On 06-Sep-17 11:13 PM, deca0317@aol.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 8:06:19 AM UTC-4, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 06-Sep-17 7:22 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Judith's paternity is not controversial. The Life of Walteof affirms it was Lambert. See http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rober000.htm. >> This is the earliest source stating that Lambert was Judith's father - >> it is a 13th-century work following Orderic and containing errors. >> >> The controversy is real, based on the unreliability of the source and >> its derivatives and the problem that Judith was not Lambert's heiress. >> >> Peter Stewart > Below is a post by Douglas Richardson from 2009 that addresses the issue concerning the correct parentage of Countess Judith, niece of William the Conqueror. Hopefully it will help in this discussion. I personally believe that Richardson got this one correct. > > {“Dear Newsgroup ~ > > I have this sinking feeling of déjà vu. The same objection that is > being raised regarding Edgar the Atheling having had a daughter, > Margaret (as per the Chronicle of the Canons of Huntingdon) is the > VERY SAME objection raised sometime in the past regarding the > parentage of Countess Judith, the niece of William the Conqueror. In > Huntingdon chronicle, Judith is named as the daughter of Lambert of > Lens [see Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History, 2 (1922): 28, > which specifically reads: "Ivetta, who was the daughter of Lambert, > the count of Lens."]. A snippet view of this text may be viewed at > the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=6X5nAAAAMAAJ&dq=Early+Sources+ofScottish+History&q=Lambert&pgis=1#search_anchor > > Elsewhere, Countess Judith is likewise styled "Ivettam, filliam > comitis Lamberti de Lens, sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de > Albemarlia" in a 13th Century account of the life of her husband, > Earl Waltheof [see Vita et passio venerabilis viri Gualdevi comitis > Huntendonie et Norhantonie, in Chron. Anglo-Normandes, vol. 2, pg. > 112]. > > Regardless some genealogists scratched their heads and even a few > historians doubted that Judith was the daughter of Lambert of Lens. > Regardless, after verifying that Lambert of Lens existed and that the > chronology permitted him to be the father of Countess Judith, the > Huntingdon Chronicle is now accepted as accurate by all reliable > historians. In any case, it would be highly unlikely that the Canons > of Huntingdon would make up a phony story that Countess Judith was > Lambert's daughter. Hardly, by a long stretch - the editor of the work that Richardson linked to did not accept it for a start. Look at the index, p. 758, and you will find 'Judith (or Ivetta), dau. Odo of Champagne and Adelaide, sis. k. William I; w. Waltheof, s. Siward': no mention of Lambert. Sources need to be evaluated. Scholars were never in doubt that Lambert of Lens existed - Richardson's supposition that 'reliable historians' needed to verify this in the context of Judith's paternity is misguided. The first source naming Lambert as a husband of Judith's mother is Vita Waldevi comitis (written after 1219), that added Lambert to information taken from Orderic who did not name him, and this was the unreliable basis for the Huntingdon chronicle (written after 1291). Many historians do not pay close attention to this kind of incidental question, or to the evaluation of sources peripheral to their main subject. Peter Stewart