadmund Ironside ["Imperator Romanus cujus cognatam regis nepos filius Eadmundi ferrei lateris, unus e duobus quos exsilio Cnute damnaverat, uxorem duxit..." Ailred, Vita S. Edwardi Regis, PL 195: 745].
The Theories
     "The main hypotheses are listed here, along with the labels that they have been assigned for purposes of the discussion below. A few impossible theories which can be easily dismissed are not given labels.
The German Hypothesis (main version):
The Russian Hypothesis:
The Polish Hypothesis:
The Bulgarian Hypothesis:
The Hungarian Hypothesis:
The Cristinus Hypothesis:
The German Hypothesis (alternate version): Conjectured father (very improbable): Ernst II, d. 17 August 1030, duke of Swabia.
The Bruno Hypothesis: Conjectured father (very improbable): Bruno, d. 24 April 1029, bishop of Augsburg, 1007-1029, brother of emperor Heinrich II.
The Byzantine Hypothesis: Conjectured father (no reasonable basis): Constantine IX "Monomachos", d. 1055, Byzantine emperor.
Falsely attributed father: Salomon, d. 1087, king of Hungary, 1063-74. [OV; see above for details] Orderic Vitalis is the only early medieval source to name the alleged father of Eadweard's wife. However, the claim is chronologically impossible.
Falsely attributed father: Heinrich II, d. 13 July 1024, emperor. [e.g., Burke (1848-51), 1: ped. cxix; 2: ped. xxxviii] Although the secondary sources giving this relationship of which I am aware do not state sources, it is clear that this theory came about because "filia germani imperatoris Heinrici" was misinterpreted as "daughter of the German emperor Heinrich" [see Appendix 3 for the meaning of germanus]. However, it is virtually impossible that a child of Heinrich II, if one had existed, would have gone unmentioned by continental sources.
Falsely attributed father: Heinrich III, d. 5 October 1056, emperor. [e.g., Baverstock (1832), 20] This comes about by the same misunderstanding as the previous theory. It is chronologically impossible.
Falsely attributed father: Hardicanute, d. 8 June 1042, king of Denmark and England. [Felch (1894), 2, mentions this claim, the ultimate source of which was apparently royal pedigrees published by Reusner in 1592; this reference was pointed out by Todd Farmerie on soc.genealogy.medieval] The supposed logic behind this chronologically impossible theory is unknown.
Background: the exile of the sons of Eadmund Ironside and the return of Eadweard the Exile
     "It is clear that Eadmund Ironside's infant sons, Eadmund and Eadweard, went into exile soon after his death in 1016. It is also clear that the surviving son, Eadweard, was living in Hungary when his uncle king Eadweard the Confessor sent for him in the 1050's. Eadweard's activities between 1016 and 1057 are poorly documented, and depend almost entirely on sources which are not contemporary. While it is likely that our sources from the first half of the twelfth century preserve some reliable traditions, they are, as we can see, not entirely consistent, and in some cases verifiably false.
     "Adam of Bremen is the only source to mention the princes which is close to being contemporary. He states that they were condemned to exile in Russia. Thus, there is a strong probability that at least part of their time in exile was spent in Russia. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle knows only about the time in Hungary. John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury, and Ailred of Rievaulx all state that the exile started off in Sweden and that they then went to Hungary. Orderic Vitalis and Geoffrey Gaimar have them going first to Denmark and then to Hungary, with Gaimar mentioning that they passed Russia on the way to Hungary. The Laws of Edward of the Confessor mention only Eadweard, and states that he went to Russia, where he was married. The modern consensus seems to be an itinerary which includes Sweden, Russia, and Hungary, in that order.
     "It has frequently been stated that Eadmund and Eadweard went from Sweden to Russia in 1028 and from Russia to Hungary in 1046, but it is very misleading to suggest that such chronological details can be deduced from the slim evidence at hand, even if the itinerary of Sweden to Russia to Hungary is tentatively accepted. Both dates come primarily from pieces of evidence that may not have anything to do with the movements of the exiled family. The 1028 date is primarily based on the fact that king Cnut conquered Norway in that year [ASC(E) s.a. 1028]. Olaf of Norway and his son were forced to flee Norway, and they went to Sweden and then to Russia [Óláfs saga Helga, c. 181, Heimskringla, 474]. Jetté has Cnut defeating the Swedes (is this an error for the Norwegians?) in 1028 [Jetté (1996), 418; he is followed by Ingham (1998b), 234]. It has been conjectured that it was at this time that the English princes went from Sweden to Russia [Vajay (1962), 72; Wunder (1975), 82; Jetté (1996), 418; Ingham (1998b), 234]. Ronay accepts the accounts of Geoffrey Gaimar and Orderic Vitalis that the princes were first sent to Denmark [Ronay (1989), 28-40 passim], and he then has the English princes move from Denmark to Sweden and then from there to Russia in 1028×9, following the path of Olaf [ibid., 40-1, 52-3]. After spending many years in Russia, Eadweard is then supposed to have moved to Hungary in 1046 as a part of the army that helped Andrew gain the Hungarian throne in that year [Vajay (1962), 72-3; Wunder (1975), 82; Ronay (1984), 47; Jetté (1996), 419-20; Ingham (1998b), 235].
     "The problem with these scenarios comes from the apparent underlying assumption that the movements of the exiled family must necessarily be the direct result of political events which appear in the surviving sources. It is misleading to take such attempts at "reading between the lines" and interpret them as verified history. In fact, our information on the exile is very fragmentary and comes almost entirely from sources of a century later. It can be regarded as reasonably certain that the exiled family was in Hungary at the time that king Eadweard the Confessor sent for them. It is also probable that their exile included time in Sweden and Russia (but see the Polish Hypothesis below for a different opinion on this). However, attempts to narrow down the time of movement from one region to another are only conjectures.
Comparing the sources
     "Clearly, the different sources say different things about the origin of Agatha. The early accounts we have on Agatha's parentage can be placed in four main categories.
     "First, there are the sources in which Agatha is related to an emperor. This includes the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, John of Worcester (and numerous others who use him as a source), and one of the alternate accounts of Ailred of Rievaulx, with the latter two specifying that Agatha was the daughter of a germanus of emperor Heinrich. John of Worcester's genealogical appendix explicitly names the emperor as Heinrich III.
Second, there are sources in which Agatha is a member of the Hungarian royal family. This includes Orderic Vitalis, Geoffrey Gaimar, and the other account of Ailred. The only one to identify the father is Orderic, and we know that his statement is chronologically impossible.
Third, there is the interpolation made ca. 1200 into the Laws of Edward the Confessor, which indicates that Agatha was a member of the Russian royal family. Although she is not explicitly called a daughter of king Malesclodus, it is arguable that that was the interpolator's intent.
Finally, the is the account of William of Malmesbury, who states that Agatha was a sister of the Hungarian queen, whose identity is not specified.
The natural first attempt would be to look for an individual who simultaneously fits into all of the above categories. However, it has not proved possible to find a parentage for Agatha which agrees with all of these sources. Thus, there seems to be the inescapable conclusion that some of these sources are unreliable. The following table indicates how well the various pieces of basic information match with the various hypotheses which have been proposed, ranging from an excellent fit with the statement of the evidence to being inconsistent with the evidence. Some cases which would involve significantly stretching the definition of a word have been rated poor or very poor. Of course, the first two columns are related, but one is more specific than the other. The first two columns assume that any emperor Heinrich is allowed.

1. Relative of emperor Heinrich     
2. Daughter of germanus of emperor Heinrich     
3. Sister of Hungarian queen     
4. Daughter of Hungarian king     
5. Descendant of Russian Royaly
               1          2          3          4          5
Bruno Hypothesis     excellent     excellent     poor     inconsistent     inconsistent
Bulgarian Hypothesis     very poor     inconsistent     inconsistent     very good     inconsistent
Byzantine Hypothesis     inconsistent     inconsistent     inconsistent     inconsistent     inconsistent
Cristinus Hypothesis     poor     inconsistent     inconsistent     inconsistent     good
German Hypothesis     excellent     very good     poor     inconsistent     inconsistent
Hungarian Hypothesis     excellent     poor     inconsistent     excellent     inconsistent
Polish Hypothesis     good     inconsistent     excellent     inconsistent     poor
Russian Hypothesis     inconsistent     inconsistent     excellent     inconsistent     excellent
     "As can be seen from the table, every one of the hypotheses rates as inconsistent in at least two columns, and each theory rates as either inconsistent or poor in at least three columns. Clearly, it has not been possible to find a theory which fits well with all of the basic primary evidence. It would be unwise to try to assign a "score" to each of the theories by somehow tabulating the results from this table, which is only a rough guide (and contains some entries which are judgement calls). The evidence for Agatha's parentage is complicated, and depends on many additional factors which could not be easily enumerated on such tables, and which may be weighed differently by different researchers. Also, the information in the table could be potentially misleading. Opponents of the German Hypothesis could complain that the information from the first two cloumns might not be independent, and that including both gives the German Hypothesis an extra "vote". Opponents of the Russian Hypothesis could complain that the last column is based on a late interpolation. Thus, it is important to consider the comparative reliability of each of the sources.
     "Let us first consider the accounts in which Agatha is a member of the Hungarian royal family. As already noted, there are three basic twelfth century sources for this. Orderic Vitalis states that Eadweard married a daughter of king Salomon of Hungary and then became king of Hungary. (It would appear that several researchers on Agatha have noticed only the statement in which Orderic has Eadweard marrying a daughter of an unidentified king of Hungary, and have overlooked another passage in Orderic's work where the father-in-law is identified as Salomon.) However, it is clearly chronologically impossible for Salomon to be the father of Agatha (see Appendix 5), and the statement that Eadweard was king of Hungary is also false. Thus, Orderic is clearly not a reliable guide to the identity of Agatha's father. The second source making Agatha a Hungarian princess is Geoffrey Gaimar. As already noted, he is not a reliable source, and there is no reason to trust his testimony unless it is confirmed elsewhere. This leaves the account of Ailred of Rievaulx, who states that St. Margaret was of royal English and Hungarian descent ["Hanc religiosa regina Margareta, hujus regis mater, quæ de semine regio Anglorum et Hungariorum exstitit oriunda..." Ailred of Rievaulx, Genealogia Regum Anglorum, PL 195: 715]. Now, Ailred personally knew king David I, Marageret's youngest son, and his testimony would therefore ordinarily rank highly, were it not for the fact that he later contradicts himself by distinguishing Eadweard's wife from the Hungarian king's daughter, whom he marries to Eadweard's brother Eadmund (see Appendix 2). Such a marriage of Eadmund, if true, would certainly provide a convenient explanation for the contradictory attribution of Agatha as a Hungarian king's daughter, which would then be explained as an error. At the very least, it shows that the evidence for making Agatha a daughter of the Hungarian king is weak.
     "The statement that St. Margaret was "ex parte uero matris ex genere et sanguine regum Rugorum" comes from an interpolation made about 1200 to the Laws of Edward the Confessor [" Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35.1*** (p. 664)]. What we would like to know is whether the interpolator was taking this information from some other source to which he had access, or whether he was simply expanding on the earlier statement that Eadweard was married in Russia to a woman of noble descent. The latter is much more likely, as Norman Ingham seems to concede, while still arguing that the interpolation be accepted into evidence [Ingham (1998b), 256]. However, the interpolator's statement would carry significant weight only if he were working from some other source, which is much less likely. Thus, the main value in the Laws of Edward the Confessor lies in the uninterpolated part, which makes only the vague statement that Agatha was of noble descent.
     "This leaves the statement of John of Worcester and others that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of emperor Heinrich (along with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's vaguer statement along the same lines) and the statement of William of Malmesbury that Agatha was a sister of the Hungarian queen. Unless there are emperor's brothers or Hungarian queens out there who have remained undocumented, trying to get a scenario which satisfies both William of Malmesbury and John of Worcester does not look promising. Among the current proposals, the closest would seem to be the German Hypothesis, if William of Malmesbury's soror is interpreted as meaning "first cousin". However, the use of soror in this way is very rare, and it is much more likely that William of Malmesbury meant soror in the usual sense of sister. Thus, we are left with the alternative that one of the two sources is mistaken with regard to Agatha's origins.
     "So, how reliable are John of Worcester and William of Malmesbury? John and William had very different styles. William was a historian who interpreted his sources and rewrote the account in his own words. John was a chronicler who was more likely to pass information along in the same form in which he found it in his sources. Both are highly regarded, but neither would meet modern standards, and both made errors. In fact, they each made a similar error in their accounts of the exile of the princes, in the passages leading up to their statements of Agatha's origin. John of Worcester gives the wrong name to the king of Hungary who accepted the princes in exile, calling him Salomon, a king who did not reign until later. William of Malmesbury gives the wrong name to one of the exile brothers, calling him Eadwig (the name of an uncle) instead of Eadmund. Neither of these errors seems sufficient to reject the statements about Agatha without further evidence. After praising William of Malmesbury as a historian, Norman Ingham says of John of Worcester: "The form of the passage in John reveals his cut-and-paste method of composition; he has patched several pieces of 'information' together without proper transitions - Sweden, King Salomon of Hungary, the death of Edmund, the marriage of Edward - thereby making jumps in time and logical coherence." [Ingham (1998b), 248] However, there seems to be a double standard here. After all, with less transition than John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury jumps from Sweden to the (unnamed) king of Hungary to the death Eadmund to the marriage of Eadweard. Indeed, if it were not for the different information on Agatha's parentage, there would be reason to suspect that John and William were using the same source here.
     "William of Malmesbury's statement that Agatha was a sister of the queen of Hungary is not confirmed by any independent source. Besides sources which are clearly dependent of John of Worcester, statements that agree with John's account appear in both the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ailred of Rievaulx. Are these statements independent, or do they go back to a common source? If so, can anything be determined about this source? The fact that John of Worcester used a source very similar to the D (Worcester) manuscript of ASC is well known [See the remarks by Plummer in ASC 2: lxxxiii-lxxxiv]. However, the problem with assuming that John used D or a source similar to D for his statement is that John gives more information, stating that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of emperor Heinrich, while D only states that she was a relative. Thus, since D (being the earlier source) did not copy from John, and it is improbable that John invented the more precise additional information, the connection of both John and the D manuscript to Worcester would indicate that they both got their statements from a common source located there, as suggested by Moriarty [Moriarty (1952), 55]. Ealdred, later archbishop of York, who was sent on the mission to bring Eadweard the Exile back to England, had also been bishop of Worcester, so Worcester would be a natural place to find information about Eadweard's family. With Ailred the situation is not so clear. He certainly had at least one independent source which led him to his statements that Margaret's mother had royal Hungarian blood and that Eadmund married a daughter of the Hungarian king. Ailred must have had another source which led him to his statements in three separate places that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of emperor Heinrich or a cognata of the emperor. This could very well have been the same Worcester source used by John of Worcester and the D manuscript of the Chronicle. Indeed, Ailred's use of the word germanus here makes this more likely than not. Thus, for convenience, let us use the term "Worcester Source" to denote this hypothetical common source of the statement that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of emperor Heinrich.
     "If we assume that there was a common source behind all of these statements that Agatha was a relative of (or a daughter of a germanus of) emperor Heinrich, then what can we say about the date of such a source? It would certainly have to predate the writing of the 1057 and 1067 entries into the D manuscript of the Chronicle. While it is clear from the wording itself that the entries are not strictly contemporary, there has been some disagreement about how much later they were written. Because Margaret's ancestry from the house of Wessex is given, Plummer thought that the entry was not written until after the marriage of Margaret's daughter to Henry I in 1100 [ASC 2: lxxviii]. On the other hand, N. R. Ker dated the handwriting of the 1071-9 entries (written after the 1057 and 1067 entries) to the 1070's or 1080's [Ker (1957), 254]. Dorothy Whitelock expressed an opinion somewhere in between. She stated that Plummer's dating to after 1100 was not certain, but she pointed out that no life of Margaret would have been written before 1093, and suggested that Ker's dates seemed too early [Whitelock (1979), 1: 115]. Here, Whitelock was assuming that the information about Margaret came from a written source (presumably a life written after her death), but G. P. Cubbin, editor of the most recent edition of the Worcester (D) manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, stated that a formal source would not be needed, and that Ker's dating "need not be doubted on these grounds" [ASC-D (Cubbin), lxxiv]. Thus, since the dating of the handwriting makes a date significantly later than 1100 doubtful, and since Plummer's reasons are far from conclusive anyway, our hypothetical Worcester Source can be dated to ca. 1100 or earlier.
     "One common way of resolving a discrepancy between two sources is to explain how one of them arose as a natural error. One such explanation, first given by Jetté and expanded by Ingham, claims that the Worcester Source was an error resulting from a misunderstanding of the statement that Agatha was a sister of the Hungarian queen [Jetté (1996), 423; Ingham (1998b), 244, 248]. This needs to be examined in detail. The argument assumes that a statement that Agatha was a sister of the queen of Hungary was the main surviving piece of information available to the chroniclers. Two Hungarian queens during the period were Gisela, wife of Stephen I and sister of emperor Heinrich II, and Judith, wife of Salomon and daughter of emperor Heinrich III. While it is chronologically impossible for either of these queens to have been a sister of Agatha, the theory goes that one or the other of them was mistaken for the sister of Agatha (starting with an earlier source similar to William of Malmesbury which stated that Agatha was a sister of the Hungarian queen), and as a result it was mistakenly assumed that Agatha was related to an emperor Heinrich, resulting in the information given in the Worcester Source. With the sources depending on the Worcester Source explained away in this manner, William of Malmesbury is portrayed as the only early reliable source. However, there is a serious problem with this scenario. If the author of the Worcester Source mistakenly assumed that Agatha was a sister of either Gisela or Judith, then he would have deduced that Agatha was a daughter or a sister of an emperor Heinrich. Why then, would the Worcester author make Agatha the daughter of a germanus of Heinrich, contrary to this deduction? Having made a mistake identifying the queen, he would then have had to make another mistake regarding the relationship of that queen to the emperor in order to get the account that was passed on. Thus, trying to explain away the information of the Worcester Source as a simple error from an account similar to William of Malmesbury simply will not work. Looking at the other direction, if Agatha were a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich III, as the genealogical appendix of John of Worcester states, then Agatha would be a first cousin of Salomon's wife Judith. Thus, the alternate argument would be that the Worcester Source was right, and that William of Malmesbury, or his source, erred by changing a cousin into a sister. This may not be right, but it would be more likely than the more complicated series of two errors needed to make Jetté's theory true.
     "Thus, of the sources giving information about the ancestry of Agatha, the accounts giving her Hungarian royal blood seem very doubtful, and the one giving her royal Russian blood is a late interpolation. If the accounts making Agatha a relative of the emperor were independent, their testimony would be fomidable, but it is much more likely that they are not independent, and go back to a hypothetical common source which we have named the "Worcester Source". This Worcester Source would be earlier than the work of William of Malmesbury, and would have to be given a slight edge for that reason. However, no firm conclusion is possible, and either one of the Worcester Source or William of Malmesbury might be correct.
Different theories on the origin of Agatha
     "As already noted, there is a plethora of hypotheses regarding the origin of Agatha, some of which have first appeared relatively recently. Except for a handful of old theories which can easily be eliminated as impossible, these hypotheses have each been supplied above with a label for ease of reference. The two hypotheses which seem to have the best chance of being true, the German Hypothesis and the Russian Hypothesis, will first be discussed in detail (with some discussions deferred to the Appendices), and then the other theories will be more briefly discussed in the approximate order in which they were proposed.
The German Hypothesis
     "The German Hypothesis argues that Agatha was a daughter of one of the half-brothers of the emperor Heinrich III, and was apparently first proposed in 1939 by József Herzog [Herzog (1939), in Hungarian, which I cannot read]. The next year, Marcellus von Redlich wrote a short paper accepting Herzog's arguments, and favoring Ernst II of Swabia as the father (the "alternate" version of the German Hypothesis). In 1962, Szabolcs de Vajay published the "main" version of the German Hypothesis, proposing that Liudolf of Braunschweig (Brunswick) was Agatha's father. Since that time, the German Hypothesis has been accepted as proven by many sources, most notably Ronay in his 1984 paper and 1989 book [Ronay (1984, 1989)]. Since the appearance of Jetté's article in 1996 supporting the Russian Hypothesis, the main paper arguing in favor of the German Hypothesis has been the article of Faris and Richardson [Faris-Richardson (1998)].
     "The logic behind the German Hypothesis is pretty straightforward. In what is probably the earliest source to mention the origin of Agatha, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that she was a relative of the emperor Heinrich. Later, John of Worcester and Ailred of Rievaulx (in one of his contradictory statements) add more detail to this by stating that Agatha was the daughter of a germanus of the emperor Heinrich, and John's genealogical appendix adds even more detail by specifying that the Heinrich in question was Heinrich III. Since Heinrch III had no full brothers, it is then argued by process of elimination that Agatha must have been a daughter of one of the older half-brothers of Heinrich. Consideration of these leads the supporters of main version of the German Hypothesis to conclude that Agatha's father was Liudolf von Braunschweig (d. 1038). No claim has been made that there is any direct evidence making Agatha a daughter of Liudolf.
     "The discussion of the family of Heinrich III is inadequate in those papers which espouse the German Hypothesis [Herzog (1939); Vajay (1962); Ronay (1984); Ronay (1985); Faris & Richardson (1998)]. However, a detailed discussion of the maternal half-brothers of Heinrich can be found in Appendix 4, based mainly on publications which do not mention Agatha. Evidence is given there that of the three half-brothers of Heinrich, only Liudolf, who is known to have had sons, makes a reasonable candidate for the father of Agatha (the "main" version of the German Hypothesis). The "alternate" version of the German Hypothesis is that another of the half-brothers, Ernst of Swabia, was the father, but, as shown in Appendix 4, he appears to have died without issue. The third half-brother, Hermann of Swabia, being underage in 1030, makes an extremely improbable father for Agatha. Although it is impossible to be sure in such a thinly documented age, it is rather unlikely that any additional half-brothers of Heinrich III have remained unidentified (or at least none who survived long enough to be the father of Agatha).
     "It is certainly the case that the German Hypothesis accepts some of the primary accounts at the expense of the others, a drawback which it shares with all of its competitors. However, if Eadweard's brother Eadmund were married to a Hungarian princess, as a statement of Ailred suggests (see Appendix 2), then the accounts in which Agatha is Hungarian could be explained as an error due to confusion. The German Hypothesis does not make Agatha a sister of the queen of Hungary, as William of Malmesbury states, but as Vajay pointed out, it does make her a first cousin of Judith/Sophia, wife of king Salomon of Hungary and daughter of Heinrich III [Vajay (1962), 74].
     "The principle objections, to some extent overlapping, which have been made to the German Hypothesis by its critics are as follows:
** Arguing by process of elimination is seen as a problematic method.
** It is suggested that the definition of the word germanus has been abused by proponents of the hypothesis.
** It is argued that the underlying premise is wrong because the sources claiming a relationship to Heinrich III are secondary and/or unreliable.
** Liudolf is seen as a chronologically unlikely father for Agatha.
** It is suggested that a German-English marriage occurring in eastern Europe is hard to explain.
** It is argued that the onomastic evidence is against the hypothesis.
** If true, the German Hypothesis would imply that the empress Matilda and her first husband the emperor Heinrich V were related to a prohibited degree.
** Some of these criticisms are valid, but others are overstated or misleading. These objections will be discussed one-by-one.
     "The German Hypothesis has been criticized because it uses the process of elimination to arrive at a conclusion [Ingham (1998b), 257ff.]. It is certainly true in general that an argument by process of elimination is less desirable than an argument using direct evidence. Indeed, the lack of direct evidence that Agatha was the daughter of Liudolf is one of the weaknesses of the German Hypothesis. However, when the basic information is that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich III, it is likely that our search for a solution is going to involve a search using the process of elimination. As pointed out by Ingham, "(s)uccessful process of elimination requires that we have correctly defined the object of our search, that our sources are exhaustive and we have cast our net widely enough, and that we have good and sufficient criteria for eliminating possibilities." [Ingham (1998b), 257] Thus, we should find all of the germani of Heinrich III an examine them for the likelihood that they could be Agatha's father. If "brother" is the appropriate definition of germanus in this case, as it seems to be, then the number of candidates is small (see Appendix 4). The possibility that there was another sibling of Heinrich who has escaped all of the records is remote. The reasons for excluding Ernst and Hermann as possible fathers for Agatha are given in Appendix 4, and these reasons are strong, if not airtight. I have here assumed that Heinrich III was the emperor intended [as is explicitly stated in John of Worcester's genealogical appendix, John Worc. 1: 275]. The possibility of Heinrich II will be ruled out below in the discussion of the Bruno Hypothesis.
     "The German Hypothesis has been criticized for the way in which the word germanus is used [Ingham (1998b), 258-60]. Clearly, the meaning of the word germanus is very important to this argument. The strict Latin definition is "full brother", i.e., a brother with both parents in common (as opposed to "half-brother": only one parent in common). An underlying assumption of the German Hypothesis (not clearly stated by its proponents) is that the term germanus allows the definition of half-brother, but also that it is no so loose as to just mean "relative". The usage of John of Worcester with regard to the word germanus (and its corresponding feminine form germana) is examined in detail in Appendix 3. As used by John, the word almost always denoted a sibling (one doubtful exception in more than 50 examples), usually a full sibling in those cases when the information about both parents is known, but sometimes only a half-sibling (two verified cases out of more than 50). Since Heinrich III appears to have had no full brothers (and since any such otherwise unknown full brother would be too young to be the father of Agatha), it seems highly probable that in this case a looser form of germanus was intended. But how loose? If germanus just meant "relative" in this case, why would Agatha be called a "daughter of a relative of Heinrich" instead of just being called a "relative of Heinrich"? The fact that she was called daughter of a germanus clearly indicates that the word germanus was intended in this case to be specific rather than general. Thus, if the information that Agatha was "filia germani imperatoris Heinrici" is true at all (and there is room for argument on that point), then germanus was probably intended to mean "male with at least one parent in common". For further discussion, see Appendix 3.
     "Of course, as the critics of the German Hypothesis would argue, the claim that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich III is only one of several possibilities given by the sources, so there is no guarantee that this underlying assumption of the German Hypothesis is correct. This disagreement of sources is a definite weakness of the German Hypothesis, a weakness shared with all of the other hypotheses. However, as noted above, critics of the hypothesis have gone further and suggested that the accounts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester have a simple explanation as a blunder. However, it has been shown above that this explanation is not so simple. In particular, why would John of Worcester (or his hypothetical Worcester Source), having supposedly deduced (from a statement similar to that of William of Malmesbury) that Agatha was a sister or daughter of an emperor Heinrich, give the specific information that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich, in direct contradiction to his alleged deduction? The evidence of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester (and one of Ailred's accounts) is open to the legitimate objection that contrary testimony exists, but the evididence cannot be explained away in the way that the supporters of the Russian Hypothesis would like.
     "Jetté made chronological objections to the suggestion that Liudolf was the father of Agatha: "However, the solution would require an exceptionally tight chronology, if Gisela were born in 993 as some have concluded and Agatha, proposed as Gisela's granddaughter, in about 1025." [Jetté (1996), 422, apparently using the date of 1025 given by Vajay (1962), 73, but note that Jetté himself had placed Agatha's birth as late as 1030 on p. 420]. However, as noted above, Agatha could have been born as much as a decade later (although 1030 would be more comfortable), and, as discussed in detail in Appendix 4, Liudolf was probably born before 1010.
     "Opponents of the German Hypothesis have also argued that Agatha's marriage is geographically hard to explain. The problem is that an Anglo-Saxon prince, apparently residing in Russia or Hungary, is proposed to have been married to a relative of the emperor, but there is no obvious political context for such a marriage. Vajay and Ronay claim that Eadweard and Agatha were married in 1043 or early 1044 as a result of a triple alliance between England, the Empire, and Russia in 1043 [Vajay (1962), 72-4; Ronay (1989), 118]. However, no real evidence is given for this statement. It is simply a conjecture to explain how an English prince and a relative of the emperor could have been married in Russia. Here, Ronay's attempt to use the Laws of Edward the Confessor on this point to support the German Hypothesis strains credulity. The lack of a convenient explanation how a German prince was married to an Anglo-Saxon exile in Russia or Hungary is a weakness of the German Hypothesis. However, the sources are scanty, and it is not wise to assume that every marriage can be placed in its correct political and geographical context by the surviving evidence. Nevertheless, this does tilt the argument somewhat in favor of scenarios like the Russian Hypothesis in which the marriage is more conveniently explained as a "local" event.
     "Onomastically, the name Agatha poses a significant difficulty for the German Hypothesis, as the name Agatha is unknown in Liudolf's family. Here, it should be noted that the ancestry of Liudolf's wife Gertrude has not been convincingly demonstrated, so that the name Agatha could have come from Gertrude's uncertain ancestry, or from Liudolf's paternal ancestry, also largely uncertain. In the latter direction, Donald Jackman, who accepts the German Hypothesis as proven, would explain Agatha's name on the basis of a conjectured distant Byzantine ancestry of Liudolf's father Bruno [Jackman (2000), 40-1, 56]. However, this supposed explanation involves too many conjectured links (and too distant a descent) to be convincing. On the whole, the onomastic argument has been overplayed, but it still somewhat weakens the case for the German Hypothesis. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion on onomastics.
     "If the German Hypothesis were valid, then the empress Matilda would be related to her first husband, the emperor Heinrich V. Heinrich V was the son of Heinrich IV, son of Heinrich III, son of the empress Gisela by her third marriage. On the other hand, Matilda was the daughter of Matilda/Eadgyth of Scotland, daughter of St. Margaret, daughter of Agatha, who would be daughter of Liudolf (assuming the German Hypothesis), son of Gisela by her first marriage. This possible consanguinity, apparently first pointed out by Andrew MacEwen [Faris-Richardson (1998), 235 n. 29], would make Matilda and Heinrich V second cousins twice removed (degree 3:5). While technically within a prohibited degree, it may have gone unnoticed. Marriages of degree 5 often "slipped through the system" and it is therefore not possible to rule out the German Hypothesis on this basis.
     "Not all of the arguments against the German Hypothesis have been fair. René Jetté, in criticizing this theory, wrote: "In order to satisfy the assertion of the two oldest chroniclers (table 2, extracts 1,2), nieces of an emperor Henry had to be invented." [Jetté (1996), 421] If this were a valid argument, then it would also be an argument against all of the other hypotheses which have been advanced, for in each case Agatha is being identified as an otherwise unknown daughter of some individual. In fact, some primary sources claim that Agatha was a niece of an emperor Heinrich, so it is unfair to suggest that those who use such a source (whether they be right or wrong in doing so) are "inventing" such a niece. As another example, in his criticism of the "German Hypothesis, Norman Ingham wrote the following: "Of more immediate concern, in my view, is the fact that Agatha's grandchildren appear not to have heard about her supposed imperial connections. It would seem nearly impossible that no word of a German tie or a relationship with a Holy Roman emperor reached them. They apparently were aware only that she was related somehow to a king of Hungary." [Ingham (1998b), 261] This statement seems unreasonable, and rather overzealous, for we have no such information about what the grandchildren did or did not know about their grandmother's ancestry. What we do have is a previous series of arguments from the author, by his own admission "very speculative" [ibid., 244], in which it is concluded that "(t)he grandchildren, as far as we can tell, did not subscribe to the imperial idea, no doubt because they had never heard it from their mother." [ibid., 243-4]. Turning speculation into "fact" is not a valid line of argument.
     "The German Hypothesis is the most natural deduction based on one set of the primary sources. Other primary sources contradict the German Hypothesis, which largely stands or falls on the reasonable, but far from conclusive, argument that the apparently earliest sources which give a relationship to emperor Heinrich are more reliable than those claiming a Hungarian connection. The geographical and onomastic evidence does not fit well, but that is far from decisive. In short, the German Hypothesis in neither so strong as its supporters would claim nor so weak as its critics would have us believe. In my opinion, it is a weak candidate which has the dubious distinction of being slightly more likely than its "strongest" (i.e., least weak) competitor (the Russian Hypothesis).
The Russian Hypothesis
     "In 1996, when René Jetté published his theory that Agatha was a daughter of Iaroslav I of Kiev [Jetté (1996)], the hypothesis was widely thought to be new. However, Pavsic cited an earlier example [Pavsic (2001), 82 n. 67] and a search of Google Books gives several examples that the theory that Agatha was a daughter of Iaroslav had been around since at least the 1800's [see, e.g., Nob. Univ. France 19: 51 (1840); Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica NS 2 (1877): 58; Felch (1894)], although I am unaware of an account earlier than Jetté's which actually sets out the main evidence. In 1998, the New England Historical and Genealogical Register published two articles on Agatha, one highly critical of Jetté's work [Faris-Richardson (1998)] and one highly supportive [Ingham (1998a)]. In the same year, Ingham published a very detailed article on the evidence for the Russian Hypothesis [Ingham (1998b)]. In 2000, an article by Janko Pavsic supported the Russian Hypothesis, concentrating on onomastic arguments [Pavsic (2000); English translation in Pavsic (2001)]. The Russian Hypothesis was also supported in two articles by William Humphreys in 2003 and 2004, although support in the second article wavered to the extent that an alternate scenario (the Byzantine Hypothesis) was proposed [Humphreys (2003, 2004)].
     "The two main primary sources which have been advanced as evidence for the Russian Hypothesis are William of Malmesbury and the Laws of Edward the Confessor. It is a late addition to the latter source which gives the most direct statement in favor of the Russian Hypothesis. The original version, written probably in the 1130's, states that Eadweard went to Russia, where he was received by king Malesclodus and married to a woman of noble descent ["... ad terram Rugorum, quam nos uocamus Russeiam. Quem rex ipsius terre, Malesclodus nomine, ut audiuit et intellexit, quis et unde esset, honeste retinuit eum. Et ipse Ædwardus accepit ibi uxorem ex nobili genere..." Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35-35.1 (p. 664), see above]. As discussed in Appendix 6, Malesclodus was probably Iaroslav I. Then, an addition made around the year 1200 states that St. Margaret was descended through her mother from the kings of Russia ["ex parte uero matris ex genere et sanguine regum Rugorum..." Laws Edw. Conf., c. 35.1*** (p. 664)]. This does not explicitly call Margaret's mother a daughter of Malesclodus, but that would seem to be the natural interpretation. One of the principle pieces of evidence for the Russian Hypothesisis the Gesta Regum of William of Malmesbury, which states that Agatha was a sister of the queen of Hungary. Since one of the queens of Hungary during that period was Anastasia, daughter of Iaroslav I and wife of king Andrew I of Hungary, this supports the Russian Hypothesis.
     "The testimony of Geoffrey Gaimar has also been used by proponents of the Russian Hypothesis. In mentioning the arrival of the exiled princes in Hungary, Geoffrey gives "Gardimbre" as the name of the city where the king and queen of Hungary resided [Gaimar 4586-8]. Influenced by the fact that a few lines earlier Geoffrey had mentioned passing by Russia on the way to Hungary, René Jetté identifies Gardimbre with a Russian stronghold of Gardorika on Lake Logoda [Jetté (1996), 419]. Norman Ingham states that Gardimbre is probably an Old French rendition of Old Scandinavian gárðr ("fortified town") or less likely gárðaríki ("realm of towns"), and that Gárðr was sometimes applied as a place-name in Old Scandinavian sources to Novgorod or Kiev [Ingham (1998), 239]. Ingham then goes on to suggest that Geoffrey was mistaking Russia for Hungary, saying: "It would seem to follow, then, that his king and queen of Hungary may in actuality represent the grand prince and princess of Kiev and that Gardimbre ought to be Kiev itself." [Ingham (1998b), 239-40]
     "The proposed parentage of Agatha would fit well geographically and politically with Eadweard's probable exile in Russia. This is a definite point in favor of the Russian Hypothesis as compared with the German Hypothesis. It has been pointed out by Norman Ingham that an eleventh century fresco appears to show that Iaroslav had five daughters [Ingham (1998a)]. If accepted as evidence, this would at least show that Iaroslav had additional daughters above and beyond the ones who had already been identified. As discussed in Appendix 1, it has also been argued that the onomastic evidence favors the Russian Hypothesis.
     "Critics of the Russian Hypothesis have advanced the following objections:
** The interpolation to the Laws of Edward the Confessor is late and possibly unreliable, while the earliest version says nothing about Agatha being descended from Russian kings.
** The account of William of Malmesbury is not necessarily more reliable than the other twelfth century authorities.
** William of Malmesbury's statement is vague, and he does not specify which queen of Hungary was supposedly Agatha's sister.
** It is suggested that the testimony of Geoffrey Gaimar has been misused.
** The sources show no indication that Philippe I or Louis VI of France were related to St. Margaret or to Eadgyth/Matilda, wife of Henry I of England.
** The fresco is questioned as evidence for the existence of five daughters of Iaroslav.
** It is argued that the onomastic evidence for the Russian Hypothesis has been overplayed.
** It is suggested that Iaroslav might not have regarded Eadweard as a suitable son-in-law.
** If the Russian Hypothesis were true, then certain marriages would be consanguineous to a prohibited degree.
** As is discussed in the following paragraphs, some of these objections are valid and some are not.
     "In the Laws of Edward the Confessor, the strongest statement about Agatha's origin that she was descended from Russian kings comes only from an interpolation which can be dated about 1200. Jetté misstated the evidence when he claimed that the version of the Laws inserted in Roger of Hoveden calls Agatha a Russian princess [Jetté (1996), 420], and he was severely criticized for this by Faris and Richardson [Faris-Richardson (1998), 225-6]. Indeed, Jetté is wrong on two counts here, because "descended from Russian Kings" is not the same thing as "Russian princess" and because the statement does not appear in Roger of Hoveden but in the later interpolation. On the other hand, Faris and Richardson are wrong when they then rely on the following misleading statements of Ronay: "... the glossarist's description of Agatha as a lady of royal blood related to the ruler of Russia. From the phrasing, however, it is clear that the Englist glossarist had no intention of presenting Agatha as a daughter of Yaroslav the Great. He was simply restating ... that Agatha was of royal blood and had married a royal relation of the ruler of Russia in Russia." [Ronay (1989), 117-8] The words "lady of royal blood related to the ruler of Russia" are also not an accurate description of the words in the interpolation, and Ronay is relying here on the probably false claim that Eadweard's mother was a sister of Iaroslav's wife [see below for more on this]. Commenting on these texts, Norman Ingham acknowledged that neither the original text nor the interpolated text explicitly states that Eadweard married a daughter of the Russian king, but then goes on to say that "(b)oth, nonetheless, imply it, and no other interpretation of either looks plausible." [Ingham (1998b), 255] This is a reasonable interpretation of the interpolated text, which, however, as a late expansion of the original text, has very little authority. On the other hand, the uninterpolated text quite emphatically makes no such implication. It states only that Eadweard's wife was of noble descent ("ex nobili genere"), which in no way implies that she was the daughter of a king or even of royal descent. In isolation, the statement would be consistent with Eadweard's wife being a daughter of the Russian king, but, as noted by John Carmi Parsons, the writer of the uninterpolated text does not give this impression [Parsons (2002), 48]. Since the Russian king had been mentioned in the previous sentence, the writer would probably have identified Agatha as the king's daughter instead of describing her as "of noble descent" if he had really thought that they were father and daughter. Thus, as useful as the Laws of Edward the Confessor are for verifying the exile in Russia and for providing us with Russia as the possible location of Agatha's marriage, the use of this source as direct evidence for the parentage of Agatha is questionable.
     "This places a higher burden on the information gleaned from William of Malmesbury, the other principle source for the Russian Hypothesis. The Russian Hypothesis requires that William's statement about Agatha's origin be accepted in preference to the contradictory statements contained in several other chroniclers. Ingham and Humphreys have argued in favor of giving preference to William's information [Ingham (1998b), 240-252; Humphreys (2003), 37-42], but the scenarios which they offer for the transmission of the information about Agatha's parentage are extremely speculative. William's information may indeed be the correct version, but as discussed above, there is no compelling reason to accept his account at the expense of the other, contradictory, accounts.
     "When William states that Agatha was a sister of the queen of Hungary, he does not come to our assistance by identifying that queen ["Filii ejus Edwius et Edwardus, missi ad regem Swevorum ut perimerentur, sed miseratione ejus conservati, Hunorum regem petierunt; ubi, dum benigne aliquo tempore habiti essent, major diem obiit, minor Agatham reginæ sororem in matrimonium accepit." Wm. Malmes., Gesta Regum, c. 180 (vol. 1, p. 218)]. As critics of the hypothesis have noted, William's failure to specify which queen of Hungary he was claiming to be Agatha's sister means that it is not clear that he was referring to Anastasia, wife of Andrew I. Thus, the process of elimination (a method criticized by supporters of the Russian Hypothesis when arguing against the German Hypothesis), becomes an important method for identifying the Hungarian queen mentioned by William of Malmesbury. Unfortunately, this point is poorly covered in the papers supporting the Russian Hypothesis, which don't even attempt to list the Hungarian queens during the relevant period, let alone try to rule out the ones other than Anastasia. The problem of other candidates was pointed out by Parsons, who gives a list of the possible queens of Hungary during the period, taken from standard secondary sources [Parsons (2002), 46]. Mladjov briefly considered the two wives (or supposed wives) of Peter Orseolo (king of Hungary, 1038-41, 1044-6) who were mentioned by Parsons, and rejected them as possible sisters of Agatha for "political considerations", stating that "it is virtually impossible that Agatha would have been the sister-in-law of the very monarch her host András I toppled in 1046." [Mladjov (2003), 21, 42-3, 71-2]. While it would undoubtedly be a negative factor, the claim that it is "virtually impossible" is surely an overstatement. Indeed, the slimness of the surviving information makes it difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a complete list of candidates. The queens of Hungary (or wives of kings) during the period are discussed in Appendix 5. It can be seen that there were other queens of Hungary besides Anastasia during the period, some of whom might not even be documented in the records. In fact, one of the other hypotheses which has been proposed (the Polish Hypothesis discussed below) suggests that Agatha was a sister of a different Hungarian queen. Thus, even though the Polish Hypothesis seems less likely than the Russian Hypothesis it is difficult to insist that William of Malmesbury's sister of a queen of Hungary (assuming the information to be accurate) necessarily refers to a daughter of Iaroslav I.
     "The testimony of Geoffrey Gaimar has been used by the proponents of the Russian Hypothesis in a very questionable way. As noted above, Geoffrey Gaimar is not a reliable source. Much is based on the identification of Geoffrey's Gardimbre, a conjecture apparently based mainly on the coincidence of the first four letters of a nine letter name, which is then used to suggest that Geoffrey's Hungarian king was really the Russian king. In fact, it is simply not appropriate to take an already unreliable source and to emend its statements in some significant way for the purpose of using that altered statement as "evidence" in support of some position, as has been done in this case.
     "One of the well documented daughters of Iaroslav I is Anna, wife of Henri I, king of France ["... uxorem duxit nomine Annam, filiam Georgii Sclavi regis Rutiorum ..." Ex Chronici Veteris excerpto, s.a. 1047, RHF 11: 159; "Qui post Mahildis reginæ humationem, accepit aliam conjugem, videlicet filiam Jurischloht regis Russorum, nomine Annam" Ex Historiæ Franc. Fragmento, RHF 11: 161; "... ad quemdam regem in finibus Græciæ qui vocabatur Gerisclo, de terra Rusciæ, ut daret sibi filiam suam in uxorem" Ex Chron. S. Petri Vivi Senon., RHF 11: 197; "Hic ex Anna filia regis Russiæ, nomine Buflesdoc" Ex Abbrev. Gest. Franciae Regum, RHF 11: 213; etc.]. John Carmi Parsons has pointed out that if Agatha were a daughter of Iaroslav I of Kiev, then her children, including Margaret, would have been first cousins of king Philippe I of France, and Margaret's daughter-in-law Eadgyth/Matilda, wife of Henry I of England, would have been first cousin once-removed of Philippe and second cousin to Philippe's son Louis VI [Parsons (2002), 43]. Given the close relation between England, Scotland, and France during that time, one would except to see such relationships mentioned in the chronicles if they were in fact true. Yet there is no trace of such relationships in the known sources. While such an argument from silence is not conclusive, it is a strike against the Russian Hypothesis.
     "Norman Ingham pointed out that an eleventh century fresco "appears to have represented Grand Prince Iaroslav Mudryi" and his wife, he being flanked by as many as five sons and she by five daughters [Ingham (1998b), 231; for pictures, see Ingham (1998a), 216, 222]. If this is an accurate family portrait, it would prove that Iaroslav had more than the three daughters who are known by western sources [most notably Adam of Bremen: "Haroldus a Graecia regressus, filiam regis Ruziae Gerzlef uxorem accepit. Alteram tulit Andreas, rex Ungrorum, de qua genitus est Salomon. Terciam duxit rex Francorum Heinricus, quae peperit ei Philippus." Adam of Bremen, iii, 11, Scholia 63, MGH SS 7: 339]. Ingham admits that the number of sons is not right [Ingham (1998b), 231-2], and suggested that "(s)ymmetry no doubt required five sons to balance five daughters in the composition." [ibid., 232 n. 3] However, as noted by Parsons, if the number of sons is not right, then the number of daughters need not be right [Parsons (2002), 41-2]. Also, since the daughters are not identified anyway, there is no evidence from the fresco that one of them was Agatha, even if we allowed the existence of more daughters (which is likely enough).
     "Onomastics has played a major role in some of the articles arguing in favor of the Russian Hypothesis [Ingham (1998a); Pavsic (2000, 2001)]. The connection of onomastics to the problem of Agatha's origin is discussed in detail in Appendix 1. Since neither the name of Agatha nor the names of any of her children have been shown to have appeared previously in the families of Iaroslav or his wife, the onomastic argument in favor of the Russian Hypothesis is weak, and has been overplayed, especially by Pavsic. However, Ingham did point out that the names Agatha, Margaret, and Christina all appeared in one of the oldest sources for the availability of saints' names in Russia [Ingham (1998a), 220]. Thus, even though the onomastic evidence is not strong, the Russian Hypothesis does fare a bit better in this regard than its chief competitor, the German Hypothesis. There is an interesting, if questionable, conjecture which would, if true, improve the onomastic evidence for the Russian Hypothesis. In a genealogical table published in 2000, Donald C. Jackman makes Iaroslav I of Kiev a son of Vladimir I by his wife Anna of Byzantium, without offering a source [Jackman (2000), 47]. Although this contradicts the primary evidence, which states that Iaroslav was a son of Vladimir by his wife Rogned, William Humphreys in 2004 suggested that Iaroslav might have been a son of Anna [Humphreys (2004), 284-5; Jackman's table is noted]. In 2008, Jackman gave a detailed argument why Iaroslav might have been a son of Anna [Jackman (2008), 66-75]. The point of onomastic interest is that Anna had an aunt named Agatha. However, the point is very speculative.
     "In his criticism of the Russian Hypothesis, John Carmi Parsons questions whether Iaroslav would have seen Eadweard ("a landless wanderer") as a viable son-in-law [Parsons (2002), 42]. He points out that in the mid-1040's there was no reason to expect that king Eadweard the Confessor would not have a son. This objection is difficult to judge, because we really know very little about Eadweard's life as an exile, and we don't know the extent to which he was in regular contact with friends in England (if at all). The fact is that there was apparently only one life separating Eadweard the Exile from the English throne, and he would seem to be a fairly attractive candidate for a son-in-law. Thus, it is difficult to accept this as a valid negative argument against the Russian Hypothesis.
     "As with the German Hypothesis, objections regarding consanguineous marriages have been made against the Russian Hypothesis, but these do not appear to pose any serious problems. One of these objections can be quickly dismissed. Faris and Richardson pointed out that according to information given by Ronay, Eadweard the Exile was a first cousin to the children of Iaroslav and his wife Ingegerd of Sweden [Faris-Richardson (1998), 234]. However, as Faris and Richardson acknowledge, Ronay offers no documentation for his claim that Ingegerd was a half-sister of Eadweard's mother Ealdgyth [Ronay (1984), 45; Ronay (1989), 53 & n. 2 (p. 193)]. Indeed, there is no good reason to accept Ronay's improbable statement [see the page of Ealdgyth]. Of more consequence is a possible consanguinity noted by Andrew Mac Ewen [Faris-Richardson (1998), 234 & n. 28]. Agatha's great-grandson, Henry of Scotland, earl of Northumberland (son of David I, son of Margaret, daughter of Agatha), was married to Iaroslav's great-great-granddaughter Ada de Warenne (daughter of Isabel de Vermandois, daughter of Hugues le Grand, count of Vermandois, son of Anna of Kiev, daughter of Iaroslav). Thus, if Agatha were a daughter of Iaroslav, Henry and Ada would be third cousins (degree 4:4), technically within the forbidden degree. However, such marriages happened often enough that this should not be regarded as a serious objection to the Russian Hypothesis. An example involving fourth cousins once removed (degree 5:6) given by Mladjov would be of no consequence [Mladjov (2003), 66].
     "The Russian Hypothesis has also been on the receiving end of some unfair criticism. Faris and Richardson write: "The reader, having been informed by Jetté that a previously unknown daughter of Jaroslav has been identified, might expect some explanation why this discovery has been so long delayed, and why she has not shown up in previous work on the princes of Kiev." [Faris-Richardson (1998), 226-7]. For such a statement to be regarded as a reasonable point, it would first be necessary to show that the existing sources are sufficiently comprehensive that it is unlikely that any daughter has been missed by the surviving sources. This is clearly not the case for the daughters of Iaroslav. In fact, the three previously known daughters of Iaroslav are all absent from Russian sources, and appear only in various Western sources.
     "The Russian Hypothesis depends heavily on the acceptance of the priority of William of Malmesbury as a source for Agatha's origin, and on a specific identity for a vaguely identified Hungarian queen. It does have the advantage of providing a very plausible scenario for the marriage, but on the whole the case has been overstated by its proponents. Comparing the Russian Hypothesis with its main competitor, the German Hypothesis, the direct evidence for the German Hypothesis is significantly better, because the evidence is earlier and the process of elimination involved in the German Hypothesis is relatively straightforward, whereas the search for Hungarian queens produces and alternate candidate and runs into the problem of the thinner Eastern European records, where a complete list cannot be compiled with any confidence. This is mitigated significantly by the geographical and onomastic evidence, which tilt the case to some degree back toward the Russian Hypothesis. While the hypothesis remains somewhat less likely than the German Hypothesis, in my opinion, it is still significantly more likely than all of the other hypotheses.
The Bruno Hypothesis
     "The hypothesis that Agatha was a daughter of Bruno, bishop of Augsburg from 1007 to 1029, brother of emperor Heinrich II, has been around since at least 1763, when it was argued by György Pray [Pray (1763), 1: 27-8]. In 1779, István Katona supported the Bruno Hypothesis, as did Peter Friedrich Suhm in 1787 [Katona (1779), 1: 260-3; 2: 97-107, not seen by me, cited by Herzog (1939), 1; Suhm (1787), 3: 726]. In 1877, Edward A. Freeman seemed tentatively to reach the same conclusion [Freeman (1870-9), 2: 376, 671-2]. More recently, in 1954, R. L. Græme Ritchie, after rejecting the Hungarian Hypothesis, concluded that the Bruno Hypothesis was "perfectly tenable" [Ritchie (1954), 392]. The logic of the Bruno Hypothesis is essentially the same as for the German Hypothesis, except starting with a different emperor Heinrich. If one takes the statement of John of Worcester and others that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of an emperor Heinrich, and then identifies this Heinrich with Heinrich II (d. 1024), one obtains Heinrich's brother bishop Bruno as the obvious candidate.
     "The most obvious objection to the "Bruno Hypothesis" is that Bruno was a bishop, and that in order for a daughter to be legitimate, she would have had to be born before 1007. Ritchie's claim that "in his day there was no canonical reason for celibacy" is totally unconvincing [Ritchie (1954), 392]. Another very serious problem with the Bruno Hypothesis is that the genealogical appendix of John of Worcester explicitly states that Agatha was a daughter of a germanus of Heinrich III, not Heinrich II. It cannot be directly proven that Agatha was not an illegitimate daughter of Bruno, but it is very improbable.
     "As a variation of this hypothesis, one could suggest that Agatha was a daughter of Arnold, archbishop of Ravenna from 1014 to 1018, illegitimate half-brother of Heinrich II [Ann. Quedl., s.a. 1014, MGH SS 3: 82; s.a. 1018, p. 84; Thietmar, Chron., vii, 2, MGH SS 3: 837; vii, 49, p. 858]. This is likewise improbable.
The Hungarian Hypothesis
     "The Hungarian Hypothesis, which makes Agatha a daughter of king Stephen (István) I of Hungary by his wife Gisela, sister of the emperor Heinrich II, has been popular with those who would like to reconcile the contradictory information of the primary sources. The first notice of this theory of which I am aware was in 1778, when Daniel Cornides made this conclusion, called the "Hungarian Hypothesis" [Cornides (1778), 232-9; reference courtesy of Todd Farmerie]. In 1879, Harry Breßlau argued for the Hungarian Hypothesis in his Jahrbücher for the emperor Konrad II [Breßlau (1879-84), 1: 102 n. 1]. The hypothesis was also supported in 1938 by Sándor Fest [Fest (1938)] and in 1952 by G. Andrews Moriarty [Moriarty (1952), 60].
     "If one wants to reconcile the statements that Agatha was a daughter of the king of Hungary with the statements that she was a relative of an emperor Heinrich, then two kings of Hungary stand out: Stephen I, who married Gisela, sister of Heinrich II, and Salomon, who married Judith, daughter of Heinrich III and sister of Heinrich IV [see Appendix 5]. A quick look at chronology quickly eliminates Salomon as a possible father for Agatha, so that Stephen and Gisela stand out.
     "The statement of John of Worcester that Agatha was "filiam germani imperatoris Heinrici" is dealt with in two different ways. Breßlau suggested that germanus ("brother") should be emended to germana ("sister"), which, since Heinrich II had only one known sister, would mean Gisela, apparently fitting perfectly with the statement of Geoffrey Gaimar that Agatha was a daughter of the king of Hungary. Fest arrived at the same conclusion by claiming that germanus could mean "brother-in-law" [Fest (1938), 125]. Thus, the Hungarian Hypothesis would seem to reconcile all but one of the main twelfth century sources on Agatha's origin. However, it does this by using an extended meaning of germanus (or an emendation) and by ignoring the testimony of William of Malmesbury.
     "A number of objections have been raised against the Hungarian Hypothesis, mostly by Vajay and Ritchie:
** The sources which indicate that Agatha was a daughter of a king of Hungary are all probelmatic.
** It is said that Stephen had no surviving children. A surviving daughter of Stephen would be an heir to the Hungarian throne, yet the continental sources say nothing of such a daughter.
** According to Vajay, a daughter of Stephen would make a chronologically unlikely wife for Eadweard.
** The hypothesis involves either an emendation or an abuse of the word germanus, and the genealogical appendix of John of Worcester specifies Heinrich III, and not Heinrich II, as the emperor to whom Agatha was related.
** Stephen I was canonized in 1083, and it is unlikely that his name would have gone unmentioned if he were in fact the father.
     "As noted above, all of the main twelfth century sources which either state or indicate that Agatha was a daughter of the king of Hungary have significant problems. Geoffrey Gaimar is not a reliable source, Orderic Vitalis makes the chronologically impossible statement that Salomon was Agatha's father, Ailred of Rievaulx, after indicating that St. Margaret had royal Hungarian ancestry, goes on to distinguish Agatha from the daughter of the Hungarian king, who is said by Ailred to have married Eadweard's brother. Thus, there is no reason to believe in the reliability of the statements that Agatha was a daughter of a king of Hungary.
     "The Annales Altahenses Maiores state that Stephen had no surviving sons ["Stephanus bonae memoriae rex..., cum filius eius patre superstite esset mortuus, quoniam alium non habuit filium..." Annales Altahenses Maiores, s.a. 1041, MGH SS 20: 794]. Some later Hungarian chronicles indicate that Stephen had no surviving children [e.g., "Nam maxime eapropter, ut de suo sanguine dignus nullus esset regni corona sublimari..." Simon of Kéza, Gesta Hungarorum, ii, 24, Chron. Hung., 78; Vajay (1962), 75 n. 3]. It is difficult to accept these statements as completely ruling out daughters. However, Stephen is unlikely to have had any surviving daughters who were politically significant. Any son-in-law of Stephen would have been a potential heir to the Hungarian throne, and the silence of the sources would therefore be difficult to explain unless any such son-in-law remained in the political background for some reason. Even unmarried, a surviving daughter who had not entered religion would have been likely to become a valuable matrimonial pawn in the power struggle that emerged after Stephen's death.
     "It has also been suggested that any daughter of Stephen would be too old to be the wife of Eadweard or the mother of Eadgar the Ætheling [Vajay (1962), 71-2]. In fact, the evidence for this is unclear. Vajay states that Stephen became engaged to his wife Gisela in 996 and that all of their children were born between 1001 and 1010, but he cites only secondary sources in Hungarian for these statements [Vajay (1962), 71, 75 n. 2, 9]. In fact, these dates are far from clear. Two German chronicles place the marriage of Stephen and Gisela in 1009 [MGH SS 9: 567, 574]. The birthdate of Gisela is not clear, but her brother Heinrich II was born on 6 May 973 [Hirsch (1862-75), 1: 88], and Gisela could very well have been born in the 980's. Thus, even though it is likely that Stephen's children were older than Eadweard, we cannot rule out the possibility that he had a daughter who was younger than Eadweard. Thus, the chronological objection may not be valid.
     "Breßlau suggests emending the word germana to germanus. Fest suggests that the word germanus may also mean brother-in-law, a definition which is outside its normal meaning (see Appendix 3). The latter interpretation is especially unlikely in this case, because "daughter of a brother-in-law" is an especially awkward way of describing a niece, and it is very doubtful that a chronicler would use a desription like this. Furthermore, the Hungarian Hypothesis requires that the emperor being mentioned is Heinrich II, whereas the genealogical appendix of John of Worcester shows that it was Heinrich III who was intended. Thus, it is very difficult to argue that the evidence of John of Worcester favors the Hungarian Hypothesis.
     "As Ritchie noted, king Stephen I of Hungary was canonized in 1083 [Ritchie (1954), 390]. Agatha's daughter Margaret of Scotland died ten years later, in 1093. If she had been the granddaughter of a saint, then that fact would have been well known, and it is extremely improbable that her biographer Turgot would have failed to mention it. Also, the sources which call Agatha a daughter of an unidentified king of Hungary would probably have given Stephen's name if that famous king were her father.
     "Thus, although the chronological objection is not that convincing, the other objections carry significant weight. Although it has not been ruled out quite so conclusively as some would claim, the Hungarian Hypothesis is still a very improbable solution to the question of Agatha's origins.
     "It should be noticed that the Hungarian Hypothesis has some further variations. The variation in which Eadweard marries the daughter of a different Hungarian king is discussed in the next section. Another, in which the groom is Eadweard's brother Eadmund, is discussed in Appendix 2. A third variant, in which Agatha marries a step-daughter of king Aba Samuel of Hungary, is part of the Bulgarian Hypothesis, and is discussed under that heading.
A variation of the Hungarian Hypothesis
     "There are some variations of the Hungarian Hypothesis which have not been proposed by any author to my knowledge, but should at least be briefly discussed. Geoffrey Gaimar states that the wife of "Eadgar" (the name that he uses for Eadweard the Exile) was a daughter of an unidentified Hungarian king. Ailred, in one of his conflicting accounts, states that St. Margaret was descended on her mother's side from the blood of Hungarian kings, but does not specify a line of descent. Thus, we should also try to rule out the possibility that Agatha was the daughter of some Hungarian king other than Stephen.
     "Jetté rules out this possibility by stating that "a brother-in-law or son-in-law of Peter Orseolo or of Aba Samuel would not have been given lodging by their rival and successor Andrew I." [Jetté (1996), 421] But is that true? Trying to determine political motivation from such scanty evidence is risky business. Stephen I, who, having no surviving sons, favored his sister's son Peter Orseolo as his successor, blinded one of his brother's sons and sent the children of the latter into exile [Annales Altahenses Maiores, s.a. 1041, MGH SS 20: 794]. If the blinded prince was Andrew's father, as seems highly probable, then it is very understandable that Andrew might not want to have any contact with relatives of the pro-German Peter Orseolo. Nevertheless, the old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" is relevant here. Even though the argument makes a connection less likely, it does not rule it out. Furthermore, there seems to be no reason to believe that Andrew had anything personal against his predecessor Aba Samuel.
     "Nevertheless, even though Agatha's filiation as a daughter of some other Hungarian king cannot be definitively ruled out, there does not seem to be any good reason to support such a revised Hungarian scenario.
The Cristinus Hypothesis
     "In his 2002 paper on Agatha, John Carmi Parsons, after discussing the German Hypothesis and the Russian Hypothesis, concluded that the matter was not proven either way [Parsons (2002), 51]. He then followed up by offering "two more theories to indicate just how far we are from the last word on the question." [ibid., 52] First, he asked whether Eadweard the Exile married twice. This possibility, which was not discussed in any detail, would help to explain the different accounts we have of Agatha's parentage, but there is no evidence that Eadweard was married more than once. Still, the question does serve its stated purpose of emphasizing the lack of any definitive solution.
     "The second theory offered the possibility that Agatha was a daughter of a certain count Cristinus by his wife Oda, daughter of count Bernard of Haldensleben by a daughter of Vladimir I of Kiev. Parsons noted that this descent would give Agatha the Russian royal ancestry suggested by the late interpolation to the Laws of Edward the Confessor, and that the name of Cristinus would explain the name of Agatha's daughter Christina. Also, it is suggested that this would make Agatha a descendant in the sixth generation of emperor Otto I, thus explaining the reference to Agatha as an emperor's kinswoman.
     "In my opinion, this theory has little to recemmend it. The supposed Russian link, going back only to a great-grandparent, is rather distant, and the onomastic link is tenuous. The supposed descent from Otto I is based in part on links which are themselves very controversial, and even if true, it is unlikely that someone whose only relationship to the emperor was six generations back would be considered a kinswoman of the emperor.
The Bulgarian Hypothesis
     "The "Bulgarian Hypothesis", due to Ian Mladjov, first appeared in an article published in 2003 [Mladjov (2003)]. Mladjov proposed that Agatha was a daughter of Gavril Radomir (d. 1015), emperor of Bulgaria, a maternal granddaughter of king Géza I of Hungary (d. 997), and a stepdaughter of Aba Samuel (d. 1044), another king of Hungary. This scenario would also give Agatha a paternal grandmother of the same name.
     "Mladjov's main primary source is a passage in a twelfth century recesion of the Compendium Historiarum of Ioannes Skylitzes by bishop Mikhael of Devol. (Here, I am handicapped by the poor publishing standards mentioned above, in which apparently accented characters are replaced by spaces in the published version of Mladjov's article. I have replaced these spaces with what I think might be the correct characters, in unaccented italics. This affects only proper names, and any errors in the italicized characters are my own.) The English translation (by Mladjov?) of the passage reads:
     ""His son Gavril, who was also called Radomir, succeeded to the rule of the Bulgarians. He excelled his father in prowess and strength but lagged far behind him in wisdom and intelligence. He was the son of Samuil by Agatha, the daughter of Ioannes Khrysalios, the governor of Durazzo. He began reigning on the 15th of October, in the 13th Indiction. But he did not complete even one year and was killed, when he was going hunting, by Aaron's son Ivan, also called Vladislav, whom he had saved from death when he had been about to perish. Radomir, who was married to the daughter of the king of Hungary, began loathing her for reasons unknown to me and sent her away, when she was pregnant by him. And he married Eirene, a beautiful captive from Larissa." [Mladjov (2003), 50, citing Skylitzes, with the passage quoted in the original language (which I do not recognize, but might be Greek transliterated into Latin characters)]
     "Mladjov's proposal is that Agatha was the child with whom Gavril Radomir's Hungarian wife was pregnant when he sent her away [Mladjov (2003), 55-6]. The time that the bride was sent away is unclear, except that it was before the death of Gavril Radomir's father Samuil, emperor of Bulgaria, who died in 1014, according to another passage in Mikhael's recension of Skulitzes [Mladjov (2003), 53-4]. Mladjov places this at about the latest possible date, concluding that Gavril Radomir divorced his Hungarian wife and married Eirene in early 1014 [ibid., 54]. Mladjov suggests, reasonably, that the rejected wife would have returned to her Hungarian homeland to have her child. Chronology indicates that this wife's father was probably Géza I (d. 997) and that she was a sister of István (Stephen) I. Mladjov suggests that this princess was then married to Aba Samuel, the later king of Hungary who is called a sororius of Stephen in a thirteenth century Hungarian source, and is therefore believed to have married a sister of Stephen. Thus, if all of this conjecture is true, Agatha would have been a step-daughter of Aba Samuel, fitting reasonably well with those statements which make her a daughter of a Hungarian king. If this is all accepted, then onomastics would be the icing on the cake, for as has been noted, Gavril Radomir's mother was named Agatha. Mladjov even claims that the theory agrees with the statements in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that Agatha was a relative of the emperor.
     "This last claim can be quickly and thoroughly dismissed. The closest connection between a child of Gavril Radomir's Hungarian wife and an emperor would be that the child's (probable) maternal uncle was married to a sister of the emperor. This is clearly not a blood relationship and it is clear that at this point the author was trying to stretch his arguments too far. Even though the Bulgarian Hypothesis is attractive in some ways, there are two serious problems beyond the lack of direct evidence which keep it from being a serious contender. One problem is the identification of Gavril Radomir's rejected wife as the wife of Aba Samuel. This is nothing but conjecture, and the hypothesis is seriously weakened if the identification is not correct.
     "The other difficulty is the very serious problem of chronology. Gavril Radomir is said to have had at least five children by his second wife Eirene, whom he married after the rejection of his Hungarian wife [Mladjov (2003), 53, 76]. Since Gavril Radomir died in 1015, his youngest child would be born no later than 1016, and probably earlier. Thus, the last child born to Gavril Radomir's Hungarian wife is likely to have been born earlier than 1005, which would be an improbably early birthdate for Agatha. True, it is possible, as Mladjov notes, to conjecture a date of birth for this child as late as 1014 by various arguments, for example, Mladjov's suggestion that Gavril Radomir's second wife was a longtime mistress by whom he already had several children when he married her [Mladjov (2003), 54]. However, this involves further guesswork, and all that Mladjov succeeds in proving is that the Bulgarian Hypothesis is not impossible. In my opinion, it is far from likely.
The Byzantine Hypothesis
     "In 2004, William Humphreys proposed as an alternate hypothesis the possibility that Agatha was a sister of Anastasia, wife of Iaroslav's son Vsevelod (d. 1093), and apparently daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX "Monomachos" [Humphreys (2004), 280]. This is the "Byzantine Hypothesis".
     "The logic of this hypothesis is not very clearly stated, partly because the author tends to dance around the main points by asking questions rather than just making direct statements. Nevertheless, the two main points put forward, neither of them at all convincing, are the following:
** It is suggested that William of Malmesbury's reference to Agatha as a sister of the queen might have been referring to the queen of Russia rather than the queen of Hungary.
** It is suggested that references to the emperor in sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and John of Worcester might have been to the Byzantine Emperor rather than the Holy Roman Emperor.
     "Humphreys indicates that when William of Malmesbury refers to the princes taking refuge with the king of the "Huns", this was probably in Russia and not Hungary. While it is true that the princes were probably in exile in Russia before they were in Hungary, it would still be a significant emendation of William's account to suggest that he was calling Agatha a sister of the Russian queen.
     "With regard to the statement of John of Worcester that Agatha was "filia germani imperatoris Heinrici" Humphreys points out that one of the meanings of germanus is "true" when used as an adjective, suggesting that the "true" emperor referred to the Byzantine emperor. This suggestion has no reasonable basis whatsoever. Not only does Humphreys fail to offer any evidence that the word germanus was ever used in that way to describe a Byzantine emperor, but the presence of the name Henricus clearly shows that it was not intended to be interpreted that way in this case. Humphreys also suggests that Ailred's above use of the term "Imperator Romanus" might refer to an emperor named Romanus (such as the Byzantine emperor Romanus III, d. 1034) rather than the "Roman Emperor". While that would be a grammatically allowable interpretation of that particular sentence taken in isolation, other statements of Ailred rule this out, showing clearly that he was referring to an emperor named Heinrich.
     "In fact, even the author stated that he considered this scenario to be less likely than the Russian Hypothesis [Humphreys (2004), 287]. The Byzantine Hypothesis should be firmly rejected.
The Polish Hypothesis
     "The most recent new theory on the origin of Agatha is the "Polish Hypothesis". Proposed by John P. Ravilious in 2009, the Polish Hypothesis conjectures Agatha to be a daughter of duke Mieszko II of Poland [Ravilious (2009)]. Since Mieszko's wife Richenza was a maternal granddaughter of emperor Otto II by his Byzantine wife Theophano, the Polish Hypothesis would, if true, lead to some interesting ancestry for Agatha.
     "The author starts by pointing out that king Cnut of England and Denmark was related to the Polish royal family through his mother, a daughter of Mieszko I of Poland and sister of Boleslaw I, and thus had close relations with Poland [Ravilious (2009), 71-2]. This connection is well documented by a statement of Thietmar of Merseburg [Thietmar, Chron., vii, 28, MGH SS 3: 848-9]. Ravilious then revives an argument of Johannes Steenstrup that the rex Suanorum/Suuanorum of John of Worcester and the rex Swevorum of William of Malmesbury is not the king of Sweden, but the king of the Slavs [Steenstrup (1876-82); Ravilious (2009), 72-4]. Thus, he argues, Cnut sent the two princes to a Slavic land, and the obvious choice would be Poland, with which Cnut had close relations. The author then points out that until 1031, Boleslaw I and his son Mieszko II of Poland held Ruthenia ("Red Russia") and thus was "effectively the 'king of Red Russia'." [Ravilious (2009), 74-5] This leads to the key identification of the Malesclodus of the Laws of Edward the Confessor as being not Iaroslav, but Mieszko II of Poland [ibid., 75]. With Agatha conjectured as a daughter of Mieszko II, William of Malmesbury is then called in to support the case, for a daughter of Mieszko II was married to king Béla I of Hungary, and thus in this scenario Agatha would also be a sister of a Hungarian queen. The fact that a daughter of Mieszko II and his queen Richenza would also be a descendant of emperor Otto II is then called into play to explain the references to Agatha as a relative of the emperor.
     "The Polish Hypothesis is similar to the Russian Hypothesis in that both make important use of the Laws of Edward the Confessor and both invoke the support of William of Malmesbury by making Agatha sister of a queen of Hungary. However, the Polish Hypothesis inherits most of the disadvantages of the Russian Hypothesis, while gaining few of the advantages in return. Relying heavily on the testimony of William of Malmesbury, it is subject to the same process of elimination in trying to eliminate other Hungarian queens as possibilities. Furthermore, the attempt to reinterpret the sources by reading "king of Poland" for rex Suanorum/Swevorum or rex Rugorum is unconvincing. This is especially the case with king Malesclodus. The name may look closer to "Mieszko" than to "Iaroslav" at first glance, but the name Iaroslav is known to have had some strange corruptions, and the title rex Rugorum argues strongly against the identification with Mieszko [see Appendix 6 for a discussion of the identity of Malesclodus]. Mieszko holding some Russian territory for a few years would not change this. Also, making Agatha a great-granddaughter of emperor Otto II does not readily explain why she was called a relative of an emperor Heinrich. As shown by Ravilious, the correctness of the Polish Hypothesis would make her a third cousin once-removed of Heinrich III, but it is unlikely that a relationship that distant would be mentioned in the sources. (Her relationship to Heinrich II would be one generation closer, but he was not emperor at the time Agatha married.) In addition, the statement of John of Worcester calling her the daughter of a germanus of Heinrich would have to be drastically emended in order to fit with the Polish Hypothesis, first by changing the gender of germanus to germana (because germanus would have to refer to Agatha's father), and second by seriously revising the meaning of the word germana (see Appendix 3).
     "Still, the Polish Hypothesis remains possible. The cases for the German and Russian Hypotheses are significantly better, but the Polish Hypothesis seems more likely than the remaining hypotheses.
Wunder's variation of the German Hypothesis
     "In 1975, Gerd Wunder proposed a variation of the German Hypothesis in which Agatha had a previous marriage:
Conjectured earlier husband of Agatha (very improbable): Vladimir, d. 4 October 1052, son of Iaroslav I. As we have seen, one difficulty of the German Hypothesis is that it seems hard to explain the circumstances under which the niece of the emperor Heinrich III would be sent to Hungary or Russia to marry an exiled Anglo-Saxon prince. Gerd Wunder, who supported the hypothesis that Agatha was a daughter of Liudolf, conjectured that she was originally sent east as a wife for Vladimir of Novgorod, eldest son of Iaroslav I, and that she married Eadweard only after the death of Vladimir [Wunder (1975), 84-5]. Wunder's conjecture was later supported by Faris and Richardson [Faris-Richardson (1998), 233-4]. However, both Wunder and Faris-Richardson acknowledged that this conjecture is very speculative. Faris and Richardson also hinted that the name of Agatha could have been given to her at marriage as an Eastern Orthodox name, which, if true, would eliminate the onomastic objection to the German Hypothesis [ibid., 232; see Appendix 1]. In addition to the complete lack of supporting evidence, this theory would not leave much chronological room for the children of Eadweard and Agatha. Although it cannot be strictly ruled out on that basis, the theory seems very improbable. It should be noted here that Wunder's variation is not a necessary feature of the German Hypothesis, and that the improbability of Wunder's scenario should not be used to argue against the German Hypothesis itself, as Mladjov does [Mladjov (2003), 38].
(The discussion continues on the Appendices page. http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm)
Conclusion
     "Nature abhors a vacuum. In genealogy, one of the corollaries of this seems to be that genealogists are reluctant to regard a parentage as unknown, and would rather pick from among the choices when several alternatives have been proposed. However, this is not always advisable. In my opinion, it seems that we are forced to conclude that, given the current state of knowledge, it is not possible to assign a specific parentage to Agatha which carries conviction. The German Hypothesis and the Russian Hypothesis are are each possibilities, but each also has significant problems. The other hypotheses are all even less likely, and "none of the above" seems like an attractive alternate hypothesis. Pending further discoveries, Agatha's parentage remains unknown. It may not be a popular conclusion, but it appears to be the right one based on the available evidence.
Bibliography
     "See the Appendices page
Compiled by Stewart Baldwin
     "First uploaded 20 June 2010.
     "Minor revision uploaded 27 June 2010 (added early references, courtesy of Todd Farmerie).
     "Minor revision uploaded 4 July 2010."²

; N. B. This note provides some background on earlier hypotheses regarding the paternity of Agatha, wife of Edward The Exile (by Andrey Alexandrovich Frizyuk): "Two main versions of Agatha's parentage have been proposed so far:
     1. Szabolcs de Vajay in his paper "Agatha, Mother of St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland" ("Duquesne Review", vol. 7, no. 2 (Spring 1962), pp. 71-80) expounded the theory that Agatha was a daughter of Liudolf, Margrave of West-Friesland (he was half-brother of Emperor Henry III) (see here) , by Gertrude of Egisheim. This is based on statements of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester's "Chronicon ex chronicis" that Agatha was a blood relative of the "Emperor Henry".
     2. Rene Jette in his article "Is the Mystery of the Origins of Agatha, Wife of Edward the Exile, Finally Solved?" ("New England Historical and Genealogical Register", no. 150 (October 1996): 417-432) pointed out some facts which were not explained by Szabolcs de Vajay's theory:
     It's interesting that the last wife of Vladimir I was apparently the first cousin of Emperor Henry III. Her daughter Dobronega could have been described as "filia germani imperatoris Henrici". What if Agatha was Dobronega's full sister? It seems to me that such a solution would explain all the evidence that we have in the best way."http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm.¹¹ GAV-25 EDV-25 GKJ-26.

; Per Med Lands:
     "m (Kiev[1917] [1040/45]) AGATHA, daughter of --- ([1025/35]-). Agatha is named as the wife of Edward in many sources[1918], but her origin has been the subject of lively debate for years. The early 12th century chronicles are contradictory. The assertion by Orderic Vitalis that she was "daughter of Solomon King of the Magyars"[1919] can be dismissed as impossible chronologically. One group of chroniclers suggest a German origin, saying that she was "the daughter of the brother of the Emperor Henry". This includes John of Worcester ("filia germani imperatoris henrici"[1920], in a passage which Humphreys speculates was written some time between 1120 and 1131 although possibly based on the earlier work of Marianus Scotus), Florence of Worcester ("daughter of the brother of Emperor Henry"[1921]), the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ("the emperor's kinswoman"[1922] and, in relation to her daughter Margaret, "descended from the emperor Henry who had dominion over Rome"[1923]). Ailred Abbot of Rievaulx records that "Edwardo", son of "regem Edmundum" [King Edmund "Ironsides"], married "filiam germani sui Henrici imperatoris…Agatha"[1924]. Matthew of Paris calls Agatha "soror Henrici imperatoris Romani" when recounting the ancestry of Henry II King of England[1925]. A second group of chroniclers propose a Russian origin, suggesting that Agatha belonged to the family of Iaroslav Grand Prince of Kiev. For William of Malmesbury, she was "sister of the [Hungarian] queen", which from a chronological point of view could only refer to Anastasia Iaroslavna, wife of King András I. In a 13th century interpolation in one copy of the Leges Anglo-Saxonicæ (written in [1130]) she was "ex genere et sanguine regum Rugorum"[1926]. The Chronicle of Alberic de Trois-Fontaines names "Agatham regine Hunorem sororem"[1927], the Hungarian Magyars frequently, though incorrectly, being referred to as "Huns" in many other sources. Lastly, Roger of Wendover records that "Eadwardus" married "reginæ Hungariæ sororem…Agatham"[1928]. In considering the German origin theory, the uterine half-brothers ("germani") of Emperor Heinrich III provide a likely candidate. These half-brothers were Liudolf von Braunschweig, Markgraf in Friesland (son of Gisela of Swabia, mother of Emperor Heinrich III, by her first marriage with Bruno Graf [von Braunschweig]), and Ernst von Babenberg Duke of Swabia and his younger brother Hermann IV Duke of Swabia (sons of Gisela by her second marriage). The latter, the Babenberg brothers, born in [1014/16], were both too young to have been Agatha's father so can be dismissed. Liudolf von Braunschweig was first proposed as Agatha's father in 1933[1929], and has been the preferred candidate for many historians since then[1930]. His birth date is estimated at [1003/05] (see BRUNSWICK) which is consistent with his having been Agatha's father. The marriage taking place in Kiev would not exclude a German origin, as contacts were reported between Kiev and the imperial court in 1040[1931], when Russia was aiming to create a tripartite alliance with England and Germany to weaken Denmark, and also in 1043[1932], when the situation required review following the accession of King Edward "the Confessor" in England. The major drawback to the German origin theory is the total absence of onomastic connections between the Braunschweig family and the descendants of Edward and Agatha, although this is not of course conclusive to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The Russian origin theory has also found considerable academic support[1933]. Edmund must have had contact with the Russian royal family during his period in Kiev, assuming it is correct, as suggested above, that he spent time there during his exile. There are numerous onomastic connections between the the extended family of Grand Prince Iaroslav and the descendants of Edward and Agatha. For example, the names of Edward and Agatha's own daughters, Margaret and Christina, were both used in the Swedish royal family, to which Grand Prince Iaroslav's wife belonged. In the next generation, among Queen Margaret's own children, the name David is one which seems only to have been used in the Kiev ruling family among all contemporary European royal dynasties. The major problem with the Russian origin theory is the complete failure to explain the source references to Agatha's family relationship with the emperor, which it is unwise to dismiss as completely meaningless. It is of course possible that neither of these theories is correct, and that Agatha belonged to a minor German, Russian or Hungarian noble family the importance of whose family connections were exaggerated in the sources. Edward's relationship to the kings of England may, at the time of his marriage, have seemed remote and unimportant in eastern Europe, especially as England was ruled by Danish kings whose position must then have seemed secure. He may not have provided a sufficiently attractive marriage prospect for a prominent European princess. In conclusion, therefore, there is no satisfactory way of deciding between each of the competing theories concerning Agatha's origin and it appears best to classify it as "unknown". It is unlikely that the mystery of Agatha's origin will ever be solved to the satisfaction of all. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that, after the Norman conquest, Agatha left England with her children in Summer 1067 and found refuge at the court of Malcolm King of Scotland[1934]. Florence of Worcester records that "clitone Eadgaro et matre sua Agatha duabusque sororibus suis Margareta et Christina" left England for Scotland, in a passage which deals with events in mid-1068[1935]. According to Weir, in old age, possibly after the death of her daughter Queen Margaret, she became a nun at Newcastle-upon-Tyne[1936], but the primary source on which this is based has not yet been identified."
Med Lands cites:

;      N. B.: There are at least nine different choices in the literature for the parents of Agatha. These are best described in summary in the Henry Project page on Agatha:
The German Hypothesis (main version):
The Russian Hypothesis:
The Polish Hypothesis:
The Bulgarian Hypothesis:
The Hungarian Hypothesis:
The Cristinus Hypothesis:
The German Hypothesis (alternate version): Conjectured father (very improbable): Ernst II, d. 17 August 1030, duke of Swabia.
The Bruno Hypothesis: Conjectured father (very improbable): Bruno, d. 24 April 1029, bishop of Augsburg, 1007-1029, brother of emperor Heinrich II.
The Byzantine Hypothesis: Conjectured father (no reasonable basis): Constantine IX "Monomachos", d. 1055, Byzantine emperor.
     One should see the extensive discussions of this on the Henry Project, as well as the Wikipedia article, for much more information and analysis. For the present, I have chosen to follow the so-called "Russian" and "Polish" hypotheses, as posited by Ravilious [2009] and Guido and Ravilious [2012], as reflected on Genealogics. G A Vauthttp://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/agath001.htm.^{2,13,1,8,9,14,10}
; See attached image of an 11th century fresco in the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, representing the daughters of Ingegard and Yaroslav I, with 1) Anna probably being the youngest. Other daughters were 2) Anastasia, wife of Andrew I of Hungary , 3) Elizabeth, wife of Harald III of Norway, and perhaps 4) Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile.
(Image from Wikipedia: By Unknown - http://artclassic.edu.ru/catalog.asp?cat_ob_no=&ob_no=15169&rt=&print=1, transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:MARKELLOS using CommonsHelperrint=1, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8442239>)
; NB: There are various theories about the parents of the Agatha who m. Edward Aetheling and other about who the Polish wife of Imre of Hungary were.
     Guido & Ravilious [2012:84-87] have a long discussion concerning the theory that Imre had a Polish wife and the possibility that this wife might have been an Agatha, dau. of Mieszko II. They propose that the same dau. of Mieszko that m. Edward Aetheling also m. Imre.
     Med Lands (Ref #1) shows and unnamed dau. of Mieszko marrying Imre. As for Edward, Med Lands (Ref #2) only shows that he m. a wife named Agatha, and then presents a synopsis of the various theories concerning her parentage.(but not the Polish one reviewed by Guido and Ravilious, op. cit.) Med Lands (Ref #3) discusses the possibility that Imre might have m. a dau. of Mieszko II, without naming her and in reviewing several competing theories for her origin.
Conclusion: For the present, I have created a second Agatha "(2?)" as wife of Imre and sister to Agatha 1, wife of Exward GA Vaut.^{16,17,2,18,19,20}

     Máel-Coluim (Malcolm III) mac Donnchada "Canmore") (?) King of Scotland (Alba) was born in 1031.^13,14,2,10 He married Ingibiorg Finnsdottir av Austraat og Halland (?), daughter of Finn Arnesson (?) of Vrjar, Jarl of Halland and Thorberg/Bergliot Halvdansdottir (?) av Ringerike, before 1058.^{13,3,15,16,17,18,10}
Máel-Coluim (Malcolm III) mac Donnchada "Canmore") (?) King of Scotland (Alba) married Saint Margaret (?) Queen of Scotland, daughter of Edward "The Exile" (?) the Aetheling and Agatha (?) of Poland, between 1068 and 1069 at Dunfermline, Fifeshire, Scotland,
; Genealogics says m. ca 1069; Weis says m. 1068/9.^{13,3,19,1,2,9,10,20,21}
Máel-Coluim (Malcolm III) mac Donnchada "Canmore") (?) King of Scotland (Alba) died on 13 November 1093 at Alnwick Castle, Northumberland, England; Killed in battle near Alnwick.^13,1,14,2,10
      ; Per Med Lands:
     "MARGARET ([in Hungary] [1046/53]-Edinburgh Castle 16 Nov 1093, bur Dunfermline Abbey, Fife, transferred to Escorial, Madrid, her head bur Jesuit College, Douai). Although Margaret's birth is often placed in [1045/46][1937], a later birth would be more consistent with the "German" theory of her mother's origin, as discussed above. Margaret's birth as late as 1053 would still be consistent with her having given birth to four children before her daughter Edith/Matilda (later wife of Henry I King of England), whose birth is estimated to have taken place in [1079/80]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Margaret left England with her mother in Summer 1067 and found refuge at the court of Malcolm King of Scotland[1938]. Florence of Worcester records that "clitone Eadgaro et matre sua Agatha duabusque sororibus suis Margareta et Christina" left England for Scotland, in a passage which deals with events in mid-1068[1939]. Florence of Worcester records that "regina Scottorum Margareta" died from grief after learning of the death of her husband and oldest son[1940]. The Annals of Ulster record that "his queen Margaret…died of sorrow for him within nine days" after her husband was killed in battle[1941]. She was canonised in 1250, her feast day in Scotland is 16 Nov[1942].
     "m (Dunfermline Abbey 1070) as his second wife, MALCOLM III "Caennmor/Bighead" King of Scotland, son of DUNCAN I King of Scotland & his wife Sibylla of Northumbria (1031-killed in battle near Alnwick, Northumberland 13 Nov 1093, bur Tynemouth, later transferred to Dunfermline Abbey, Fife, and later still to Escorial, Madrid)."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU (Cerdic 2): “C2. St. Margaret, *Hungary ca 1045, +Edinburgh Castle 16.11.1093, bur Dunfermline Abbey; m.1069 Malcolm III Canmore, King of Scotland (*ca 1031 +13.11.1093)”.²²

; This is the same person as ”Máel Coluim mac Donnchada (Malcolm III)” at The Henry Project.¹⁵

; Per Enc. of World History: “Macbeth's rule was followed by Duncan's son and avenger, Malcolm.
     "MALCOLM CANMORE. Malcolm was forced to do homage, by William the Conqueror (1072) and by William Rufus (1091), and Anglo-Norman penetration began. Malcolm's wife, (St.) Margaret (sister of Edgar Aetheling, grandniece of Edward the Confessor), was a masterful and remarkable woman whose Anglicizing influence on Scottish culture and the native Church was profound. Notable among her three sons were David I and Alexander III.”.²³

Reference: Genealogics cites: Burke's Guide to the Royal Family London, 1973 , Reference: 314.²

; Per Genealogics:
     “He was a child when his father, King Duncan, was slain by Macbeth (1040). He spent his youth in Northumbria with his uncle, Earl Siward, who in 1054 established him in Cumbria and Lothian.
     “In 1057, after Macbeth was slain, he became King of all Scotland. His first wife, Ingibiorg, widow of Thorfinn of Orkney, had died; and in 1069 Malcolm wedded Margaret, sister of Edgar the Aetheling, whose cause he made his own.
     “Five times he harried Northumbria (in 1069, 1070, 1079, 1091, 1093) and there were counter-invasions by William the Conqueror and Prince Robert in 1072 and 1080. In 1092 William II Rufus wrested from Scotland all of Cumbria south of the Solway; and next year Malcolm marched into England but was entrapped and slain at Alnwick on 13 November 1093. He left five sons, of whom four succeeded him: Duncan, Edgar, Alexander and David.”.²

; This is the same person as ”Malcolm III of Scotland” at Wikipedia.²⁴ Máel-Coluim (Malcolm III) mac Donnchada "Canmore") (?) King of Scotland (Alba) was also known as Malcolm III Canmore (?) King of Scots.^13,4,25,10 GAV-26 EDV-25 GKJ-25.

; Per Weis: “Malcolm III Canmore, King of Ss 1058-1093, b. 1031, crowned at Scone, 17 Mar. 1057/8, slain whileieging Alnwick Castle,k 13 Nov. 1093; m. (1) 1059, Ingibiorg, dau. of Earl Finn arnason, and wid. of Thorfill Sigurdson, Earl of Orkney; m. (2) Dunfermline, 1068/9, Margaret (1-21), St. Margaret of Scotland, d. 16 Nov. 1093, daul of Prince Edward (1-20) the Exiled, and a descendant of Alfred the Great (1-14), Clovis I (240A-3), Cerdic (1-1), and perhaps Hengist, and ancestress of the royal line of England. (CP V:736, VI:641-642; SP I; 1; Dunbar, 25-34, 280-81. Gens. 12-21: Land (1901) I:546-57. For the whole line above the following sources are given by Ritson, Gens. 2 -20; Cronica regum Scotorum; Nomina regum Scot. et Pirct; Annals of Tigernach (d. 1080, cf. Roderic O'Flaherty, Ogygia, published in Latin, 1685, in English, 1793, pp. 477-478); Duan, a Gaelic of Irish poem, abot 1050. Gens. 4-20: Annalles Ultonianses (Annals of Ulster), a faithful chronology of great antiquity, but uncertain date. Gens. 11-20: Cronica de Mailros (chronicle of Melrose). Gens. 12-22: William of Malmesbury (d. aft. 1142), 56; ASC; Florence of Worcester (d. 1118). Gens. 13-17: Cronica de origine antiquorum Pictonan et Scotorum, ends 994, written at the time of Kenneth II. The Chronicun elegiacum extends to Gen. 20. Gens. 16-20: Historia de Dunelmensis ecclesia, pp. 156-178 (by Turgotus, d.l 1115, or Simon of Durham, d. 1130); Chronicle of Innisfallen; Synchronisms of Flan and Bute (d. 1056); Scala Chronica, 1365).”.¹⁴

; Per Med Lands:
     "MALCOLM, son of DUNCAN I King of Scotland & his wife [Sibylla of Northumbria] (1031-killed in battle near Alnwick, Northumberland 13 Nov 1093[306], bur Tynemouth St Albans[307], transferred to Dunfermline Abbey, Fife[308], transferred again to Escorial, Madrid). The 12th century Cronica Regum Scottorum names "Malcolaim filii Donnchada" in one of its lists[309]. The Chronicon of Marianus Scottus records that "Moelcol…filius Donchael" succeeded Lulach in 1058[310]. [Florence of Worcester records that "dux Northhymbrorum Siwardus" defeated "rege Scottorum Macbeotha" in battle, dated to 1054, and installed "Malcolmum regis Cumbrorum filium" in his place[311]. The Annales Dunelmenses record that "Siwardus" put "Macbeth" to flight in 1054 and installed "Malcolmum rege" in the following year[312]. It is not clear that these two accounts refer to the future King Malcolm III: it is uncertain why King Malcolm would be called "regis Cumbrorum filium".] The Annals of Tigernach record that “Lulach rí Alban” was killed by “Mael-Coluimb, son of Donnchad” in 1058[313]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that Malcolm recaptured his kingdom with the help of "Siward Earl of Northumberland" and killed "Machabeus" 5 Dec 1056[314]. He succeeded in 1058 as MALCOLM III "Caennmor/Bighead" King of Scotland, crowned 25 Apr 1058 at Scone Abbey, Perthshire. Duncan cites sources which demonstrate that this nickname was first applied to King Malcolm III in the 13th century[315]. He suggests[316] that it was originally applied to King Malcolm IV who, he asserts, suffered from Paget's disease, involving a deformation of the bones particularly observable in the skull, and was later misapplied to King Malcolm III. King Malcolm supported the claim to the English crown of Edgar ætheling, whose sister he had married, and led plundering raids into England. Florence of Worcester records that he did homage to William I King of England at Abernethy in Aug 1072[317]. The same source records that King Malcolm invaded Northumberland in 1091, but did fealty to Willam II King of England after peace was negotiated between the two kings[318]. Florence of Worcester records that "rex Scottorum Malcolmus et primogenitus filius suus Eadwardus" were killed in battle in Northumbria "die S Bricii" [13 Nov] by the army of "Rotberti Northymbrorum comitis"[319]. William of Malmesbury records that he was killed, with his son Edward, by Morael of Bamborough, steward of Robert Mowbray Earl of Northumberland, while leading a raid into England[320]. The Annals of Ulster record that "Mael Coluim son of Donnchad, over-king of Scotland, and Edward his son, were killed by the French in Inber Alda in England"[321].
     "Per Med Lands: [:TAB:]"MALCOLM, son of DUNCAN I King of Scotland & his wife [Sibylla of Northumbria] (1031-killed in battle near Alnwick, Northumberland 13 Nov 1093[306], bur Tynemouth St Albans[307], transferred to Dunfermline Abbey, Fife[308], transferred again to Escorial, Madrid). The 12th century Cronica Regum Scottorum names "Malcolaim filii Donnchada" in one of its lists[309]. The Chronicon of Marianus Scottus records that "Moelcol…filius Donchael" succeeded Lulach in 1058[310]. [Florence of Worcester records that "dux Northhymbrorum Siwardus" defeated "rege Scottorum Macbeotha" in battle, dated to 1054, and installed "Malcolmum regis Cumbrorum filium" in his place[311]. The Annales Dunelmenses record that "Siwardus" put "Macbeth" to flight in 1054 and installed "Malcolmum rege" in the following year[312]. It is not clear that these two accounts refer to the future King Malcolm III: it is uncertain why King Malcolm would be called "regis Cumbrorum filium".] The Annals of Tigernach record that “Lulach rí Alban” was killed by “Mael-Coluimb, son of Donnchad” in 1058[313]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that Malcolm recaptured his kingdom with the help of "Siward Earl of Northumberland" and killed "Machabeus" 5 Dec 1056[314]. He succeeded in 1058 as MALCOLM III "Caennmor/Bighead" King of Scotland, crowned 25 Apr 1058 at Scone Abbey, Perthshire. Duncan cites sources which demonstrate that this nickname was first applied to King Malcolm III in the 13th century[315]. He suggests[316] that it was originally applied to King Malcolm IV who, he asserts, suffered from Paget's disease, involving a deformation of the bones particularly observable in the skull, and was later misapplied to King Malcolm III. King Malcolm supported the claim to the English crown of Edgar ætheling, whose sister he had married, and led plundering raids into England. Florence of Worcester records that he did homage to William I King of England at Abernethy in Aug 1072[317]. The same source records that King Malcolm invaded Northumberland in 1091, but did fealty to Willam II King of England after peace was negotiated between the two kings[318]. Florence of Worcester records that "rex Scottorum Malcolmus et primogenitus filius suus Eadwardus" were killed in battle in Northumbria "die S Bricii" [13 Nov] by the army of "Rotberti Northymbrorum comitis"[319]. William of Malmesbury records that he was killed, with his son Edward, by Morael of Bamborough, steward of Robert Mowbray Earl of Northumberland, while leading a raid into England[320]. The Annals of Ulster record that "Mael Coluim son of Donnchad, over-king of Scotland, and Edward his son, were killed by the French in Inber Alda in England"[321]. [:TAB:]"[m] [firstly] ([before 1058]) ---. The identity of the mother of King Malcolm's sons Duncan and Donald is uncertain. The absence of any reference to her in Scottish sources is best explained if her relationship with the king ended before his accession in 1058. However, this is not totally consistent with the estimated birth dates of her sons as shown below. It should be noted that King Duncan II, in his charter dated 1093, makes no reference to his mother, which implies that his father's relationship with her may have been short-lived and informal. Orkneyinga Saga records that “Ingibjorg the Earls’-Mother” (Ingibjörg Finnsdatter, widow of Thorfinn "the Black" Jarl of Orkney and Caithness, daughter of Finn Arnisson [later Jarl of Halland in Denmark]) married “Malcolm King of Scots, known as Long-neck” and that “their son was Duncan, King of Scots, father of William”[322]. There must be considerable doubt about whether this can be correct. Ingibjörg's [first] husband died in [1060/65]. King Malcolm's marriage to Queen Margaret is dated to 1070, three years after her arrival at the Scottish court. Although this provides sufficient time after the death of her first husband for the king to have married Ingebjörg, and for Ingebjörg to have died, the chronology for the birth of two sons would be tight. In addition, it is unlikely that either of these sons was born after [1065], as explained further below. If the king had really married Ingibjörg during this time, and if she had given birth to two sons, the absence of any reference to her in either Scottish or English sources is all the more surprising. It is possible that King Malcolm's marriage to Ingibjörg (if it did take place) was more Danico, implying concubinage rather than regular marriage, but this does not change the chronological difficulties. The one puzzle which remains, if the Saga is not correct, is why the author would have fabricated this detail. [:TAB:]"m [secondly] (Dunfermline Abbey 1070) MARGARET of England, daughter of EDWARD ætheling of England & his wife Agatha --- ([in Hungary] [1046/53]-Edinburgh Castle 16 Nov 1093, bur Dunfermline Abbey, Fife, transferred to Escorial, Madrid, her head bur Jesuit College, Douai). Although Margaret's birth is often placed in [1045/46][323], a later birth would be more consistent with the "German" theory of her mother's origin (as discussed in the document ANGLO-SAXON KINGS). Margaret's birth as late as 1053 would still be consistent with her having given birth to four children before her daughter Edith/Matilda (later wife of Henry I King of England), whose birth is estimated to have taken place in [1079/80]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Margaret left England with her mother in Summer 1067 and found refuge at the court of Malcolm King of Scotland[324]. Florence of Worcester records that "clitone Eadgaro et matre sua Agatha duabusque sororibus suis Margareta et Christina" left England for Scotland, in a passage which deals with events in mid-1068[325]. Florence of Worcester records that "regina Scottorum Margareta" died from grief after learning of the death of her husband and oldest son[326]. The Annals of Ulster record that "his queen Margaret…died of sorrow for him within nine days" after her husband was killed in battle[327]. She was canonised in 1250, her feast day in Scotland is 16 Nov[328]." Med Lands cites: [LIND:][306] Florence of Worcester, 1093, p. 196. [307] MP, Vol. V, 1257, 633. [308] Malmesbury, 250, p. 237. [309] Skene (1867), XVI, Chronicle of the Scots 1165, Cronica Regum Scottorum, p. 133. [310] Mariani Scotti Chronicon 1057, MGH SS V, p. 558. [311] Florentii Wigornensis Monachi Chronicon, Vol. I, p. 212. [312] Annales Dunelmenses 1054, MGH SS XIX, p. 508. [313] Annals of Tigernach II, p. 290. [314] John of Fordun (Skene), Book V, VII, p. 192. [315] Duncan (2002), pp. 51-2. [316] Duncan (2002), p. 75. [317] Florence of Worcester, 1072, p. 177. [318] Florence of Worcester, 1091, p. 193. [319] Florentii Wigornensis Monachi Chronicon, p. 31. [320] Malmesbury, p. 237, footnote 2. [321] Annals of Ulster, 1093.5, p. 529. [322] Orkneyinga Saga 33, p. 76. [323] For example, Weir, A. (2002) Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy (Pimlico), p. 186. [324] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, D, 1067. [325] Florentii Wigornensis Monachi Chronicon, p. 2. [326] Florentii Wigornensis Monachi Chronicon, p. 32. [327] Annals of Ulster, 1093.5, p. 529. [328] Attwater, D. (1970) The Penguin Dictionary of Saints (Penguin Books), p. 230.[:LIND] [firstly] ([before 1058]) ---. The identity of the mother of King Malcolm's sons Duncan and Donald is uncertain. The absence of any reference to her in Scottish sources is best explained if her relationship with the king ended before his accession in 1058. However, this is not totally consistent with the estimated birth dates of her sons as shown below. It should be noted that King Duncan II, in his charter dated 1093, makes no reference to his mother, which implies that his father's relationship with her may have been short-lived and informal. Orkneyinga Saga records that “Ingibjorg the Earls’-Mother” (Ingibjörg Finnsdatter, widow of Thorfinn "the Black" Jarl of Orkney and Caithness, daughter of Finn Arnisson [later Jarl of Halland in Denmark]) married “Malcolm King of Scots, known as Long-neck” and that “their son was Duncan, King of Scots, father of William”[322]. There must be considerable doubt about whether this can be correct. Ingibjörg's [first] husband died in [1060/65]. King Malcolm's marriage to Queen Margaret is dated to 1070, three years after her arrival at the Scottish court. Although this provides sufficient time after the death of her first husband for the king to have married Ingebjörg, and for Ingebjörg to have died, the chronology for the birth of two sons would be tight. In addition, it is unlikely that either of these sons was born after [1065], as explained further below. If the king had really married Ingibjörg during this time, and if she had given birth to two sons, the absence of any reference to her in either Scottish or English sources is all the more surprising. It is possible that King Malcolm's marriage to Ingibjörg (if it did take place) was more Danico, implying concubinage rather than regular marriage, but this does not change the chronological difficulties. The one puzzle which remains, if the Saga is not correct, is why the author would have fabricated this detail.
     "m [secondly] (Dunfermline Abbey 1070) MARGARET of England, daughter of EDWARD ætheling of England & his wife Agatha --- ([in Hungary] [1046/53]-Edinburgh Castle 16 Nov 1093, bur Dunfermline Abbey, Fife, transferred to Escorial, Madrid, her head bur Jesuit College, Douai). Although Margaret's birth is often placed in [1045/46][323], a later birth would be more consistent with the "German" theory of her mother's origin (as discussed in the document ANGLO-SAXON KINGS). Margaret's birth as late as 1053 would still be consistent with her having given birth to four children before her daughter Edith/Matilda (later wife of Henry I King of England), whose birth is estimated to have taken place in [1079/80]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Margaret left England with her mother in Summer 1067 and found refuge at the court of Malcolm King of Scotland[324]. Florence of Worcester records that "clitone Eadgaro et matre sua Agatha duabusque sororibus suis Margareta et Christina" left England for Scotland, in a passage which deals with events in mid-1068[325]. Florence of Worcester records that "regina Scottorum Margareta" died from grief after learning of the death of her husband and oldest son[326]. The Annals of Ulster record that "his queen Margaret…died of sorrow for him within nine days" after her husband was killed in battle[327]. She was canonised in 1250, her feast day in Scotland is 16 Nov[328]."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU (Dunkeld): “B1. Malcolm III Canmore, King of Strathclyde (1034-40), King of Scotland (1058-93) -cr 25.4.1058 Scone Abbey, *ca 1031, +k.a.nr Alnwick, Northumberland 13.11.1093, bur Dunfermline Abbey, Fife; 1m: ca 1059 Ingiborg Finnsdotter (+before 1070), dau.of Finn Arnarsson of Vjar, Jarl of Halland; 2m: Dunfermline Abbey ca 1069 St.Margaret of England (*ca 1045, +16.11.1093)”.⁴
; Per Med Lands:
     "INGIBJÖRG Finnsdatter ([1030/35]-). Orkneyinga Saga names Earl Thorfinn´s wife as “Ingibjorg, the Earls´-Mother, daughter of Earl Finn Arnason” and niece of Kalf Arnason[30]. Snorre names "Ingebjorg, the earl-mother…a daughter of Fin Arnason" as wife of Earl Thorfin[31]. Morkinskinna records that “Thorfinn jarl [of] Orkney” was married to “Kálfr´s sister Ingibjorg Árnasdóttir” at the time Kalf Arnesson fled Norway[32]. The chronology is certainly tight for Ingibjörg to have been Kalf´s niece, if it is correct that she was already married when Kalf fled Norway, which must be dated to [1040/42] from the context in Morkinskinna. Her birth date is estimated on the basis of the estimated birth dates of her mother and her older son, both of which are restricted. Orkneyinga Saga records that “Ingibjorg the Earls´-Mother” (widow of Thorfinn) married “Malcolm King of Scots, known as Long-neck” and that “their son was Duncan, King of Scots, father of William”[33]. There must be considerable doubt about whether this can be correct. Ingibjörg's [first] husband died in [1060/65]. King Malcolm's marriage to Queen Margaret is dated to 1070, three years after her arrival at the Scottish court. Although this provides sufficient time for the king to have married Ingebjörg, and for Ingebjörg to have died, the chronology for the birth of two sons would be tight. In addition, it is unlikely that either of these sons was born after [1065], as explained in the document SCOTLAND. If the king had really married Ingibjörg during this time, and if she had given birth to two sons, the absence of any reference to her in either Scottish or English sources is all the more surprising. It is possible that King Malcolm's marriage to Ingibjörg (if it did take place) was more Danico, implying concubinage rather than regular marriage, but this does not change the chronological difficulties. The one puzzle which remains, if the Saga is not correct, is why the author would have fabricated this detail.
     "m [firstly] ([1045/50]) THORFINN "the Black" Jarl of Orkney, son of SIGURD "Digri" Jarl of Orkney and Caithness & his wife --- of Scotland ([1009]-[1060/65]]).
     "[m secondly ([1066]) as his first wife, MALCOLM III "Caennmor/Bighead" King of Scotland, son of DUNCAN I King of Scotland & his wife Sibylla of Northumbria (1031-killed in battle near Alnwick, Northumberland 13 Nov 1093, bur Tynemouth, later transferred to Dunfermline Abbey, Fife, and later still to Escorial, Madrid).]"
Med Lands cites: He was King of Scotland: [Ashley, pp. 395, 398-400] MALCOLM III CANMORE (BIGHEAD) Sub-king of Cumbria and Strathclyde, 1045-58; king of Scotland, 17 March 1058- 13 November 1093. Crowned: Scone Abbey, 25 April 1058. Born: c1031. Died: nr Alnwick, 13 November 1093, aged 62. Buried: Dunfermline Abbey (later removed to the Escorial, Madrid). Married: (1) c1060, Ingibiorg (d. c1069), widow of Thorfinn, Earl of Orkney: 3 children; (2) c1069, Margaret (d. c1093), dau. Edward Atheling, son of Edmund II of England: at least 8 children. Many lists of Scottish kings begin with Malcolm III, even though he was the fifty-eighth in line since FERGUS established the kingdom of Dál Riata in Argyll, and the twenty-second since KENNETH MACALPIN had united the Scots and the Picts. The main reason for Malcolm's apparent status is that under his rule Scotland shifted dramatically away from its Gaelic past and moved toward the Anglo-Norman world of southern Britain. Malcolm had been raised in the Anglo-Norman court of EDWARD THE CONFESSOR. His father, DUNCAN, had been killed in battle against MACBETH in 1040, when Malcolm was eight or nine, and the young boy and his brother were hurriedly smuggled out of Scotland in fear of their lives. Macbeth was eventually killed in August 1057, and his stepson, Lulach, the following March. Five weeks later Malcolm was crowned as king of Scotland. His support was not total, with many, especially the Highlanders, preferring their old ways and customs and not seeking to follow Malcolm. Nevertheless they accepted him as overlord because of his sheer physical power and menace. He was a swaggering bully who rapidly earned the nickname of Canmore, or Bighead.
Malcolm began his reign by establishing alliances. Amongst his father's former enemies was THORFINN, the earl of Orkney. It is not clear when Thorfinn died, but it is evident that he had not helped Macbeth in his fight for the monarchy, not because he did not support Macbeth (they were half brothers and allies) but because he was probably already very ill. He may have died as early as 1057 and was almost certainly dead by 1060. Malcolm married Thorfinn's widow, Ingibiorg, probably around the year 1060, and established an alliance with her sons PAUL and ERLEND who became the new earls of Orkney. Ingibiorg must by then have been in her late thirties, but she bore Malcolm three children before she died, probably around 1069. Malcolm's alliance with Orkney brought him into closer contact with Harald Haadraada, the king of Norway, and overlord of Orkney and the Western Isles. Malcolm was thus seen as an ally of Norway when, in 1066, Tostig, the brother of HAROLD Godwinson of Wessex, gained Haadraada's support for an invasion of England. The invasion force landed first at Orkney and sailed down the eastern coast of Scotland to the Humber estuary. Malcolm's motives are uncertain in this campaign. He was clearly a Saxon sympathiser, but evidently not a supporter of Harold Godwinson, whom he may have seen as a usurper in the south. His support for Tostig, who was nothing short of a rebellious thug, does not seem a wise choice and Malcolm would have gained little from a Norse victory beyond the possible annexation of Northumbria. He was more likely to have become a vassal of the Norwegian king. However, Harald and Tostig were killed at Stamford Bridge, and a few weeks later Harold Godwinson was killed at Senlac Hill by WILLIAM, duke of Normandy. At Christmas 1066 William was crowned king of England. Although Malcolm knew the Norman world - Edward the Confessor had been pro-Norman and there were many Normans at his court where Malcolm grew up as well as Norman soldiers in Malcolm's army - he was unsure what an alliance with the Normans would achieve. His initial sympathies were with the Saxons. EDGAR Atheling, the Saxon heir, joined in the unsuccessful rebellion against William in 1068, and subsequently fled to Malcolm's court to seek refuge. He was accompanied by his sister Margaret whom Malcolm married the following year. This further consolidated the Scottish-Saxon alliance, but alienated Malcolm all the more from his Highland subjects, and made an enemy of William the Conqueror. It should be remembered, however, that in 1069 William's hold on England was far from secure and many believed that he would eventually be overthrown. Edgar was almost certainly convinced he would some day regain the throne of England, and Malcolm's move was part of his framework of alliances with neighbouring powers. Malcolm supported Edgar's unsuccessful attempt to regain England in 1069 along with Swein of Denmark. The next two to three years saw Malcolm supporting a series of raids throughout northern England, coming as far south as Cleveland. William was enraged, and in 1072 he invaded Scotland and sought the submission of Malcolm at Abernathy. The terms of the treaty meant that Malcolm could no longer harbour any of William's enemies, and Edgar Atheling again became an exile. William also forced Malcolm to recognize him as his overlord, and took his son DUNCAN as hostage. Later English kings would regard the Treaty of Abernathy as the date of their conquest of Scotland, though it is unlikely it was viewed as that at that time. Certainly it did not stop Malcolm raiding England in 1079, though this proved equally fruitless. William sent his son Robert to negotiate with Malcolm. This achieved little, though Robert decided to add to the fortifications of the north and built the New Castle at the estuary of the Tyne. William regarded Malcolm as an irritant at this time and certainly did not view him as a ruler of equal status. Malcolm, on the other hand, living up to his nickname, believed he was just as powerful.
Under the influence of his wife Margaret, to whom he was devoted, Malcolm changed steadily from the coarse ruffian of his youth to a mature individual who had strong respect for his wife's religious and cultural beliefs and interests. Margaret had been well educated in Hungary and England and was an avid Christian. It was under her direction that the abbey at Dunfermline was commenced in 1072, to equal the one Edward the Confessor had completed at Westminster just seven years earlier. Margaret also restored the monastery on Iona, and did much to bring the Celtic church in line with the Roman. Records suggest that from 1072 the archbishopric of York was given authority over the church of Scotland. Malcolm, who was not especially religious himself, seemed content to allow Margaret to undertake these reforms, surprisingly ignorant of their long-term affect. It is probably another example of his belief in his authority as absolute, but it is also a reminder that Malcolm truly loved Margaret and that their marriage was strong and happy.
Malcolm had evidently not forsaken his designs upon England. After the death of William I in 1087, Duncan was released and Malcolm again began planning an expansion of his territories. He was soon joined by Edgar Atheling, who recognized the opportunity, and in 1090 Malcolm invaded Northumbria. He was defeated by WILLIAM RUFUS and the terms of the Treaty of Abernathy were re-invoked. William continued to defend the north and in 1092 invaded Cumbria and built a fort at Carlisle. Malcolm and his son Edward came to meet William but were rebuffed. As they were returning north they were ambushed by Robert Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, near Alnwick and both Malcolm and Edward were killed. When Margaret, who was already extremely ill, heard the news four days later she pined away. It is an irony that Malcolm had replaced the old rule of tanistry by that of primogeniture, only to have his eldest son and heir die with him. The Scottish magnates had no idea what to do in such circumstances and civil unrest broke out. Five of his nine sons would eventually succeed him as king, though his immediate successor was his brother DONALD (III).
Malcolm had been temporarily buried near Tynemouth. Shortly afterward he and his wife were buried at the new Dunfermline Abbey. Following a papal inquiry in 1250 into the life and possible miracles of Margaret, she was canonized. During the Reformation their bodies were reburied at a specially built tomb in the Escorial, Madrid. In 1673 Margaret was named as one of the patron saints of Scotland.
Malcolm's reign was a clear transition from the Gaelic tradition to the acceptance of new values and beliefs. Although he was not supported in this by many of his countrymen he established a momentum that could not be stopped. between 1058 and 1093 at Scotland.^26,13,27

     Matilda (Maud) (?) Queen of England, Empress of Almain was born on 7 February 1102 at Winchester, co. Hampshire, England.^6,7,8,2,9,10 She married Heinrich V (?) Deutscher Konig, Romischer Kaiser, son of Heinrich IV (?) Holy Roman Emperor and Bertha (?) di Savoia, Countess of Maurienne, on 7 January 1114 at Mainz, Germany,
;
Her 1st husband.^{11,12,13,14,8,15,2,10,16} Matilda (Maud) (?) Queen of England, Empress of Almain married Geoffroi V "Le Bel" Plantagenet (?) Cte d'Anjou et du Maine, Touraine, Duc de Normandie, son of Foulques V "le Jeune" (?) Cte d'Anjou et de Maine, King of Jerusalem and Eremburge de Baugency Comtesse Heritiere du Maine et du Mans, dame de La Flèche, on 17 June 1128 at Le Mans Cathedral, Le Mans, Departement de la Sarthe, Pays de la Loire, France,
;
Her 2nd husband. Leo van de Pas says m. 17 June 1128 and also states 1127 (in note.)^{7,11,1,13,14,17,18,19,2,9,10,20}
Matilda (Maud) (?) Queen of England, Empress of Almain died on 10 September 1167 at Abbey of Notre-Dame Des Pres, Rouen, Departement de la Seine-Maritime, Haute-Normandie, France, at age 65.^{13,21,1,22,8,2,9}
Matilda (Maud) (?) Queen of England, Empress of Almain was buried between 1167 and 1169 at Bec Abbey, Bec, France (now).^8,2
      ; Per Med Lands:
     "GEOFFROY d’Anjou, son of FOULQUES V Comte d'Anjou & his first wife Eremburge Ctss du Maine (24 Aug 1113-Château du Loire 7 Sep 1151, bur Le Mans Cathedral). His parentage is specified by Orderic Vitalis[334]. The Chronicæ Sancti Albini records the birth "1113 IX Kal Sep" of "Gaufridus comes"[335]. He succeeded in 1129, when his father abdicated and left for Jerusalem, as GEOFFROY V “le Bel/Plantagenet” Comte d’Anjou. He invaded Normandy in 1137 in support of his wife's claim to succeed her father[336]. He was proclaimed Duke of Normandy 19 Jan 1144[337], but resigned the dukedom to his eldest son in 1150. Robert of Torigny records the death "1151 VII Id Sep" of "dux Henricus…pater eius" at "apud Castrum Ledi" and his burial in "civitatis Cinomannicæ…in ecclesia sancti Juliani"[338]. The necrology of Angers Cathedral records the death "VII Id Sep 1151" of "Andegavorum comes Gaufridus tertius Martellus gener Henrici…regis Anglorum"[339].
     "m (Le Mans Cathedral, Anjou 17 Jun 1128) as her second husband, MATILDA of England, widow of Emperor HEINRICH V, daughter of HENRY I King of England & his wife Matilda of Scotland (Winchester or London Feb/Aug 1102-Abbaye de Notre-Dame des Près, near Rouen 10 Sep 1167, bur Abbaye de Bec, Normandy, later moved to Rouen Cathedral). Orderic Vitalis names “Guillelmum Adelinum, et Mathildem imperatricem” as the children of King Henry I and his wife Matilda[340]. Her second marriage is recorded by Orderic Vitalis[341]. The Chronicle of Gervase records the second marriage of "filiam suam…viduam" to "Gaufrido comiti Andegaviæ"[342]. "Goffridus comes filius Fulconis regis Jerusalem" renounced rights to Angers with the consent of "filiis meis Henrico et Goffrido" by charter dated [1136/1140] which also names "uxori meæ Mathildi"[343]. Robert of Torigny records the death "1167…IV Id Sep Rothomagi" of "matris suæ [Henrici regis] Mathildis imperatricis" and her burial "Becci"[344]. The necrology of Angers Cathedral records the death "II Id Sep" of "Mathildis imperatrix filia Henrici regis uxor Goffredi comitis"[345].
     "Mistresses (1) to (3): ---. The names of the mistresses of Comte Geoffroy are not known.
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU: "Empress MATILDA, Queen of England (IV.-XI.1141), *Winchester 7.2.1102, +Rouen 10.9.1167/69, bur Bec Abbey, France; 1m: Mainz 7.1.1114 Emperor Heinrich V of Germany (*1086 +1125); 2m: Le Mans 26.8./3.4.1127 Geoffrey V Plantagenet (*23.8.1113 +7.9.1151.)⁸" GAV-22 EDV-23.

; Per Wikipedia:
     "Empress Matilda (c. 7 February 1102 – 10 September 1167), also known as the Empress Maude,[nb 1] was one of the claimants to the English throne during the civil war known as the Anarchy. The daughter of King Henry I of England, she moved to Germany as a child when she married the future Holy Roman Emperor Henry V. She travelled with her husband into Italy in 1116, was controversially crowned in St. Peter's Basilica, and acted as the imperial regent in Italy. Matilda and Henry V had no children, and when he died in 1125, the imperial crown was claimed by his rival Lothair of Supplinburg.
     "Meanwhile, Matilda's younger brother, William Adelin, died in the White Ship disaster of 1120, leaving Matilda's father and England facing a potential succession crisis. On Emperor Henry V's death, Matilda was recalled to Normandy by her father, who arranged for her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou to form an alliance to protect his southern borders. Henry I had no further legitimate children and nominated Matilda as his heir, making his court swear an oath of loyalty to her and her successors, but the decision was not popular in the Anglo-Norman court. Henry died in 1135, but Matilda and Geoffrey faced opposition from Anglo-Norman barons. The throne was instead taken by Matilda's cousin Stephen of Blois, who enjoyed the backing of the English Church. Stephen took steps to solidify his new regime but faced threats both from neighbouring powers and from opponents within his kingdom.
     "In 1139, Matilda crossed to England to take the kingdom by force, supported by her half-brother Robert of Gloucester and her uncle King David I of Scotland, while Geoffrey focused on conquering Normandy. Matilda's forces captured Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln in 1141, but the Empress' attempt to be crowned at Westminster collapsed in the face of bitter opposition from the London crowds. As a result of this retreat, Matilda was never formally declared Queen of England, and was instead titled the Lady of the English. Robert was captured following the Rout of Winchester in 1141, and Matilda agreed to exchange him for Stephen. Matilda became trapped in Oxford Castle by Stephen's forces that winter, and was forced to escape across the frozen River Isis at night to avoid capture. The war degenerated into a stalemate, with Matilda controlling much of the south-west of England, and Stephen the south-east and the Midlands. Large parts of the rest of the country were in the hands of local, independent barons.
     "Matilda returned to Normandy, now in the hands of her husband, in 1148, leaving her eldest son to continue the campaign in England; he eventually succeeded to the throne as Henry II in 1154, forming the Angevin Empire. She settled her court near Rouen and for the rest of her life concerned herself with the administration of Normandy, acting on her son's behalf when necessary. Particularly in the early years of her son's reign, she provided political advice and attempted to mediate during the Becket controversy. She worked extensively with the Church, founding Cistercian monasteries, and was known for her piety. She was buried under the high altar at Bec Abbey after her death in 1167.
Childhood
     "Matilda was born to Henry I, King of England and Duke of Normandy, and his first wife, Matilda of Scotland, possibly around 7 February 1102 at Sutton Courtenay, in Berkshire.[3][nb 2] Henry was the youngest son of William the Conqueror, who had invaded England in 1066, creating an empire stretching into Wales. The invasion had created an Anglo-Norman elite, many with estates spread across both sides of the English Channel.[5] These barons typically had close links to the kingdom of France, which was then a loose collection of counties and smaller polities, under only the minimal control of the king.[6] Her mother Matilda was the daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland, a member of the West Saxon royal family, and a descendant of Alfred the Great.[7] For Henry, marrying Matilda of Scotland had given his reign increased legitimacy, and for her it had been an opportunity for high status and power in England.[8]
     "Matilda had a younger, legitimate brother, William Adelin, and her father's relationships with numerous mistresses resulted in around 22 illegitimate siblings.[nb 3] Little is known about Matilda's earliest life, but she probably stayed with her mother, was taught to read, and was educated in religious morals.[9][nb 4] Among the nobles at her mother's court were her uncle David, later the King of Scotland, and aspiring nobles such as her half-brother Robert of Gloucester, her cousin Stephen of Blois and Brian Fitz Count.[11] In 1108 Henry left Matilda and her brother in the care of Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, while he travelled to Normandy; Anselm was a favoured cleric of Matilda's mother.[12] There is no detailed description of Matilda's appearance; contemporaries described Matilda as being very beautiful, but this may have simply reflected the conventional practice among the chroniclers.[13]
Holy Roman Empire
Marriage to the Emperor
     "In late 1108 or early 1109, Henry V, then the King of the Romans, sent envoys to Normandy proposing that Matilda marry him, and wrote separately to her mother on the same matter.[14] The match was attractive to the English king: his daughter would be marrying into one of the most prestigious dynasties in Europe, reaffirming his own, slightly questionable, status as the youngest son of a new royal house, and gaining him an ally in dealing with France.[15] In return, Henry V would receive a dowry of 10,000 marks, which he needed to fund an expedition to Rome for his coronation as the Holy Roman Emperor.[16] The final details of the deal were negotiated at Westminster in June 1109 and, as a result of her changing status, Matilda attended a royal council for the first time that October.[16] She left England in February 1110 to make her way to Germany.[17]
     "The couple met at Liège before travelling to Utrecht where, on 10 April, they became officially betrothed.[18] On 25 July Matilda was crowned Queen of the Romans in a ceremony at Mainz.[19] There was a considerable age gap between the couple, as Matilda was only eight years old while Henry was 24.[20] After the betrothal she was placed into the custody of Bruno, the Archbishop of Trier, who was tasked with educating her in German culture, manners and government.[21][22][nb 5] In January 1114 Matilda was ready to be married to Henry, and their wedding was held at the city of Worms amid extravagant celebrations.[23] Matilda now entered public life in Germany, complete with her own household.[24]
     "Political conflict broke out across the Empire shortly after the marriage, triggered when Henry arrested his Chancellor Adalbert and various other German princes.[25] Rebellions followed, accompanied by opposition from within the Church, which played an important part in administering the Empire, and this led to the formal excommunication of the Emperor by Pope Paschal II.[26] Henry and Matilda marched over the Alps into Italy in early 1116, intent on settling matters permanently with the Pope.[26] Matilda was now playing a full part in the imperial government, sponsoring royal grants, dealing with petitioners and taking part in ceremonial occasions.[27] The rest of the year was spent establishing control of northern Italy, and in early 1117 the pair advanced on Rome itself.[28]
     "Paschal fled when Henry and Matilda arrived, and in his absence the papal envoy Maurice Bourdin, later the Antipope Gregory VIII, crowned the pair at St. Peter's Basilica, probably that Easter and certainly by Pentecost.[29] Matilda used these ceremonies to claim the title of the Empress of the Holy Roman Empire. The Empire was governed by monarchs who, like Henry V, had been elected by the major nobles to become the King of the Romans. These kings typically hoped to be subsequently crowned by the pope as emperors, but this could not be guaranteed. Henry V had coerced Paschal II into crowning him in 1111, but Matilda's own status was less clear.[30] As a result of her marriage she was clearly the legitimate Queen of the Romans, a title that she used on her seal and charters, but it was uncertain if she had a legitimate claim to the title of empress.[30]
     "Both Bourdin's status and the ceremonies themselves were deeply ambiguous. Strictly speaking, the ceremonies were not imperial coronations but instead were formal "crown-wearing" occasions, among the few times in the year when the rulers would wear their crowns in court.[31] Bourdin had also been excommunicated by the time he conducted the second ceremony, and he was later to be deposed and imprisoned for life by the Pope.[31] Nonetheless, Matilda maintained that she had been officially crowned as the empress in Rome.[31] The titles of emperor and empress were not always consistently used in this period, and in any case her use of the title became widely accepted.[32] Matilda chose not to dispute Anglo-Norman chroniclers who later incorrectly recorded that the Pope himself had crowned her in Rome.[33]
Death of Henry
     "In 1118, Henry returned north over the Alps into Germany to suppress fresh rebellions, leaving Matilda as his regent to govern Italy.[34][nb 6] There are few records of her rule over the next two years, but she probably gained considerable practical experience of government.[36] In 1119, she returned north to meet Henry in Lotharingia.[37] Her husband was occupied in finding a compromise with the Pope, who had excommunicated him.[37] In 1122, Henry and probably Matilda were at the Council of Worms.[38] The council settled the long-running dispute with the Church when Henry gave up his rights to invest bishops with their episcopal regalia.[38] Matilda attempted to visit her father in England that year, but the journey was blocked by Charles I, Count of Flanders, whose territory she would have needed to pass through.[39] Historian Marjorie Chibnall argues Matilda had intended to discuss the inheritance of the English crown on this journey.[40]
     "Matilda and Henry remained childless, but neither party was considered to be infertile and contemporary chroniclers blamed their situation on the Emperor and his sins against the Church.[41][nb 7] In early 1122, the couple travelled down the Rhine together as Henry continued to suppress the ongoing political unrest, but by now he was suffering from cancer.[42] He died on 23 May 1125 in Utrecht, leaving Matilda in the protection of their nephew Frederick, the heir to his estates, and in possession of the imperial insignia.[43] It is unclear what instructions he gave her about the future of the Empire, which faced another leadership election.[44] Archbishop Adalbert subsequently convinced Matilda that she should give him the insignia, and the Archbishop led the electoral process which appointed Lothair of Supplinburg, a former enemy of Henry, as the new King of the Romans.[45]
     "Now aged 23, Matilda had only limited options as to how she might spend the rest of her life.[45] Being childless, she could not exercise a role as an imperial regent, which left her with the choice of either becoming a nun or remarrying.[45] Some offers of marriage started to arrive from German princes, but she chose to return to Normandy.[46] She does not appear to have expected to return to Germany, as she gave up her estates within the Empire and departed with her personal collection of jewels, her own imperial regalia, two of Henry's crowns, and the valuable relic of the Hand of St James the Apostle.[47]
Return to Normandy
Marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou
     "Matilda returned to Normandy in 1125 and spent about a year at the royal court, where her father was still hoping that his second marriage would generate a son.[59] In the event that this failed to happen, Matilda was now Henry's preferred choice, and he declared that she was to be his rightful successor if he should not have another legitimate son.[60] The Anglo-Norman barons were gathered together at Westminster on Christmas 1126, where they swore in January to recognise Matilda and any future legitimate heir she might have.[61][nb 8]
     "Henry began to formally look for a new husband for Matilda in early 1127 and received various offers from princes within the Empire.[63] His preference was to use Matilda's marriage to secure the southern borders of Normandy by marrying her to Geoffrey of Anjou, the eldest son of Fulk, the Count of Anjou.[64] Henry's control of Normandy had faced numerous challenges since he had conquered it in 1106, and the latest threat came from his nephew William Clito, the new Count of Flanders, who enjoyed the support of the French king.[65] It was essential to Henry that he did not also face a threat from the south as well as the east of Normandy.[66] William Adelin had married Fulk's daughter Matilda, which would have cemented an alliance between Henry and Anjou, but the White Ship disaster put an end to this.[67] Henry and Fulk argued over the fate of the marriage dowry, and this had encouraged Fulk to turn to support William Clito instead.[68] Henry's solution was now to negotiate the marriage of Matilda to Geoffrey, recreating the former alliance.[65]
     "Matilda appears to have been unimpressed by the prospect of marrying Geoffrey of Anjou.[69] She felt that marrying the son of a count diminished her imperial status and was probably also unhappy about marrying someone so much younger than she was; Matilda was 25 and Geoffrey was 13.[69] Hildebert, the Archbishop of Tours, eventually intervened to persuade her to go along with the engagement.[69] Matilda finally agreed, and she travelled to Rouen in May 1127 with Robert of Gloucester and Brian Fitz Count where she was formally betrothed to Geoffrey.[70] Over the course of the next year, Fulk decided to depart for Jerusalem, where he hoped to become king, leaving his possessions to Geoffrey.[71] Henry knighted his future son-in-law, and Matilda and Geoffrey were married a week later on 17 June 1128 in Le Mans by the bishops of Le Mans and Séez.[71] Fulk finally left Anjou for Jerusalem in 1129, declaring Geoffrey the Count of Anjou and Maine.[72]
Disputes
     "The marriage proved difficult, as the couple did not particularly like each other.[73] There was a further dispute over Matilda's dowry; she was granted various castles in Normandy by Henry, but it was not specified when the couple would actually take possession of them.[74] It is also unknown whether Henry intended Geoffrey to have any future claim on England or Normandy, and he was probably keeping Geoffrey's status deliberately uncertain.[74] Soon after the marriage, Matilda left Geoffrey and returned to Normandy.[73] Henry appears to have blamed Geoffrey for the separation, but the couple were finally reconciled in 1131.[75] Henry summoned Matilda from Normandy, and she arrived in England that August.[76] It was decided that Matilda would return to Geoffrey at a meeting of the King's great council in September.[76] The council also gave another collective oath of allegiance to recognise her as Henry's heir.[76][nb 9]
     "Matilda gave birth to her first son in March 1133 at Le Mans, the future Henry II.[78] Henry was delighted by the news and came to see her at Rouen.[79] At Pentecost 1134, son Geoffrey was born in Rouen, but the childbirth was extremely difficult and Matilda appeared close to death.[80] She made arrangements for her will and argued with her father about where she should be buried. Matilda preferred Bec Abbey, but Henry wanted her to be interred at Rouen Cathedral.[80] Matilda recovered, and Henry was overjoyed by the birth of his second grandson, possibly insisting on another round of oaths from his nobility.[80][nb 10]
     "From then on, relations became increasingly strained between Matilda and Henry. The couple suspected that they lacked genuine support in England for their claim to the throne, and proposed in 1135 that the King should hand over the royal castles in Normandy to Matilda and should insist that the Norman nobility immediately swear allegiance to her.[82] This would have given the couple a much more powerful position after Henry's death, but the King angrily refused, probably out of a concern that Geoffrey would try to seize power in Normandy while he was still alive.[83] A fresh rebellion broke out in southern Normandy, and Geoffrey and Matilda intervened militarily on behalf of the rebels.[50]
     "In the middle of this confrontation, Henry unexpectedly fell ill and died near Lyons-la-Forêt.[84] It is uncertain what, if anything, Henry said about the succession before his death.[85] Contemporary chronicler accounts were coloured by subsequent events. Sources favourable to Matilda suggested that Henry had reaffirmed his intent to grant all his lands to his daughter, while hostile chroniclers argued that Henry had renounced his former plans and had apologised for having forced the barons to swear an oath of allegiance to her.[85]
Road to war
     "When news began to spread of Henry I's death, Matilda and Geoffrey were in Anjou, supporting the rebels in their campaign against the royal army, which included a number of Matilda's supporters such as Robert of Gloucester.[50] Many of these barons had taken an oath to stay in Normandy until the late king was properly buried, which prevented them from returning to England.[86] Nonetheless, Geoffrey and Matilda took the opportunity to march into southern Normandy and seize a number of key castles around Argentan that had formed Matilda's disputed dowry.[87] They then stopped, unable to advance further, pillaging the countryside and facing increased resistance from the Norman nobility and a rebellion in Anjou itself.[88] Matilda was by now also pregnant with her third son, William; opinions vary among historians as to what extent this affected her military plans.[89][nb 11]
     "Meanwhile, news of Henry's death had reached Stephen of Blois, conveniently placed in Boulogne, and he left for England, accompanied by his military household. Robert of Gloucester had garrisoned the ports of Dover and Canterbury and some accounts suggest that they refused Stephen access when he first arrived.[90] Nonetheless Stephen reached the edge of London by 8 December and over the next week he began to seize power in England.[91] The crowds in London proclaimed Stephen the new monarch, believing that he would grant the city new rights and privileges in return, and his brother, Henry of Blois, the Bishop of Winchester, delivered the support of the Church to Stephen.[92] Stephen had sworn to support Matilda in 1127, but Henry convincingly argued that the late King had been wrong to insist that his court take the oath, and suggested that the King had changed his mind on his deathbed.[93][nb 12] Stephen's coronation was held a week later at Westminster Abbey on 26 December.[95]
     "Following the news that Stephen was gathering support in England, the Norman nobility had gathered at Le Neubourg to discuss declaring his elder brother Theobald king.[96] The Normans argued that the count, as the eldest grandson of William the Conqueror, had the most valid claim over the kingdom and the Duchy, and was certainly preferable to Matilda.[97] Their discussions were interrupted by the sudden news from England that Stephen's coronation was to occur the next day.[95] Theobald's support immediately ebbed away, as the barons were not prepared to support the division of England and Normandy by opposing Stephen.[98][nb 13]
     "Matilda gave birth to her third son William on 22 July 1136 at Argentan, and she then operated out of the border region for the next three years, establishing her household knights on estates around the area.[100] Matilda may have asked Ulger, the Bishop of Angers, to garner support for her claim with the Pope in Rome, but if she did, Ulger was unsuccessful.[101] Geoffrey invaded Normandy in early 1136 and, after a temporary truce, invaded again later the same year, raiding and burning estates rather than trying to hold the territory.[102] Stephen returned to the Duchy in 1137, where he met with Louis VI and Theobald to agree to an informal alliance against Geoffrey and Matilda, to counter the growing Angevin power in the region.[103] Stephen formed an army to retake Matilda's Argentan castles, but frictions between his Flemish mercenary forces and the local Norman barons resulted in a battle between the two-halves of his army.[104] The Norman forces then deserted the King, forcing Stephen to give up his campaign.[105] Stephen agreed to another truce with Geoffrey, promising to pay him 2,000 marks a year in exchange for peace along the Norman borders.[102]
     "In England, Stephen's reign started off well, with lavish gatherings of the royal court that saw the King give out grants of land and favours to his supporters.[106] Stephen received the support of Pope Innocent II, thanks in part to the testimony of Louis VI and Theobald.[107] Troubles rapidly began to emerge. Matilda's uncle, David I of Scotland, invaded the north of England on the news of Henry's death, taking Carlisle, Newcastle and other key strongholds.[94] Stephen rapidly marched north with an army and met David at Durham, where a temporary compromise was agreed.[108] South Wales rose in rebellion, and by 1137 Stephen was forced to abandon attempts to suppress the revolt.[109] Stephen put down two revolts in the south-west led by Baldwin de Redvers and Robert of Bampton; Baldwin was released after his capture and travelled to Normandy, where he became a vocal critic of the King.[110]
Revolt
     "Matilda's half-brother, Robert of Gloucester, was one of the most powerful Anglo-Norman barons, controlling estates in Normandy as well as the Earldom of Gloucester.[111] In 1138, he rebelled against Stephen, starting the descent into civil war in England.[112] Robert renounced his fealty to the King and declared his support for Matilda, which triggered a major regional rebellion in Kent and across the south-west of England, although he himself remained in Normandy.[113] Matilda had not been particularly active in asserting her claims to the throne since 1135 and in many ways it was Robert who took the initiative in declaring war in 1138.[114] In France, Geoffrey took advantage of the situation by re-invading Normandy. David of Scotland also invaded the north of England once again, announcing that he was supporting the claim of Matilda to the throne, pushing south into Yorkshire.[115][nb 14]
     "Stephen responded quickly to the revolts and invasions, paying most attention to England rather than to Normandy. His wife Matilda was sent to Kent with ships and resources from Boulogne, with the task of retaking the key port of Dover, under Robert's control.[111] A small number of Stephen's household knights were sent north to help the fight against the Scots, where David's forces were defeated later that year at the Battle of the Standard.[115] Despite this victory, however, David still occupied most of the north.[115] Stephen himself went west in an attempt to regain control of Gloucestershire, first striking north into the Welsh Marches, taking Hereford and Shrewsbury, before heading south to Bath.[111] The town of Bristol itself proved too strong for him, and Stephen contented himself with raiding and pillaging the surrounding area.[111] The rebels appear to have expected Robert to intervene with support, but he remained in Normandy throughout the year, trying to persuade the Empress Matilda to invade England herself.[116] Dover finally surrendered to the Queen's forces later in the year.[117]
     "By 1139, an invasion of England by Robert and Matilda appeared imminent. Geoffrey and Matilda had secured much of Normandy and, together with Robert, spent the beginning of the year mobilising forces for a cross-Channel expedition.[118] Matilda also appealed to the papacy at the start of the year; her representative, Bishop Ulger, put forward her legal claim to the English throne on the grounds of her hereditary right and the oaths sworn by the barons.[119] Arnulf of Lisieux led Stephen's case, arguing that because Matilda's mother had really been a nun, her claim to the throne was illegitimate.[120] The Pope declined to reverse his earlier support for Stephen, but from Matilda's perspective the case usefully established that Stephen's claim was disputed.[120]
Civil War
Initial moves
     "Empress Matilda's invasion finally began at the end of the summer of 1139. Baldwin de Redvers crossed over from Normandy to Wareham in August in an initial attempt to capture a port to receive Matilda's invading army, but Stephen's forces forced him to retreat into the south-west.[121] The following month, the Empress was invited by her stepmother, Queen Adeliza, to land at Arundel instead, and on 30 September Robert of Gloucester and Matilda arrived in England with a force of 140 knights.[121][nb 15] Matilda stayed at Arundel Castle, while Robert marched north-west to Wallingford and Bristol, hoping to raise support for the rebellion and to link up with Miles of Gloucester, who took the opportunity to renounce his fealty to the King and declare for Matilda.[123]
     "Stephen responded by promptly moving south, besieging Arundel and trapping Matilda inside the castle.[124] Stephen then agreed to a truce proposed by his brother, Henry of Blois; the full details of the agreement are not known, but the results were that Matilda and her household of knights were released from the siege and escorted to the south-west of England, where they were reunited with Robert of Gloucester.[124] The reasons for Matilda's release remain unclear. Stephen may have thought it was in his own best interests to release the Empress and concentrate instead on attacking Robert, seeing Robert, rather than Matilda, as his main opponent at this point in the conflict.[124] Arundel Castle was also considered almost impregnable, and Stephen may have been worried that he risked tying down his army in the south whilst Robert roamed freely in the west.[125] Another theory is that Stephen released Matilda out of a sense of chivalry; Stephen had a generous, courteous personality and women were not normally expected to be targeted in Anglo-Norman warfare.[126][nb 16]
     "After staying for a period in Robert's stronghold of Bristol, Matilda established her court in nearby Gloucester, still safely in the south-west but far enough away for her to remain independent of her half-brother.[128] Although there had been only a few new defections to her cause, Matilda still controlled a compact block of territory stretching out from Gloucester and Bristol south into Wiltshire, west into the Welsh Marches and east through the Thames Valley as far as Oxford and Wallingford, threatening London.[129] Her influence extended down into Devon and Cornwall, and north through Herefordshire, but her authority in these areas remained limited.[130]
     "She faced a counterattack from Stephen, who started by attacking Wallingford Castle which controlled the Thames corridor; it was held by Brian Fitz Count and Stephen found it too well defended.[131] Stephen continued into Wiltshire to attack Trowbridge, taking the castles of South Cerney and Malmesbury en route.[132] In response, Miles marched east, attacking Stephen's rearguard forces at Wallingford and threatening an advance on London.[133] Stephen was forced to give up his western campaign, returning east to stabilise the situation and protect his capital.[134]
     "At the start of 1140, Nigel, the Bishop of Ely, joined Matilda's faction.[134] Hoping to seize East Anglia, he established his base of operations in the Isle of Ely, then surrounded by protective fenland.[134] Nigel faced a rapid response from Stephen, who made a surprise attack on the isle, forcing the Bishop to flee to Gloucester.[135] Robert of Gloucester's men retook some of the territory that Stephen had taken in his 1139 campaign.[136] In an effort to negotiate a truce, Henry of Blois held a peace conference at Bath, at which Matilda was represented by Robert.[137] The conference collapsed after Henry and the clergy insisted that they should set the terms of any peace deal, which Stephen's representatives found unacceptable.[136]
Battle of Lincoln
     "Matilda's fortunes changed dramatically for the better at the start of 1141.[138] Ranulf of Chester, a powerful northern magnate, had fallen out with the King over the winter and Stephen had placed his castle in Lincoln under siege. In response, Robert of Gloucester and Ranulf advanced on Stephen's position with a larger force, resulting in the Battle of Lincoln on 2 February 1141.[139] The King commanded the centre of his army, with Alan of Brittany on his right and William of Aumale on his left.[140] Robert and Ranulf's forces had a superiority in cavalry and Stephen dismounted many of his own knights to form a solid infantry block.[140][nb 17] After an initial success in which William's forces destroyed the Angevins' Welsh infantry, the battle went well for Matilda's forces.[142] Robert and Ranulf's cavalry encircled Stephen's centre, and the King found himself surrounded by the Angevin army.[142] After much fighting, Robert's soldiers finally overwhelmed Stephen and he was taken away from the field in custody.[143]
     "Matilda received Stephen in person at her court in Gloucester, before having him moved to Bristol Castle, traditionally used for holding high-status prisoners.[144] Matilda now began to take the necessary steps to have herself crowned queen in his place, which would require the agreement of the Church and her coronation at Westminster.[145] Stephen's brother Henry summoned a council at Winchester before Easter in his capacity as papal legate to consider the clergy's view. Matilda had made a private deal with Henry that he would deliver the support of the Church in exchange for being granted control over Church affairs.[146] Henry handed over the royal treasury to her, which proved to be rather depleted except for Stephen's crown, and he excommunicated many of her enemies who refused to switch sides.[147] Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury was unwilling to declare Matilda queen so rapidly, however, and a delegation of clergy and nobles, headed by Theobald, travelled to Bristol to see Stephen, who agreed that, given the situation, he was prepared to release his subjects from their oath of fealty to him.[146][148]
     "The clergy gathered again in Winchester after Easter and declared Matilda the "Lady of England and Normandy" as a precursor to her coronation.[148] Although Matilda's own followers attended the event, few other major nobles seem to have attended and the delegation from London procrastinated.[149] Stephen's wife, Queen Matilda, wrote to complain and demand her husband's release.[150] Nonetheless, Matilda then advanced to London to arrange her coronation in June, where her position became precarious.[151] Despite securing the support of Geoffrey de Mandeville, who controlled the Tower of London, forces loyal to Stephen and Queen Matilda remained close to the city and the citizens were fearful about welcoming the Empress.[152] On 24 June, shortly before the planned coronation, the city rose up against the Empress and Geoffrey de Mandeville; Matilda and her followers fled just in time, making a chaotic retreat back to Oxford.[153]
     "Meanwhile, Geoffrey of Anjou invaded Normandy again and, in the absence of Waleran of Beaumont, who was still fighting in England, Geoffrey took all the Duchy south of the River Seine and east of the Risle.[154] No help was forthcoming from Stephen's brother Theobald this time either, who appears to have been preoccupied with his own problems with France—the new French king, Louis VII, had rejected his father's regional alliance, improving relations with Anjou and taking a more bellicose line with Theobald, which would result in war the following year.[155] Geoffrey's success in Normandy and Stephen's weakness in England began to influence the loyalty of many Anglo-Norman barons, who feared losing their lands in England to Robert and the Empress, and their possessions in Normandy to Geoffrey.[156] Many started to leave Stephen's faction. His friend and advisor Waleran was one of those who decided to defect in mid-1141, crossing into Normandy to secure his ancestral possessions by allying himself with the Angevins, and bringing Worcestershire into the Empress's camp.[157] Waleran's twin brother, Robert of Leicester, effectively withdrew from fighting in the conflict at the same time. Other supporters of the Empress were restored in their former strongholds, such as Bishop Nigel of Ely, and still others received new earldoms in the west of England. The royal control over the minting of coins broke down, leading to coins being struck by local barons and bishops across the country.[158]
Rout of Winchester and the Siege of Oxford
     "Matilda's position was transformed by her defeat at the Rout of Winchester. Her alliance with Henry of Blois proved short-lived and they soon fell out over political patronage and ecclesiastical policy; the Bishop transferred his support back to Stephen's cause.[159] In response, in July Matilda and Robert of Gloucester besieged Henry of Blois in his episcopal castle at Winchester, using the royal castle in the city as the base for their operations.[160] Stephen's wife, Queen Matilda, had kept his cause alive in the south-east of England, and the Queen, backed by her lieutenant William of Ypres and reinforced with fresh troops from London, took the opportunity to advance on Winchester.[161] Their forces encircled Matilda's army.[162] Matilda decided to escape from the city with Fitz Count and Reginald of Cornwall, while the rest of her army delayed the royal forces.[163] In the subsequent battle the Empress's forces were defeated and Robert of Gloucester himself was taken prisoner during the retreat, although Matilda herself escaped, exhausted, to her fortress at Devizes.[164]
     "With both Stephen and Robert held prisoner, negotiations were held to try to come to agreement on a long-term peace settlement, but Queen Matilda was unwilling to offer any compromise to the Empress, and Robert refused to accept any offer to encourage him to change sides to Stephen.[165] Instead, in November the two sides simply exchanged the two leaders, Stephen returning to his queen, and Robert to the Empress in Oxford.[166] Henry held another church council, which reversed its previous decision and reaffirmed Stephen's legitimacy to rule, and a fresh coronation of Stephen and Matilda occurred at Christmas 1141.[165] Stephen travelled north to raise new forces and to successfully persuade Ranulf of Chester to change sides once again.[167] Stephen then spent the summer attacking some of the new Angevin castles built the previous year, including Cirencester, Bampton and Wareham.[168]
     "in the autumn.[169] Matilda came under increased pressure from Stephen's forces and was surrounded at Oxford.[168] Oxford was a secure town, protected by walls and the River Isis, but Stephen led a sudden attack across the river, leading the charge and swimming part of the way.[170] Once on the other side, the King and his men stormed into the town, trapping Matilda in the castle.[170] Oxford Castle was a powerful fortress and, rather than storming it, Stephen decided to settle down for a long siege.[170] Just before Christmas, Matilda sneaked out of the castle with a handful of knights (probably via a postern gate), crossed the icy river on foot and made her escape past the royal army to safety at Wallingford, leaving the castle garrison free to surrender the next day.[171][nb 18]
Stalemate
     "In the aftermath of the retreat from Winchester, Matilda rebuilt her court at Devizes Castle, a former property of the Bishop of Salisbury that had been confiscated by Stephen.[173] She established her household knights on the surrounding estates, supported by Flemish mercenaries, ruling through the network of local sheriffs and other officials.[174] Many of those that had lost lands in the regions held by the King travelled west to take up patronage from Matilda.[175] Backed by the pragmatic Robert of Gloucester, Matilda was content to engage in a drawn-out struggle, and the war soon entered a stalemate.[176]
     "At first, the balance of power appeared to move slightly in Matilda's favour.[177] Robert of Gloucester besieged Stephen in 1143 at Wilton Castle, an assembly point for royal forces in Herefordshire.[178] Stephen attempted to break out and escape, resulting in the Battle of Wilton. Once again, the Angevin cavalry proved too strong, and for a moment it appeared that Stephen might be captured for a second time, before finally managing to escape.[179] Later in the year Geoffrey de Mandeville, the Earl of Essex, rose up in rebellion against Stephen in East Anglia.[180] Geoffrey based himself from the Isle of Ely and began a military campaign against Cambridge, with the intention of progressing south towards London.[181] Ranulf of Chester revolted once again in the summer of 1144.[182] Meanwhile, Geoffrey of Anjou finished securing his hold on southern Normandy, and in January 1144 he advanced into Rouen, the capital of the Duchy, concluding his campaign.[167] Louis VII recognised him as Duke of Normandy shortly after.[183]
     "Despite these successes, Matilda was unable to consolidate her position.[184] Miles of Gloucester, one of the most talented of her military commanders, had died while hunting over the previous Christmas.[185] Geoffrey de Mandeville's rebellion against Stephen in the east ended with his death in September 1144 during an attack on Burwell Castle.[186] As a result, Stephen made progress against Matilda's forces in the west in 1145, recapturing Faringdon Castle in Oxfordshire.[186] Matilda authorised Reginald, the Earl of Cornwall, to attempt fresh peace negotiations, but neither side was prepared to compromise.[187]
Conclusion of the war
     "The character of the conflict in England gradually began to shift; by the late 1140s, the major fighting in the war was over, giving way to an intractable stalemate, with only the occasional outbreak of fresh fighting.[188] Several of Matilda's key supporters died: in 1147 Robert of Gloucester died peacefully, and Brian Fitz Count gradually withdrew from public life, probably eventually joining a monastery; by 1151 he was dead.[189] Many of Matilda's other followers joined the Second Crusade when it was announced in 1145, leaving the region for several years.[188] Some of the Anglo-Norman barons made individual peace agreements with each other to secure their lands and war gains, and many were not keen to pursue any further conflict.[190]
     "Matilda's eldest son Henry slowly began to assume a leading role in the conflict.[191] He had remained in France when the Empress first left for England.[192] He crossed over to England in 1142, before returning to Anjou in 1144.[192] Geoffrey of Anjou expected Henry to become the King of England and began to involve him in the government of the family lands.[193] In 1147, Henry intervened in England with a small mercenary army but the expedition failed, not least because Henry lacked the funds to pay his men.[188] Henry asked his mother for money, but she refused, stating that she had none available.[194] In the end Stephen himself ended up paying off Henry's mercenaries, allowing him to return home safely; his reasons for doing so remain unclear.[195][nb 19]
     "Matilda decided to return to Normandy in 1148, partially due to her difficulties with the Church.[196] The Empress had occupied the strategically essential Devizes Castle in 1142, maintaining her court there, but legally it still belonged to Josceline de Bohon, the Bishop of Salisbury, and in late 1146 Pope Eugene III intervened to support his claims, threatening Matilda with excommunication if she did not return it.[196] Matilda first played for time, then left for Normandy in early 1148, leaving the castle to Henry, who then procrastinated over its return for many years.[197] Matilda re-established her court in Rouen, where she met with her sons and husband and probably made arrangements for her future life in Normandy, and for Henry's next expedition to England.[198] Matilda chose to live in the priory of Notre Dame du Pré, situated just south of Rouen, where she lived in personal quarters attached to the priory and in a nearby palace built by Henry.[199]
     "Matilda increasingly devoted her efforts to the administration of Normandy, rather than the war in England.[200] Geoffrey sent the Bishop of Thérouanne to Rome in 1148 to campaign for Henry's right to the English throne, and opinion within the English Church gradually shifted in Henry's favour.[201] Matilda and Geoffrey made peace with Louis VII, who in return supported Henry's rights to Normandy.[202] Geoffrey died unexpectedly in 1151, and Henry claimed the family lands.[203] Henry returned to England once again at the start of 1153 with a small army, winning the support of some of the major regional barons.[204] Neither side's army was keen to fight, however, and the Church brokered a truce; a permanent peace followed, under which Henry recognised Stephen as king, but became Stephen's adopted son and successor.[205] Meanwhile, Normandy faced considerable disorder and the threat of baronial revolt, which Matilda was unable to totally suppress.[206] Stephen died the next year, and Henry assumed the throne; his coronation used the grander of the two imperial crowns that Matilda had brought back from Germany in 1125.[207] Once Henry had been crowned, the troubles facing Matilda in Normandy died away.[206]
Later life
     "Matilda spent the rest of her life in Normandy, often acting as Henry's representative and presiding over the government of the Duchy.[208] Early on, Matilda and her son issued charters in England and Normandy in their joint names, dealing with the various land claims that had arisen during the wars.[208] Particularly in the initial years of his reign, the King drew on her for advice on policy matters.[209] Matilda was involved in attempts to mediate between Henry and his Chancellor Thomas Becket when the two men fell out in the 1160s.[13] Matilda had originally cautioned against the appointment, but when the Prior of Mont St Jacques asked her for a private interview on Becket's behalf to seek her views, she provided a moderate perspective on the problem.[13] Matilda explained that she disagreed with Henry's attempts to codify English customs, which Becket was opposed to, but also condemned poor administration in the English Church and Becket's own headstrong behaviour.[13]
     "Matilda helped to deal with several diplomatic crises. The first of these involved the Hand of St James, the relic which Matilda had brought back with her from Germany many years before.[210] Frederick I, the Holy Roman Emperor, considered the hand to be part of the imperial regalia and requested that Henry return it to Germany.[211] Matilda and Henry were equally insistent that it should remain at Reading Abbey, where it had become a popular attraction for visiting pilgrims.[211] Frederick was bought off with an alternative set of expensive gifts from England, including a huge, luxurious tent, probably chosen by Matilda, which Frederick used for court events in Italy.[212] She was also approached by Louis VII of France, in 1164, and helped to defuse a growing diplomatic row over the handling of Crusading funds.[13]
     "In her old age Matilda paid increasing attention to Church affairs and her personal faith, although she remained involved in governing Normandy throughout her life.[213] Matilda appears to have had particular fondness for her youngest son William.[214] She opposed Henry's proposal in 1155 to invade Ireland and give the lands to William, however, possibly on the grounds that the project was impractical, and instead William received large grants of land in England.[13] Matilda was more easy-going in her later life than in her youth, but the chronicler of Mont St Jacques, who met her during this period, still felt that she appeared to be "of the stock of tyrants".[215]
Death
     "Matilda died on 10 September 1167, and her remaining wealth was given to the Church.[216][nb 20] She was buried under the high altar at the abbey of Bec-Hellouin in a service led by Rotrou, the Archbishop of Rouen.[217] Her tomb's epitaph included the lines "Great by birth, greater by marriage, greatest in her offspring: here lies Matilda, the daughter, wife, and mother of Henry", which became a famous phrase among her contemporaries.[218][nb 21] This tomb was damaged in a fire in 1263 and later restored in 1282, before finally being destroyed by an English army in 1421.[219] In 1684 the Congregation of St. Maur identified some of her remaining bones and reburied them at Bec-Hellouin in a new coffin.[219] Her remains were lost again after the destruction of Bec-Hellouin's church by Napoleon, but were found once more in 1846 and this time reburied at Rouen Cathedral, where they remain.[219]
Matilda as ruler
Government, law and court
     "In the Holy Roman Empire, the young Matilda's court included knights, chaplains and ladies-in-waiting, although, unlike some queens of the period, she did not have her own personal chancellor to run her household, instead using the imperial chancellor.[24] When acting as regent in Italy, she found the local rulers were prepared to accept a female ruler.[220] Her Italian administration included the Italian chancellor, backed by experienced administrators.[220] She was not called upon to make any major decisions, instead dealing with smaller matters and acting as the symbolic representative of her absent husband, meeting with and helping to negotiate with magnates and clergy.[221]
     "On her return from Germany to Normandy and Anjou, she styled herself as empress and the daughter of King Henry.[222] During the civil war for England, her status was uncertain. The Anglo-Saxon queens of England had exercised considerable formal power, but this tradition had diminished under the Normans: at most their queens ruled temporarily as regents on their husbands' behalf when they were away travelling, rather than in their own right.[223] Initially between 1139 and 1141 Matilda referred to herself as acting as a feme sole, "a woman acting alone", highlighting her autonomy and independence from her husband Geoffrey.[224] She had an imperial great seal created, which was round like the seal of a king – queens used an oval seal – but which showed Matilda enthroned as an empress and titled as the Queen of the Romans.[225] The seal did not show her on horseback, however, as a male ruler would have been depicted.[225] Since she was never crowned at Westminster, during the rest of the war she appears to have used her title of Lady of the English, rather than that of the Queen of England, although some contemporaries referred to her by the royal title.[226]
     "Matilda presented herself as continuing the English tradition of centralised royal government, and attempted to maintain a government in England parallel to Stephen's, including a royal household and a chancellor.[227] Matilda gathered revenues from the royal estates in the counties under her control, particularly in her core territories where the sheriffs were loyal to her cause.[228] She appointed earls to rival those created by Stephen.[229] She was unable to operate a system of royal law courts, however, and her administrative resources were extremely limited, although some of her clerks went on to become bishops in Normandy.[230] Matilda issued two types of coins in her name during her time in England, which were used in the west of England and Wales.[231] The first were initially minted in Oxford during her stay there, and the design was then adopted by her mints at Bristol, Cardiff and Wareham after her victory at the Battle of Lincoln.[231] A second design was minted at Bristol and Cardiff during the 1140s.[231]
     "On returning to Normandy for the last time in 1148, Matilda ceased to use the title Lady of the English, simply styling herself as empress again; she never adopted the title of Countess of Anjou.[232] Matilda's household became smaller, and often merged with Henry's own court when the two were co-located in Rouen.[233] She continued to play a special role in the government of the area around Argentan, where she held feudal rights from the grants made at the time of her second marriage.[234]
Relations with the Church
     "It is unclear how strong Matilda's personal piety was, although contemporaries praised her lifelong preference to be buried at the monastic site of Bec rather than the grander but more worldly Rouen, and believed her to have substantial, underlying religious beliefs.[235] Like other members of the Anglo-Norman nobility, she bestowed considerable patronage on the Church.[236] Early on in her life, she preferred the well-established Benedictine monastery of Cluny alongside some of the newer Augustinian orders, such as the Victorines and Premonstratensians.[237] As part of this patronage, she re-founded the abbey of Notre-Dame-du-Vœu near Cherbourg.[238]
     "As time went by, Matilda directed more of her attention to the Cistercian order. This order was very fashionable in England and Normandy during the period, and was dedicated to the Virgin Mary, a figure of particular importance to Matilda.[239] She had close links to the Cistercian Mortemer Abbey in Normandy, and drew on the house for a supply of monks when she supported the foundation of nearby La Valasse.[240] She encouraged the Cistercians to build at Mortemer on a grand scale, with guest houses to accommodate a range of visitors of all ranks, and may have played a part in selecting the paintings for the monastic chapels.[241]
Legacy
Historiography
     "Contemporary chroniclers in England, France, Germany and Italy documented many aspects of Matilda's life, although the only biography of her, apparently written by Arnulf of Lisieux, has been lost.[242] The chroniclers took a range of perspectives on her.[242] In Germany, the chroniclers praised Matilda extensively and her reputation as the "good Matilda" remained positive.[13] During the years of the Anarchy, works such as the Gesta Stephani took a much more negative tone, praising Stephen and condemning Matilda.[243] Once Henry II assumed the throne, the tone of the chroniclers towards Matilda became more positive.[244] Legends spread in the years after Matilda's death, including the suggestion that her first husband, Henry, had not died but had in fact secretly become a hermit – making Matilda's second marriage illegitimate – and a tale that Matilda had an affair with Stephen, resulting in the conception of Henry II.[245]
     "Tudor scholars were interested in Matilda's right of succession.[246] According to 16th century standards, Matilda had a clear right to the English throne, and academics therefore struggled to explain why Matilda had acquiesced to her son Henry's kingship at the end of the war, rather than ruling directly herself.[247] By the 18th century, historians such as David Hume had a much better understanding of the irregular nature of 12th century law and custom and this question became less relevant.[248] By the 19th century, the archival sources on Matilda's life, including charters, foundation histories, and letters, were being uncovered and analysed.[249] Historians Kate Norgate, Sir James Ramsay and J. H. Round used these to produce new, richer accounts of Matilda and the civil war; Ramsay's account, using the Gesta Stephani, was not complimentary, while Norgate, drawing on French sources, was more neutral in tone.[250] The German academic Oskar Rössler's 1897 biography drew heavily on German charters, not extensively used by Anglophone historians.[251]
     "Matilda has attracted relatively little attention from modern English academics, being treated as a marginal figure in comparison to other contemporaries, particularly her rival Stephen, in contrast to the work carried out by German scholars on her time in the Empire.[252] Popular, but not always accurate, biographies were written by the Earl of Onslow in 1939 and Nesta Pain in 1978, but the only major academic biography in English remains Marjorie Chibnall's 1991 work.[253] Interpretations of Matilda's character have shifted over time, but there is, as Chibnall describes, a "general agreement that she was either proud or at least keenly conscious of the high status of an empress".[254] Like both Henry I and Henry II, Matilda had a certain autocratic grandeur, which was combined with a firm moral belief in her cause; ultimately however she was limited by the political conventions of the 12th century.[255] The treatment of Matilda by modern historians has been challenged by feminist scholars, including Fiona Tolhurst, who believe some traditional assumptions about her role and personality show gender bias.[256] In this interpretation, Matilda has been unfairly criticised for showing qualities that have been considered praiseworthy when seen in her male contemporaries.[257]
Notes
1. Maude is a vernacular form of the name Matilda, and frequently used interchangeably. She was known in Latin as Mathildis Imperatrix and in Anglo-Norman as Imperatrice Mahaut.
2. Matilda's date of birth was not recorded at the time and can only be estimated by later chronicler statements about her age. Older histories suggested that Matilda of Scotland gave birth to a child in the city of Winchester in July 1101. These were based on the writings of the chronicler Wace; current scholarship, based on the records of the Queen's travels, considers this account to have been impossible, and places Matilda of Scotland at Sutton Courtenay in early February 1102, where the Empress Matilda was probably born.[4]
3. Historians have debated whether William Adelin was Matilda's younger brother or her twin. The historian Marjorie Chibnall has argued against the theory of the siblings being twins, citing various reasons, including William of Malmesbury stating they were born on different dates, and the timing of congratulatory messages from the Pope. Matilda's father, Henry, had a considerable sexual appetite and enjoyed a substantial number of sexual partners, resulting in a large number of illegitimate children, at least nine sons and 13 daughters, many of whom he appears to have recognised and supported.[4]
4. The broadcaster and author Nesta Pain argues, however, that Matilda was educated by the nuns of Wilton Abbey.[10]
5. The account of the dismissal of Matilda's retinue comes from the chronicler Orderic Vitalis, but other evidence suggests that at least some of her companions stayed with her.[13]
6. Matilda's role in government in Germany was not unusual for the period; German emperors and princes frequently delegated administrative and military duties to their wives.[35]
7. The chronicler Hermann of Tournai gives an account that Matilda gave birth to a child who died, but this is uncorroborated. The writer seems to wish to convey an unfavorable assessment of the character of Matilda's mother, who had allegedly once been a nun, thereby cursing her marriage.[41]
8. Medieval chroniclers' accounts of this oath vary on the points of detail. William of Malmesbury stated that the nobles present recognised Matilda as the legitimate heir on the basis of her paternal and maternal royal descent; John of Worcester described the inheritance of England as being conditional on Matilda having a legitimate male heir; the Anglo-Saxon chronicle suggested that an oath was given concerning the inheritance of both England and Normandy; neither Orderic or Henry of Huntingdon recorded the event at all. Some chronicler accounts may have been influenced by Stephen's acquisition of the throne in 1135 and the later events of the Anarchy.[62]
9. The cause behind the soured relations is not fully known, though historian Marjorie Chibnall stated, "historians have tended to put the blame on Matilda ... This is a hasty judgement based on two or three hostile English chroniclers; such evidence as there is suggests Geoffrey was at least as much to blame".[77]
10. Historians Jim Bradbury and Frank Barlow suggest that an oath was taken in 1131; Marjorie Chibnall is more doubtful that this occurred.[81]
11. Opinions vary among historians as to the role of Matilda's third pregnancy in her decision not to advance further in 1135. Helen Castor, for example, argues that this was a major factor in Matilda's thinking, particularly given the complications in Matilda's earlier pregnancies; Marjorie Chibnall rejects this argument, putting the emphasis on the political and military problems that the Empress faced that year.[89]
12. Henry was able to persuade Hugh Bigod, the late King's royal steward, to swear that the King had changed his mind about the succession on his deathbed, nominating Stephen instead. Modern historians, such as Edmund King, doubt that Hugh Bigod's account of Henry I's final hours was truthful.[94]
13. The events in Normandy are less well recorded than elsewhere, and the exact sequence of events less certain. Historian Robert Helmerichs, for example, describes some of the inconsistencies in these accounts. Some historians, including David Crouch and Helmerichs, argue that Theobald and Stephen had probably already made a private deal to seize the throne when Henry died.[99]
14. David I was related to the Empress Matilda and to Matilda of Boulogne through his mother, Queen Margaret.
15. Edmund King disagrees that the Empress received an invitation to Arundel, arguing that she appeared unexpectedly.[122]
16. "Chivalry" was firmly established as a principle in Anglo-Norman warfare by the time of Stephen; it was not considered appropriate or normal to execute elite prisoners and, as historian John Gillingham observes, neither Stephen nor the Empress Matilda did so except where the opponent had already breached the norms of military conduct.[127]
17. David Crouch argues that in fact it was the royalist weakness in infantry that caused their failure at Lincoln, proposing the city militia was not as capable as Robert's Welsh infantry.[141]
18. Most chroniclers suggest Matilda probably escaped from Oxford Castle via a postern gate, although one suggests she climbed down the walls using a rope.[172]
19. One potential explanation is Stephen's general courtesy to a member of his extended family; another is that he was starting to consider how to end the war peacefully, and saw this as a way of building a relationship with Henry.[195]
20. The chronicler Geoffrey of Vigeois stated that Matilda had become a nun at the time of her death, but he appears to have confused the Empress with Matilda of Anjou.[217]
21. The original Latin of the phrase runs Ortu magna, viro major, sed maxima partu, hic jacet Henrici filia, sponsa, parens..[218]
References (See original Wikipedia article for detailed references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Matilda)
Bibliography
** Amt, Emilie (1993), The Accession of Henry II in England: Royal Government Restored, 1149–1159, Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, ISBN 978-0-85115-348-3
** Barlow, Frank (1999), The Feudal Kingdom of England, 1042–1216 (5th ed.), Harlow, UK: Pearson Education, ISBN 978-0-582-38117-9
** Beem, Charles (2009), Levin, Carole; Bucholz, R. O. (eds.), Queens and Power in Medieval and Early Modern England, Lincoln, US: University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 978-0-8032-2968-6
** Bennett, Matthew (2000), "The Impact of 'Foreign' Troops in the Civil Wars of Stephen's Reign", in Dunn, Diana E. S. (ed.), War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain, Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, ISBN 978-0-85323-885-0
** Blackburn, Mark (1994), "Coinage and Currency", in King, Edmund (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-820364-3
** Bradbury, Jim (2009), Stephen and Matilda: the Civil War of 1139–53, Stroud, UK: The History Press, ISBN 978-0-7509-3793-1
** Carpenter, David (2004), The Struggle for Mastery: The Penguin History of Britain 1066–1284, London, UK: Penguin, ISBN 978-0-14-014824-4
** Castor, Helen (2010), She-Wolves: the Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth, London, UK: Faber and Faber, ISBN 978-0-571-23706-7
** Chibnall, Marjorie (1991), The Empress Matilda: Queen Consort, Queen Mother and Lady of the English, London, UK: Basil Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-631-15737-3
** Chibnall, Marjorie (1999), "The Empress Matilda and her Sons", in Parsons, John Carmi; Wheeler, Bonnie (eds.), Medieval Mothering, New York, US and London, UK: Garland Publishing, pp. 279–294, ISBN 978-0-8153-3665-5
** Crouch, David (1994), "The March and the Welsh Kings", in King, Edmund (ed.), The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-820364-3
** Crouch, David (2002), The Normans: The History of a Dynasty, London, UK: Hambledon Continuum, ISBN 978-1-85285-595-6
** Crouch, David (2008a), The Beaumont Twins: the Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-09013-1
** Crouch, David (2008b), "King Stephen and Northern France", in Dalton, Paul; White, Graeme J. (eds.), King Stephen's Reign (1135–1154), Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, ISBN 978-1-84383-361-1
** Davis, Ralph Henry Carless (1977), King Stephen (1st ed.), London, UK: Longman, ISBN 978-0-582-48727-7
** Gillingham, John (1994), "1066 and the Introduction of Chivalry into England", in Garnett, George; Hudsdon, John (eds.), Law and Government in Medieval England and Normandy: Essays in Honour of Sir James Holt, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-43076-0
** Green, Judith (2009), Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-74452-2
** Hallam, Elizabeth M; Everard, Judith A. (2001), Capetian France, 987–1328 (2nd ed.), Harlow, UK: Longman, ISBN 978-0-582-40428-1
** Hanley, Catherine (2019), Matilda: Empress, Queen, Warrior, Yale, ISBN 978-0-300-22725-3
** Helmerichs, Robert (2001), "'Ad tutandos partriae fines': The Defense of Normandy, 1135", in Abels, Richard Philip; Bachrach, Bernard S. (eds.), The Normans and Their Adversaries at War, Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, ISBN 978-0-85115-847-1
** Hollister, C. Warren (2003), Frost, Amanda Clark (ed.), Henry I, New Haven, US and London, UK: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-09829-7
** Huscroft, Richard (2005), Ruling England, 1042–1217, Harlow, UK: Pearson, ISBN 978-0-582-84882-5
** King, Edmumd (2010), King Stephen, New Haven, US: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11223-8
** Leyser, Karl (1982), Medieval Germany and Its Neighbours, 900–1250, London, UK: Hambledon Press, ISBN 978-0-631-15737-3
** Lovelace, Timothy J. (2003), The Artistry and Tradition of Tennyson's Battle Poetry, London, UK: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-203-49079-2
** Newman, Charlotte A. (1988), The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I: the Second Generation, Philadelphia, US: University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 978-0-8122-8138-5
** Ortenberg, Veronica (2006), In Search of the Holy Grail: the Quest for the Middle Ages, London, UK: Hambledon Continuum, ISBN 978-1-85285-383-9
** Pain, Nesta (1978), Empress Matilda: Uncrowned Queen of England, London, UK: Butler & Tanner, ISBN 978-0-297-77359-7
** Rielly, Edward J. (2000), "Ellis Peters: Brother Cadfael", in Browne, Ray Broadus; Kreiser, Lawrence A. (eds.), The Detective as Historian: History and Art in Historical Crime, Bowling Green, US: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, ISBN 978-0-87972-815-1
** Songer, Marcia J. (1998), "Stephen or Maud: Brother Cadfael's Discernment", in Kaler, Anne K. (ed.), Cordially Yours, Brother Cadfael, Bowling Green, US: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, pp. 98–108, ISBN 978-0-87972-774-1
** Stringer, Keith J. (1993), The Reign of Stephen: Kingship, Warfare and Government in Twelfth-Century England, London, UK: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-01415-1
** Thompson, Kathleen (2003), "Affairs of State: the Illegitimate Children of Henry I", Journal of Medieval History, 29 (2): 129–151, doi:10.1016/S0304-4181(03)00015-0, ISSN 0304-4181
** Tolhurst, Fiona (2013), Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Translation of Female Kingship, New York, US: Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 978-1-137-27784-8
** Vincent, Nicholas (2006), The Holy Blood: King Henry III and the Westminster Blood Relic, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-02660-4
** White, Graeme J. (2000), Restoration and Reform, 1153–1165: Recovery From Civil War in England, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-55459-6."²⁴

; Per Med Lands:
     "MATILDA (Winchester or London 1102-Abbaye de Notre-Dame des Près, near Rouen 10 Sep 1167, bur Abbaye du Bec, Normandy, later moved to Rouen Cathedral). Orderic Vitalis names “Guillelmum Adelinum, et Mathildem imperatricem” as the children of King Henry I and his wife Matilda[171]. The Chronicle of Gervase records the birth "secundo anno regni" of "filiam…Matildis"[172]. According to Weir[173], she was christened Adelaide but adopted the name Matilda on her first marriage. The primary source on which this is based has not yet been identified. The chronology of Matilda´s first marriage is complicated. Negotiations for the marriage started in 1109: Henry of Huntingdon records that ambassadors were sent by “Henrico imperatore Romano” to request “filiam regis” in marriage for “domini sui”, that they were received in the English court “ad Pentecosten”, and that “filia regis” was given (“data”) to “imperatori” in the following year, dated to [1109/10] from the context[174]. The English king's presence in London at that time is confirmed by the Regesta Regum Anglorum which lists three charters dated 13 June 1109 “Pentecost” issued at Westminster in King Henry's name[175]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records in 1109 that “before Whitsuntide” King Henry I returned to England from Normandy and “held his court at Westminster” where “the contracts were completed and the oaths sworn for the marriage of his daughter to the emperor” and in 1110 that “before Lent, the king sent his daughter oversea with innumerable treasures and gave her in marriage to the emperor”[176]. Florence of Worcester records that "rex Anglorum Henricus” granted “filiam suam...in conjugem" to "Heinrico regi Teutonicorum", dated to 1110 from the context[177]. In a later passage, the same source records that "Matildis filia regis Anglorum” who was “Heinrico, Romanorum imperatori...desponsata" was consecrated empress "VIII Id Jan" (6 January) at Mainz, dated to 1114 from the context[178]. The Continuatio of the Gesta Ducum Normannorum records that “Henricus quintus rex et quartus imperator Romanorum et Alemannorum” requested in marriage the daughter of the king of England who was brought to his kingdom, that the couple were betrothed (“desponsavit”) in Utrecht at Easter, and that Matilda was consecrated queen in Mainz “in festivitate sancti Iacobi” (25 July) by the archbishop of Köln. Matilda was then carefully brought up (“studiose nutriri precepit”) by Bruno archbishop of Trier, including learning the German language and customs, until the time for her marriage (“tempus nuptiarum”)[179]. Orderic Vitalis records that "Henricus rex Anglorum" gave “Mathildem filiam suam...in uxorem” to “Imperatori”, that “Rogerius filius Ricardi [identified as Roger FitzRichard de Clare] cognatus regis, cum nobili comitatu in Anglia” escorted her to Germany, and that her dowry was 10,000 marks, undated but dated to [1110] from the context[180]. The dating is confirmed approximately by a later passage in the same source, recording the death of Emperor Heinrich, which states that he married Matilda three years after succeeding his father (who died in August 1106)[181]. Another passage records that “Henricus rex” gave “Mathildem filiam suam...in conjugium” to “Karolo [error for Henrico] Henrici filio Imperatori Alemannorum”, that she was led to her husband by “Burchardus præsul Cameracensium”, in the presence of “Rogerius...filius Ricardi, aliique plures ex Normannis comitati”[182]. This last passage is dated to [1109] from the context. However, Burchard was not appointed bishop of Cambrai until 1114: the Annales Cameracensis record that “domnus Burgardus” was elected [as bishop] in 1114[183]. The Annals of Winchester record that “rex” sent “filiam suam Matildem” for betrothal (“desponsandam”) to “imperatori Henrico” with 5,000 marks of silver in 1110, adding that she was only 8 years and 15 days old[184]. The Annals of Winchelcombe, Gloucestershire record in 1114 that “Matildis filia regis Anglorum Henrici” married (“desponsatur...sponsam suscepit”) “Anglici regis filiam” and that the dowry was agreed (“more dotavit”) in Utrecht at Easter[185]. Simeon of Durham records in 1110 that "rex Anglorum Henricus" gave “filiam suam” in marriage (“in conjugem dedit”) to “Henrico imperatori”, adding that he sent her from Dover “usque ad Witsand” at the start of “Quadragesimæ...IV Id Apr”[186]. The same source records in 1114 that "Mathildis filia regis Anglorum Henrici" was married (“desponsata”) to “Henrico Romanorum imperatori” and was consecrated empress at Mainz “VIII Id Jan”[187]. The Annales Hildesheimensis record a synod held “Non Mar” in 1110 by Pope Paschal who sent legates to Liège (“Leodium ad regem”) and that there (“ibi”) “rex” received as wife (“sponsam suscepit”) “Anglici regis filiam” and that he granted her dower in accordance with the customs of the kingdom (“regio more dotavit”) in Utrecht at Easter[188]. The same source records in 1114 that Matilda married (“desponsatur”) “Henrico Romanorum imperatori”[189]. The Annales Sancti Disibodi record in 1109 that “Rex” was betrothed (“desponsata”) to “filia regis Anglorum” and in 1114 that “Imperator” passed Christmas at “Babinberg” and married (“nuptias fecit”) at Mainz “post epiphaniam”[190]. Matilda was crowned empress again in 1117 with her husband at St Peter’s Basilica, Rome. Her second marriage is recorded by Orderic Vitalis[191]. The Chronicle of Gervase records the second marriage of "filiam suam…viduam" to "Gaufrido comiti Andegaviæ"[192]. Matilda asserted the right to succeed after the death of her father and fought King Stephen in a civil war in which she was finally defeated 1 Nov 1141. Robert of Torigny records the death "1167…IV Id Sep Rothomagi" of "matris suæ [Henrici regis] Mathildis imperatricis" and her burial "Becci"[193]. The necrology of Angers Cathedral records the death "II Id Sep" of "Mathildis imperatrix filia Henrici regis uxor Goffredi comitis"[194]. m firstly (betrothed Utrecht Easter 1110[195], Mainz 6 Jan 1114) Emperor HEINRICH V, son of Emperor HEINRICH IV & his first wife Berthe de Savoie (1081-Utrecht 23 May 1125, bur Speyer Cathedral). m secondly (Le Mans Cathedral, Anjou 17 Jun 1128) GEOFFROY d’Anjou, son of FOULQUES V Comte d’Anjou & his first wife Eremburge Ctss du Maine (24 Aug 1113-Château du Loire 7 Sep 1151, bur Le Mans Cathedral). He succeeded on the abdication of his father in 1129 as GEOFFROY V “le Bel/Plantagenet” Comte d’Anjou. He was proclaimed Duke of Normandy 19 Jan 1144.
Med Lands cites:

; For an interesting fictional account of the war between Matilda and her cousin Stephen (), read When Christ and His Saints Slept, by Sharon Kay Penman.²⁵
She was Empress consort of the Holy Roman Empire between 1114 and 1125.²⁴ She was Queen consort of the Romans between 1114 and 1125.²⁴ She was proclaimed Queen of England, [Ashley, pp. 517-518] MATILDA uncrowned queen of England, known as "Lady of the English". Ruled 7 April-1 November 1141. Empress of Germany, 7 January 1114-23 May 1125. Born: Winchester (or possibly London), August (?) 1102. Died: Abbey of Notre Dame, Rouen, 10 September 1167, aged 65. Buried: Bec Abbey, Normandy; later removed to Rouen Cathedral. Married: (1) 7 January 1114, at Mainz, Germany, Heinrich V (1081-1125), emperor of Germany: no children; (2) 22 May 1128, at Le Mans Cathedral, Anjou, Geoffrey, count of Anjou (1113-1151): 3 sons. Matilda was the daughter of HENRY I and was christened Adelaide at birth. She adopted the name Matilda on her marriage in 1114 to the German emperor, Henry V. Since she was only twelve at this time it was clearly a political marriage and the young girl does not seem to have been especially happy. Raised in the strict atmosphere of the German court, Matilda acquired a haughty, almost arrogant nature, to some extent inherited from her father. She was used to having her own way and found it difficult to make friends. When her husband died in 1125, she returned to England to be acknowledged as heir to her father because of the death of her elder brothers some years earlier. Although the barons swore their fealty they did not relish the idea of being ruled by a woman, especially one who was now married a second time to the young count of Anjou. The Angevins were longtime enemies of the Normans in northern France, and if Matilda became queen her husband, Geoffrey, would almost certainly become king, and the Normans had even less desire to be ruled by an Angevin. As a result, when STEPHEN claimed the throne on Henry's death in 1135, the Norman barons soon rallied round him. It was not until May 1138, with the rebellion of Robert of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of Henry I and thus half-brother of Matilda, that Matilda's cause gained any significant support. Matilda and Robert landed in England, at Arundel, in September 1139. Robert escaped to Bristol and was soon joined by Matilda. For the next eight years England was in the grip of a debilitating civil war. (The details are described under STEPHEN). Matilda's hour came after the defeat of Stephen, at Lincoln, on 2 February 1141. Stephen's support wilted, all except from his own queen, also called Matilda. Within a month the "Empress" Matilda had secured the support of Henry, bishop of Winchester (Stephen's brother), which allowed her access to the royal coffers. She arrived at London a few weeks later and in April was declared "Lady of the English". She still preferred to be known as "Empress", but occasionally styled herself queen. Although preparations were in hand for her coronation, that never happened. Matilda rapidly made herself unpopular. First she raised a tax on all the nobility, and then she proposed to revoke the status of commune which had been granted to London by Stephen. This allowed London to collect its own taxes for its own benefits. Matilda wanted access to these taxes. Her support in London rapidly dwindled, and when Stephen's queen, Matilda, was able to bring her own forces from Kent, with William of Ypres, the "Empress" was driven out of London in June. She settled in Oxford, although she spent some weeks in the complicated siege within a siege at Winchester. It was during this and the following affrays in the surrounding countryside that Robert of Gloucester was captured and Matilda only narrowly escaped. Matilda needed Robert as head of her forces and as a consequence she had to trade for his release with the release of Stephen from captivity in Bristol. Her advantage was lost and by November Stephen had restored himself as king. A year later Matilda found herself under siege at Oxford. She was able to escape from the castle by rope from an open window and then, cloaked in white as camouflage against the snow, she crossed the frozen river and made her way to Abingdon. Although her forces scored occasional victories in the ensuing months, it became a gradual war of attrition which fizzled out with the death of Robert of Gloucester in October 1147. Matilda returned to Normandy in the following spring and never returned to England. She continued to fight for the right of succession of her son, and indeed outlived Stephen to witness her son succeed to the throne as HENRY II. Although she ruled as uncrowned queen for less than a year, Matilda was the first queen of all England. Had she not been so arrogant and fiery tempered, she might have been remembered more for her successes than her failures. between April 1141 and November 1141.^13,14,8

     GAV-32 EDV-32 GKJ-32.

     Ælfgifu “Edith of Ossory” Sigurdsdóttir (?) married Máel Coluim (Malcolm) mac Cináeda II (?) King Of Scotland, son of Cináed (Kenneth) II (?) King of the Scots and NN (?) of Leinster.^2,1

Ælfgifu “Edith of Ossory” Sigurdsdóttir (?) was buried in 983 at St. Oran's Chapel Cemetery-the Reilig Ourain, Isle of Iona, Argyll and Bute, Scotland; From Find A Grave:
     Ælfgifu “Edith of Ossory” Sigurdsdóttir
     BIRTH     962
     DEATH     983 (aged 20–21)
     Ælfgifu 'Edith' Sigurdsdóttir, Also Known As: "Edith of Ossory", "Ælfgifu Sigurdsdóttir", "Lady of Atholl", "Algiva", "Daughter macBrian /Bóruma/", "Mrs Malcolm /Mackenneth/", "Queen", "Edith", "10652"
     Birthdate: 962
     Birthplace: Ossory, Ireland
     Death: Died 983 in Angus, Scotland
     Place of Burial: Scotland
     Immediate Family:
     Daughter of Sigurðr of Ossory
     Wife of Malcolm II "The Destroyer", King of Scots
     Mother of Bethóc ingen Maíl Coluim meic Cináeda; Donada 'Anleta' / 'Thora' ingen Maíl Coluim meic Cináeda, Princess of Scots and Olith (possibly Donada) 'Thora' 'Anleta' MacKenneth
     Occupation: Queen, Queen of Scotland
     Family Members
     Spouse
          Malcolm II King of Scots 954–1034
     Children
          Bethoc Ingen Mail Coluim Meic Cinaeda 983–1045
     BURIAL     St. Oran's Chapel Cemetery-the Reilig Ourain, Isle of Iona, Argyll and Bute, Scotland
     Created by: Gathering Roots
     Added: 14 Mar 2016
     Find a Grave Memorial 159485909.¹
      ; Per Med Lands:
     "MALCOLM ([954]-Glamis Castle, Angus 25 Nov 1034, bur Isle of Iona). The 11th century Synchronisms of Flann Mainistreach name (in order) "…Cuillen mac Illiulb, Cinaet mac Maelcolaim, Custantin mac Cuilen, Cinaet mac Duib, Maelcolaim mac Cinaeta" as Scottish kings, dated to the 10th and 11th centuries[163]. The 12th century Cronica Regum Scottorum lists "…Malcolin filius Kinet xxx…" as king[164]. It is tempting to suggest that either he, or his first cousin with the same name, spent time at the court of Edgar King of England during his youth, as "Malcolm dux" subscribed a charter of King Edgar relating to land in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk dated 970[165], but there is no proof of the co-identity of these persons. He succeeded in 1005 as MALCOLM II King of Scotland. The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that Grime was killed by Malcolm, son of King Kenneth II, who succeeded as king[166]. He attacked northern England in 1006. King of Lothian from [1016], becoming effective ruler of the whole of Scotland. The Historia Regum of Simeon of Durham records a battle between "Huctredum filium Waldef comitem Northymbrorum" and "Malcolmum filium Cyneth regem Scottorum" at "Carrum" in 1018[167]. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Malcolm submitted to Canute King of England in 1031, along with "two other kings, Mælbeth and Iehmarc"[168]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun defended Cumbria against King Canute, who agreed that it should be ruled by Malcolm’s grandson Duncan[169]. The Annals of Ulster record the death in 1034 of "Mael Coluim son of Cinaed, king of Scotland"[170]. The Annals of Tigernach record the death in 1034 of “Mael-Coluímb son of Cinaed king of Scotland”[171]. The Chronicle of the Scots and Picts dated 1177 records that "Malcolm mac Kynnat Rex" reigned for 30 years, died "in Glammes" and was buried "in Yona"[172]. The Chronicle of the Picts and Scots dated 1251 includes the same information[173].
     "m ---. The name of Malcolm's wife is not known."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU (MacAlpine): “G1. Malcolm II, Prince of Cumbria, King of Strathcylde (991-995)+(997-1018), King of Scotland (1005-34), *ca 954, +murdered at Glamis Castle, Angus 25.11.1034, bur Isle of Iona, last sovereign of the MacAlpine dynasty; m.N, an Irishwoman from Ossory”.⁴ GAV-29. Ælfgifu “Edith of Ossory” Sigurdsdóttir (?) was also known as unknown (?)⁵

; Irish wife from Ossory.⁵

     Duncan (?) mórmaer of Atholl, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld married (?) (?) of the Isles.²
Duncan (?) mórmaer of Atholl, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld was born circa 954 at Athol, Scotland.³
Duncan (?) mórmaer of Atholl, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld died in 1010 at Battle of Mortlach, Scotland.⁴
      ; Per Burke's: "DUNCAN, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld; cmded the Scottish left wing at the battle of Luncarty (c 990), where the Danes were so crushingly defeated that their raids on that part of what subsequently became Perthshire, hitherto periodic and devastating, were terminated; had, with two yr sons (Grim, Thane (hereditary tenant of the Crown) of Strathearn (west of Perth) and Baillie (functionary with judicial powers) of Dule, k 1010 Battle of Mortlach, where MALCOLM II King of Scots (reigned 1005-34) defeated invading Norsemen; Duncan, ancestor of the IRVINGs of Dumfries and FORBES IRVINEs of Drum."⁴ He was Lay Abbot of Dunkeld.⁴ GAV-27 EDV-27 GKJ-28.

     (?) (?) of the Isles married Duncan (?) mórmaer of Atholl, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld, son of Duncan (?) Lay Abbot of Dunkeld.¹

     GAV-27 EDV-27 GKJ-28.

.¹

     Ealhmund (?) King of Kent was born in 745 at Wessex, England.²
Ealhmund (?) King of Kent died in 784; Genealogy.EU says d. 784-786; Genealogics says d. 784.^4,2
      ; Per Genealogics:
     “Ealhmund was born in 745, the son of Eafa the West Saxon. He became king in Kent in 784. There is little historical evidence for his reign. An abstract of a charter dated 784 survives, in which Ealhmund granted land to the abbot of Reculver. However by the following year Offa of Mercia seems to have been ruling directly, as he issued a charter without any mention of a local king.
     “Ealhmund died in 827. According to the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ he had a son Egbert, later king of Wessex and Kent.”.²

; This is the same person as ”Ealhmund of Kent” at Wikipedia.⁵

; Per Med Lands:
     "EALHMUND, son of [EAFA & his wife ---] (-after 784, maybe after 801). The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that "rex Ealhmundus" was "in Cantia rex" in 784, adding that "this king Ealhmund was the father of Egbert, the father of Æthelwulf"[1457]. He succeeded as EALHMUND King of Kent, in 784 or before. The generally accepted parentage of Ealhmund, according to which he was descended from Ingeld, brother of Ine King of Wessex, is open to debate. This supposed parentage is set out in a later passage, dated 855, in another manuscript of the Chronicle, which lists the ancestors of Æthelwulf King of Wessex, states that Ealhmund was "son of Eafa, son of Eoppa, son of Ingeld…brother of Ine king of Wessex", adds their alleged direct line of ancestors back to Cerdic, first King of Wessex, Cerdic’s mythical ancestry back to Woden, and even Woden’s alleged descent from Noah and "Adam the first man"[1458]. This is clearly one of the dubious lines of descent of the kings of Wessex which are discussed in the introduction to the Chapter. The problem is to decide the point at which fact gives way to fabrication. It is possible that this point occurs very early in the line of ancestry, and that there is doubt whether Ealhmund was even the son of "Eafa" as claimed in this passage. "Eafa" and his supposed father "Eoppa" are not named in any other sources which have so far been identified, although "Ingeld…brother of Ine" is noted in a single passage of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle dated 718 which records his death. The absence of any mention of Ealhmund’s parentage in the earlier passage in the Chronicle dated 784 certainly suggests doubt about the line of ancestry which is reported in 855. By the latter date, few people alive could have challenged Ealhmund’s reported parentage from personal acquaintance with his parents. This suggestion of course assumes that the Chronicle was a living document which was composed over time, with successive passages being added by different authors as time passed. This hypothesis is plausible, but is impossible to prove or disprove. If it is correct, it is possible that Ealhmund was not related to the family of the earlier kings of Wessex at all. Looking elsewhere for his possible ancestry, it is interesting to note that Ealhmund's predecessor as king of Kent was named Ecgberht, the name which Ealhmund gave to his own son, and which was a name not previously used in the royal families of Wessex, at least so far as can be ascertained from the surviving primary sources. If this speculation is correct, it would of course mean that the usually represented ancestry of Ecgberht King of Wessex would require reconsideration. "Ealmundus rex Canciæ" granted land at Sheldwich, Kent to Hwitrede abbot of Reculver by charter dated 784[1459]. Mercian involvement in Kentish affairs appears to have increased again in 785-789[1460]. Presumably King Ealhmund was deposed as King of Kent by Offa King of Mercia as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in a much later passage recalls that "the Kentishmen … formerly … had been wrongly forced away from their allegiance to his [Ecgberht King of Wessex's] kinsmen"[1461]. This event may have taken place in 789, the date when King Ealhmund's son Ecgberht is later described in the Chronicle as having been expelled from England by Beorhtric King of Wessex and Offa King of Mercia[1462]. "Ealhmund princeps" subscribed a charter of "Beorhtric rex" dated 801[1463], but this may be a different individual who has not been identified. If the identity of Ealhmund’s wife is as suggested below, the individual named in the 801 charter must certainly have been a different person from Ealhmund King of Kent.
     "m ---. The name of Ealhmund's wife is not known. It is possible that she was ---, daughter of ---, who married secondly Alhmund [of Northumbria]. According to a manuscript which recounts the founding of Wilton Monastery, “Elburga, filia Alqmundi martyris, filii Alrudi regis Northumbrorum” was “soror Egberti Regis, ex parte regis”, clarifying that he was Ecgberht King of Wessex (“quia Egbertus fuit filius Alqmundi, filii Offæ Regis, de prosapia Inæ”)[1464]. As Alhmund of Northumbria’s death is dated to 800, Ealhmund of Wessex would have been her first husband. The reliability of this manuscript is not known. The document dates the founding of Wilton abbey by King Echberht to 773, which is clearly anachronistic, and shows that it cannot be relied upon entirely. It is probably safer to treat the narrative with caution until some other corroboration is found in another source. "
Med Lands cites:

Reference: Genealogics cites:

; Per Weis: "Eahlmund, son of Eafa. From the Anglo Saxon Chronicles: "A.D. 784. At this time reigned Elmund King in Kent, the father of Egbert; and Egbert was the father of Athulf ) Aethelwulf."⁶ GAV-34 EDV-34 GKJ-33. He was King of Wessex: [Ashley, p. 224] EALHMUND ruled 762-4, and again c784-c5. It has been suggested that Ealhmund was the same as the earlier Eanmund, whose name appears confirming a charter of SIGERED, the king of West Kent. If this is so then Ealhmund was the more senior king. He has been associated with Ealhmund, the father of the famous EGBERT of Wessex - if this is so, then we know that he was descended from Ingeld, the brother of INE. It is quite probable that his father or grandfather had married into the Kentish royal family, thus establishing his claim on the Kentish kingdom. Ealhmund was, however, deposed by OFFA of Mercia when he invaded Kent in 764. He would have been a young king at the time, probably in his early twenties, with no power to oppose Offa. He almost certainly went into exile, but later became allied with EGBERT II, the king who had displaced him but who in turn rebelled against Offa. When Egbert died, sometime in the early 780s, Ealhmund returned to the kingship. For a second time he faced the wrath of Offa, which this time was more violent and conclusive. Ealhmund was almost certainly killed, and Kent came directly under Offa's rule until the revolution of EADBERT PRAEN in 796. circa 784.⁷ He was King of Kent in 784.⁵

     Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchad mac Crínáin) (?) King of Scotland was born circa 1001 at Angus, Scotland.^13,4,14,10 He married Suthen (?) of Northumbria, daughter of NN Biornsson (?), circa 1030.^{1,15,4,14,10,16}

Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchad mac Crínáin) (?) King of Scotland died on 14 August 1040 at Bothganowan now Pitgaveny (near Elgin), Morayshire, Scotland; Weis line 170-20, p. 147: "murdered by MacBeth near Elgin"; Genealogy.EU (Dunkeld page) says killed at Bothganowan (now Pitgaveny.)^17,2,4,14,10
Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchad mac Crínáin) (?) King of Scotland was buried after 14 August 1040 at St Oran's Chapel Cemetery-the Reilig Ourain, Isle of Iona, Argyll and Bute, Scotland; From Find A Grave:
     BIRTH     1001, Scotland
     DEATH     15 Aug 1040 (aged 38–39), Elgin, Moray, Scotland
     Scottish Monarch. The son of Bethoc (Beatrix), daughter of Malcolm II, and Crinan, Earl of Atholl. Succeeded his grandfather in 1034, ruling for 6 years. He married Aelflaed of Northumbria in 1030. He was killed in battle at Bathnagowan against MacBeth, Earl of Moray. Regarded as a ruthless and incapable king, his death was unmourned. His son was an infant, leaving the throne vacant for MacBeth. Bio by: Kristen Conrad
     Family Members
     Parents
          Bethoc Ingen Mail Coluim Meic Cinaeda 984–1045
     Children
          Malcolm III 1031–1093
          Donald III, King of Scots 1033–1099
     BURIAL     St Oran's Chapel Cemetery-the Reilig Ourain, Isle of Iona, Argyll and Bute, Scotland
     Maintained by: Find a Grave
     Originally Created by: Kristen Conrad
     Added: 7 Jun 2004
     Find a Grave Memorial 8886751.¹⁸
      ; Henry Project Bibliography:
AU = Seán Mac Airt and Gearóid Mac Niocaill, The Annals of Ulster (Dublin, 1983).
CP = The Complete Peerage
ESSH = Alan Orr Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1922, reprinted Stamford, 1990). [Contains English translations of many of the primary records]
KKES = Marjorie Ogilvy Anderson, Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland (Edinburgh, Totowa, NJ, 1973).
OrkS = Hermann Pálsson and Paul Edwards, ed. & trans., Orkneyinga Saga (London, 1978). Citation is by chapter, with the page number in parentheses.⁵ GAV-25 EDV-25 GKJ-26.

Reference: Genealogics cites: Burke's Guide to the Royal Family, London, 1973. 313.¹⁴

; This is the same person as ”Duncan I of Scotland” at Wikipedia.¹⁹

; Per Genealogics:
     “Duncan I (Donnchad mac Crináin) was the son of Crinán, hereditary lay abbot of Dunkeld, and Bethóc, daughter of King Malcolm II of Scotland.
     “Unlike the 'King Duncan' of Shakespeare's Macbeth, the historical Duncan appears to have been a young man. He followed his grandfather Malcolm as king after the latter's death on 25 November 1034, without apparent opposition. He may have been Malcolm's acknowledged successor as the succession appears to have been uneventful. Earlier histories, following John of Fordun, supposed that Duncan had been king of Strathclyde in his grandfather's lifetime, ruling the former kingdom of Strathclyde as an appanage. Modern historians discount this idea.
     “Duncan married Suthen whose origins are unknown, and they had at least two sons. The eldest, Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada) was king from 1097 to 1093 the second Donald III (Domnall Bán, or 'Donalbane') was king afterwards. Melmare (Máel Muire), earl of Atholl, is a probable third son of Duncan and Sibylla, although this is less certain.
     “The early period of Duncan's reign was apparently uneventful, perhaps a consequence of his youth. Macbeth (Mac Bethad mac Findláich) is recorded as his dux, literally duke, but in the context that 'dukes of Francia' had half a century before replaced the Carolingian kings of the Franks, and in England the powerful Godwin of Wessex was called a dux this suggests that Macbeth was the power behind the throne.
     “In 1039 Duncan led a large Scots army south to besiege Durham, but the expedition ended in disaster. Duncan survived, but the following year he led an army north into Moray, traditionally seen as Macbeth's domain. There he was killed, at Pitgaven near Elgin, by his own men led by Macbeth, probably on 14 August 1040.”.¹⁴ Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchad mac Crínáin) (?) King of Scotland was also known as Donnchad mac Crínáin (Duncan I) (?) King of Scots (Alba).^5,14 Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchad mac Crínáin) (?) King of Scotland was also known as Duncan I "the Gracious" King of Scotland.²⁰

; Per Med Lands:
     "DUNCAN [Donnchad], son of CRINAN "the Thane" Mormaer of Atholl & his wife Bethoc of the Scots ([1001]-killed in battle either Bothganowan/Pitgaveny, near Elgin, or Burghead 14 Aug 1040, bur Isle of Iona). His parentage is confirmed by the Annals of Ulster which record the death of "Donnchad son of Crínán, king of Scotland" in 1040[267]. He is not named as king in the 12th century Cronica Regum Scottorum king-list[268]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun names "Duncan" as son of "Crynyne Abthane of Dul and Steward of the Isles" and his wife[269]. He succeeded in 1018 as King of Strathclyde. He succeeded his maternal grandfather in 1034 as DUNCAN I King of Scotland. Orkneyinga Saga records that “Karl Hundason” succeeded King Malcolm in Scotland and records his battles with Thorfinn Jarl of Orkney[270]. No other record has been identified of this alleged person. The Annales Dunelmenses record that "Dumechanus rex Scotorum" besieged Durham in 1039 with a large army but retreated from the siege[271]. He was killed in battle by his first cousin, Macbeth, who succeeded as King of Scotland. The Chronicon of Marianus Scottus records that "Donnchal rex Scotiæ" was killed "1040 XIX Kal Sep" by "duce suo Macbethad mac Finnloech" who succeeded as king for 17 years[272]. The Annals of Ulster record that "Donnchad son of Crínán, king of Scotland, was killed by his own people" in 1040[273]. The Annals of Tigernach record that “Donncadh mac Crínan, airdrí Alban” was killed “immaturo etate a suis” in 1040[274]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that Duncan was killed by "Machabeus son of Finele…at Bothgofnane" and buried in the island of Iona[275]. The Chronicle of the Scots and Picts dated 1177 records that "Donchath mac Cran Abbatis de Dunkelden et Bethok filia Malcolm mac Kynnet" reigned for 6 years, was killed "a Maketh mac Fyngel in Bothngouane" and was buried "in Yona insula"[276].
     "m ([1030]) [SIBYLLA], [cousin of SIWARD Earl of Northumbria, daughter of ---]. The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that the mother of Malcolm and Donald Bane, Duncan’s sons, was "the cousin of Earl Siward"[277]. This information is not included in any earlier source and should be considered dubious. In one earlier king list, King Malcolm III's mother is named "Suthen"[278]. No reference has been found in primary sources to her being named Sibylla, the name found in many secondary sources. "
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU (Dunkeld): “A1. Duncan I "the Gracious" (Donnchadh I), King of Strathclyde (1018-34), King of Scotland (1034-40), *ca 1001, +k.a.Bothganowan (now Pitgaveny), nr Elgin 14.8.1040, bur Isle of Iona; m.ca 1030 Sibylla (+after 1040), dau.of Bjorn Bearsson of Northumbria”.²¹

; Per Med Lands:
     "[SIBYLLA] . The Chronicle of John of Fordun records that the mother of Malcolm and Donald Bane, Duncan´s sons, was "the cousin of Earl Siward"[482]. This information is not included in any earlier source and should be considered dubious. In one earlier king list, King Malcolm III's mother is named "Suthen"[483].
     "m ([1030]) DUNCAN King of Strathclyde, son of CRINAN "the Thane" Mormaer of Atholl & his wife Bethoc of the Scots ([1001]-killed in battle either Bothganowan/Pitgaveny, near Elgin, or Burghead 14 Aug 1040, bur Isle of Iona). He succeeded in 1034 as DUNCAN I King of Scotland.]"
Med Lands cites: He was King of Strathclyde between 1018 and 1034.⁴ He was King of Scotland, [Ashley, pp. 392-393] DUNCAN (I) THE GRACIOUS Strathclyde, 1018-34; Scotland, 25 November 1034-15 August 1040. Born: cl00l; Died (killed in battle) Pitgaveny, 15 August 1040, aged 39. Buried: Iona. Married: c1030, Sybilla, sister (some records say dau.) of Siward, earl of Northumbria: 3 sons and possibly one daughter. Duncan was the son of Bethoc, the daughter of MALCOLM II, and Crinan, mórmaer (or earl) of Atholl and abbot of Dunkeld. Although Malcolm had done everything to eliminate all other rival claimants amongst the immediate descendants of KENNETH MACALPIN, he had not quashed the rival Loarn dynasty which ruled Moray. They offered little, if any, allegiance to the kings of Scotland, and certainly had little respect for Duncan. He might have inherited his grandfather's ambition, but he was not his equal as a strategist or commander. Duncan was fortunate in that soon after he inherited the throne, England was in turmoil following the death of CANUTE and an argument over the succession, whilst to the north THORFINN, earl of Orkney, was also facing an internal challenge. Had Duncan struck at those moments he might have succeeded in expanding his kingdom along the lines that Malcolm had planned. However, Duncan left it for some years, and instead found himself facing an attack by Eadulf of Bernicia in 1038, in revenge for the conquest of Durham by Malcolm twenty years earlier. Eadulf was driven back only by the help of Duncan's brother, MALDRED. In 1040 Duncan was ready to fight back although he chose to do it on both fronts and, by this time, Thorfinn of Orkney had regained his authority. Early in 1040 Duncan marched on Durham whilst his nephew, Moddan, led an army north to Caithness. Moddan found himself outnumbered and rapidly retreated whilst Duncan's assault on Durham was nothing short of incompetent and his army suffered heavy losses. Duncan now decided, rather late, to concentrate his forces on one front, and set out to encounter Thorfinn. He was out-manoeuvred on every front, narrowly escaping with his life in a sea battle, whilst Moddan was killed at Thurso. Duncan retreated into Moray, where any sensible commander would realise he was in unsafe territory. Although the men of Moray had for years battled against the Norsemen, they had no wish to support Duncan. The mórmaer of Moray, MACBETH, allied himself with Thorfinn and slaughtered Duncan's army at Pitgaveny on 15 August 1040. Duncan was killed in the battle. His death was not mourned. The historical Duncan is nothing like the victim portrayed in Shakespeare's Macbeth. He was seen as a ruthless and incapable king. His son, MALCOLM (III) was still only an infant and was not considered eligible to inherit the throne. It took the Scottish council only a short while to accept Macbeth as king. between 1034 and 1040.^22,19

     Maud Pauncefote married John VII le Strange 3rd Lord Strange of Knokyn, son of John VI le Strange 2nd Lord Strange of Knockyn and Iseult (?),
;
Her 1st husband.^1,2,3 Maud Pauncefote married Thomas de Carew of Southcourt, son of Nicholas de Carew and Avice Martin, between 1323 and 1328
;
Her 2nd husband.^2,4
Maud Pauncefote died after 1 April 1324.^1,2
     Reference: Genealogics cites: The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden. XII/1 353.²

     Edward III (?) King of England was buried at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, City of Westminster, Greater London, England.⁹ He was born on 13 November 1312 at Windsor Castle, Windsor, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough, Berkshire, England.^9,10,1,6 He and Marguerite II (?) Countess de Hainaut, Holland and Zeeland were engaged in 1320.^11,7 Edward III (?) King of England married Philippa (?) de Hainault, L.G., Queen Consort of England, daughter of Guillaume I/III 'Le Bon' (?) comte de Hainaut, et d'Ostrevant, de Hollande, Frise et Zelande and Jeanne/Joanna/Joan de Valois, on 24 January 1327/28 at York Minster, Westminster, co. Middlesex, England.^{9,10,1,12,13,6,7,14}

Edward III (?) King of England died on 21 June 1377 at Sheen Palace, Richmond, co. Surrey, England, at age 64.^9,10,1,6
Edward III (?) King of England was buried after 21 June 1377 at Westminster Abbey, Westminster, City of Westminster, Greater London, England; From Find A Grave:
     BIRTH     13 Nov 1312, Windsor, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough, Berkshire, England
     DEATH     21 Jun 1377 (aged 64), Richmond, London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Greater London, England
     English Monarch. The son of Edward II and Isabella of France, he was installed as king after his mother and her lover, Roger Mortimer, forced his weak father to abdicate. He was crowned on January 25, 1327 at the age of 14, with his mother and Mortimer in control as regents. Edward married Philippa of Hainault on January 24, 1328 at York Minster. The marriage was a loving, successful one despite Edward's infidelities, and the couple had 13 children. In 1330 at the age of 18, Edward siezed control and had Roger Mortimer executed. He spared his mother, but exiled her from court. Edward ruled successfully for 50 years, during which time he expanded English territory through wars with Scotland and France, and instituted government reforms which affirmed the power of the middle class in Parliament. The country prospered through the export of wool, but the prosperity was tempered by the devastation of the Black Death. Edward died of a stroke at Sheen Palace at the age of 65. His eldest son and heir Edward, the Black Prince, having died the previous year, the throne went to the Black Prince's son and Edward's grandson, Richard. Bio by: Kristen Conrad
     Family Members
     Parents
          Edward II 1284–1327
          Isabella of France 1292–1358
     Spouse
          Philippa d'Avesnes of Hainault 1311–1369 (m. 1328)
     Siblings
          John Plantagenet of Eltham 1316–1336
          Eleanor Of Woodstock 1318–1355
          Joan Plantagenet 1321–1362
     Children
          Joan Perrers Skerne unknown–1431
          Edward Plantagenet 1330–1376
          Isabel Plantagenet de Coucy 1332–1379
          Joan Plantagenet 1334–1348
          William Of Hatfield 1336–1337
          Lionel Plantagenet 1338–1368
          John of Gaunt 1340–1399
          Edmund of Langley 1341–1402
          Blanche de la Tour Plantagenet 1342–1342
          Mary de Waltham 1344–1362
          Margaret De Plantagenet de Hastings 1346–1361
          William de Windsor 1348–1348
          Prince Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1355–1397
     BURIAL     Westminster Abbey, Westminster, City of Westminster, Greater London, England
     Maintained by: Find a Grave
     Added: 31 Dec 2000
     Find a Grave Memorial 1957.^1,15
     EDV-18 GKJ-18. He was Earl of Chester.⁹ He was Duc d'Aquitaine.⁹

Reference: Genealogics cites:

; Per Staley emails:
"Subject: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (1)
From: Louise Staley
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:18:30 GMT
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
     "Recently I have been looking at the ancestry of Roger Corbet of Albright Hussey in Shropshire (1673-1715). It appears there are 11 descents from Edward III to Roger, primarily through his father Captain Robert Corbet (1629-1698).
     "In this series of posts I propose to detail what I know about the lines from Roger to Edward III in the hope of generating a discussion about the likelihood of all these lines holding and where better (or contradictory) sources may be found.
     "I have tried to source every fact, where no source is cited it probably means I got from an SGM post without noting the source or perhaps straight off the internet with varying degrees of certainty. As far as I know all the relationships are sourced and it is only dates and places which could be better documented. I would welcome any sources where I have gaps.
     "The following bibliography will apply to all the subsequent five posts.
Louise
Bibliography
** A2A: The National Archives of England, Wales and the United Kingdom Access to Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a
** AR7: Weis, Frederick, with additions and corrections by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr, Assisted by David Faris, _Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700 (7th Edition)_, (Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co., 1992)
** Bartrum, Peter C., _Welsh Genealogies AD 1400-1500_, (Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, 1983)
** Burke's Commoners: Burke, Bernard, _A genealogical and heraldic history of the landed gentry; or, Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland enjoying territorial possessions or high official rank: but uninvested with heritable honours_. (London: Colburn, 1837-38) available online from Ancestry.com
** CP: Cokayne, George Edward & Vicary Gibbs, _The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant_, (London, St. Catherine Press Ltd., 1910)
** Corbett Study Group http://website.lineone.net/~corbett_group/First/People/pelham.htm
** Croke, Alexander, _The Genealogical History of the Croke Family originally named Le Blount_, (Oxford, 1823)
** Gough, Richard _The History of Myddle_, Ed. D. Hey, (London, Penguin, 1981).
** Jones, Morris Charles, _The Feudal Barons of Powys_, (London, J. Russell Smith, 1868) available online from Ancestry.com.
** Lichfield Wills: Lichfield Wills and Administrations Registered in The Consistory Court of The Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. 1516 to 1652, indexed at Ancestry.com
** Lloyd, W. V., _Sheriffs of Montgomeryshire, with Their Armorial Bearings, and Notices, Genealogical and Biographical, of their Families, From 1540 to 1639_, (London, T. Richards, 1876) available online from Ancestry.com.
** PA2: Faris, David, _Plantagenet Ancestry of Seventeenth-Century Colonists (2nd Edition)_, (Boston, The New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1999)
** Paston Letters: Warrington, John (ed.), _The Paston Letters_, (London, Everyman's Library, 1956).
** PRO: The National Archives of England, Wales and the United Kingdom PROCAT http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk
** Shropshire Parish Registers, available from Ancestry.com
** Wills: The National Archives of England, Wales and the United Kingdom PCC Wills http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/


Subject: Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (2)
From: "Louise Staley"
Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:22:36 -0700
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Generations 1 - 5
First Generation
1. _Roger Corbet of Albright Hussey_ [1,2,3,4], was christened on 20 Dec 1673 [1] at Battlefield, SAL, ENG [1] and was buried on 12 Aug 1715 [1] at Battlefield, SAL, ENG [1].
** 1. Shropshire Parish Registers, Battlefield.
** 2. Jones (1868), p. 160.
** 3. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 4. Corbett Study Group
Second Generation
2. _Captain Robert Corbet of Albright Hussey_ [1,3,4,5,6], was christened on 25 Oct 1629 [1] at Moreton Corbet, SAL, ENG [2] and was buried on 14 May 1698 at Battlefield, SAL, ENG [2].
** 1. Shropshire Parish Registers, Moreton Corbett
** 2. Ibid, Battlefield.
** 3. Will, PROB 11/105 Will of William Corbet.
** 4. Jones (1868), p. 160
** 5. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne.
** 6. Corbett Study Group
3. _Elizabeth Kynaston of Hordley, SAL_ [1,2,4], was born about 1631 [3], died on 4 Apr 1691 [3], and was buried at Battlefield, SAL, ENG [3].
** 1. Jones (1868), pp. 141, 159-60
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne.
** 3. Shropshire Parish Registers, Battlefield.
** 4. Corbett Study Group
Third Generation
4. _Sir Pelham Corbet of Lee & Sibbesdon_ [1,2,3,4,5,6] died before 29 Mar 1660 [5].
** 1. Will, PROB 11/105 Will of William Corbet.
** 2. A2A, 2028/1/2/109, 110: 1636.
** 3. Shropshire Parish Registers, Moreton Corbett
** 4. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 5. Corbett Study Group
** 6. Shropshire Parish Registers, Moreton Corbett
5. _Anne Corbet_, [2,3,4,5,6,7,8] daughter of Sir Andrew Corbet of Moreton Corbet and Elizabeth Boothby, was buried on 22 Nov 1678 at Sibdon, SAL, ENG [1].
** 1. Shropshire Parish Registers, Sibdon
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 3. Will, Will of Sir Vincent Corbet PROB 11/141.
** 4. Gough, Richard, The History of Myddle.
** 5. Shropshire Parish Registers, Moreton Corbett
** 6. Will, PROB 11/105 Will of William Corbet.
** 7. A2A, 2028/1/2/109, 110: 1636.
** 8. Corbett Study Group
6. _Roger Kynaston of Hordley, Sheriff of Shropshire 1640_ [1,3], was buried on 25 Sep 1684 [2] at Hordley, SAL, ENG [2].
** 1. Jones (1868), pp. 141, 159-60
** 2. Shropshire Parish Registers, Hordley
** 3. Lloyd (1876), pp. 480, 482, 482 note 1.
7. _Rebecca Weld_ [2,3], daughter of Sir John Weld of Welley, was buried on 13 Jun 1656 at Hordley, SAL, ENG [1]
** 1. Shropshire Parish Registers, Hordley.
** 2. Jones (1868), pp. 141, 159-60.
** 3. Lloyd (1876), p. 482 note 1.
Fourth Generation
8. _William Corbet of Lee & Sibbesdon_ [1,2,3], died on 7 Apr 1603 [3].
** 1. Will, PROB 11/105 Will of William Corbet.
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 3. Corbett Study Group
9. _Anne Pelham_ [1,2,3,4,5] was born after 1566 [1].
** 1. Will, PROB 11/72 Will of Sir William Pelham.
** 2. CP XII/2: 557.
** 3. Will, PROB 11/105 Will of William Corbet.
** 4. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 5. Corbett Study Group
12. _Edward Kynaston of Hordley, Sheriff of Montgomeryshire_ [1,2], died before 1 May 1630 [1,2].
** 1. Jones (1868), p. 141.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 479-80, 482.
13. _Mary Owen_ [1,2], daughter of Thomas Owen of Condover, was buried on 29 Jan 1668 [3] at Hordley, SAL, ENG [3].
** 1. Jones (1868), p. 141.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 479-80, 482.
** 3. Shropshire Parish Registers, Hordley.
Fifth Generation
16. _Thomas Corbet of Lee & Aston, SAL_ [1,2], died in 1602 [2].
** 1. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 2. Corbett Study Group
17. _Elizabeth Williams_ [1,2], daughter of Thomas Williams of Willaston.
** 1. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundore (calls her Elinor daughter of Thomas Williams)
** 2. Corbett Study Group
18. _Sir William Pelham of Brocklesby, LIN_, Lord Justice of Ireland [1,2], son of Sir William Pelham of Laughton and Mary Sandys, was born about 1530, died on 24 Nov 1587 in Flushing, Netherlands, and was buried in Brocklesby, LIN, ENG.
** 1. CP XII/2: 557.
** 2. Will, PROB 11/72 Will of Sir William Pelham.
19. _Eleanor Neville_ [1,2] died in 1574 [1].
** 1. CP XII/2: 557-8.
** 2. Will, PROB 11/72 Will of Sir William Pelham.
24. _Roger Kynaston of Hordley, Sheriff of Shropshire 1603_ [1,2] died in 1608 [1,2].
** 1. Jones (1868), pp. 117, 141.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 477-480.
25. _Margaret Vaughan_, daughter of John ap Owen Vaughan of Llwydiarth, Sheriff of Montgomeryshire 1583 and Dorothy Vaughan.
** 1. Jones (1868), p. 141
** 2. Lloyd (1876), p. 479.


Subject: Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (3)
From: "Louise Staley"
Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:23:34 -0700
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Generations 6 - 8
Sixth Generation
32. _William Corbet of Lee & Aston, SAL_ [1,2,4], was born about 1505 [3] and died in 1565 [3].
** 1. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 2. Corbett Study Group
** 3. Lichfield Wills
** 4. Will of Sir Thomas Lakyn of Willey, Shropshire
33. _Alice Lacon of Willey, SAL_ [1,2,3], daughter of Sir Thomas Lacon of Willey, SAL and Mary Corbet of Moreton Corbet, died on 8 May 1573 at Worthen, SAL, ENG.
** 1. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
** 2. Corbett Study Group
** 3. Will, PROB 11/25 Will of Sir Thomas Lakyn of Willey, Shropshire
38. _Sir Henry Neville K.G., Earl of Westmoreland 5th_ [1], was born about 1524 [1], died on 10 Feb 1564 in Kelvedon, ESS, ENG, [1] and was buried at Staindrop, DUR, ENG.[1]
** 1. CP XII/2: 553-8.
39. _Anne Manners_ [1] died after 27 Jun 1549 [1] and was buried at Staindrop, DUR, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XI: 253-5, XII/2: 555-8.
48. _Edward Kynaston of Hordley_ [1,2,3,4] was born before 1530 [1,2] and died in 1594 [1,2].
** 1. Jones (1868), p. 117, 141.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 477-479.
** 3. PRO C 43/4/30.
** 4. A2A 3693/1/20: 1635, 23 May 11 Charles I.
49. _Margaret Lloyd_ [1,2,3], daughter of Edward Lloyd of Llwynymaen.
** 1. Jones (1868), p. 117, 141.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 477-479.
** 3. A2A 3693/1/20: 1635, 23 May 11 Charles I.
Seventh Generation
64. _John Corbet of Lee, SAL_ [1,2], was born about 1482 and died before 1564.
** 1. Croke(1823), Vol. II pp. 155-169.
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
65. _Margaret Blount of Kinlet, SAL_ [1,2] daughter of Sir Thomas Blount Knt., of Kinlet and Anne Croft.
** 1. Croke (1823), Vol. II pp. 155-169.
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
76. _Sir Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland 4th_ [1] was born on 21 Feb 1498 [1] died on 24 Apr 1549 [1] and was buried at Staindrop, DUR, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XII: 552-4.
77. _Katharine Stafford_ [1] died on 14 May 1555 [1] in Shoreditch, ESS, ENG [1] and was buried on 17 May 1555 [1] at Shoreditch, ESS, ENG [1].
** 1. CP II: 390-1, XII/2: 553-4, XIV: 121.
78. _Thomas Manners Baron Ros 12th, Earl of Rutland 1st_ [1] was born before 1492 [1], died on 20 Sep 1543 [1] and was buried in Bottesford, LEI, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XI: 107-8, 253-5.
79. _Eleanor Paston_ [1,2], daughter of Sir William Paston of Paston, NFK and Bridget Heydon, died in 1551 in Shoreditch, ESS, ENG [1], and was buried in Shoreditch, ESS, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XI: 253-5.
** 2. Paston Letters, xiv-xv.
96. _Sir Humphrey 'The Wild' Kynaston of Moreton, outlaw_ [1,2,3] died before 16 Jan 1535 [1] in Paris, France [1].
** 1. Jones (1868), pp. 114-15, 141
** 2. Lloyd (1876), pp. 472, 475.
** 3. PRO C 43/4/30.
97. _Elsbeth verch Maredudd_ [1,2].
** 1. Lloyd (1876), p. 476.
** 2. Jones (1868), p. 141.
Eighth Generation
128. _Thomas Corbet of Lee, SAL_ [1,2], son of Peter Corbet of Lee, SAL and Elizabeth Brereton.
** 1. Bartrum (1983), v. I, p. 131.
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
129. _Jane Kynaston_ [1,2]
** 1. Bartrum (1983), v. I, p. 131.
** 2. Burke's Commoners, Corbet of Sundorne
152. _Ralph Neville_ [1] died before 6 Feb 1499 [1] v.p. [1] and was buried at Brancepeth, DUR, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XII: 551-3.
153. _Edith Sandys_ [1,2] daughter of Sir William Sandys of the Vine, HAM and Margaret Cheney, died on 22 Aug 1529 [1], and was buried on 25 Aug 1529 [1] at Greenwich, MDX, ENG at the Friars Observant, Greenwich [1] The cause of her death was plague.
** 1. CP XI: 441, XII/2: 552-553.
154. _Sir Edward Stafford K.G., Duke of Buckingham 3rd_ [1], was born on 3 Feb 1478 [1] in Breconshire, WLS [1], died on 17 May 1521 [1] in The Tower, LND, ENG [1], and was buried at Newgate, LND, ENG at the Franciscan (Grey Friars, Friars Minor) Priory Church, Newgate Street [1]. The cause of his death was executed for high treason after incurring the enmity of Cardinal Wolsey.
** 1. CP II: 389-91, XIV: 121.
155. _Eleanor Percy_ [1] was born in 1478 [1], died on 13 Feb 1531 [1], and was buried at Newgate, LND, ENG at the Franciscan (Grey Friars, Friars Minor) Priory Church, Newgate Street [1].
** 1. CP II: 390-1, XIV: 121.
156. _Sir George Manners Baron Ros of Helmsely 11th_ [1], son of Sir Robert Manners and Eleanor Ros heiress (in her issue) of the Barony of Ros, was born about 1470 [1], died on 27 Oct 1513 [1] in France [1], And was buried at St George's Chapel Windsor Castle, BRK, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XI: 107-8.
157. _Anne St. Leger_, was born in 1476, died on 21 Apr 1526, and was buried at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, BRK, ENG.
** 1. CP II: 17, V:212-15, XI: 108, 253.
192. _Sir Roger Kynaston of Middle, Sheriff of Shropshire_ [1,2,3,4,5], son of Gruffudd ap John Kynaston of Stokes and Magred Hoord heiress of Walford, was born in 1430 and died in 1496 [2].
** 1. Jones (1868), pp. 114-15.
** 2. Lloyd (1876), p. 472-475.
** 3. Bartrum (1983), v. I, p. 131.
** 4. PRO C 43/4/30.
** 5. AR7 1A: 35.
193. _Elizabeth Grey_ [1,2,3,4,5] was born about 1440 [2] and died after 1501 [2].
** 1. PRO C 43/4/30.
** 2. Jones (1868), p. 114.
** 2. AR7 1A: 35.
** 4. CP VI: 143, Appendix C:697.
** 5. Bartrum (1983), v. I, p. 131.


Subject: Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (4)
From: "Louise Staley"
Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:24:19 -0700
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Generations 9 - 10
Ninth Generation
258. Sir Roger Kynaston of Middle (Duplicate. See Person 192)
259. Elizabeth Grey (Duplicate. See Person 193)
304. Sir Ralph Neville K.B., Earl of Westmoreland 2nd [1] was born in 1456 [1], died on 6 Feb 1499 [1] in Hornby Castle, YKS, ENG [1], and was buried at Hornby, YKS, ENG [1].
** 1. CP IX: 504, XIV: 498-9.
305. Isabel Booth [1], daughter of Roger Booth of Sawley, DBY and Katharine Hatton, was buried in Brancepeth, DUR, ENG [1].
** 1. CP IX: 504, XIV: 498-9.
308. Sir Henry Stafford K.G., Duke of Buckingham 2nd [1], was born on 4 Sep 1455 in Abergavenny, MON, WLS [1], died on 2 Nov 1483 [1] in Salisbury, WIL, ENG [1], and was buried at Grey Friars Salisbury, WIL, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was beheaded without trial for joining the plot to place the earl of Richmond on the throne. [1]
** 1. CP II: 389-90, XII/1: 182, XIV: 121, 589.
309. Katharine Wydeville [1], daughter of Richard Wydeville of the Mote, Earl Rivers 1st and Jacquette De Luxembourg, died before 1513 [1].
** 1. CP II: 389-90, XII/1: 182, XIV: 121, 589.
** 310. Sir Henry Percy K.G., Earl of Northumberland 3rd [1], was born about 1449 [1], died on 28 Apr 1489 [1] at Topcliffe, YKS, ENG [1], and was buried at Beverley, YKS, Eng [1]. The cause of his death was murdered by a rabble because of an unpopular tax he was employed to levy [1].
** 1. CP XIV: 510, 715-7.
311. Maud Herbert [1], daughter of Sir William Herbert K.G., Earl of Pembroke and Anne Devereux, died before 27 Jul 1485 [1], and was buried at Beverley, YKS, Eng [1].
** 1. CP IX: 717-9, XIV: 510, X: 400-1.
314. Sir Thomas St. Leger of Guildford, Surrey [1], son of John St. Leger Sheriff of Kent and Margery Donnett, died on 8 Nov 1483 [1] at Exeter, DEV, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was beheaded.
** 1. CP II: 17, V: 212-15 XI: 108, 253.
315. Anne of York Dowager Duchess of Exeter [1], was born on 10 Aug 1439 [1] in Fotheringhay Castle, NTH, ENG [1], died about 12 Jan 1476 [1], and was buried at Windsor Castle, BRK, ENG [1].
** 1. CP II: 17, V: 212-15 XI: 108, 253.
386. Sir Henry Grey Earl of Tankerville 2nd, Lord of Powis [1], son of Sir John Grey K.G., Earl of Tankerville 1st and Joan Cherleton Lady of Powis, was born about 1419 [2] and died on 13 Jan 1450 [2].
** 1. CP V: 736 (n), VI: 138-141, 699
** 2. AR7 1A: 34.
387. Antigone of Gloucester [1], illegitimate daughter of Humphrey "The Good" of Gloucester, Duke of Gloucester, was born before 1428 [2] and died in 1447 [2].
** 1. CP V: 736 (n), VI: 138-141, 699
** 2. AR7 1A: 34.
Tenth Generation
608. Sir John Neville Baron Neville of Raby 5th [1], son of Sir John Neville of Raby and Elizabeth Holand, was born about 1410 [1] and died on 29 Mar 1461 [1] at Towton, YKS, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was slain at the battle of Towton [1].
** 1. CP IX: 504, XIV: 498-9.
609. Anne Holand [1] died on 26 Dec 1486 [1].
** 1. CP V: 205-11, IX: 504, XIV: 312, 498-9.
616. Sir Humphrey Stafford [1] was born about 1424 [1] and died about 1458 [1] v.p.
** 1. CP II: 388-9, XII/1: 182, XIV: 589.
617. Margaret Beaufort [1] was born about 1437 [1] and died in 1474 [1].
** 1. CP II: 388-9, XII/1: 182, XIV: 589.
620. Sir Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland 2nd [1], was born on 25 Jul 1421 [1] in Leconsfield, Yks, Eng [1], died on 29 Mar 1461 [1] at Towton, YKS, ENG [1], and was buried at St. Denis, YKS, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was killed at the battle of Towton [1].
** 1. CP IX: 715-7, X: 665.
621. Eleanor Poynings Baroness Poynings [1], daughter of Sir Richard Poynings and Eleanor Berkeley, was born about 1422 [1] and died in Feb 1484 [1].
** 1. CP IX: 715-7, X: 665.
630. Richard of York K.G., Duke of York 3rd [1], was born on 21 Sep 1411 [1], died on 30 Dec 1460 [1] at Wakefield, YKS, ENG [1], and was buried at Fotheringhay, NTH, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was killed at the battle of Wakefield [1].
** 1. CP II: 494-5, XII/2: 905-9, XIV: 642, XIV: 136.
631. Cecilia 'The Rose of Raby' Neville [1], was born on 3 May 1415 [1] in Raby, DUR, ENG [1], died on 31 May 1495 [1] at Berkampstead, HEF, ENG [1], and was buried at Fotheringhay, NTH, ENG [1].
** 1. CP II: 494-5, XII/2: 905-9, XIV: 642, XIV: 136.
774. Humphrey "The Good" of Gloucester, Duke of Gloucester [1], was born on 3 Oct 1390 [1], died on 23 Feb 1447 [1] s.p.l. [1], and was buried at the Abbey, St Albans, HRT, ENG [1].
** 1. CP III: 354 (d), VI: 138-9, VII: 417-8


Subject: Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (5)
From: "Louise Staley"
Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:25:12 -0700
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Generations 11 - 12
Eleventh Generation
1218. Sir John Holand Duke of Exeter [1], was born on 29 Mar 1396 [1] in Dartington, DEV, ENG [1], died on 5 Aug 1447 [1], and was buried at the Church of St. Catherine-by-the-Tower, LND, ENG [1].
** 1. CP V: 195-200, 205-11, XIV: 311-312, I:245
1219. Anne Stafford [1], was born about 1406 [1], died about 24 Sep 1432 [1], and was buried at the Church of St. Catherine-by-the-Tower, LND, ENG [1].
** 1. CP V: 176-8, 195-200, 205-11, XII/1: 180, XIV: 311-312, I:245
1232. Sir Humphrey Stafford K.G., Duke of Buckingham 1st [1], was born on 15 Aug 1402 [1] at Raby, DUR, ENG [1], died on 10 Jul 1460 [1] at Northampton, NTH, ENG, and was buried at Grey Friars, Northampton, NTH,ENG [1]. The cause of his death was slain at the Battle of Northampton [1].
** 1. CP II: 388-9, V: 176-8, XII/1: 180
1233. Anne Neville of Raby [1], was born about 1411 [1], died on 20 Sep 1480 [1], and was buried at Pleshy, ESS, ENG [1].
** 2. CP I: 425, II: 388-9, XII/2: 547, IX: 716, IX: 606, V: 281-287, IX: 336.
1234. Edmund Beaufort Duke of Somerset [1], was born about 1406 [1], died on 22 May 1455 [1] in St Albans, HRT, ENG [1], and was buried at the Chapel of the Blessed Virgin in the Abbey Church St Albans, HRT, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was killed at the first Battle of St. Albans [1].
** 1. CP XII:/1: 49-53.
1235. Eleanor Beauchamp [1], daughter of Sir Richard Beauchamp K.G., Earl of Warwick and Elizabeth Berkeley Baroness Lisle suo jure, was Born in 1407 [1] in Eddgenoch, WAR, ENG [1] and died on 6 Mar 1467 [1] at Baynard's Castle, SRY, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XII:/1: 49-53.
1240. Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland 1st [1], was born on 3 Feb 1393 [1] at Alnwick, NTH, ENG [1] and died on 22 May 1455 [1] at St Albans, HRT, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was battle of St Albans [1].
** 1. CP IX: 713-14, X: 665.
1241. Eleanor Neville died in 1463.
** 1. CP IX: 713-14, X: 665.
1260. Richard of Conisborough Earl of Cambridge [1], was born about Sep 1376 [1] in Conisborough Castle, YKS, ENG [1], died on 5 Aug 1415 [1] at Southampton, HAM, ENG [1], and was buried at Southampton, HAM, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was beheaded for conspiring to replace Henry V with the Earl of March [1].
** 1. CP II:494-5, XIV:136
1261. Anne Mortimer [1] was born on 27 Dec 1390 [2] in New Forest, Westmeath, IRE [2] died in Sep 1411 [2] and was buried at Kings Langley, HEF, ENG [2]. The cause of her death was childbirth [2].
** 1. CP II: 494-5, XIV: 136.
** 2. PA2, York: 8.
1262. Sir Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland 1st, K.G. [1], son of Sir John Neville K.G., Baron Neville of Raby 3rd and Maud Percy, was born before 1364 [1] in Raby, DUR, ENG [1], died on 21 Oct 1425 [1] at Raby, DUR, ENG [1], and was buried at Staindrop Church, Raby, DUR, ENG [1].
** 1. CP I: 425, XII/2: 547, IX: 716, IX: 606, V: 281-287, IX: 336.
1263. Joan Beaufort [1], legitimated daughter of John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster and Katharine Roet L.G., was born in 1379 [1] in Beaufort Castle, Meuse-et-Loire, FRA, [1] died on 13 Nov 1440 [1] in Howden, YKS, ENG [1], and was buried in the Cathedral at Lincoln, LIN, ENG [1].
** 1. CP I: 425, XII/2: 547, IX: 716, IX: 606, V: 281-287, IX: 336.
1548. King Henry IV 'Hal of Bolingbroke' King of England K.G. [1], was born in Apr 1366 [1] in Bolingbroke Castle, LIN, ENG [1], died on 20 Mar 1413 [1] at Westminster, LND, ENG [1], and was buried in the Cathedral at Canterbury, KEN, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was Leprosy, gout or an apoplectic fit.
** 1. CP VII: 417-18.
1549. Lady Mary Bohun Queen Consort of England, L.G. [1], daughter of Sir Humphrey Bohun K.G., Earl Of Herford and Joan Fitzalan, was born about 1370 [2], died on 4 Jul 1394 [2] at Peterborough, Nth, Eng [2], and was buried in the Cathedral at Canterbury, KEN, ENG [2]. The cause of her death was childbirth [2].
** 1. CP VI: 477, VII: 417-18.
** 2. PA2, Lancaster: 10.
Twelfth Generation
2436. Sir John Holand K.G., Duke of Exeter, son of Sir Thomas Holand Earl of Kent jure uxoris and Joan of Kent 'the Fair Maid of Kent' Countess of Kent, Lady Wake suo jure, was born after 1350 [1], died about 9 Jan 1400 [1] at Pleshy Castle, ESS, ENG [1], and was buried at the Collegiate Church in Pleshy, ESS, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was beheading for treason against his brother-in-law Henry IV [1].
** 1. CP I:245, V:195-200, XIV:311
2437. Lady Elizabeth of Lancaster L.G. [1], was born before 21 Feb 1363 [2], died on 24 Nov 1425 [1], and was buried at Burford, SAL, ENG [1].
** 1. CP I:245, V:195-200, XIV:311
** 2. PA2, Fiennes: 8.
2438. Sir Edmund Stafford K.G., Earl of Stafford 5th [1], son of Sir Hugh Stafford K.G., Earl of Stafford 2nd and Philippa Beauchamp, was born on 2 Mar 1378 [1], died on 21 Jul 1403 [1] at Shrewsbury, SAL, ENG [1], and was buried at the Church of the Austin Friars at Stafford,STS,ENG [1]. The cause of his death was killed at the battle of Shrewsbury [1].
** 1. CP XII/1: 180.
2439. Anne of Gloucester, Countess of Buckingham [1], was born before 8 May 1383 [1] in Pleshy Castle, ESS, ENG [1], died between 16 and 24 Oct 1438 [1] and was buried at the Austin Friars Priory at Llanthony, Gloucester, GLS, ENG [1].
** 1. CP V: 208, VI: 475-477, XII/1: 180-181.
2464. Sir Edmund Stafford K.G., Earl of Stafford 5th (Duplicate. See Person 2438)
2465. Anne of Gloucester Countess of Buckingham (Duplicate. See Person 2439)
2466. Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland 1st (Duplicate. See Person 1262)
2467. Joan Beaufort, (Duplicate. See Person 1263)
2468. Sir John Beaufort K.G., Earl & Marquess of Somerset and Dorset [1], legitimated son of John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster and Katharine Roet L.G., was born about 1373 in Beaufort Castle, Meuse-et-Loire, FRA, died on 16 Mar 1410 in the hospital of St. Catherine-by-the-Tower, LND, ENG, and was buried in the Cathedral at Canterbury, KEN, ENG.
** 1. CP VII: 410-16, XIV: 421, XII:/1: 39-45.
2469. Margaret Holand [1], daughter of Thomas Holand K.G., Earl of Kent 2nd and Alice Fitzalan, was born in 1385, died on 30 Dec 1439 [1] in Bermondsey Abbey, SRY, ENG [1], and was buried in the Cathedral at Canterbury, KEN, ENG.
** 1. CP VII: 410-16, XIV: 421, XII:/1: 39-45.
2480. Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy K.G., Baron Percy 5th [1], son of Sir Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland 1st and Margaret Neville of Raby, was born on 20 May 1364 [1], died on 21 Jul 1403 [1] at Shrewsbury, SAL, ENG [1], and was buried in York Minster, YKS, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was slain in the battle of Shrewsbury [1].
** 1. CP IX: 713-14.
2481. Elizabeth Mortimer [1], was born on 12 Feb 1371 [1] in Usk, MON, WLS [1], died on 20 Apr 1417 [1], and was buried at Trotton, SSX, ENG [1].
** 1. CP IX: 713-14.
2482. Ralph Neville Earl of Westmoreland 1st (Duplicate, See Person 1262)
2483. Joan Beaufort (Duplicate, See Person 1263)
2520. Edmund of Langley K.G., Earl of Cambridge, Duke of York [1], was born on 5 Jun 1341 [1] in Kings Langley, HEF, ENG [1], died on 1 Aug 1402 [1] in Kings Langley, HEF, ENG [1], and was buried in Kings Langley, HEF, ENG [1].
** 1. CP XII/2: 895-9.
2521. Isabella of Castille [1], daughter of King Pedro 'the Cruel' King of Castile and Leon and Mary Padilla, was born in 1355, died on 23 Nov 1392 [1], and was buried in Kings Langley, HEF, ENG.
** 1. CP XII/2: 895-9.
2522. Roger Mortimer Earl of March 4th [1], was born on 11 Apr 1374 [1] at Usk, MON, WLS [1], was christened on 12 Apr 1374 [1] at Usk, MON, WLS [1], died on 20 Jul 1398 [1] at Kells, MEA, IRE [1], and was buried at Wigmore, HEF, ENG [1].
** 1. CP VIII: 488-50
2523. Eleanor Holand [1], daughter of Thomas Holand K.G., Earl of Kent 2nd and Alice Fitzalan, was born about 1373 [1] in Upholland, LAN, ENG [1] and died on 23 Oct 1405 [1]. The cause of her death was childbirth [1].
** 1. CP VIII: 488-50, III: 161 XIV: 169
2526. Sir John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster, [1] was born on 24 Jun 1340 [1] in Ghent, Oost-Vlaanderen, Belgium [1] and died on 3 Feb 1399 [1] at Leicester, LEI, ENG [1].
** 1. CP VII: 410-16, X: 231-2, 393, XIV: 421.
2527. Lady Katharine Roet L.G. [1] was born on 25 Nov 1340 [1] in Picardy, Hainault, FRA [1] and died on 10 May 1403 [1] in Lincoln, LIN, ENG [1].
** 1. CP VII: 410-16, X: 231-2, 393, XIV: 421.
3096. John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster (Duplicate. See Person 2526)
3097. Blanch of Lancaster [1], daughter of Henry of Grosmont Duke of Lancaster and Isabel Beaumont, was born on 25 Mar 1345 [1] and died on 12 Sep 1369 [1] in Bolingbroke Castle, LIN,ENG [1]. The cause of her death was probably plague.
** 1. CP VII: 410-16, XIV: 421.


Subject: Re: EDWARD III to Roger CORBET of Albright Hussey 11 Ways (6)
From: "Louise Staley"
Date: 3 Aug 2005 00:25:43 -0700
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Generations 13 - 15
Thirteenth Generation
4874. John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster (Duplicate. See Person 2526)
4875. Blanch of Lancaster (Duplicate. See Person 3097)
4878. Thomas of Woodstock K.G., Duke of Gloucester [1] was born on 7 Jan 1355 [1] in Woodstock, OXF, ENG [1], died on 15 Sep 1397 [1] at Calais, Aquitaine, France [1], and was buried in Westminster Abbey, LND, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was murdered by suffocation in prison awaiting trial [1].
** 1. CP II: 388, X: 231-2, 393.
4879. Lady Eleanor Bohun L.G. [1], daughter of Sir Humphrey Bohun K.G., Earl of Herford and Joan Fitzalan, was born about 1366 [1] in Hereford, HEF, ENG [1], died on 3 Oct 1399 [1] at the Minoress Convent in Westminster, LND, ENG [1], and was buried in Westminster Abbey, LND, ENG [1].
** 1. CP II: 388, X: 231-2, 393.
4936. John 'of Gaunt' K.G., Duke of Lancaster (Duplicate. See Person 2526)
4937. Katharine Roet L.G. (Duplicate. See Person 2527)
4962. Sir Edmund Mortimer Knt., Earl of March 3rd [1], son of Sir Roger Mortimer K.G., Earl of March 2nd and Philippa Montagu, was born on 1 Feb 1352 [1] in Llangoed, BRE, WLS [1], died on 27 Dec 1381 [1] in Cork, IRE [1], and was buried in the Austin Friars Abbey at Wigmore, HEF, ENG [1]. The cause of his death was complications from a head cold caught crossing a river [1].
** 1. CP VIII:445-8, XIV:466
4963. Philippa of Clarence Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare [1], was born on 16 Aug 1355 [1] in Eltham Palace, KEN, ENG [1], died before 6 Dec 1379 [1], and was buried in the Austin Friars Abbey at Wigmore, HEF, ENG [1].
** 1. CP VIII:445-8, XIV:466
5040. King Edward III King of England
5041. Philippa Hainault L.G., Queen Consort of England
5044. Sir Edmund Mortimer Knt., Earl of March 3^rd (Duplicate. See Person 4962)
5045. Lady Philippa Plantagenet Countess of Ulster (Duplicate. See Person 4963)
5052. King Edward III King of England (Duplicate. See Person 5040)
5053. Philippa Hainault L.G., Queen Consort of England (Duplicate. See Person 5041)
Fourteenth Generation
9756. King Edward III King of England (Duplicate. See Person 5040)
9757. Philippa Hainault L.G., Queen Consort of England (Duplicate. See Person 5041)
9926. Lionel of Antwerp K.G., Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster [1] was born on 29 Nov 1338 [1] in Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium [1], died on 17 Oct 1368 [1] in Alba,Italy [1], and was buried at the Austin Friars Priory in Clare, SFK, ENG [1].
** 1. CP III: 245, X:231-2, 393, XII/2:180.
9927. Elizabeth Burgh Lady of Clare [1], daughter of William Burgh Earl of Ulster 3rd and Maud of Lancaster, was born on 6 Jul 1332 [1] in Carrickfergus Castle [1], died on 10 Dec 1363 [1] in Dublin, LEN, IRL [1] and was buried at the Austin Friars Priory in Clare, SFK, ENG [1].
** 1. CP III: 245, X:231-2, 393, XII/2:180.
Fifteenth Generation
19852. King Edward III King of England (Duplicate. See Person 5040)
19853. Philippa Hainault L.G., Queen Consort of England (Duplicate. See Person 5041)”.¹⁶

; Per Genealogics:
     “Edward III, king of England, was born at Windsor Castle on 13 November 1312, the son of Edward II, king of England, and Isabelle de France. He was only fourteen when he was used by his mother to displace his father. Having been declared king and crowned in his father's lifetime, he did not dare challenge his mother and her lover Roger Mortimer over his father's murder until a few years later. His mother, Queen Isabelle, had set out to find a bride for her son from among the four daughters of Willem III 'the Good', Graaf van Holland en Henegouwen. Edward, who was with his mother during her stay, had an opportunity to get to know all four sisters. It was tall, dark-haired Philippa who caught his eye, and it seems the feeling was mutual.
     “On 24 January 1328 he married Philippa of Holland and Hainault, a very happy union from which twelve children were born, of whom five sons and a daughter would have progeny. Also in 1328 his uncle King Charles IV of France died. As he had left no immediate male heir, the French crown went to a cousin Philippe from the junior Valois line, who became King Philippe VI. Edward III was to dispute Philippe VI's right and to claim the throne for himself, starting the Hundred Years' War with France.
     “Edward's resentment of his mother and her lover over his father's murder was contained for only a few years. Isabelle lived openly with Roger Mortimer until in 1330 he was taken prisoner and hanged on 23 November that year. Edward then forced his mother to retire to Hertford castle, where he would occasionally visit her.
     “Edward paid homage to Philippe VI for his French fiefs in 1329 and 1331. However in 1338 Flemish weavers persuaded him to claim the French throne. Philippe VI forfeited Edward III's French territories and invaded Guyenne. The naval battle of Sluys in 1340 allowed England to control the Channel, and the Battle of Crécy in 1346 also gave England the advantage on land. In 1347 Calais was taken and soon his eldest son Edward 'the Black Prince', prince of Wales, was regarded the hero of these wars. In 1348 Edward III created the Order of the Garter.
     “From 1348 until 1350 Europe was ravaged by the Black Death (Bubonic plague), and this apparently not only halved England's population but also reduced its army. At the treaty of Brétigny in 1360, Edward renounced his claim and for a while peace was restored. The imprisoned French King Jean II, son and heir of Philippe VI, was released and returned to France.
     “In 1369 Edward renewed his claim and returned to France to take Poitou by force, but England lost its control over the Channel as the French were supported by Castile. In 1376 his son the 'Black Prince' died of dysentery, and at this time England had control over only a very small portion of France.
     “During his long reign as king of England, many changes had taken place. French was no longer the official language, replaced by English. Parliament was divided into two houses and the office of Justice of the Peace created.
     “Edward had been married happily for over forty years to Philippa of Hainault, and no one has claimed that the soldier-king was unfaithful to her in camp or at court before the very last years of her life (she died in 1369). However Edward sought consolation in the arms of a grasping and disreputable mistress, Alice Perrers, the wife of one of his knights. Alice had served Queen Philippa from about 1359 and by 1360 was married to Janyn Perrers, who died about 1361. It was said that Edward III and Alice Perrers had a son John Southeray, born between 1364 and 1366, but this seems unlikely as Queen Philippa was then still alive.
     “Edward became seriously ill in September 1376, recovered slightly in the spring of 1377, but died 21 June 1377 at Sheen Palace. Alice Perrers died in 1400.”.⁶

; Per Weis [1992] p. 8, line 5-30, p. 3, line 1-30: "King of England 1327-1377 Edward was made king at age 14. He imprisoned his mother Isabella and had her lover Roger Mortimor executed. He defeated the scottish army at Halidon Hill. He started 100 Years War with France in 1337 to claim the french throne. David II of Scotland invades England but is defeated at Neville's Cross. He started the Order of the Garter in 1348. Plague of 1349-50. He had 13 children, including his son Edward the Black Prince."


Per Faris [1999:285-7]:
     "EDWARD III OF ENGLAND, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duc d'Aquitaine, Earl of Chester, was born at Windsor Castle, Co. Berks, on 13 Nov. 1312. He succeeded his father as from 24 Jan. 1326/7, and was crowned aged fifteen at Westminster Abbey on 29 Jan. 1326/7. He was married at York on 24 Jan. 1327/8 to PHILIPPE DE HAINAUT, daughter of Guillaume, Comte de Hainaut (descendant of Charlemagne), by Jeanne, daughter of Charles de France, Comte de Valois (descendant of Charlemagne). She was born on 24 June 1311. Their children were born at Woodstock in 1330, 1332 and 1335, at Hatfield in 1337, at Antwerp in 1338, at Ghent in Flanders in 1340, at the Tower of London in 1342, at Kings Langley, co. Hertford, in 1344, at Waltham near Winchester in 1344, at Windsor in 1346, at Windsor before 1348, and at Woodstock in 1355. During the first four years of his reign England was governed in his name by his mother and Roger Mortimer. Edward assumed personal rule on 19-20 Oct. 1330, and had Mortimer executed. In 1333 he reversed Isabelle's and Mortimer's policy of peace with Scotland by invading it, reviving the ambitions of his grandfather King Edward I. Edward III's main foreign preoccupation, however, from 1337 onwards was France, whose king, Philippe VI, then declared his Duchy of Gascony forfeited. Edward formally assumed the title of King of France in right of his mother in January 1340. In June 1340 the English fleet defeated the French navy in the Battle of Sluys, off the coast of Flanders. This victory gave the English Control of the English Channel for the next generation. Near continuous war ensued with some respite from truces. The army, commanded by King Edward III and his son, the Black Prince, defeated a larger French force at the Battle of Crécy in August 1346, the victory owing to superior tactics and to the invention of the longbow against the mounted French knights. The financial burden of the war roused resentment which was assuaged somewhat when Edward negotiated the main war taxes with the representatives of the shires and the borough communities sitting in parliament. He aroused enthusiasm for the war by engaging the chivalrous interests of the nobles in it and stirring up distrust and hatred of the French. Bubonic plague [or the Black Death] made its first appearance in England during his reign in 1348. His son Edward the Black Prince won a victory at Poitiers in September 1356 capturing the French king, Jean II (who died unransomed in prison in London in 1364). In 1360 King Edward made peace, giving up his claim to the throne of France and receiving from Jean the Duchy of Aquitaine in full sovereignty. The gains won by English armed forces, however, Could not be sustained in the face of sustained French resources. In the war of 1369-75 Jean's son, King Charles V, won back from Edward what had been conceded in 1360. By the time of his death, he had been discredited. His wife and consort died at Windsor Castle on 15 Aug. 1369. EDWARD III OF ENGLAND, King of England, died at Sheen Palace, Richmond, Surrey, on 21 June 1377. They were buried at Westminster Abbey. The descendants of their sons, Lionel of Clarence, John of Lancaster, and Edmund of York, contested the throne for generations ending in the Wars of the Roses which lasted from 1455 to 1485.
     "D.N.B.     6:466-488 (1908). Page: (1977), pp. 20-26. Powicke (196 1), pp. 35-36 TG 1:138-139 (1980). Viault (l992), pp. 78-79.
     "Children & grandchildren of Edward III of England, by Philippe de Hainault:

i.     EDWARD OF ENGLAND [the Black Prince], Knt., K.G., son and heir apparent, born at Woodstock, co. Oxford, 15 June 1330, Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester and Duke of Cornwall; knighted by the King at la Hogue on 12 July 1346, winning his spurs at the battle of Crécy on 26 Aug. 1346, founding Knight of the Garter: gained victory of Poitiers on 19 Sep. 1356, taking prisoner Jean, King of France; created Prince of Aquitaine on 19 July 1362; summoned to Parliament from 24 Feb. 1367/8; died at Westminster after a long illness 8 June 1376 v.p., buried Canterbury Cathedral (M.I.): married at Windsor 10 Oct. 1361, with papal dispensation, she being first cousin to his father, JOAN OF KENT [the Fair Maid of Kent], born 29 Sep. 1328, died at Wallingford Castle, co. Berks, 8 Aug. 1385, buried Grey Friars, Stamford, repudiated wife of William de Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, widow of Thomas de Holand, 1st Earl of Kent (died 26 or 28 Dec. 1360), and daughter and eventual heiress of Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent (son of King Edward I), by Margaret, daughter of John, 1st Lord Wake [see HOLAND 9].     C.P. 3:435-437 (1913) (known, long after his death, as The Black Prince, it is said, from the colour of his armour). C.P. 7:153 (1929).

a.     EDWARD OF ENGLANI), born at Angoulême 2.7 Jan. 1365, died at Bordeaux 1372 v.p.
b.     RICHARD II OF ENGLAND [of Bordeaux], K.G. younger son, born Bordeaux in Aquitaine. 6 Jan. 1367, grandson and heir of King Edward HI, after his father's death created Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester on 20 Nov. 1376; succeeded his grandfather as King of England 22 June 1377, and was crowned 16 July; deposed by his cousin Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, on 29 Sep. 1399, died in prison in Pontefract Castle 6 Jan. 1400 s.p; married, first, at Westminster Palace, 14 Jan. 1382, ANNE OF BOHEMIA, daughter of Charles IV of Luxemburg, Emperor; married, second, 12 Mar. 1396 ISABELLE DE FRANCE, born at Paris 9 Nov. 1389, died at Blois 13 Sep. 1409, daughter of Charles VI, Roi de France. C.P. 12(1):437 (1913). Paget (1977), p. 26. Powicke (1961), pp. 36-37.

ii.     WILLIAM OF ENGLAND, born before 16 Feb. 1337, died before 8 July 1337.
iii.     LIONEL OF CLARENCE [of Antwerp] [see next].
iv.     JOHN OF LANCASTER [of Gaunt], married, first, BLANCHE OF LANCASTER [see LANCASTER 11]. married, third, KATHERINE DE ROËT (see BEAUFORT 11].
v.     EDMUND OF YORK [of Langley], married ISABELLA DE CASTILLE [see YORK 9].
vi.     WILLIAM OF ENGLAND, horn before 24 June. 1348, buried 5 Sep. 1348.
vii.     THOMAS OF GLOUCESTER. married ALIANOR DE BOHUN N [see BOURCHIER 8].
viii.     ISABEL OF ENGLAND, born 16 June 1332, married ENGUERRAND VII, Sire de Couci.
ix.     JOAN OF ENGLAND, born about February 1335, died of the plague at Bordeaux en route for Spain to be married to PEDRO [the Cruel], Rey de Castilla y Leon 2 Sep. 1348.
x.     BLANCHE OF ENGLAND, born and died in the Tower of London Mar. 1342.
xi.     MARY OF ENGLAND, born 10 Oct. 1344, died thirty weeks after her marriage s.p., buried Abingdon Abbey; married at Woodstock 1361 JOHN DE MONTFORT, Duc de Bretagne.
xii.     MARGARET OF ENGLAND, born 20 July 1346, died soon after 1 Oct. 1361, buried Abingdon Abbey; married at Reading 19 May 1359 JOHN DE HASTINGS, 2nd Earl of Pembroke."^17,18,19

; This is the same person as ”Edward III of England” at Wikipedia and as "King Edward III Plantagenet
King Edward III Plantagenet" at Geneagraphie.^20,21 He was Lord of Ireland.⁹

; Per Racines et Histoire (Plantagenêts): “Edward III «of Windsor» d’Angleterre ° 13/11/1312 (Windsor) + 21-22/06/1377 (Sheen Palace, Richmond, Surrey) Prince of Wales, earl of Chester, Roi d’Angleterre (25/01/1326/27, couronné 29/01/1326/27 Westminster), Lord of Ireland, duc de Guyenne
     ép. 24/01/1327/28 (York, disp. papale du 30/08/1327 consanguinité 3° degré) Philippa d’Avesnes-Hainaut, Reine d’Angleterre (1328-1369, couronnée 25/02/1330) ° 24/06/1314 + 15/08/1369 (Windsor) (fille de Guillaume III «Le Bon», comte de Hainaut, Hollande et Zélande, seigneur de Frise, et de Jeanne de Valois)”


Per Racines et Histoire (Avesnes): “Philippa de Hainaut ° 24/06/1311 ou 1314 ? (Valenciennes) + 15/08/1369 (Windsor) Reine d’Angleterre
     ép. 24/01/1328 (York) Roi Edward III d’Angleterre, ° 13/11/1312 (Windsor) + 21/06/1377 (Sheen Palace, près Richmond, Surrey) (fils d’Edward II d’Angleterre, et d’Isabelle de France)”.^22,13

; Per Med Lands:
     "EDWARD "of Windsor", son of EDWARD II King of England & his wife Isabelle de France (Windsor Castle 13 Nov 1312-Sheen Palace, near Richmond, Surrey 21 Jun 1377, bur Westminster Abbey). The Chronicle of Geoffrey le Baker of Swinbrook records the birth “die sancti Bricii confessoris apud Wyndesore” 1312 of “ex Isabella regina...tercius Edwardus”[863]. The Continuatio of the Chronicle of Guillaume de Nangis records the birth "circa Natale Domini" in 1312 of "Eduardo regi Angliæ ex conjuge Izabella...filius...Eduardus"[864]. He was created Earl of Chester 24 Nov 1312. Created Comte de Ponthieu et de Montreuil 2 Sep 1325, and Duke of Aquitaine 10 Sep 1325. Elected Keeper of the Realm at an extraordinary council held in Bristol 26 Oct 1326, after his father fled to Wales. He was proclaimed EDWARD III King of England 25 Jan 1327, under the joint regency of his mother and her lover Roger Mortimer Earl of March. Crowned 1 Feb 1327 at Westminster Abbey: the Chronicle of Geoffrey le Baker of Swinbrook records the coronation 1 Feb, 1327 from the context, “apud Westmonasterium” of “Edwardum Edwardi primogenitum quindecim circiter annorum adolescentem”[865]. He overthrew the regents 20 Oct 1330 and assumed personal rule. He formally assumed the title King of France Jan 1340. As a mark of his love of chivalry, he founded the Order of the Garter in 1348. His reign was marked by a successful constitutional balance and the maintenance of generally good relations with the barons. A contemporary memorandum records the death 21 Jun 1377 “in manerio suo de Shene” of “dominus Edwardus [rege Angliæ et Franciæ]”[866]. The Annals of Bermondsey record the death “1377…21 Jun” of “rex Edwardus tertius” and his burial “apud Westmonasterium”[867].
     "[Betrothed ([1320]) to MARGUERITE de Hainaut, daughter of GUILLAUME III "le Bon" Comte de Hainaut [WILLEM III Count of Holland] & his wife Jeanne de Valois (24 Jun 1310-Le Quesnoy 23 Jun 1356, bur Valenciennes). King Edward II requested papal dispensation for the marriage between “Edwardum filium nostrum primogenitum” and “Margaretam filiam...domini W. Hanoniæ, Holandiæ et Selandiæ comitis ac domini Frisiæ” by charter dated 5 Nov 1320[868]. King Edward II wrote to “domino W, Hanoniæ, Hollandiæ et Selandiæ comiti ac domino Frisiæ” requesting his intervention with papal representatives concerning the marriage (“super contrahendo matrimonio”) between “Edwardum filium nostrum primogenitum” and “--- filiam vestram” by charter dated 30 Mar 1321[869]. It is uncertain whether a betrothal was agreed following negotiations for this proposed marriage.]
     "m (1326, Papal dispensation 30 Aug 1327, by proxy Valenciennes 28 Oct 1327, York Minster 24 Jan 1328) PHILIPPA de Hainaut, daughter of GUILLAUME V “le Bon” Comte de Hainaut Count of Holland & his wife Jeanne de Valois (Valencienne or Mons [1313/14]-Windsor Castle 15 Aug 1369, bur Westminster Abbey). The question of Philippa´s birth date has been studied by Bert M. Kamp who concluded that she was born "about 1314", bearing in mind the series of documents which indicate the earlier negotiations for the betrothal of her future husband to her oldest sister Marguerite[870]. The History of Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven records that "dominus Ludewicus et rex Anglie et marchio Iuliacensis" had married "tres…sorores…fillies comitis Hannonie sive Hollandie"[871]. Froissart records the marriage in "1327" [presumably O.S.] of "li jones rois Edouwars" and "Phelippe de Hainnau" in "l´eglise cathedral, que on dist de Saint Guillaume", adding that the king was 17 years old and "la joine roine sus le point de quatorze ans"[872]. Assuming that the last passage should be interpreted as meaning that Philippa was nearly, but not yet, 14 years old, it would place her birth in late January or early February 1314. However, the text may not be totally reliable as King Edward would only have been 16 years old at the time of the marriage if his birth is correctly stated as 13 Nov 1312 as shown below. The papal dispensation for the marriage between “Edvardo regi Angliæ” and “Philippæ natæ...Guillielmi comitis Hanoniæ” is dated 30 Aug 1327[873]. She was crowned Queen 2 or 20 Feb 1328 at Westminster Abbey, and again 18 Feb or 4 Mar 1330 at Westminster Abbey. The Chronicon Angliæ records the death “in dia Assumptionis Beatæ Mariæ” of “domina Philippa regina Angliæ” and her burial “apud Westmonasterium”, dated to 1369 from the context[874].
     "Mistress (1): ([1363/74]) ALICE Perrers née ---, widow of [JOHN] [Janyn] Perrers, daughter of --- (-1400). “Johan de Kendale de Londres taillour” complained that “monseigneur William Wyndesore et Alice sa femme” had wrongfully withheld money from the price of cloth bought by Alice “en Grascherchestrate de Londres al feste de Nativite de Seint Johan le Baptiste lan de regne seigneur Edward xxxiiii” [24 Jun 1360][875]. “Johan de Kendale” requested the king to order “Alice Perers” to pay for cloth bought by “Janyn Perers iadiz baroun la dite Alice qi executrice ele” in “lan...seigneur Edward vostre aiel xxxiiii” [1360][876]. She was the king's mistress from [1363] until his death. The Chronicon Angliæ records that the king fell in love “adhuc vivente regina” with “in Anglia...mulier impudica, meretrix procacissima...Alicia cognomento Perrys, genere infima...cujusdam de villa de Henneye fuerat filia...pellice cujusdam [Lumbardi]” (with other uncomplimentary descriptions of her character)[877]. After King Edward III's death, she was tried for corruption, banished and her goods forfeited. She married secondly ([10 Dec 1374/Apr 1376]) William de Wyndesore, Governor of Ireland, who was summoned to Parliament from 1381 whereby he is held to have become Lord Wyndesore[878]. The Chronicon Angliæ records that “Alicia cognomento Perrys” was found in 1376 to have married “domino Willelmo de Windeshore qui tunc in Hibernia morabatur”, the king declaring that he knew nothing of the marriage[879]. The will of "Alice widow of William Wyndesor Knight", dated 15 Aug 1400, chose burial “in the parish church of Upmynster”, bequeathed property to “Joane my younger daughter my manor of Gaynes in Upminster...Jane and Joane my daughters all my other manors...which John Wyndsore or others have by his consent usurped”, and appointed “Joane my youngest daughter...” among her executors[880]."
Med Lands cites:

[863] Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, p. 6.
[864] RHGF XX, Continuatio Chronici Guillelmi de Nangiaco, p. 607.
[865] Chronicon Galfridi le Baker, p. 34.
[866] Rymer (1740), Tome III, Pars III, p. 60.
[867] Annales de Bermundeseia, p. 479.
[868] Rymer (1745), Tome II, Pars II, p. 11.
[869] Rymer (1745), Tome II, Pars II, p. 17.
[870] Kamp, B. M. ‘De dochters van graaf Willem III, wie volgt op wie?’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw CXVIII (May/June 2001), cols. 511-15 (information supplied 26 Apr 2010 by Bert M. Kamp in a private email to the author).
[871] Boehmer, J. F. (1868) Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, Band IV (Stuttgart), Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven 1316-1361, p. 32.
[872] Froissart, Tome I, Livre 1, 39, alternative text, p. 287.
[873] Rymer (1745), Tome II, Pars II, p. 196.
[874] Chronicon Angliæ 1328-1388 (1874), p. 64.
[875] Ormrod ‘Alice Perrers’ (2006), Appendix A, p. 226, reproducing National Archives SC 8/119/5917.
[876] Ormrod ‘Alice Perrers’ (2006), Appendix B, p. 226, reproducing National Archives SC 8/119/5932.
[877] Chronicon Angliæ 1328-1388 (1874), p. 95.
[878] CP XII/2 878.
[879] Chronicon Angliæ 1328-1388 (1874), p. 97.
[880] Nicolas (1826), Vol. I, p. 152.¹³

; Per Genealogy.EU (Anjou 3): “E1. King EDWARD III of England (1327-77), *Windsor Castle 13.11.1312, +Sheen Palace, Surrey 21.6.1377, bur Westminster Abbey; m.York Minster 24.1.1328 Philippa of Hainault (*24.6.1311 +15.8.1369)"


Per Genealogy.EU (Flanders 3): “I5. Philippa, *Valenciennes 24.6.1311, +Windsor Castle 15.8.1369, bur Westminster; m.24.1.1328 King Edward III of England (*13.11.1312 +21.6.1377)”.^23,24

; Per Med Lands:
     "PHILIPPA de Hainaut ([25 Jan/early Feb 1314]-Windsor Castle 15 Aug 1369, bur Westminster Abbey). The question of Philippa’s birth date has been studied by Bert M. Kamp who concluded that she was born "about 1314", bearing in mind the series of documents quoted above which indicate the earlier negotiations for the betrothal of her future husband to her oldest sister Marguerite[499]. The History of Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven records that "dominus Ludewicus et rex Anglie et marchio Iuliacensis" had married "tres…sorores…fillies comitis Hannonie sive Hollandie"[500]. Froissart records the marriage in "1327" [presumably O.S.] of "li jones rois Edouwars" and "Phelippe de Hainnau" in "l’eglise cathedral, que on dist de Saint Guillaume", adding that the king was 17 years old and "la joine roine sus le point de quatorze ans"[501]. Assuming that the last passage should be interpreted as meaning that Philippa was nearly, but not yet, 14 years old, it would place her birth in late January or early February 1314. However, the text may not be totally reliable as King Edward would only have been 16 years old at the time of the marriage if his birth is correctly stated as 13 Nov 1312 as shown below. The papal dispensation for the marriage between “Edvardo regi Angliæ” and “Philippæ natæ...Guillielmi comitis Hanoniæ” is dated 30 Aug 1327[502]. The Chronicon Angliæ records the death “in dia Assumptionis Beatæ Mariæ” of “domina Philippa regina Angliæ” and her burial “apud Westmonasterium”, dated to 1369 from the context[503].
     "m (Betrothed 1326, Papal dispensation 30 Aug 1327, by proxy Valenciennes 28 Oct 1327, York Minster 24 Jan 1328) EDWARD III King of England, son of EDWARD II King of England & his wife Isabelle de France (Windsor Castle 13 Nov 1312-Sheen Palace, near Richmond, Surrey 21 Jun 1377, bur Westminster Abbey)."
Med Lands cites:

[499] Kamp, B. M. ‘De dochters van graaf Willem III, wie volgt op wie?’, De Nederlandsche Leeuw CXVIII (May/June 2001), cols. 511-15 (information supplied 26 Apr 2010 by Bert M. Kamp in a private email to the author).
[500] Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven 1316-1361, p. 32.
[501] Luce, S. (ed.) (1869) Chroniques de J. Froissart (Paris) ("Froissart"), Tome I, Livre 1, 39, alternative text, p. 287.
[502] Rymer (1745), Tome II, Pars II, p. 196.
[503] Thomson, E. M. (1874) Chronicon Angliæ 1328-1388 (London) (“Chronicon Angliæ 1328-1388 (1874)), p. 64.⁷

; Per Genealogy.EU (Capet 5): “E7. Isabelle, *Paris 1292, +Hertford Castle/Roseing 22.8.1358, bur Grey Friars, London; m.Boulogne 25.1.1308 King Edward II of England (*25.4.1284 +21.9.1327)”.²⁵
; Per Med Lands:
     "MARGUERITE de Hainaut (24 Jun 1310-Le Quesnoy 23 Jun 1356, bur Valenciennes). The Willelmi Capellani in Brederode Chronicon ("Procurator") records the betrothal of "Willelmus comes Hollandie binas filias", adding "quarum prima" (unnamed) was betrothed to "regi Germanie", dated to 1323 from the context[487]. The same source records the marriages of the same two daughters taking place at Köln 26 Feb 1324[488]. Prior to this, negotiations took place between 1318 and 1321 for Marguerite to marry the future Edward III King of England, who later married Marguerite’s younger sister Philippa, but the betrothal did not proceed because of Papal opposition: Edward II King of England requested Papal dispensation for the marriage of his son Edward to Marguerite de Hainaut dated 10 Dec 1318 and 9 Nov 1320; Bishop Walter Stapeldon’s report dated [Jan/Mar] 1318, after visiting the court of Hainaut, records that "the daughter of the count Hainault" (unnamed) would be nine years old on "St John’s day next te come", indicating her birth 24 Jun 1310; limited Papal dispensation was granted 25 Apr 1321 for Guillaume Comte de Hainaut to marry his daughter to a relative of 3o or 4o consanguinity, with the exception of the son of the king of England[489]. The contract of marriage between Marguerite and Ludwig IV Duke of Bavaria is dated 15 Aug 1323[490]. The Oude Kronik van Brabant records the marriage "apud Aquisgranum" of "Wilhelmus comes Hollandie…Margaretam filiam suam" and "Ludovico duci Bavarie, imperatori Romanorum"[491]. The History of Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven records that "dominus Ludewicus et rex Anglie et marchio Iuliacensis" had married "tres…sorores…fillies comitis Hannonie sive Hollandie"[492]. She succeeded her brother in 1345 as MARGUERITE II Ctss de Hainaut, MARGARETA Ctss of Holland and Zeeland. She abdicated 7 Dec 1354.
     "[Betrothed ([1320]) to EDWARD of England, son of EDWARD II King of England & his wife Isabelle de France (Windsor Castle 13 Nov 1312-Sheen Palace, near Richmond, Surrey 21 Jun 1377, bur Westminster Abbey). King Edward II requested papal dispensation for the marriage between “Edwardum filium nostrum primogenitum” and “Margaretam filiam...domini W. Hanoniæ, Holandiæ et Selandiæ comitis ac domini Frisiæ” by charter dated 5 Nov 1320[493]. King Edward II wrote to “domino W, Hanoniæ, Hollandiæ et Selandiæ comiti ac domino Frisiæ” requesting his intervention with papal representatives concerning the marriage (“super contrahendo matrimonio”) between “Edwardum filium nostrum primogenitum” and “--- filiam vestram” by charter dated 30 Mar 1321[494]. It is uncertain whether a betrothal was agreed following negotiations for this proposed marriage.] He succeeded his father in 1327 as EDWARD III King of England.]
     "m (contract 15 Aug 1323, Köln [25 or 26 Feb] 1324) as his second wife, LUDWIG IV Duke of Bavaria King of Germany, son of LUDWIG II "der Strenge" Joint-Duke of Bavaria & his third wife Mechtild von Habsburg ([Feb/Mar] 1282-Puch bei Fürstenfeldbruck 11 Oct 1347, bur Munich Unsere Liebe Frau). Crowned King of Italy at Milan 31 May 1327. Crowned Emperor LUDWIG at Rome 17 Jan 1328."
Med Lands cites:

[487] Pijnacker Hordijk, C. (1904) Willelmi capellani in Brederode postea monachi et procuratoris Egmondis Chronicon (Amsterdam) ("Willelmi Capellani"), p. 140 (information supplied 26 Apr 2010 by Bert M. Kamp in a private email to the author).
[488] Willelmi Capellani, pp. 144-5 (information supplied 1 May 2010 by Bert M. Kamp in a private email to the author).
[489] Wauters, A. (1892) Table chronologique des chartes et diplômes imprimés concernant l’histoire de la Belgique (Brussels), Tome VIII (1301-1320), and (1896) Tome IX (1321-1339), the Papal dispensation in Brom, G. (1891) Bullarium Trajectense, Vol. I, 589, p. 274 (information supplied by Bert M. Kamp).
[490] Wauters (1896) Tome IX (1321-1339) (information supplied 1 May 2010 by Bert M. Kamp in a private email to the author).
[491] Oude Kronik van Brabant, Codex Diplomaticus Neerlandicus, Second Series (Utrecht 1855), deerde deel, Part 1, p. 74.
[492] Boehmer, J. F. (1868) Fontes Rerum Germanicarum, Band IV (Stuttgart), Henricus Dapifer de Diessenhoven 1316-1361, p. 32.
[493] Rymer, T. (1745) Fœdera, Conventiones, Literæ 3rd Edn (London), Tome II, Pars II, p. 11.¹¹

He was King of England: EDWARD III (age 15 at his accession). Council of regency and rule (1327-30) under Mortimer, Isabelle's paramour; Bruce's invasion of England forced the acknowledgment of Scottish independence (1328). Edward led the baronial opposition to Mortimer (hanged, 1330) and opened his personal rule (1330).

1338: Outbreak of the Hundred Years' War. Edward did homage (1329) for his French lands and renewed the homage (1331). French support of Scottish aggression continued, and Edward, profiting by civil war in Scotland, supported Baliol; after a series of expeditions, he avenged Bannockburn at Halidon Hill (1333). French intrigues to alienate Aquitaine continued. The economic interdependence, due to the wool trade, of England and the Flemish cities made an English alliance with them likely. Philip continued his advance into the English lands south of the Loire (1337), and open hostilities broke out (1338). Edward ravaged northern and eastern France without a decisive battle. Urged on by the Flemings, Edward proclaimed himself king of France (in right of his mother, Isabelle), and enabled the Flanders towns under Jan van Arteveldt to support him without violating their oaths.

1340: The naval victory of Sluys transferred the mastery of the Channel from France to England (until 1372). Intermittent truces (1340-45) were followed by Edward's invasion of France.

Aug. 26, 1346: Great victory at CRÉCY, near Ponthieu in northern France, where English longbowmen, supported by dismounted horsemen, routed the undisciplined cavalry and mercenary crossbowmen ofFrance. This tactical innovation, the result of English experiences in Wales and Scotland, began the joint participation of the yeomanry and the aristocracy in war, and gave the English a unique military power and new social orientation.

1346: The invasion of Philip's Scottish allies was halted at Neville's Cross, and the king of Scotland captured.

1347: Calais was taken after a long siege in which artillery was used, and it remained an English military and commercial outpost in France until 1558.

1347-1355: A series of truces with France was ended by the expedition of Edward's son, the Black Prince (so called because of the color of his armor), to Bordeaux, followed by ruthless plundering raids using Bordeaux as a base, which enriched the English and alienated the populace.

Sept. 19, 1356: Battle of Poitiers. The Black Prince, using the tactics of Crécy, defeated King John, capturing him, his son, and the king of Bohemia, as well as the flower of French chivalry.

1359-1360: Edward's last expedition to France penetrated to the walls of Paris; the south had been so devastated that the English could hardly find food.

1360: Peace of Bretigny, ending the first period of the war [>]; the war was resumed in 1369.

After the hideous sack of Limoges (1370), the Black Prince returned to England (1371) and was replaced (1372-74) by his brother, John of Gaunt, the duke of Lancaster and an incompetent soldier, who lost town after town until only Calais, Cherbourg, Brest, Bayonne, and Bordeaux remained in English hands (1375).

Edward's personal rule and domestic developments in England. Edward, a majestic, affable man, opened his reign with generous concessions to the baronage and a courteous welcome to the complaints of the middle class. He grew steadily in popularity. He was fond of war and the war was popular; the nation backed him.

Growth of Parliament. Medieval people believed, in the words of historian Charles Howard McIlwain, that “to kings belong government, to subjects property.” Since ecclesiastical organizations, local communites, and private individuals provided all social services, “good” governments did not tax, except in the case of a just war. The necessities of war financing over the long span of the Hundred Years' War had, in retrospect, profound consequences for the development of the English Parliament. First, it met frequently. Edward III's need for money to pay for the war forced him to call not only the great barons and bishops but also knights of the shires and burgesses from the towns. He called them 27 times between 1337 and his death in 1377; in Edward's 50-year reign, Parliament met 37 times. It was becoming a habit. Second, the knights and burgesses soon realized that they held the purse strings: the Second Statute of 14 Edward III (1341), sometimes called the Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo (“no taxation without representation”) required that all nonfeudal levies receive parliamentary approval. In return for a grant, Parliament increasingly asked for royal redress of grievances. These requests were framed as petitions (or billa, from which derives the modern bill) which, when supported by the lords and approved by the king, became statuteslaws enacted by the legislative branch. Most petitions or bills in the 14th and 15th centuries supported the interests of individuals, corporations (such as a university or guild), or local communities; they had no broad “national” significance. Third, by 1340 the knights and burgesses were meeting apart from the magnates, frequently in the monks' Chapter House at Westminster Abbey. In the late 15th century, the term Commons' House, or House of Commons, came into use; the phrase House of Lords appeared first in the reign of Henry VIII. In the 14th century, the Commons developed its organization, with a speaker to preside over debates and to represent the Commons' interests before the House of Lords and the king, and clerks began to keep records of discussions. The first speaker for whom evidence survives was Peter de la Mare (1376). In the 15th century, Parliament met frequently and for longer sessions (than in the 14th century), but it was still more of an occasional gathering than an institution. Only at the time of Parliament were petitions presented, kings deposed (e.g., Richard II), new rulers legalized (e.g., Henry IV), and popular support sought. But Parliament remained the king's servant; it met for an ad hoc purpose and when it had fulfilled the king's wishes, it was dismissed. It was not a continuing body. Actual power remained in the hands of the king and his council.

Development of justices of the peace. The conservators of the peace established under Henry III to keep the peace had no judicial powers; the statute of 1327 allowed them to receive indictments for trial before the itinerant judges. In 1332 their jurisdiction was made to include felonies and trespass. Established as police judges in each county (1360), they were also charged with price and labor regulation. By 1485 they had absorbed most of the functions of the sheriffs. Chosen from the local gentry, under royal commission, they constituted an amateur body of administrators who carried on local government in England until well into the 19th century.

1348-1349: The ravages of the Black Death probably reduced the population by one-third. (Some scholars argue that food poisoning, especially from cerealsthe bulk of most people's dietinfected with toxins, had weakened people's immune systems and thus contributed to the occurrence of the disease.) The population loss, coupled with the tremendous war prosperity, dislocated the wage and price structure and produced economic chaos. The Statute of Laborers (1351) attempted to fix wages and prices and to compel able-bodied unemployed to accept work when offered. The labor shortage accelerated the transition (already begun) from servile to free tenures and fluid labor; the statute in practice destroyed English social unity without markedly arresting servile emancipation or diminishing the crisis.

War prosperity affected everybody and led to a general surge of luxury (e.g., the new and generous proportions of contemporary Perpendicular Gothic architecture). Landowners, confronted with a labor shortage, began to enclose land for sheep raising, and the accumulation of capital and landholdings founded great fortunes, which soon altered the political and social position of the baronage. The yeomanry, exhilarated by their joint military achievement with the aristocracy and their share of war plunder, lost their traditional passivity, and a new ferment began among the lower sections of society.

Growth of national and anticlerical (antipapal) feeling. Hostility to the francophile papacy at Avignon: statute of Provisors (1351), an effort to stem the influx of alien clergy under papal provisions (widely ignored); statute of Praemunire (1353), forbidding appeals to courts (i.e., Avignon) outside England (widely ignored).

The vernacular. English became, by statute (1362), the language of pleading and judgment in the courts (legal French retained in documents). English began to be taught in the schools (1375). Parliament was opened (1399) with a speech in English.

ca 1362: Growth of social tension. William Langland's Piers Plowman, a vernacular indictment of governmental and ecclesiastical corruption and an appeal (unique in Europe) on behalf of the poor peasant. Langland, a poor country priest, typical of the section of the church directly in contact with public opinion, was the voice of the old-fashioned godly England, bewildered and angered by a new epoch. Preaching of scriptural equalitarianism by various itinerant preachers (e.g., John Ball); growing bitterness against landlords and lawyers.

c. 1376: JOHN WICLIF, an Oxford don and chaplain of Edward, already employed (1374) by the government in negotiations with the papacy over provisions, published his Civil Dominion, asserting that, as Christians hold all things of God under a contract to be virtuous, sin violates this contract and destroys title to goods and offices. Wiclif insisted that his doctrine was a philosophical and theological theory, not a political concept, but extremists ignored this point. A precursor of the Reformation, Wiclif advocated a propertyless Church, emphasizing its purely spiritual function; attacked the clergy; and insisted on the direct access of the individual to God (e.g., reduction of the importance of the sacraments, notably auricular confession) and the right of individual judgment. He also was responsible (with Purvey and Nicholas of Hereford) for the first complete, vernacular English Bible. He wrote pamphlets, both in Latin and English, and carried on a wide agitation through his poor priests for his doctrines (Lollardy), until it was said every fourth man was a Lollard.

1377: After the death of the Black Prince (1376), John of Gaunt's packed Parliament undid the reforms and passed a general poll tax.

Art, Literature, and Science. Perpendicular Gothic: Gloucester, transepts and choir (1331-35); cloisters (1351-1412). Minor arts: Louterell Psalter (opening of the 14th century), illuminations. English influence on craftsmen of the Rhineland, Paris, Lorraine.

Historical writing: Higden's Polychronicon (before 1363), a brilliant universal history in Latin; Walsingham of St. Albans's (end of the 14th century) Chronicle, in Latin, rivaling Froissart in brilliance of description.

Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1340-1400), the son of a London burgher, a layman, a diplomat, active at court, later a member of Parliament, combined observation with learning. Representative of the new cosmopolitanism of English society, he was under Italian and French influences and probably knew Petrarch. Translator of Boethius's Consolatio; creator of English versification; recaster of the English vocabulary by adding Continental grace to the ruder Anglo-Saxon word treasury. The influence of Wiclif, Oxford, Cambridge, the court, and, above all, Chaucer fixed Midland English as the language of the English people. The Canterbury Tales offer a witty, sympathetic, sophisticated, realistic picture of contemporary society (omitting the aristocracy).

Foundation of Winchester College (St. Mary's College) and New College, Oxford, by William of Wykeham (1393). Merton College, Oxford, became a center for scientific investigations, especially in mechanics. Robert Grossteste, Roger Bacon, Richard Swineshead, and Thomas of Bradwardine began a tradition of logical analysis and experiment that remained influential until the Renaissance. between 24 January 1327 and 1377.^10,9,26

     Sir Ralph Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham was born circa 1475 at Streatlam, North Riding, Yorkshire, England.⁷ He married Elizabeth Clifford, daughter of Henry 'the Shepherd Lord' Clifford Knt., KB, 10th Lord Clifford, KB and Anne Saint John, before 1510
; her 1st husband.^1,3,8
Sir Ralph Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham died in April 1516.^7,9,3
     EDV-12.

; Leo van de Pas cites: History of Durnham , Surtees, Reference: parents confirmed by Paul Reed.⁹ He was Sheriff of Durham.³

; Christou Gedcom: Surtees Durham Vol IV p 107 knight app. High Sheriff of Durham 4 Oct 1482; served 30 years, was at Floddenfield 1509, of Streatlam and Dalden
************
Faris (p. 46): "ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, was married RALPH BOWES, Knt., of Streatlam and Dolden, Durham, and South Cowton, North Riding, co. York, Sheriff of Durham, second son of Ralph Bowes, Knt., of Streatlam (of Magna Carta Surety descent), by Margery, daughter of Richard Conyers, Knt., of South Cowlon, co. York. They had one son and two daughters. SIR RALPH BOWES fought at Flodden Field in 1513, and died in April 1516.
Glover-Foster (1875), p. 596 (1612 Vis. Yorks) (arms: Ermine, three long-bows in pale gules). Surtees, Durham 4:107. Sur.Soc. 122:130-131 (1558 Vis. North). Vis. Yorks 596-597."¹⁰ Sir Ralph Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham was also known as Ralph Bowes Esq., of Streatlam Castle, co. Durham.¹¹

; Fought at Flodden Field.³

     Elizabeth Clifford married William Tonge of west Thickeley, Durham, son of Richard Tonge and Isabel Hedworth,
; her 2nd husband.¹ Elizabeth Clifford was born before 1485.⁶ She married Sir Ralph Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham, son of Sir Ralph Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Margary/Marjery Conyers of South Cowton, before 1510
; her 1st husband.^6,1,2
     EDV-12.

; per Verity: "ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, born by 1485, married 1st, by 1510 (her marriage portion was 600 marks, and Lord Clifford bore 'all costs and charges of the dyner' the day before her wedding (Spence, p. 33)), Sir Ralph Bowes, of Airton, later of Streatlam Castle, co. Durham (born by 1485;
died April 1516), second son of Sir Ralph Bowes (d. 1512) of Streatlam and Margery Conyers of South Cowton, and had two daughters (the elder one was a mother herself in 1532) and one (posthumous) son. Dame Elizabeth married 2nd, William Tonge, of Eccleshall, and had another son and another daughter. Date of death not known. [Reasons for making her illegitimate: chronology, low marriage portion, not mentioned among the children of Lord Clifford and Anne St. John in the c.1505 Henry VII Relations pedigree.]"⁶

; Surtees Durham Vol IV p 107.⁷

     Sir George Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham was buried at Alnwick, Northumberland, England.⁴ He was born in 1516 at Dalden, co. Durham, England; born posthumousely.^4,2 He married Muriel Eure, daughter of Sir William Eure Knt., 1st Lord Eure of Wilton and Elizabeth Willoughby, circa 1537 at Wilton, co. Durham, England,
; her 1st husband.^5,1,2,6,7
Sir George Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham died in 1546.^4,2
Sir George Bowes Knt., of Streatlam and Dalden, Durham was buried in 1546 at Alnwick, Northumberland, England.²
     EDV-11.

; Leo van de Pas cites: The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies of the United, States; Baltimore, 2004, Roberts, Gary Boyd, Reference: 167.¹

; Christou Gedcom: Surtees History of Durham vol 4 p 107 Lord of Dalden, posthumous son
Of Dalden and Streatham, Kent
**********
Faris (1999, p. 46): "GEORGE BOWES, Knt., of Dalden, was born posthumously in 1516 (had livery 6 Apr. 1535). He was married to MURIEL EURE, daughter of William Eure, Knt., of Witton, Durham (descendant of King Edward III), by Elizabeth, daughter of Christopher Willoughby, 10th Lord Willoughby of Eresby (descendant of King Edward I)     [see EURE 3 for her ancestry]. They had one son (died s.p.), and three daughters. SIR GEORGE BOWES died in 1546, and was buried at Alnwick. His widow was married for the second time to WILLIAM WYCLIFFE, Esq., of Wycliffe. North Riding, co. York. She died on 23 Nov. 1557 at Wycliffe (M.I.)
Glover-Foster (1875), p. 596. Surtees, Durham 4:107. Sur.Soc. 122:130-131. Clay (1913), p. 57.
Child of George Bowes, by Muriel Eure:
i.     ELIZABETH BOWES, married JOHN BLAKISTON [see BLAKISTON 2].1."⁸

     Henry 'the Shepherd Lord' Clifford Knt., KB, 10th Lord Clifford, KB was born circa 1454.^8,1,2 He married Anne Saint John, daughter of Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire and Alice Bradshaigh, before 1493
; his 1st wife; Verity says m. "early in 1487."^{8,9,10,1,2,11,12} Henry 'the Shepherd Lord' Clifford Knt., KB, 10th Lord Clifford, KB married Florence Pudsey, daughter of Henry Pudsey Esq., of Bolton, Berforth, and Rimington, Yorkshire and Margaret Conyers of Hornby, before 11 July 1511
; her 2nd husband; his 2nd wife.^{8,10,1,2,13,3}
Henry 'the Shepherd Lord' Clifford Knt., KB, 10th Lord Clifford, KB died on 23 April 1523.^8,1,2
      ; per Verity: "I've just finished reading "The Shepherd Lord of Skipton Castle" by Dr.
Richard T. Spence, a 1994 biography of Henry, 10th Lord Clifford. It
contains several genealogical details left out of other Clifford
articles and books, including CP and "House of Clifford".

Following is a list of the marriages and children of the 10th Lord
Clifford.

By an unknown mistress (or mistresses) prior to his first marriage
(Spence, p. 18: "How Henry spent his early manhood, from 1473 to 1485,
is a matter for conjecture. Without an estate of his own, he could at
best have managed his mother's manors, essential experience for a man
who, had his circumstances not changed by then, would have inherited
most of them on her death in 1493. He fathered at least one natural
son, Anthony, and possible other children during these Londesborough
years."):

1) ANTHONY CLIFFORD, esquire, of Idle, born by 1485,officer in Craven,
held manorial courts at Barden in 1512, master forester of Craven,
stood surety for 500 marks for a recognizance of his father 8 Feb.
1509, steward of the Clifford manors of Cowling, Grassington and Sutton
1502

2) ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, born by 1485, married 1st, by 1510 (her marriage
portion was 600 marks, and Lord Clifford bore 'all costs and charges of
the dyner' the day before her wedding (Spence, p. 33)), Sir Ralph
Bowes, of Airton, later of Streatlam Castle, co. Durham (born by 1485;
died April 1516), second son of Sir Ralph Bowes (d. 1512) of Streatlam
and Margery Conyers of South Cowton, and had two daughters (the elder
one was a mother herself in 1532) and one (posthumous) son. Dame
Elizabeth married 2nd, William Tonge, of Eccleshall, and had another
son and another daughter. Date of death not known.
[Reasons for making her illegitimate: chronology, low marriage portion, not mentioned among the children of Lord Clifford and Anne St. John in the c.1505 Henry VII Relations pedigree.]

The 10th Lord Clifford married "early in 1487" (Spence, p. 25), Anne
St. John. "He gave her a good jointure, the manors of Silsden, Stirton
and Thorlby, the Skipton demesne closes of Holme and Skibeden and the
manor of King's Meaburne in Westmorland. The draft copy of this is
dated 10 January and the indenture which names Lady Anne 25 July."
(Ibid.) Lady Anne was alive on 12 March 1507, when she and Lord
Clifford were received into the fraternity of Gisborough Priory, and
died about 1508. Issue:

3) HENRY CLIFFORD, born 1487/8, contracted in 1488-89 to marry Jane
Stanley, daughter of George Stanley, Lord Strange, heir to the earldom
of Derby and step-brother of Henry VII; died young before 1493.
(Spence, pp. 25-27) Jane later married Sir Robert Sheffield, of
Butterwick, Lincolnshire.

4) JOAN CLIFFORD, born about 1489/90, married 20 August 1509, Sir John
Huddleston of Millom Castle, Cumberland (born about 1488; died 12
January 1547), only son of Sir John Huddleston (d. 1512) of Millom and
Joan Stapleton. The young couple were enfeoffed with the manor of
Cotherston, Yorkshire, to them and their heirs, by the elder Sir John
Huddleston. Dame Joan died without issue by 1513.

5) MABEL CLIFFORD, born about 1491/92, lady-in-waiting to Katherine of
Aragon, married at Skipton Castle November 1513, Sir William
Fitzwilliam (born about 1490; died 15 October 1542), 3rd son of Sir
Thomas Fitzwilliam of Aldwark, Yorkshire and Lucy Neville; created Earl
of Southampton 18 October 1537. Countess Mabel died without issue
August 1550.

6) HENRY CLIFFORD, born about 1493, married 1st, 28 February 1506 (date
of contract), Margaret Talbot, daughter of George Talbot, 4th Earl of
Shrewsbury and Anne Hastings. She died young. He married 2ndly, 2
February 1513 (date of contract), Margaret Percy, eldest daughter of
Henry Percy, 5th Earl of Northumberland and Catherine Spencer. He was
created Earl of Cumberland 18 June 1525, and died 22 April 1542, having
had two sons and three daughters.

7) ANNE CLIFFORD, born about 1495/96, married 1st, by 1514, Robert
Clifton, of Clifton, Nottinghamshire (d. 3 September 1517), son and
heir of Sir Gervase Clifton of Clifton and Agnes Griffith, and had one
son (born March 1516) and one daughter. Dame Anne married 2ndly, about
1520, Ralph Melford, esquire, of Arnold, Nottinghamshire (d. April
1546), and died before 1546, having had further issue, at least one
son.

8) Sir THOMAS CLIFFORD, born 1500/05, of Burnside, Westmorland, married
about 1528, Lucy Browne (died November 1557), widow of Sir John Cutte,
of Horham Hall in Thaxted, Essex (d. 1528), and daughter of Sir Anthony
Browne and Lucy Neville, and half-sister of William Fitzwilliam, Earl
of Southampton above. Sir Thomas died 26 March 1543, and had one
daughter.

9) ELEANOR CLIFFORD, born by 1505, youngest child, married 1st, 1526
(Papal dispensation 18 May), as his 2nd wife, Sir Ninian Markenfield,
of Markenfield, Yorkshire (died 25 March 1528), son of Sir Thomas
Markenfield and Eleanor Conyers of Hornby. Dame Eleanor married 2nd,
as his 3rd wife, Sir John Constable, of Burton Constable, Yorkshire
(born October 1479; died 1537), eldest son of Ralph Constable of Burton
Constable and Anne Eure, and died without issue November 1540.

By an unknown mistress during his first marriage, the 10th Lord
Clifford was said to have had two or three illegitimate children. As
she is not listed as a daughter of the 10th Lord Clifford and Anne St.
John in the c.1505 Henry VII Relations pedigree, one of these
illegitimate children was likely:

10) MARGARET CLIFFORD, born by 1500, married at Barden Tower (her
marriage portion was £500 - Spence p. 33) 1516 (licence 6 January),
Sir Cuthbert Radcliffe, of Dilston, Northumberland (born by 1491; died
20 July 1545), son of Sir Edward Radcliffe of Cartington and Anne
Cartington, and died about 1550, having had four sons and three
daughters.

The 10th Lord Clifford married 2ndly, about July 1511 (jointure dated
11 July), Florence Pudsey, widow of Sir Thomas Talbot, of Bashall in
Craven, and daughter of Henry Pudsey, of Berforth, Yorkshire and
Margaret Conyers of Hornby. Spence p. 54: "His father [10th Lord] made
Lady Florence, a youngish woman, a large jointure on 11 July 1511 of
the manors of Brougham, adjoining the castle, Bongate, Flakebrigg and
Skattergate, which were Appleby Castle's lands, and the forest of
Mallerstang." Issue:

11) DOROTHY CLIFFORD, born by 1515, married 1528 (Spence - p. 42), Sir
Hugh Lowther, of Lowther Hall, Westmorland (born 1505; died 1546), son
and heir of Sir John Lowther of Lowther, and died 13 September 1562,
having had issue (her eldest son was born 14 January 1532).

12), 13) Sons who died young

The 10th Lord's second marriage, like his first, soon proved
incompatible. Spence p. 56: "In 1521 Lady Florence brought a suit
against him in the ecclesiastical court at York for restitution of her
conjugal rights, Lord Henry refusing to let her live and sleep with him
at Barden. As in so many matrimonial cases it was fractious with old
sores publicly aired notwithstanding the inevitable gossip, glee and
disapproval. The Shepherd in turn accused Lady Florence of adultery
from 1511 to 1514 with his trusted officer Roger Wharton, who at that
time had charge of the nursery. This was a serious imputation which
would also throw doubt on the paternity of his children. During the
years in question, the Shepherd had been in his late fifties, with a
much younger wife and absent for longish spells as on the Flodden
campaign. When questioned by the ecclesiastical lawyer...Roger
repeated what he had already said to Lord Henry. It was a rather lame
excuse combined with a devastating riposte. He said he would never
deny it 'ffor a man may be in bedd with a woman and yett doe noe hurte
And your lordship may aske Jayne Brown And she can tell your lordship
all togedder.' What innuendo lay behind linking the Shepherd with
Jayne only those present would have understood. But it killed the case
stone dead."

The 10th Lord died on 23 April 1523. His widow Lady Florence had a
third marriage arranged for her by Henry VIII to Lord Richard Grey,
younger son of the 1st Marquess of Dorset. She died in 1558.

Of the children of the 10th Lord and Anne St. John, Spence says, p. 27:
"Their second son, another Henry, born in 1493, survived as did Thomas,
Mabel, Eleanor, Anne and Joan." He does not explain where daughter
Elizabeth came from, but does include her among the children of the
10th Lord's first marriage in the genealogical chart, leaving out Joan.
He also makes no mention of the maternity of the 10th Lord's daughter
Margaret, nor does he include her in the genealogy chart, which also
leaves off bastard son Anthony Clifford. As we now know Joan was a
separate daughter from Elizabeth (there is no way that Joan, married in
1509, could have been the daughter of the 1st Earl of Cumberland and
Margaret Percy, married in 1513), it is likely Elizabeth was also
illegitimate."¹⁰

; HENRY CLIFFORD, 10th Lord (Baron) Clifford, KB (1509) 'The Shepherd Lord', so called because his mother is said to have concealed his very birth owing to the family's Lancastrian sympathies and had him brought up as a shepherd; b c 1454; ktd and his attainder reversed 9 Nov 1485 following the triumph of the ultimate Lancastrian claimant to the throne HENRY VII at Bosworth; fought at Battle of Flodden 9 Sept 1513; m 1st by 1493 Anne, dau of Sir John St John, of Bletso, Beds (see ST JOHN OF BLETSO, B). The 10th Lord m 2nd by 11 July 1511 Florence (m 3rd Richard Grey, yr s of 1st Marquess of Dorset of the 1475 cr), dau of Henry Pudsey, of Berforth, Yorks, and widow of Sir Thomas Talbot, and d 23 April 1523, having had further issue three s (d young) and a dau; either she or one of her half-sisters m Sir Hugh Lowther (see LONSDALE, E).⁹

; per van de Pas: "As his father had supported the Lancastrian cause the peerage had been forfeited and to protect him against the disfavour with which his family was regarded, his mother concealed him and brought him up, it is said, as a shepherd."² He was 10th Lord Clifford.⁸

; Christou Gedcom: Burkes EP Clifford 1st wife Anne S. John 2nd wife Frances Pudsey widow of Thomas Talbot. Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 10th earl
* * * * * * * * * **
Faris (1999, p. 94): [quote] HENRY CLIFFORD, Knt., K.B., 10th Lord Clifford, also styled Lord Vescy, son and heir, was born about 1454. He was said to have been concealed by his mother from the Yorkists and brought up without education as a shepherd (hence called "The Shepherd Lord"). He received a general pardon on 16 Mar. 1471/2, and attainder reversed with restoration of the estates on the accession of King Henry VII in 1485. He was summoned to Parliament from 15 Sep. 1485 by writs directed Henrico Clifford de Clifford ch'r. At nearly the age of sixty he was appointed to a principal command over the army, which fought against the Scots at Flodden Field on 9 Sep. 1513. He was married for the first time to ANNE SAINT JOHN, only daughter of John Saint John, Knt., of Bletsoe, co. Bedford (of Magna Carta Surety descent and descendant of Charlemagne), by Alice, daughter of Thomas Bradshaigh, Knt., of Haigh, co. Lancaster. They had three sons and four daughters. He was married for the second time before 11 July 1511 to FLORENCE PUDSEY, widow of Thomas Talbot, Knt., of Bashall in Craven, and daughter of Henry Pudsey, of Berforth, co. York, by Margaret, daughter of Christopher Conyers, of Hornby, co. York. They had two sons and one daughter. HENRY CLIFFORD, 10th Lord Clifford, died on 23 Apr. 1523. His widow was married for the third time to Richard Grey, younger son of Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset.
Collins-Brydges (1812) 6:519-521 (quoting Whitaker's Hist. of Craven, p. 224 [based itself on "Lady Pembroke's MS. Memoirs"]: On the accession of Henry the Seventh emerged from the Fells of Cumberland, where he had been principally concealed for twenty-five years, Henry Lord Clifford, with the manners and education of a shepherd. He was almost altogether illiterate; but far from deficient in natural understanding ... depressed by a consciousness of his own deficiencies. On this account he retired to the solitude of Bardin ... The narrow limits of his residence shew that he had learned to despise the pomp of greatness ... [at Flodden he] shewed that the military genius of the family had neither been chilled in him by age, nor extinguished by habits of peace"). C.P. 3:294-295 (1913).
Children of Henry Clifford, by Anne Saint John:
i. ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, married RALPH BOWES [see BOWES 4].1
ii. ANNE CLIFFORD, married RALPH MELFORD [see LEVIS 5].2 [end quote].¹⁴

; van de Pas cites: 1. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, Reference: 759
2. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: P 58263; P 58913; q 114371
3. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 294.² EDV-13. He was M.P. on 15 September 1485.⁸

; Principal command of the army that fought at Flodden Field.¹

     Anne Saint John was born circa 1455. She married Henry 'the Shepherd Lord' Clifford Knt., KB, 10th Lord Clifford, KB, son of Lord John Clifford 9th Lord Clifford and Margaret Bromflete, before 1493
; his 1st wife; Verity says m. "early in 1487."^{6,7,8,1,9,2,3}
Anne Saint John died before 11 July 1511.^6,2
     EDV-13.

; van de Pas cites: 1. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, Reference: 759
2. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: P 58264.² Anne Saint John was also known as Anne St. John.²

; Burkes EP Clifford 1st wife Anne S. John.¹⁰ She was living on 12 May 1506.¹ She was living on 12 March 1507.⁸

     Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire was born circa 1426 at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, England.⁷ He was born circa 1430 at Bletsoe, Bedfordshire, England. He was born between 1432 and 1442; aged 40 and more in 1482.⁵ He married Alice Bradshaigh, daughter of Sir Thomas Bradshaigh Knt., of Haigh, Lancashire and (?) Sherburne, in 1455
; his 1st wife.^2,3,7,5 Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire married Elizabeth ferch William Mathew Fawr (?)
; his 2nd wife.⁵
Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire died between 1513 and 1514.^7,3,5
     Reference: van de Pas cites: 1. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, 1938, Reference: Page 2166
2. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: Q 115529.⁶

; of Magna Carta Surety descent and descendant of Charlemagne.⁹ Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire was also known as John Saint John.^7,10

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294
Weis 85-36.¹¹ GAV-14 EDV-14 GKJ-16.

     Alice Bradshaigh was born circa 1426 at Haigh, Lancashire, England.² She was born circa 1430. She married Sir John St. John Knt., KB, of Bletso, Bedfordshire, son of Sir Oliver St. John Knt., of Fonmon and Penmark, Glamorgan, and Paulerspury, Northamptonshire and Margaret Beauchamp, in 1455
; his 1st wife.^3,4,2,1
     GAV-14 EDV-14 GKJ-16.

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294
Weis 85-36.⁵ Alice Bradshaigh was also known as Alice Bradshaw.⁶ Alice Bradshaigh was also known as Alice Bradshagh.¹

     Lord John Clifford 9th Lord Clifford was born on 8 April 1435 at Conisbrough Castle, West Riding, Yorkshire, England.^7,2,3 He married Margaret Bromflete, daughter of Sir Henry Bromflete Knt., 1st Baron de Vesci and Eleanor/Alianore Fitz Hugh, circa 1453.^8,9,1,2,3,10

Lord John Clifford 9th Lord Clifford died on 28 March 1461 at Battle of Towton Field, Ferrybridge (Towton, Selby District), North Yorkshire, England, at age 25; killed by a stray arrow on the eve of the Battle of Towton (Yorkist victory.)^7,8,2,3
      ; per van de Pas: "In February 1458 he demanded compensation for his father's death. As Lord Clifford he was summoned to Parliament on 30 July 1460 and became Governor of Penrith Castle and Commissary General of the Scottish Marches. He was one of the Lancastrian leaders at the battle of Wakefield where he was knighted on 31 December 1460, but also 'for slaughter of men he was called the Butcher'. After the battle, in which the Duke of York was killed, Lord Clifford, according to Holinshed, cut off the Duke's head, crowned it with paper and then sent it to Margaret, the Queen Consort. On the eve of the fatal battle of Towton on 28 March 1461, he was killed at Ferrybridge by a chance arrow. On 4 November the same year he was attainted and his estates confiscated."³ He was hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland.^7,2 EDV-14.

; JOHN de CLIFFORD, 9th Lord (Baron) Clifford; b 8 April 1435; like his f a Lancastrian in Wars of Roses, Govr Penrith Castle, Commissary Gen Scottish Marches, ktd 31 Dec 1460 at Battle of Wakefield (Lancastrian victory); m Margaret (m 2nd Sir Lancelot Threlkeld, of Threlkeld, Cumberland, and d 12 April 1483), dau and heir of 1st and last Lord (Baron) Vessy of the 1449 cr, and was k 28 March 1461 by a stray arrow on the eve of the Battle of Towton (Yorkist victory), being on 4 Nov following attainted posthumously and his peerage forfeited, having had issue.⁸

; Christou Gedcom: Complete Peerage vol 3 p 293-4 killed on the eve of the battle of Towton by a chance arrow. buried in a pit there with others who were slain.
* * ** * ** * ** * *
Faris (1999, p. 93): [quote] JOHN CLIFFORD, of Appleby, Westmorland, 9th Lord Clifford, hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland, son and heir, was born at Conisborough Castle on 8 Apr. 1435. He was summoned to Parliament 30 July 1460 by writ directed Johanni Clifford domino de Clyfford chivaler. He was one of the Lancastrian leaders at the Battle of Wakefield, where he was knighted on 31 Dec. 1460, and where "for slaughter of men he was called the Butcher". He was married to MARGARET BROMFLETE, daughter and heiress of Henry Bromflete, Knt., Lord Vescy, of Londesborough, co. York (of Magna Carta Surety descent and descendant of Charlemagne), by his second wife, Alianor, daughter of Henry Fitz Hugh, Lord Fitzhugh. They had two sons and one daughter. JOHN CLIFFORD, 9th Lord Clifford, Lancastrian, was slain at Ferrybridge by a chance arrow on 28 Mar. 1461, on the eve of the Battle of Towton, and was said to have been buried in a pit with others slain there. He was attainted on 4 Nov. 1461 whereby his peerage was forfeited, and his estates confiscated. His widow was married for the second time before 16 Jan. 1468/9, with issue, to LANCELOT THRELKELD, Knt., of Threlkeld, Cumberland. She died on 12 Apr. 1493, and was buried at Londesborough, co. York.
Collins-Brydges (1812) 6:517-518. Clay (1913), p. 24. C.P. 3:293-294 (1913).
Children of John Clifford, by Margaret Bromflete:
i. HENRY CLIFFORD [see next].
ii. ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, married ROBERT ASKE [see ASKE 7].4 [end quote].¹¹

; van de Pas cites: 1. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, Reference: 759
2. A Genealogical History of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited and extinct peerages of the British Empire, London, 1866, Burke, Sir Bernard, Reference: 123
3. Cahiers de Saint Louis , Dupont, Jacques and Saillot, Jacques, Reference: 827
4. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: Q 114371
5. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 293.³ He was 9th Lord Clifford.⁷ He was M.P. on 30 July 1460.⁷

     Margaret Bromflete was born circa 1443; Richardson says "aged 26 in 1469."^2,3 She married Lord John Clifford 9th Lord Clifford, son of Thomas Clifford 8th Lord Clifford and Joan Dacre, circa 1453.^7,1,2,3,8,4
Margaret Bromflete married Sir Lancelot Threlkeld Knt., of Threlkeld, Cumberland, son of Sir Henry Threlkeld Knt., of Threlkeld, Cumberland, and Yanwath, Westmorland and Alice (?), before 14 May 1467
; her 2nd husband.^9,1,10,2,3,4
Margaret Bromflete died on 12 April 1493.^7,2,3,4
Margaret Bromflete was buried after 12 April 1493 at Londesborough, Yorkshire, England.^3,4
      ; The book, Collections for the History of Worcestershire, by Thomas Nash, 2 (1782): 346–347 includes a history of the manor of Severn Stoke, Worcestershire, a Clifford family property. It shows that Margaret Bromflete and Sir Lancelot Threlkeld were married before 14 May 1467, when Sir Lancelot presented to the church of Severn Stoke, Worcestershire, in right of his wife, Margaret, Lady Clifford.¹⁰ EDV-14.

; van de Pas cites: 1. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, Reference: 759
2. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 294
3. Cahiers de Saint Louis , Dupont, Jacques and Saillot, Jacques, Reference: 827.⁴

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 2nd married Lancelot Threlkeld.¹¹

     Thomas Clifford 8th Lord Clifford was buried at St. Albans Abbey, St. Albans, Hertfordshire, England.⁶ He was born on 25 March 1414.^7,6,1,2 He married Joan Dacre, daughter of Thomas de Dacre 6th Lord Dacre, Maron Multon of Gillesland and Lady Philippa Neville, after March 1424.^{7,8,1,2,9,10,11}

Thomas Clifford 8th Lord Clifford died on 22 May 1455 at Battle of St. Albans, St. Albans, St. Albans District, Hertfordshire, England, at age 41; k fighting on the Lancastrian side.^12,13,14,1
     He was 8th Lord Clifford.⁶ He was hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland.^7,2

; Leo van de Pas cites: 1. Cahiers de Saint Louis Magazine. , Jacques Dupont, Jacques Saillot, Reference: 827
2. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales Edinburgh, 1977., Gerald Paget, Reference: P 54759
3. The Complete Peerage 1936 , H.A.Doubleday & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 293
4. Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists who came to America bef.1700 Baltimore, 1995, Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter L.Sheppard, Reference: 8
5. Living descendants of Blood Royal in America. , Count d'Angerville, Reference: III 14
6. A Genealogical History of the dormant, abeyant,forfeited and extinct peerages of the British Empire, London, 1866, Sir Bernard Burke, Reference: 122.¹ EDV-15.

; Christou Gedcom: Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 Sheriff of Westmoreland, slain at battle of St. Albans. he married aft 1424 (his grandmother's death) Weis AR7 5-35
* * * * * * *
Faris (1999, p. 93): [quote] THOMAS CLIFFORD, 8th Lord Clifford, hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland, only son and heir, was born on 25 Mar. 1414 (aged seven years and forty-three weeks at father's death). He was summoned to Parliament 1436-1453. He was married after March 1424 to JOAN DACRE, daughter of Thomas Dacre, 6th Lord Dacre of Gilsland, by Philippe (descendant of King Edward I), daughter of Ralph de Neville, Earl of Westmorland [see DACRE 8 for her ancestry]. They had four sons and five daughters. She predeceased her husband. He was summoned to Parliament from 19 Dec. 1436. THOMAS CLIFFORD, 8th Lord Clifford, a Lancastrian, was slain fighting for King Henry VI at the first Battle of St. Albans on 22 May 1455, and was buried in the Abbey church there (former M.I.)
Collins-Brydges (1812) 6:516-517. Clay (1913), p. 24. C.P. 3:293 (1913).
Children of Thomas Clifford, by Joan Dacre:
i. JOHN CLIFFORD [see next].
ii. ELIZABETH CLIFFORD, married WILLIAM PLUMPTON [see SOTHILL 8].2
iii. MAUD CLIFFORD, married EDMUND SUTTON [see DUDLEY 5].3 [end quote].¹⁵ He was M.P. between 1436 and 1453.⁷

     Joan Dacre was born circa 1415. She married Thomas Clifford 8th Lord Clifford, son of Lord John de Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford and Elizabeth Percy, after March 1424.^{6,1,9,2,3,4,5}

Joan Dacre died before 1455.¹⁰
      ; van de Pas cites: 1. Living descendants of Blood Royal in America , Angerville, Count d', Reference: III 14
2. A Genealogical History of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited and extinct peerages of the British Empire, London, 1866, Burke, Sir Bernard, Reference: 152
3. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 293.³ EDV-15.

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294
AR 5-35.¹¹

     Lord John de Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford was born circa 1389; Richardson says "aged 3 in 1392, aged 13 in 1403, aged 21 in 1411."^6,2,1 He married Elizabeth Percy, daughter of Henry "Hotspur" de Percy Knt., KB KG, Lord and Lady Elizabeth Mortimer, between 1403 and 1412
; her 1st husband.^7,8,9,2,1,10
Lord John de Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford died between 13 March 1421 and 1422 at Meaux, France; slain at the siege of Meaux.^11,6,2,1
     He was 7th Lord Cliffard.⁶ He was hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland.^11,2 EDV-16.

; JOHN de CLIFFORD, 7th Lord (Baron) Clifford, KG (1421); b c 1389; m between Aug 1403 and Nov 1412 Elizabeth Percy (m 2nd (contract 7 May 1426) as his 1st w 2nd Earl of Westmorland (see ABERGAVENNY, M) and d 26 Oct 1437), dau of Sir Henry 'Harry Hotspur' Percy, KG (see NORTHUMBERLAND, D), and d 13 March 1421/2, leaving issue.¹²

; Christou Gedcom: Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 Lord Clifford, Sheriff of Westmoreland, 3y at father's death. proved age 1410, in the great tournament at Carlisle also in French War, KG 3 May 1421. AR 5-34, 26-34. 7th Lord Clifford, Sheriff of Westmoreland, a famous soldier
* * ** * * * * * ** *
Faris (1999, pp. 92-93): [quote] JOHN CLIFFORD, K.G., 7th Lord Clifford, hereditary Sheriff of Westmorland, only son and heir, was born about 1388 (aged three at his father's death). He was summoned to Parliament from 21 Sep. 1412. He took part in a great tournament at Carlisle between six English and six Scottish Knights, as also in the French war. He was K.G. 3 May 1421. He was married between August 1403 and November 1412, probably in 1404, to ELIZABETH PERCY, daughter of Henry Percy [Harry Hotspur], Knt., (descendant of King Edward III), by Elizabeth (descendant of King Edward HI), daughter of Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March [see PERCY 10 for her ancestry]. They had two sons and one daughter. JOHN CLIFFORD, 7th Lord Clifford, was slain at the siege of Meaux in France, on 13 Mar. 1421/2, and was said to have been buried at Bolton Priory. His widow was married for the second time in 1426 to RALPH NEVILLE, 2nd Earl of Westmorland (died 3 Nov. 1484). She died on 26 Oct. 1437, and was buried at Staindrop, Durham.
Collins-Brydges (1812) 6:516 (names only son and heir). Clay (1913), pp. 23-24. C.P. 3:293 (1913). C.P. 9:741 footnote f. C.P. 12(2):549-50 (1959). Paget (1977), p. 416.
Children of John Clifford, by Elizabeth Percy:
i. THOMAS CLIFFORD [see next].
ii. MARY CLIFFORD, married PHILIP WENTWORTH [see HARLESTON 7].1 [end quote].¹³ Lord John de Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford was also known as John Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford.^1,2

; van de Pas cites: 1. A Genealogical History of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited and extinct peerages of the British Empire, London, 1866, Burke, Sir Bernard, Reference: 122
2. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, Reference: 759
3. Cahiers de Saint Louis , Dupont, Jacques and Saillot, Jacques, Reference: 827
4. The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Edinburgh, 1977, Paget, Gerald, Reference: Q 109517
5. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: III 293.¹ He was M.P. between 1411 and 1421.⁶ He was 137 Knight of the Garter in 1421.¹

     Elizabeth Percy was born circa 1395.² She married Lord John de Clifford KG, 7th Lord Clifford, son of Sir Thomas de Clifford Knt., 6th Lord Clifford and Elizabeth de Ros, between 1403 and 1412
; her 1st husband.^4,5,3,1,6,2 Elizabeth Percy married Ralph Neville 2nd Earl of Westmorland, 5th Baron Nevill of Raby, son of Sir John de Neville Knt., of Sutton (in Galtres), Yorkshire and Lady Elizabeth de Holand, between 7 May 1426 and 30 August 1426
; her 2nd husband, his 1st wife; contract dated 7 May 1426; licesne dated 20 July 1426.^{7,8,5,3,1,2,9}
Elizabeth Percy died on 26 October 1436; Weis (AR, line 5-34) says d. 26 Oct. 1437; Douglas Richardson says: [quote] Complete Peerage, 3 (1913): 293 (sub Clifford) states that Elizabeth Percy, wife successively of John Clifford, 7th Lord Clifford, and Ralph Neville, 2nd Earl of Westmorland, died 26 Oct. 1437. The same death date is given in C.P. 12 Pt. 2 (1959): 549-550 (sub Westmorland). Elizabeth Percy is a well known descendant of King Edward III of England.

Yorkshire Arch. Journal, 18 (1905): 354–411 features a well written article on the Clifford family. On pg. 366, the author states Elizabeth Percy "died 26 Oct. 1436, and was buried in Staindrop church." An English transcription of the inquisition post mortem of Elizabeth Percy follows on pg. 367. According to the transcription, this inquisition was taken at York on Wednesday after the feast of All Saints, 15 Hen. VI (7 Nov., 1436). The inquisition states that the "Said Elizabeth died 16 [sic] October last (1436)."

Interestingly, C.P. 12 Pt. 2, pg. 550, footnote a, confirms that the above inquisition post mortem is dated 15 Henry VI. All Saints Day, 15 Henry VI falls in 1436, not 1437. Thus, the Clifford article has correctly dated the inquisition as being in 1436. [end quote]^{10,8,5,3,11,1}
Elizabeth Percy was buried after 26 October 1436 at Staindrop, co. Durham, England.¹
     EDV-16.

; van de Pas cites: 1. A Genealogical History of the dormant, abeyant, forfeited and extinct peerages of the British Empire, London, 1866, Burke, Sir Bernard, Reference: page 122
2. Cahiers de Saint Louis , Dupont, Jacques and Saillot, Jacques, Reference: page 67, 827
3. Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, London, 1938, Reference: page 1938
4. The Complete Peerage, 1936 , Doubleday, H.A. & Lord Howard de Walden, Reference: vol III page 293.² Elizabeth Percy was also known as Elizabeth de Percy.^3,1

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 married between Aug 1403 and Nov 1412. m2nd Ralph
Nevill as his first wife. 2nd Earl of Westmoreland.
AR 5-34.¹²

     Henry "Hotspur" de Percy Knt., KB KG, Lord was born on 20 May 1364.^6,4 He married Lady Elizabeth Mortimer, daughter of Edmund de Mortimer Knt, 3rd Earl of March, Earl of Ulster and Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare, before 10 December 1379.^7,8,9

Henry "Hotspur" de Percy Knt., KB KG, Lord died on 21 July 1403 at Battle of Shrewsbury, north of Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, at age 39.^10,6,4
Henry "Hotspur" de Percy Knt., KB KG, Lord was buried after 21 July 1403 at York Minster, Yorkshire, England.⁴
     EDV-17 GKJ-17.

; Henry ('Harry Hotspur') (Sir), KG (1388); b 20 May 1364; ktd 1377, accompanied his f in retaking Berwick Castle from the Scots 1378, Jt Warden the Marches with his f 1384, Govr Berwick 1385, served in France in the area around Calais 1386, making raids there on the French; on 5 or 19 Aug 1388 (other sources have 15 Aug, but the latest date seems the most plausible, not least because there was a full moon on 20 August and the English attack came in the evening, with fighting continuing throughout the night) he launched an assault on the encampment of an invading Scottish army at Otterburn, c 30 miles northwest of Newcastle; 'Hotspur' and his bro Sir Ralph Percy were made prisoners, but James, 2nd Earl of Douglas (see QUEENSBERRY, M), the Scottish general, was slain, a cross supposedly marking the spot being known as Percy's Cross; both sides claimed victory, but modern opinion inclines to the Scots; nevertheless not only were Hotspur and Sir Ralph captured the English popular imagination, keener to celebrate failure than success, and the ballad Chevy Chase resulted; the Scots have their own ballad, Otterburn; Hotspur was released by midsummer 1389; Warden Carlisle and W March 1389-94 (also E by late 1398), Govr Bordeaux 1393-95, joined forces with the 2nd Duke of Lancaster, afterwards HENRY IV, 1399, as did his f; confirmed as Warden E March and Govr Berwick and Roxburgh by HENRY IV 1399, Justiciar Cheshire, N Wales (1400-01) and Flint, Constable Caernarvon, Chester, Conway and Flint Castles 1400, also granted Anglesey with Beaumaris Castle, together with lordship of Bamburgh Castle, for life 1400, a commr to treat for peace with Scots 1401, a commander at Homildon Hill 1402; turned with his unc and f against HENRY IV and fell at the Battle of Shrewsbury 21 July 1403; m by 1 May 1380, as her 1st husb, Lady Elizabeth Mortimer (b 12 Feb 1371; m 2nd, as his 2nd w, 1st Lord (Baron) Camoys (qv) and d 20 April 1417), dau of 3rd Earl of March by Philippa, gdau of EDWARD III.¹

; Christou Gefcom: Complete Peerage vol 3 p 294 Henry Hotspur, Very famous rebel. Biography given in English Biographies. AR 5-33; Date of death Jul 21 per David Baker
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Faris (1999, pp. 272-273): [quote] HENRY PERCY [Harry Hotspur], Knt., K.B., K.G., son and heir apparent, was born on 20 May 1364, and was knighted by King Edward III in April 1377 along with the future Kings, Richard II and Henry IV. who were almost exactly his own age. He was married before 10 Dec. 1379 to ELIZABETH MORTIMER, eldest daughter of Edmund de Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March (of Magna Carta Surety descent and descendant of Charlemagne), by Philippe, daughter of Lionel of Clarence, Earl of Ulster (son of King Edward III) [see PLANTAGENET 10 for her ancestry]. She was born at Usk, co. Monmouth, on 12 Feb. 1370/1. They had two children. He attended King Richard II on his expedition into Scotland in 1385, and was called by the Scots Haatspore owing to his restless activity as Warden of the Marches in repressing the inroads of the Scottish borders. He was the English commander at the Battle of Otterburn (Chevy Chase) on 10 Aug. 1388 where Douglas, the Scottish commander was slain and Percy himself was taken prisoner. In 1399 he acted with his father in the proceedings which placed King Henry IV on the throne. With his father, he won the notable victory of Homildon Hill over the Scots on 14 Sep. 1402. Friction with the King, however, led to open conflict. SIR HENRY PERCY was slain at the Battle of Shrewsbury on 21 July 1403 v.p., and was buried at York Cathedral. His widow was married for the second time to THOMAS CAMOYS, K.G. [see HASTINGS 10 for descendants of this marriage]. ELIZABETH MORTIMER died on 20 Apr. 1417. SIR THOMAS CAMOYS [Lord Camoys], died on 28 Mar. 1421. They were buried at Trotton with monumental brass.
Mortimer-Percy (1911), pp. vi-vii,2 (states Elizabeth Mortimer was mother of Alice de Camoys) (brass rubbing of their brass of Thomas and Elizabeth provided as frontispiece). C.P. 2:507-508 (1912). Stephenson (1926), p. 517 ('Thos., baron Camoys ... in arm. with garter, and w. Elizth. ... in mantle ... holding hands, her son 'Sir Rich.] standing by her side ..."). C.P. 9:713-714 (1936). Paget (1957) 114:3-5 (no identification of Elizabeth as wife of Thomas Camoys; his children identified as children of his first marriage), 440:3. C.P. 14:138 (1998) (states that Elizabeth Mortimer's M.I. shows she had one son).
Children of Henry Percy, by Elizabeth Mortimer:
i.     HENRY PERCY [see next].
ii.     ELIZABETH PERCY, married JOHN CLIFFORD [see CLIFFORD 8].1 [end quote].¹¹

; Staley cites: CP IX: 713-14.⁴ He was Knight in April 1377.⁶

     Lady Elizabeth Mortimer married Sir Thomas de Camoys Knt., KG, 1st Lord Camoys, son of Sir John de Camoys Baron Camoys of Berkerton and Elizabeth Latimer,
;
His 2nd wife.^6,1,3,7 Lady Elizabeth Mortimer was born on 12 February 1370/71 at Usk, Monmouthshire, Wales, England (now).^8,1,9 She married Henry "Hotspur" de Percy Knt., KB KG, Lord, son of Sir Henry de Percy Knt, KG, 1st Earl of Northumberland, 5th Baron Percy and Margaret de Neville of Raby, before 10 December 1379.^10,3,2

Lady Elizabeth Mortimer died on 20 April 1417 at age 46.^11,1,3
Lady Elizabeth Mortimer was buried after 20 April 1417 at Trotton, co. Sussex, England.⁹
     EDV-17 GKJ-17.

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 293
AR 5-33 living 8 Oct 1407.¹²

; Staley cites: CP IX: 713-14.⁹

     Edmund de Mortimer Knt, 3rd Earl of March, Earl of Ulster was born on 1 February 1351/52 at Llangoed, Llyswen, Breconshire, Wales.^7,8,9,1,2 He married Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare, daughter of Lionel (?) of Antwerp, KG, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster and Lady Elizabeth de Burgh Countess of Ulster, circa May 1368 at Queen's Chapel, Reading Abbey, Berkshire, England.^{7,8,10,9,11,1,2}

Edmund de Mortimer Knt, 3rd Earl of March, Earl of Ulster died on 27 December 1381 at Dominican Friary, co. Cork, Ireland, at age 29; per Staley: "The cause of his death was complications from a head cold caught crossing a river"; died testate.^7,8,9,3,1,2
Edmund de Mortimer Knt, 3rd Earl of March, Earl of Ulster was buried after 27 December 1382 at Austin Friar's Abbey, Wigmore, Herefordshire Unitary Authority, Herefordshire, England; per Richardson: "...He was initially buried at Cork, but afterwards his body was taken to Wigmore Abbey."^12,9,3,2
     He was Lord of Trim and Connaught.⁷ He was Lord Mortimer of Wigmore.⁷ He was Marshal of England.² He was 3rd Earl of March.¹³

; Complete Peerage vol 3 p 293
AR 5-32 3rd Earl of March.¹⁴ EDV-18 GKJ-18.

; Staley cites: CP VIII:445-8, XIV:466.³

     Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare was born on 16 August 1355 at Eltham Palace, co. Kent, England.^11,7,3,4,6 She married Edmund de Mortimer Knt, 3rd Earl of March, Earl of Ulster, son of Sir Roger de Mortimer Knt., KG, 2nd Earl of March and Philippa de Montagu, circa May 1368 at Queen's Chapel, Reading Abbey, Berkshire, England.^{11,7,2,3,12,13,6}

Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare died between 5 January 1380 and 1381.^14,4,6

Her estate was probated between 9 February 1380 and 1381
; P.C.C. 189 courtenay.⁶
Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare was buried after 5 January 1381 at Austin Friar's Abbey, Wigmore, Herefordshire Unitary Authority, Herefordshire, England.^11,3,4,6
      ; Staley cites: CP VIII:445-8, XIV:466.⁴ EDV-18 GKJ-18.

; History of Rutland p 42
AR 5-32
Duchess of Clarence and Countess of March
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Faris (1999) pp. 287-288: [quote] PHILIPPE OF CLARENCE, Countess of Ulster, daughter and heiress, was born at Eltham Palace, Kent, on 16 Aug. 1355. She was married at Reading about May 1368 to EDMUND DE MORTIMER, Knt., 3rd Earl of March, Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, Lord of Trim and Connaught, Ireland, son and heir of Roger de Mortimer, Knt. (of Magna Carta Surety descent and descendant of Charlemagne), by Philippe (descendant of Charlemagne), daughter of William de Montagu, 1st Earl of Salisbury. He was born at Llangoed in Llyswen, co. Brecon, Wales, on 1 Feb. 1351/2, and succeeded his father in his tenth year. He became a ward of King Edward III, and was closely associated with the King's sons, especially Edward the Black Prince. By the death of his wife's father in 1368 he became lord of Ulster and of Connaught, as also lord of Clare in Suffolk jure uxoris, and was also styled Earl of Ulster. He was summoned to Parliament from 8 Jan. 1 370/1 as Earl of March. In the domestic politics of the time, Mortimer was on the side of the Prince of Wales and the clergy against John of Gaunt and the Barons. The death of the Black Prince weakened his position. With the accession of King Richard II, power remained with Lancaster, but the next rightful heir was Mortimer's own son. The will of PHILIPPE OF CLARENCE, Countess of March and Ulster, was dated 21 Nov. 1378 and proved 6 Dec. 1379 (P.C.C., 189 Courtenay). He was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland on 22 Oct. 1379, it being convenient for the party of Lancaster to get him out of the country. Ulster, Connaught, and Meath, over which he bore nominal sway, had long been the most disorderly districts. EDMUND DE MORTIMER, Earl of March, having caught cold in crossing a river in winter time in Munster, died testate in the Dominican Friary at Cork on 27 Dec. 1381 (P.C.C., 188 Courtenay). They were buried at Wigmore Abbey.
D.N.B. 13:1016-1018 (1909). C.P. 1:245 (1910). Mortimer-Percy (1911), pp. vi, 1,2. C.P. 8:445-448 (1932). C.P. 9:714 (1936), C.P. 12(2):180 (1959). Paget (1977), p. 21.

Children of Edmund de Mortimer, by Philippe of Clarence:
i.     ROGER MORTIMER [see next].
ii.     ELIZABETH MORTIMER, married, first, HENRY PERCY [see PERCY 10], second, THOMAS CAMOYS [see HASTINGS 10].
[end quote]¹⁵

Philippa (?) of Clarence, Countess of Ulster, Lady of Clare left a will on 21 November 1378.^11,6

     Lionel (?) of Antwerp, KG, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster was born on 29 November 1338 at Antwerp, Arrondissement Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium (now).^{10,11,2,3,4,5} He married Lady Elizabeth de Burgh Countess of Ulster, daughter of Sir William de Burgh Knt., 3rd Earl of Lancaster, 4th Earl of Ulster and Maude (?) of Lancaster, Countess of Ulster, on 9 September 1342 at Tower of London, London, City of London, Greater London, England,
;
His 1st wife. Med Lands says " m firstly (contract 5 May 1341, Tower of London 15 Aug 1342, and Reading Abbey 9 Sep 1342, consummated 1352.)^{10,12,6,13,14,11,3,4,5,15} Lionel (?) of Antwerp, KG, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster married Violante Visconti di Milano, daughter of Galeazzo II Visconti Duke of Milan, Signore di Pavia, Como, Novara, Vercelli, Asti, Alba, Tortona, Alessandria e Vigevano and Bianca/Blanche Maria (?) de Savoy, on 28 May 1368 at Milan, Città Metropolitana di Milano, Lombardia, Italy (now),
;
His 2nd wife; Her 1st husband. Med Lands says "m secondly (contracts 19 Jan 1367 and Westminster 15 May 1367, Milan, Santa Maria Maggiore 28 May 1368) as her first husband."^{10,6,16,11,3,4,5,17,18,19}
Lionel (?) of Antwerp, KG, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster died on 17 October 1368 at Alba, Provincia di Cuneo, Pimonte, Italy, at age 29.^10,11,3,4,5
Lionel (?) of Antwerp, KG, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster was buried after 17 October 1368 at Austin Friars Priory, Clare, co. Suffolk, England; From Find A Grave:
     BIRTH     29 Nov 1338, Antwerp, Arrondissement Antwerpen, Antwerp (Antwerpen), Belgium
     DEATH     17 Oct 1368 (aged 29), Alba, Provincia di Cuneo, Piemonte, Italy
     English Royalty. The Earl of Ulster and Duke of Clarence, he was the third son of King Edward III and Queen Philippa, Born at Antwerp in Flanders, Belgium, he had scarcely completed his third year, when, in order to secure for him a large territory in Ireland, his future marriage was arranged with Lady Elizabeth De Burgh, the sole daughter and heiress of William, Earl of Ulster. They were married in 1355; and he was created Earl of Ulster, and first armed, for the purpose of attending his Royal father on an expedition to France. In 1359, he accompanied the King to Calais and was a witness to the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360. The Honour of Clare in Suffolk having devolved to him, as part of the inheritance of Elizabeth De Clare, his consort's grandmother, he was, in 1362, created Duke of Clarence. His Duchess, by whom he had an only child, Philippa, died in the following year and, towards the conclusion of the year 1367, a treaty of marriage was agreed upon between Lionel and Violante, daughter of Galeazzo, Prince of Milan, and niece of Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy. His wedding took place in Milan and he never returned to his native land. Whether from excesses in a climate not congenial to his constitution, as supposed by some, or the effects of poison, as hinted by others, he sickened and died at Alba Pompeia, in the Marquisate of Montferrat, in Piedmont. His remains were first interred at Papia, but afterwards brought to England, and deposited near the body of his first consort. Bio by: julia&keld
     Family Members
     Parents
          Edward III 1312–1377
          Philippa d'Avesnes of Hainault 1311–1369
     Spouses
          Elizabeth de Burgh 1332–1363
          Violante Visconti 1354–1386
     Siblings
          Edward Plantagenet 1330–1376
          Isabel Plantagenet de Coucy 1332–1379
          Joan Plantagenet 1334–1348
          William Of Hatfield 1336–1337
          John of Gaunt 1340–1399
          Edmund of Langley 1341–1402
          Blanche de la Tour Plantagenet 1342–1342
          Mary de Waltham 1344–1362
          Margaret De Plantagenet de Hastings 1346–1361
          William de Windsor 1348–1348
          Prince Thomas Woodstock Plantagenet 1355–1397
     Half Siblings
          Joan Perrers Skerne unknown–1431
     Children
          Philippa Plantagenet 1355–1381
     BURIAL     Clare Priory, Clare, St Edmundsbury Borough, Suffolk, England
     Maintained by: Find a Grave
     Originally Created by: julia&keld
     Added: 11 Nov 2006
     Find a Grave Memorial 16607768.^10,11,2,5,20
     Reference: Genealogics cites: He was Earl of Ulster and Lord of Connaught jure uxoris.¹⁴

; Per Genealogics:
     “Lionel was born on 29 November 1338 in Antwerpen, son of Edward III, King of England, and Philippa of Holland and Hainault. Had he fathered a son, history would have been so different, for there would have been neither the War of The Roses nor the Princes in The Tower. In only his fourth year he was married to the ten-year old Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William de Burgh, 3rd Earl of Ulster. However, naturally this marriage was not consummated until 1352 when he was fourteen.
     “Prior to 26 January 1347 in her right, he was recognised as Earl of Ulster and acquired vast estates in Ireland. On 1 July 1345 when a mere child, he had been made Guardian of England and, before April 1361, was nominated Knight of the Garter. On 13 November 1362, he was created Duke of Clarence.
     “His wife died in 1363 leaving him with an only daughter. His second marriage, to Violante Visconti, was contracted in Westminster on 15 May 1367 and, with great state, was celebrated in Milan on 28 May 1368. However, he died on 17 October 1368 aged only twenty-nine. His widow married Secondotto, Marchese de Monferrato, and, after his demise, her first cousin, Lodovico Visconti, Lord of Lodi; she died in November 1386 in Pavia.”.⁴

; This is the same person as ”Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence” at Wikipedia.

This is also the same person as ”” at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.^21,22

Reference: Staley cites: CP III: 245, X:231-2, 393, XII/2:180.²

; Per Genealogy.EU (Anjou 3): “F3. Lionel, Duke of Clarence 14.9.1361, *Antwerp 29.11.1338, +Alba, Piedmont 17.10.1368, bur Clare Priory, Suffolk; 1m: Tower of London 9.9.1342 Elizabeth de Burgh (*Carrickfergus Castle, Ulster 6.7.1332, +Dublin 10.12.1363, bur Clare Priory, Suffolk); 2m: St.Maria Church, Milan 28.5.1368 Violante Visconti (*ca 1353 +1386)”.²³

; Per Faris (1999) p. 287:
"LIONEL OF CLARENCE [of Antwerp], K.G., Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster jure uxoris, third but second surviving son, was born at Antwerp on 29 Nov. 1338. He was married in his fourth year at the Tower of London on 15 Aug. 1342 to ELIZABETH DE BURGH, daughter and heiress of William de Burgh, 4th Earl of Ulster (descendant of King Edward I), by Maud, daughter of Henry, Earl of Lancaster (grandson of King Henry III) [see BURGH 12 for her ancestry]. She was born at Carrickfergus Castle on 6 July 1332. The marriage was consummated ten years later in 1352 and by this marriage he acquired the vast estates in Ireland of the de Burgh family, as well as a large part (including the honour of Clare) of the estates of the Earls of Gloucester and Hertford, in right of his wife's paternal grandmother. ELIZABETH DE BURGH died at Dublin on 10 Dec. 1363. LIONEL OF CLARENCE was married for the second time at Milan on 28 May 1368 to VIOLANTA DI MILANO, daughter of Galaeazzo Visconti, by Blanche Maria, daughter of Aymon, Comte de Savoie. LIONEL OF CLARENCE died at Alba, Piedmont in Italy, on 17 Oct. 1368, and was buried at Clare, Suffolk. His widow was married for the second time on 2 Aug. 1 377 to Otto Palaeologus, Marquis of Montferrat (murdered Dec. 1378), and for the third time on 18 Apr. 1381 to Ludovico Visconti, Signore de Lodi (died 1404). She died in November 1386.
C.P. 3:257-260 (1913). C.P. 8:445-448 (1932). Paget (1977), pp. 20-21. TG 2:124 (1981). CP 14: 184 (1998).“.^24,10

; Per Weis (5-31): “Lionel "of Antwerp", Earl of Ulster, Duke olf Clarence, b. Antwerp, 29 Nov. 1338, d. Alba, Itally, 7 Oct. 1368; m. 9 Sept. 1342 (at age four), Elizabeth de Burgh (94A-34), dau. of William de Burgh (94A-33), 3rd Earl of Lancaster. (CP VIII:444-445, IX:714, III:257/258, XIV:184; The Genealogist 2 (1981):124; CCN 614; DNB, "Lionel of Antwerp").”

Per Weis (94A-34): “Elizabeth de Burch, b. 1332, D. 1363; m. Lionel of Antwerp (5-31), j.u. Earl of Ulster, b. 1338, Duke of Clarence."^25,26

; Per Med Lands:
     "LIONEL "of Antwerp" (Antwerp 29 Nov 1338-Alba, Piémont 17 Oct 1368, bur Pavia, later removed to Clare Priory, Suffolk). The Chronicon Angliæ records the birth “apud Andwerp” of “regi Edwardo filius...Leonellus”, dated to 1338 from the context[937]. Guardian of England 1 Jul 1345-25 Jun 1346. Earl of Ulster 1347, de iure uxoris. Created Duke of Clarence 13 Nov 1362. According to Buchon, the name “Clarence” derives from the port town of Klarentza, built near Andravida in the principality of Achaia to ensure communication between the newly established principality and western Europe, which was bequeathed by Mathilde de Hainaut titular princess of Achaia to her cousin Philippa de Hainaut, wife of King Edward III[938]. Chief Governor of Ireland 1 Jul 1361-1364, 1364-1365, and during 1367. The Chronicon Angliæ records the marriage of “Leonellus dux Clarenciæ regis Edwardi terii filius” and “filiam domini Galias domini Mediolani”, dated to May 1368 from the context, but adding that Lionel died “circa festum Nativitatis [Beatæ Mariæ] proximo sequens”[939]. The will of "Lionel Duke of Clarence", dated 3 Oct 1368 proved 8 Jun 1369, chose burial “in the church of the Friars Augustines of Clare in the county of Suffolk”, bequeathed property to “Violenta my wife...”[940]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the death in 1368 "ad civitatem Albæ" of "Domino Lionello Duci Clarenciæ filio Regis Angliæ", and the transfer of his body "in Apulia"[941].
     "m firstly (contract 5 May 1341, Tower of London 15 Aug 1342, and Reading Abbey 9 Sep 1342, consummated 1352) ELIZABETH de Burgh Ctss of Ulster, daughter and heiress of WILLIAM de Burgh Earl of Ulster & his wife Matilda of Lancaster ([Carrickfergus Castle, Ulster] 6 Jul 1332-Dublin [10 Dec] 1363, bur Clare Priory, Suffolk). The Chronica de Fundatoribus et Fundatione of Tewkesbury Abbey names “Elizabetha de Borow” as daughter and heiress of “Willelmo”, son of “Johannem de Borow comitem de Holvestre”, adding that she married “Leonellus filius secundus Regis Edwardi tertii”[942]. She succeeded as Ctss of Ulster in 1333 on the murder of her father. The marriage contract between “Elizabetham filiam et hæredem Willielmi de Burgo nuper comitis Ultoniæ defuncti” and “Rex...Leonello filio nostro” is dated 5 May 1341[943]. The will of "Elizabeth de Burg Lady of Clare", dated 25 Sep 1355, proved 3 Dec 1360, bequeathed property to “dame Elizabeth countess of Ulster, the debt which my son, her father, owed me at his death...my daughter Bardolf...Monsr John Bardolf and to my said daughter his wife...my joesne fille Isabel Bardolf to her marriage, Agnes her sister to her marriage...Monsieur William de Ferrers...Monsr Thomas Furnival...my daughter Countess of Athol...”[944].
     "m secondly (contracts 19 Jan 1367 and Westminster 15 May 1367, Milan, Santa Maria Maggiore 28 May 1368) as her first husband, VIOLANTE Visconti, daughter of GALEAZZO II Visconti Lord of Milan & his wife Blanche Marie de Savoie (1354-Pavia Nov 1386, bur Pavia San Agostino). A charter dated 30 Jul 1366 records negotiations for the marriage between “domino Galachio domino Mediolanensi...Violantam filiam” and “Leonellum ducem Clarenciæ comitem Ultoniæ”[945]. The contract for the marriage between “Galeaz vicecomes Mediolani...Violantem secundo-genitam nostram” and “dominum Leonelum ducem Clarenciæ secundo-genitum...domini regis” is dated 19 Jan 1367[946]. Another contract for the marriage between “Galeacii domini Mediolanensis...Violantem...filiam” and “dominum Leonellum ducem Clarenciæ” is dated 15 May 1367[947]. The Chronicon Angliæ records the marriage of “Leonellus dux Clarenciæ regis Edwardi terii filius” and “filiam domini Galias domini Mediolani”, dated to May 1368 from the context, but adding that Lionel died “circa festum Nativitatis [Beatæ Mariæ] proximo sequens”[948]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in 1368 of "Galeaz vicecomes unicam filiam suam…Violantem juvenem" and "Domino Lionello Duci Clarenciæ filio Regis Angliæ", adding that her dowry was "civitatem Albæ et plura Castra Pedemontium…Montem-Vicum, Cunium, Carascum et Demontem et plura alia, cum etiam maximo thesauro" and that the marriage was consummated at Milan[949]. She married secondly (contract 15 Jun 1377, Pavia 2 Aug 1377) Secondotto Marchese di Monferrato (1361-murdered Langhirano, near Parma Dec 1378). Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in Aug 1377 of "Dominus Galeaz Vicecomes…Dominam Violantem eius filiam, uxorem quondam Domini Leonelli filii Regis Angliæ" and "Marchioni Secundino Montis-ferrati"[950]. Benvenuto di San Giorgio quotes the marriage contract dated 15 Jun 1377 between "Jo. Galeaz vicecomes Mediolani comes Virtutum…filius…Galeaz vicecomitis Mediolani…imperialis vicarii generalis…D. Violantam ipsius D. comitis sororem genitam ex prædicto…D. Galeaz" and "D. Secundottonis Marchionis Montis-ferrati"[951]. She married thirdly (18 Apr 1381, Nov 1381) her first cousin, Lodovico Visconti Signore di Lodi (Sep 1358-18 Apr 1381). Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in Nov 1381 of "Dominus Comes Virtutem…Dominam Violantem sororem suam" and "Domino Ludovico filio…Domini Bernabovis"[952]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the death "in civitate Papiæ" in Nov 1386 of "Domina Violans soror…domini comitis Virtutem et uxor Domini Ludovici filii quondam Domini Bernabovis Vicecomitis" and her burial "in ecclesia S. Augustini in cittadella Papiæ prope sepulturam Domini Galeaz patris sui"[953]."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Med Lands:
     "ELIZABETH de Burgh ([Carrickfergus Castle, Ulster] 6 Jul 1332-Dublin [10 Dec] 1363, bur Clare Priory, Suffolk). The Chronica de Fundatoribus et Fundatione of Tewkesbury Abbey names “Elizabetha de Borow” as daughter and heiress of “Willelmo”, son of “Johannem de Borow comitem de Holvestre”, adding that she married “Leonellus filius secundus Regis Edwardi tertii”[1502]. She succeeded as Ctss of Ulster in 1333 on the murder of her father. The marriage contract between “Elizabetham filiam et hæredem Willielmi de Burgo nuper comitis Ultoniæ defuncti” and “Rex...Leonello filio nostro” is dated 5 May 1341[1503]. The will of "Elizabeth de Burg Lady of Clare", dated 25 Sep 1355, proved 3 Dec 1360, bequeathed property to “dame Elizabeth countess of Ulster, the debt which my son, her father, owed me at his death...my daughter Bardolf...Monsr John Bardolf and to my said daughter his wife...my joesne fille Isabel Bardolf to her marriage, Agnes her sister to her marriage...Monsieur William de Ferrers...Monsr Thomas Furnival...my daughter Countess of Athol...”[1504].
     "m (contract 5 May 1341, Tower of London 15 Aug 1342, and Reading Abbey 9 Sep 1342, consummated 1352) as his first wife, LIONEL of England "of Antwerp", son of EDWARD III King of England & his wife Philippa de Hainaut (Antwerp 29 Nov 1338-Alba, Piémont 17 Oct 1368, bur Pavia, later removed to Clare Priory, Suffolk). Earl of Ulster 1347, in right of his wife. Created Duke of Clarence 13 Nov 1362. Chief Governor of Ireland 1 Jul 1361-1364, 1364-1365, and during 1367."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Shamà: “K2. Violante (* 1354, † Pavia XI.1386), ebbe in dote le città di Alba, Mondovì, Cuneo, Cherasco e Demonte nel 1368.
     a) = Milano 28.V.1368 Lionello Plantageneto Principe di Inghilterra e Irlanda, Duca di Clarence e Conte di Ulster (* Anversa 29.XI.1338, † Alba 17.X.1368);
     b) = 2.VIII.1377 Secondo Ottone I Paleologo, Marchese del Monferrato (v.)
     c) = 18.IV.1381 Ludovico Visconti (v. sopra)”.¹⁷

; Per Med Lands:
     "VIOLANTE Visconti (1354-Pavia Nov 1386, bur Pavia San Agostino). The Chronicon of Pietro Azario names "Dominam Violantam natu minorem" as the daughter of "Domino Galeazio" and his wife "Blancam sororem Domini comitis Sabaudiæ"[276]. A charter dated 30 Jul 1366 records negotiations for the marriage between “domino Galachio domino Mediolanensi...Violantam filiam” and “Leonellum ducem Clarenciæ comitem Ultoniæ”[277]. The contract for the marriage between “Galeaz vicecomes Mediolani...Violantem secundo-genitam nostram” and “dominum Leonelum ducem Clarenciæ secundo-genitum...domini regis” is dated 19 Jan 1367[278]. Another contract for the marriage between “Galeacii domini Mediolanensis...Violantem...filiam” and “dominum Leonellum ducem Clarenciæ” is dated 15 May 1367[279]. The Chronicon Angliæ records the marriage of “Leonellus dux Clarenciæ regis Edwardi terii filius” and “filiam domini Galias domini Mediolani”, dated to May 1368 from the context, but adding that Lionel died “circa festum Nativitatis [Beatæ Mariæ] proximo sequens”[280]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in 1368 of "Galeaz vicecomes unicam filiam suam…Violantem juvenem" and "Domino Lionello Duci Clarenciæ filio Regis Angliæ", adding that her dowry was "civitatem Albæ et plura Castra Pedemontium…Montem-Vicum, Cunium, Carascum et Demontem et plura alia, cum etiam maximo thesauro" and that the marriage was consummated at Milan[281]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in Aug 1377 of "Dominus Galeaz Vicecomes…Dominam Violantem eius filiam, uxorem quondam Domini Leonelli filii Regis Angliæ" and "Marchioni Secundino Montis-ferrati"[282]. Benvenuto di San Giorgio quotes the marriage contract dated 15 Jun 1377 between "Jo. Galeaz vicecomes Mediolani comes Virtutum…filius…Galeaz vicecomitis Mediolani…imperialis vicarii generalis…D. Violantam ipsius D. comitis sororem genitam ex prædicto…D. Galeaz" and "D. Secundottonis Marchionis Montis-ferrati"[283]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the marriage in Nov 1381 of "Dominus Comes Virtutem…Dominam Violantem sororem suam" and "Domino Ludovico filio…Domini Bernabovis"[284]. Giovanni di Musso´s Chronicon Placentinum records the death "in civitate Papiæ" in Nov 1386 of "Domina Violans soror…domini comitis Virtutem et uxor Domini Ludovici filii quondam Domini Bernabovis Vicecomitis" and her burial "in ecclesia S. Augustini in cittadella Papiæ prope sepulturam Domini Galeaz patris sui"[285].
     "m firstly (contracts 19 Jan 1367 and Westminster 15 May 1367, Milan, Santa Maria Maggiore 28 May 1368) as his second wife, LIONEL "of Antwerp" Duke of Clarence, Earl of Ulster, son of EDWARD III King of England & his wife Philippa de Hainaut (Antwerp 29 Nov 1338-Alba, Piémont 17 Oct 1368, bur Pavia, later removed to Clare Priory, Suffolk).
     "m secondly (contract 15 Jun 1377, 2 Aug 1377) SECONDOTTO Marchese di Monferrato, son of GIOVANNI II Marchese di Monferrato & his second wife Infante doña Isabel de Aragón titular Queen of Mallorca (1361-murdered Langhirano, near Parma 16 Dec 1378).
     "m thirdly (18 Apr 1381, Nov 1381) her first cousin, LODOVICO Visconti Signore di Lodi, son of BERNABÒ Visconti Lord of Milan, Bergamo, Cremona, Lodi, and Bologna & his wife Beatrice [Regina] della Scala (Sep 1358-Trezzo 7 Mar 1404)."
Med Lands cites:

; Per Genealogy.EU (Visconti 2): “C2. Violante, *ca 1354, +Pavia XI.1386; 1m: Milano 28.5.1368 Lionel Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence, Count of Ulster (*29.11.1338 +17.10.1368); 2m: 2.8.1377 Secondotto Paleologo, Marchese del Monferrato (*1360/61 +16.12.1378); 3m: 18.4.1381 Ludovico Visconti Signore di Parma (+7.3.1404)”.²⁸ He was 35 Knight of the Garter - 1360 in 1360.⁴ He was chief governor of Ireland in 1361.¹⁴ He was Duke of Clarence on 13 November 1362.^29,14