General Notes

Note: Based in part on the following posts to SGM, I am making Matilda Hugh IX's wife and  mother of Hugh X.  The fact that Hugh X became Count of Angouleme certainly adds to the case that his mother was Matilda, and not some 1st wife who was proposed as a solution to a problem, which goes away if Raoul is Hugh IX's uncle instead of brother.  I am actually making Raoul his 1st cousin, son of his uncle Geoffrey.

--------------------------------------

The following is excerpted from a post to SGM, 3 Aug 1999, by Dave Utzinger:

From: UTZ@@aol.com (UTZ@@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Mahaut and Isabelle of Angouleme
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1999/08/03

HUGH IX (-1219) de Lusignan; Ct LA MARCHE; The Brown; One reference states he was Count Poitou; engaged to Isabella Taillefeur of Angouleme, but in 1200, when she was in the care of HUGH'S uncle, Count of EU, she was taken by his feudal lord King JOHN of England who wed her at Bordeaux in August (subsequently 5 issue) HUGH formed an alliance with PHILIP II King of France against King JOHN resulting in JOHN's loss of his continental possessions.  HUGH may have married Agetha de Preuilly, but most references show he m Matilda, daughter of WULGRIM III count ANGOULEME & sister to YMER/AIMAR/AUDEMOR Ct ANGOULEME the father of Isabella Taillefeur.  It has been claimed that Matilda was his 2nd wife and that his issue were by a previous wife, perhaps Agetha?

--------------------------------------

The following is a post to SGM, 16 Mar 1999, by Todd Farmerie, which illustrates the ideas behind the debate over the Lusignan pedigree at this point:

From: Todd A. Farmerie (taf2@@po.cwru.edu)
Subject: Re: de Lusignan, another glitch...?
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 1999/03/16

Kathie Weigel wrote:
>
> Weis' A.R. 117-27 shows the marriage of Isabella, widow of King John, to
> Hugh X de Lusignan...Count of La Marche and Angouleme, "son of
> Hugh IX de Lusignan but by another wife, not Matilda, daughter
> of Wulgrim III..."
>
> However, Weis 123-28 shows Alice d'Eu marrying Raoul I de Lusignan...
> Count d'Eu, "bro. Hugh IX and son of Hugh d.y. (son of Hugh VIII,
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sire de Lusignan and wife Bourgogne)"
>

OK, first of all I have to take the credit or blame for this one, having supplied the correction to Sheppard, based on the work of Sidney Painter.

Painter argued that:

1) there was an extra Hugh in the pedigree, son of Hugh VIII and father of Hugh IX.  He died v.p. (he was also young, in that he wasn't exactly old, but was an adult).

2) that Ralph, Count of Eu was brother of Hugh IX (and hence son of the new Hugh)

3) since Ralph married the heiress of Eu prior to the marriage of Hugh to Matilda, one must ask why such a valuable heiress was not married by Hugh himself, rather than his younger brother.  He concluded that Hugh must have already been married. 

4) for chronological and consanguity reasons, Hugh X was more likely to be son of this earlier wife than of Matilda, his own wife's first cousin, who Hugh IX didn't marry until after Isabella dumped him for John.

> So where does Hugh X, alleged son of Hugh IX fit in if the "son of Hugh
> died young"?

The Hugh who "died young" was the father of Hugh IX, not his son.  Hugh X was son of Hugh IX.

> Since Raoul only appeared to be the Count of Eu, and not
> that of La Marche and Angouleme, the reference to his brother and a deceased
> son seems irrelevant, but it certainly appears to contradict 117-27. Can
> anyone shed light on this?

So Ralph, by this reconstruction, would be younger brother of Count Hugh IX.  I should note that ES has instead placed Ralph as younger brother of the Hugh, d.v.p, son of Hugh VIII and uncle of Hugh IX.  This might explain his marriage to the Eu heiress rather than his nephew, and eliminate the argument for Hugh IX having an earlier wife.  I have not seen the placement of Ralph argued since Painter's article, so I don't know the basis for the ES placement.

taf