General Notes

[Ancestry.com Tree #28319.FTW]

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 been persuadedthat two individuals have probably been combined into one. Forconvenience sake, I leave her in my database as one person. An excerptfrom one of the postings sums it up best:
Matman posted to soc.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 ROBERT OF TROYESand son Heribert in a charter of 949. There is no problem with this. Thedifference of opinion is whether this Adelaide is the same as the wife ofLAMBERT who later married GEOFFREY. Most historians have shied away frommaking this assumption, eg Maurice Chaume (who was otherwise much givento speculation) in his 'The Origins of Burgundy' 1925, Werner in anarticle in Die Welt als Geschicht, 1960, p107-13 (especially p111), andmore recently Constance Bouchard, 'Sword and Mitre'.
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, butonly just. I don't know how common it was for noblewomen to give birthafter 40.
Secondly if she only married LAMBERT after 967, then any children fromthat marriage could not have been born before that. But ADALBERT OF ITALYfirst husband of GERBERGA had died by 975 at the latest, and OTTO-WILLIAMwas their son. So clearly if one accepts that Adelaide was one person,one has to find different parents for GERBERGA. Some have got round thisby making GERBERGA a daughter of LAMBERT by an earlier wife. As LAMBERTfirst appears in 944, and is called count in 959, this may not beimpossible.
Lastly, I may be naive about this, but even in the tenth century, a caseof a mother marrying her son-in-law would be exceptional (no?) and arousecomment, 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 as
her 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 has
Adelaide as the daughter of GISELBERT OF CHALONS etc, marrying first
ROBERT, then LAMBERT (d.979), then GEOFFREY; and Adela marrying
LAMBERT (d.978) then GEOFFREY, which would mean Adela married both
her stepfathers. [There is evidently some confusion between Adelaide &
Adela.]

The above note leads to the opinion , held by some, that this Adelaide
married ROBERT, then LAMBERT, then her son-in-law GEOFFREY. The
sequence of events for this most unusual web of intermarriages would
be as follows:
950 ROBERT C OF TROYES m. Adelaide of Burgundy & dau. ADELE born.
965 GEOFFREY GREYMANTLE (age 28) m. ADELE OF VERMANDOIS/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 to
5 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 to
soc.genealogy.medieval on 1 Dec 1996:
Subject: Re: Gerberga, wife of Adalbert (was re. Welfs) "In herdiscussion of the counts of Chalons CBB [Constance Brittain Bouchard*Sword, Mitre and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy,980-1198* (Ithica New York & London, Cornell University Press, 1987)]says:
"LAMBERT married a woman named Adelaide (*). While there is no evidenceof her origins in the sources, scholars have repeatedly tried to tie herto the family of GISELBERT, COUNT OF BURGUNDY [RIN 1232], both becauseGISELBERT did have a daughter named Adelaide and the mother, as I haveit, of the Adelaide mentioned in the following note - i.e. the wife ofROBERT, COUNT OF TROYES (RIN 1230)] and because they feel a need toexplain how LAMBERT could have LEGITIMATELY** succeeded to Chalon#. Iprefer to leave Adelaide's origins unknown; since LAMBERT's succession toChalon was recognised by the king, he did not need a hereditary claim byhis wife to legitimize his rule(##).
LAMBERT died in 978, and his wife Adelaide quickly married GEOFFREY
GREYMANTLE, count of Anjou. GEOFFREY acted as count of Chalon from
979 until his own death in 989 (*). ..." p.307f.
* Source regerences./ ** She uses italics to make the emphasis # A longfootnoted discussion of who has said what on the subject.
## Reference."WFT 7, Tree #0161 says Adelaide, not Werea De Vergy.

JHM Notes -
WFT 7, #3141, says Ermengard of BurgundyWho is her mother?

      The Directory of Royal Genealogy - Daughter of Burgundy, dau ofHugh the Black, Duke of Burgundy
       WFT12. Tree #0472 - Ermengrd of Dijon, dau of Eliran Ct. of Dijon
       WFT 4, 0, & 22 (Tree #1246) says Irmgard Autun, dau of Richard "LeJusticiare" Duke of Burgundy

This tree used Irmgard Autun - it has detached her as dau of Ermengard ofDijon, and information about Hugh the Black has not been entered.


Maloney, Hendrick & Others - J. H. Maloney