1535944

[MARSHALL.FTW]

SOURCE NOTES:
Borthwick, Richard, Konrad, Duke of Swabia d.997, posting to GEN-MEDIEVAL
10/6/98. Author address: rgbor@@cyllene.uwa.edu.au.

Borthwick, Richard, Kuno Count vonOehningen Query, posting to GEN-MEDIEVAL
1/24/97. Author address: rgbor@@cyllene.uwa.edu.au.

Moriarty, George Andrews, Plantagenet Ancestry of King Edward III And Queen
Philippa. Salt Lake: Mormon Pioneer Genealogical Society, 1985. LDS
Film#0441438. nypl#ARF-86-2555.

Weis, Frederick Lewis, Ancestral Roots of Sixty Colonists, 6th Edition,
Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co, 1988.
RESEARCH NOTES:
The following are some of the key relevant works. I give them in debating (and
chronological) order. Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Between
the publication of [5] and [6] the debate got very heated (to put it mildly).
[6] gives the literature for this interval. Anyway, what I list below is what
I myself have read in detail. [6] answers (successfully in my view) the
critics of [5] but goes beyond [5] in the range of genealogical and historical
issues discussed.
[1] Karl Schmidt "Probleme um den 'Grafen Kuno von Oehningen' in *Dorf und
Stift Oehningen* (1966) edited by Herbert Berner, pp.43-93.
[2] Armin Wolf "Were war Kuno von 'Oehningen'?" in *Deutches Archiv*, 1980
vol.36, pp.25-81.
[3] Eduard Hlawitschka "Wer waren Kuno und Richlind von Oehningen? Kritische
Ueberlegungen zu einen neuen Identifitzierungsvorschlag" pp.1-49 in
*Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins* vol.128, 1980.
[4] Eduard Hlawitschka "Die Thronkandidaturen von 1002 und 1024: Gruendeten
sie im Verwandtenanspruch oder in Vorstellungen von freier Wahl?" in *Reich
und Kirche vor dem Inventiturstreit*(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1985) edited
by Karl Schmidt, pp.49-64.
[5] Donald C Jackman *The Konradiner: A Study in Genealogical Methodology*
(Vittorio Klostermann: Frankfurt am Main, 1990).
[6] Donald C Jackman *Criticism and Critique: Sidelights on the Konradiner
(Prosopographica et Genealogica: Oxford, 1997).
The idea that Konrad (d.997) is identical with Kuno von Oehningen has been
around for some time. The sticking points have been: (a) the difficulty in
interpreting the *Historia Welforum* and the *Genealogia Welforum* which are
the only sources (apart from a spurious charter founding the collegiate church
at Oehningen) for the pair Kuno (a hypochorism of Konrad) and Richlint. She is
claimed to be a daughter of emperor Otto I and yet there is no other evidence
of an imperial daughter of that name. (b) A person called Judith is the
attested wife of a duke Konrad (usually taken to be Konrad duke of Swabia).
(c) that despite (a) and (b) all the evidence suggests that either Kuno never
existed (which does not seem plausible - why invent him?) or he is identical
with duke Konrad of Swabia. (d) the debate about the extent to which ducal
and comital rights were heritable. Quite a bit turns on this for the Jackman
reconstruction of the Konradiner genealogy (the main elements of which have
been adopted by ES I.1). But Hlawitschka and others have contested any such
heritability. (e) that no marriage could be admitted that was within the
degrees 3:4 following the canonical rules. Jackman shows that customary law
permitted 3:3 marriages and that the Church reluctantly aquiesced.
Wolf [2] bit the bullet and presented an elaborate argument which made the
identification. Judth gets ditched and Richlint is identified as a
granddaughter of Otto I (daughter of Liudolf). Hlawitschka's reply [3]
suggested that this could not work but in [4] he too accepted the
identification of Kuno and Konrad but ditched Richlint. Jackman [5] shows that
there are two Konrads both dukes (one of Alsace and the second of Swabia &
Alsace). Judith is identified as wife of Konrad (I) duke of Alsace and
Richlint that of Konrad (II) duke of Swabia. On the reality of Richlint see
especially [6] ch.II. Jackman's discussion of the sources in [5] ch.II is
fascinating and instructive. I would suggest that [6] really does require some
familiarity with [5] - the methodology is crucial. Both are in print.
In [6] in a discussion of succession rights to the Holy Forest (sounds like
something out of germanic mythology!) Jackman revises his view in [5] that
Kunigunde von Oehningen m. Friedrich von Diessen and sees her as an inferable
ancestor of the Staufer (marrying Friedrich count palatine of Swabia (d.1030).
Also he in [5] makes (contrary to ES I.1) Konrad count in the Ortenau ancestor
of the counts of Rheinfelden rather than his sister Judith (who is identified
with the wife of Adalbert count of Metz). [Ref: Richard Borthwick 10/6/98]

I was hoping that someone with rather more expertise on the vexed subjects of
the identity of Kuno von Oehningen and that of his wife Richlint might put
finger to keyboard. I know of no scholarly discussion of this subject in
English, but it has received substantial treatment in German. The substantial
articles and essays are:
Karl Schmidt "Probleme um den 'Grafen Kuno von Oehningen' in *Dorf und Stift
Oehningen* (1966) edited by Herbert Berner, pp.43-93. Armin Wolf "Were war
Kuno von 'Oehningen'?" in *Deutches Archiv*, 1980 vol.36, pp.25-81.
Eduard Hlawitschka "Wer waren Kuno und Richlind von Oehningen? Kritische
Ueberlegungen zu einen neuen Identifitzierungsvorschlag" pp.1-49 [of a journal
whose title etc I have unfortunately lost]
Eduard Hlawitschka "Die Thronkandidaturen von 1002 und 1024: Gruendeten sie
im Verwandtenanspruch oder in Vorstellungen von freier Wahl?" in *Reich und
Kirche vor dem Inventiturstreit*(Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1985) edited by
Karl Schmidt, pp.49-64
The third article is a reply to Wolf. All of these articles recite the
relevant portions of the *Genealogia Welforum* and *Historia Welforum* and the
relevant charters. The last article is the most recent of the batch. The
present picture seems to be that Kuno (which name is a short form variant of
'Konrad') is to be identified with Konrad (b.925/30 d.20/8/997) duke of Swabia
father of Hermann II. The problem is Richlind. The charter in which she is
mentioned is a proven fabrication and that her mention in the GW an invention.
Konrad of Swabia had a proven wife, Judith. In the last article by
Hlawitschka, he presents a very clever and plausible reconstruction of
Judith's ancestry. If he is correct then she was indeed related to the emperor
Otto I. According to the reconstruction Judith would be Otto's 1st cousin
twice removed. On her mother's side she would be the great granddaughter of
one of Otto's paternal uncles (i.e. a brother of king Henry the Fowler). The
point seems to be that the GW etc in assigning an alleged daughter of Otto as
the wife of Kuno von Oehningen were indicating that Kuno's wife had blood ties
with the royal dynasty ('koenigsnahe') and in this these sources were correct.
What was mistaken was the name and precise relationship to the dynasty. In any
event if Kuno is identical with duke Konrad, he would have had something that
even the current Saxon dynasty did not, koenigsnahe with the Carolingians (his
mother was one such). This is a mere sketch of what I take to be the present
state of play. The debate may of course have moved on since I researched the
subject (about 1990). If Kuno is identical with Konrad of Swabia then it
would seem that he has an interesting array of children. Part of the problem
of Kuno's identity was that his children married into the highest levels of
the nobility which suggested that he was something more than the mere lord of
Oehningen. Kuno/Konrad would have been about 52/57 when he became duke so he
would have been known as a count in the Rheingau (949) and lord of Oehningen.
I hope this is not misleading and of some help. [Ref: Richard Borthwick
1/24/97]