General Notes

This Adelaide is the focal point of one of the most debated controversiesin medieval genealogy. Although I show her as marrying 3 times, aftermuch study of numerous postings on GEN-MEDIEVAL, I have beenpersuaded that two individuals have probably been combined into one. Forconvenience sake, I leave her in my database as one person. An excerpt
from one of the postings sums it up best:
Matman posted tosoc.genealogy.medieval on 21 May 1997 (in part):Subject: Re: Burgundy - One more try to sum up *"Adelaide dau of DUKE GISELBERT appears with her husband ROBERTOF TROYES and son Heribert in a charter of 949. There is no problem withthis. The difference of opinion is whether this Adelaide is the same asthe wife of LAMBERT who later married GEOFFREY. Most historians haveshied away from making this assumption, eg Maurice Chaume (who wasotherwise much given to speculation) in his 'The Origins of Burgundy'1925, Werner in an article in Die Welt als Geschicht, 1960, p107-13(especially p111), and more recently Constance Bouchard, 'Sword andMitre'.To make them one person does create problems, not least with thechronology. Adelaide was old enough to have children by about 950 (forshe had a grandson FULK THE BLACK by c.970), yet she was still youngenough to have children (eg Maurice) c.980 or later. Its possible, but onlyjust. I don't know how common it was for noblewomen to give birth after40.Secondly if she only married LAMBERT after 967, then any childrenfrom that marriage could not have been born before that. But ADALBERTOF ITALY first husband of GERBERGA had died by 975 at the latest, andOTTO-WILLIAM was their son. So clearly if one accepts that Adelaidewas one person, one has to find different parents for GERBERGA. Somehave got round this by making GERBERGA a daughter of LAMBERT by anearlier wife. As LAMBERT first appears in 944, and is called count in959, this may not be impossible.Lastly, I may be naive about this, but even in the tenth century, acase of a mother marrying her son-in-law would be exceptional (no?) andarouse comment, yet no source mentions such a thing."Weis' "Ancestral Roots. . ." (118:19-21), identifies Adelaide as the dau.of ROBERT, COUNT OF TROYES (RIN 1230), and also identifies GEOFFREY asher 2nd husband, and FULK III as their son.ES iii, 49; ii, 189 [rev. in iii(1)]; and iii, 116 and 433. ES III, 49 hasAdelaide as the daughter of GISELBERT OF CHALONS etc, marrying firstROBERT, then LAMBERT (d.979), then GEOFFREY; and Adela marryingLAMBERT (d.978) then GEOFFREY, which would mean Adela married bothher stepfathers. [There is evidently some confusion between Adelaide &Adela.]The above note leads to the opinion , held by some, that this Adelaidemarried ROBERT, then LAMBERT, then her son-in-law GEOFFREY. Thesequence of events for this most unusual web of intermarriages wouldbe as follows:950 ROBERT C OF TROYES m. Adelaide of Burgundy & dau. ADELE born.
965 GEOFFREY GREYMANTLE (age 28) m. ADELE OFVERMANDOIS/TROYES (age 15).967 ROBERT died and his widow almost immediately m. LAMBERT.975/8 ADELE died and her widower, GEOFFREY, m. after a wait of 1 to5 years, his deceased wife's newly widowed mother,Adelaide of Burgundy.979 LAMBERT died. His widow, Adelaide, as stated above, then m. ,
almost immediately, her son-in-law, GEOFFREY.

As a dissenting opinion re. her parentage:
Richard Borthwick posted tosoc.genealogy.medieval on 1 Dec 1996:Subject: Re: Gerberga, wife of Adalbert (was re. Welfs)"In her discussion of the counts of Chalons CBB [Constance BrittainBouchard *Sword, Mitre and Cloister: Nobility and the Church inBurgundy, 980-1198* (Ithica NY & London, Cornell University Press,1987)] says:"LAMBERT married a woman named Adelaide (*). While there is noevidence of her origins in the sources, scholars have repeatedly tried totie her to the family of GISELBERT, COUNT OF BURGUNDY [RIN 1232], bothbecause GISELBERT did have a daughter named Adelaide and the mother,as I have it, of the Adelaide mentioned in the following note - i.e. thewife of ROBERT, COUNT OF TROYES (RIN 1230)] and because they feel aneed to explain how LAMBERT could have LEGITIMATELY** succeeded toChalon#. I prefer to leave Adelaide's origins unknown; since LAMBERT'ssuccession to Chalon was recognised by the king, he did not need ahereditary claim by his wife to legitimize his rule(##).LAMBERT died in 978, and his wife Adelaide quickly married GEOFFREYGREYMANTLE, count of Anjou. GEOFFREY acted as count of Chalon from979 until his own death in 989 (*). ..." p.307f.* Source regerences./ ** She uses italics to make the emphasis# A long footnoted discussion of who has said what on the subject.
## Reference."