On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 5:47:55 AM UTC-7, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote: > I've looked at this > (gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5424948p/f384.image), but of course I > don't speak or read French, more's the pity. Anyone who felt like > offering a translation would certainly bask in my appreciation. > (My translation, with a few liberties) Lautrec is a viscounty in Languedoc, in the Diocese of Castres that gave its name to one of the most ancient families of the kingdom that, we are told by a Memoir, consists of two branches, established in Gaillac (in Albigeois), and at Castres. The origins of this family has been of frequent interest to scholars and genealogists. It is accepted that Bertrand and Sicard, brothers and Viscounts of Lautrec in the 13th century gave rise to the branches of the family, and there is agreement that they descend from the ancient Counts of Toulouse. Olharagay suggested Raymond III, Count of Toulouse,was brother of Baldwin, Viscount of Lautrec, father of Peter (husband of Alice de Lautrec), who had Bertrand and Sicard. Borrel in his Antiquities de Castres, suggested that Baldwin was son of Raymond III. Labbe & Louvet thought Baldwin was son of Bertrand by the Countess of Rabastens, and was grandson of Raymond VI. He married Alice de Lautrec, heiress of the ancient viscounts ans through her the name and arms of Lautrec passed.As a result, their son Frotard was Viscount and passed the name and arms to his children Bertrand and Sicard. Finally others, following the authors of Histoire de Languedoc, simplify this descent, saying that Baldwin, son of Raymond, was put to death for taking up arms against his brother Raymond VI and his property confiscated. He is supposed to have married Alice de Lautrec, on whom the inheritance of the Viscounty of Lautrec devolved through the death of Frotard, her unmarried brother. They conclude that Bertrand and Sicard are sons of Baldwin, who by reason of the confiscation only inherited Lautrec. THey see confirmation of this in the seals of Sicard's children, observing that of the three brothers, one uses the arms of Toulouse; the second those of Lautrec, and the third quarters Toulouse and Lautrec, and they conclude, with good reason, that they would not have dared use the arms of Toulouse were they not of this house. (brief summary of rest) (Even though some uninformed hacks call it an invention, in the 14th century their descent from the Counts was known, and in the 15th they stated it before the Parliament of Toulouse. The marriage contract of Baldwin and Alix was said to have survived in Carcassonne. Finally the houses of Ambres and Arpajon, intermarried with the Lautrec in the 14th century, quartered Toulouse, demonstrating Lautrec were linked to the Counts.) > What I do note from a fairly simple Google search is that lots of > modern historians appear to take it as established that Baldwin de > Toulouse was a son of Raymond V de Toulouse by his wife Constance, > daughter of Louis VI, and thus a brother to the Raymond VI who had him > murdered. Example: > https://books.google.com/books?id=eTEj0T6u7zUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=baldwin+of+toulouse+executed+1212&source=bl&ots=UbCjULBP5r&sig=SlTXBa-fgZKXj1wKKS_OVF5AAwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjswbnHgcvNAhWJ2D4KHYPJApQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=baldwin%20of%20toulouse%20executed%201212&f=false > > > Is this a case of something that was an open question in 1867 having > been resolved in more modern times? Or is it a case of historians > simply not paying attention to genealogists, and continuing to > propagate a centuries-old assumption regardless of lack of evidence, or > even evidence discrediting it? They are probably just following the most accessible source, Histoire de Languedoc, not realizing this only represents one of several solutions. taf

On 2016-06-29 21:01:55 +0000, taf said: > On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 5:47:55 AM UTC-7, Patrick Nielsen Hayden wrote: >> I've looked at this> >> (gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5424948p/f384.image), but of course I> >> don't speak or read French, more's the pity. Anyone who felt like> >> offering a translation would certainly bask in my appreciation. >> > > (My translation, with a few liberties) Thanks _very_ much for going to this amount of trouble. Very illuminating. >> What I do note from a fairly simple Google search is that lots of> >> modern historians appear to take it as established that Baldwin de> >> Toulouse was a son of Raymond V de Toulouse by his wife Constance,> >> daughter of Louis VI, and thus a brother to the Raymond VI who had him> >> murdered. Example:> >> https://books.google.com/books?id=eTEj0T6u7zUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=baldwin+of+toulouse+executed+1212&source=bl&ots=UbCjULBP5r&sig=SlTXBa-fgZKXj1wKKS_OVF5AAwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjswbnHgcvNAhWJ2D4KHYPJApQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=baldwin%20of%20toulouse%20executed%201212&f=false>>> >> Is this a case of something that was an open question in 1867 having> >> been resolved in more modern times? Or is it a case of historians> >> simply not paying attention to genealogists, and continuing to> >> propagate a centuries-old assumption regardless of lack of evidence, >> or> even evidence discrediting it? > > > They are probably just following the most accessible source, Histoire > de Languedoc, not realizing this only represents one of several > solutions. The more interested I become in genealogy, the more I realize that--generally speaking--historians, even very good ones, cannot be relied upon to be accurate about it. This is perhaps less of a shock than it might be, because early in our careers as book editors, my wife and I worked as associate editors of an encyclopedic reference series about literary history (specifically, the history of literary criticism), and had occasion to get deep into the weeds with other, similar reference works such as the Cambridge Guide to Literature in English. Which brought us face-to-face with the fact that almost all of these distinguished academic projects are shot through with jawdropping errors of easily-demonstrated fact. My current favorite example of this is the fact that the generally excellent Oxford _Dictionary of National Biography_, in its entry on Matilda, countess of Chester (d. 1189), mother of the much-discussed Hugh who was never actually called by his contemporaries "Cyfeiliog" ... says that she was a daughter of "Robert, earl of Gloucester (d. 1147), and Sibyl, the daughter of Roger de Montgomery, earl of Shrewsbury (d. 1157)". Between CP and various other reputable sources, I'm pretty sure that Sibyl, daughter of Roger de Montgomery, was not Robert's wife but his mother-in-law; Robert married her daughter Mabel fitz Hamon, who was the actual person who "d. 1157". The point isn't that Experts Suck; the point is that getting this stuff right is _hard_, and there isn't some chrome-and-titanium-plated tower of all-knowing geniuses out there making sure that everything that gets published is super-accurate and true. It's down to all of us, which is both pathetic and a little invigorating, when you think about it. -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden pnh@panix.com about.me/patricknh http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng/index.php