General Notes

The following is excerpted from a post to SGM, 25 Oct 1999, by Todd Farmerie:

From: Todd A. Farmerie (taf2@@po.cwru.edu)
Subject: New article on Toulouse, Rouergue, Comminges, and Carcassonne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1999/10/25

As has discussed here in the past, there is a dark and confused period involving the Counts of Toulouse following the death of Raymond III Pons, and prior to the succession of William III, husband of Emma of Provence.  I just discovered an article which attempts to clarify the situation:

¿ Propos de la Comtesse Garsende: Nouvelles Propositions pour l'Hisoire de la Dynastie Toulousaine au Xe SiËcle.   Patrick de Latour.  Annales de Midi, 109: 337-355 (1997).

Presented as a defence of one of the three theories regarding the parentage of Garsende, it proceeds to argue that she was daughter of Garcia Sanchez, Count of Gascony, as suggested by the Roda Codex (the competing theories place her as daughter of Ermengaud of Rouergue, and first-cousin of her husband, or as daughter of Odon, vicomte of Narbonne). 

The author supports this view based on five arguments.  The first is the Roda document itself, which relates that 'Pons' Count of Toulouse married an unnamed daughter of Garcia Sanchez, having by him a son Raymond, who in turn had sons Raymond and Bishop Hugh.  The second argument is based on the tendancy to 'marry up' the social ladder - that Raymond would be likely to marry a daughter of a person of higher social status, a role that would apply to a daughter of Garcia.  The third point is based on the proposed passage of Comminges-Couserans from Gascony to Toulouse as dowery.  Next he presents what he considers to be a supporting pattern of partition and reacretion of Comminges-Couserans.  Finally, he presents an argument based on the donations by Garsende recorded in the cartulary of Lezat.  He then concluses with a chronology, as well as brief biographies of the Counts of Toulouse and Rouergue in this and immediately subsequent generations.

Unfortunately, in presenting the argument in favor of Garcia Sanchez as father of Garsende, the author failed to address the evidence which supports the alternative solutions.  In presenting an alternative, it is imperative that one address what evidence supports competing theories, and explain why that evidence can be disregarded, and failure to do this is a major flaw of this work.