Agnes Plantagenet - Did Empress Matilda actually have a daughter?

And other sources claim that Guy III married someone named Denise, or someone named Cecile, or they have no idea who....

Do we HAVE any primary sources for the early Lavals?

One problem seems to be that Guy II, III, IV and V keep getting all jambled up - and Guy IV himself appears to have compounded the confusion by referring to himself as Guy "V". http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/MAINE.htm#_Toc359777007

And if you parse the evidence a bit differently he ends up as Guy V ;)

Can't tell the players without a scorecard :-D

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famille_de_Laval
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuxi%C3%A8me_maison_de_Montmorency-Laval

http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/Regions/France/Montmorency.htm

Geoffroy V, Count of Anjou, Maine and Mortain
Henry I "Beauclerc", King of England
Nice pair of Tireless Tomcats....

My research shows she Empress Matilda did not have a daughter but 3 sons, but Geoffrey of Anjou, had mistresses that had daughters. Her other husband, Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, never had any children together.

Thank you for changing Agnes' profile Maven! I just thought it was really unlikely that there could have been a legitimate sister of Henry II that no one had ever heard of before.

http://www.dkdonovan.com/getperson.php?personID=I44512&tree=Main

http://avocadoridge.com/carney/getperson.php?personID=I6103&tre...

who was the mother?

http://www.dkdonovan.com/getperson.php?personID=I44516&tree=Main

Unknown Profile

Hamelin de Warenne, Earl of Surrey

We can be reasonably sure that neither Agnes nor Hamelin was the responsibility of the Dowager Empress Matilda.

There may, or may not, have been a "Matilda X" among his many mistresses - it *was* a relatively popular name at the time.

i do agree with you for this point madam Helms

for ap line pedegree its accepted .for this time it was ap line that was important ---) :( as the consort was not important ..,

to my knowledge a woman is sure 100% of the child she have ,,,for the father its alwayz the same questioning

for now we are dealing with english french royaltry .in the futur of geni more austria more danish more other royaltry family will be add we figure out the true lineage in time (with the full name+title)

The wretched (or feminist?) Empress was pretty well unique in her time in asserting her own right to be Queen of England, rather than asserting that her husband should be King by virtue of her marriage. One would therefore assume that any daughters would be unusually well documented. But in any case there was no guarantee that any of her sons would have surviving children, so any daughter would have been seen as a possible (if unlikely) route to the succession. I can;t remember any such suggestion.

Mark

Martin,

I heard that line a few years ago, you always know who the mother is, but the father is always a question.

I have two daughters I know for certain I am the father of, I have a court order saying I am.

Mr Klahn and probably a dna test also ..but at the time of our ancestor that was diferent men where not at home for long

((( myself i got childrens ..i dont need court order of any juridiction or dna test my child are my pur clone :P same head same face (they walk like me) hehehe

at the time this discusion is that was not for family party that was for the POWER ,,

thing have changed men now are more responsible

ps: your daughters i am sure they proud of the dad you are Mr Klahn

In so far as it is an issue, the question is whether genealogy is primarily about genes or primarily about families? Usually, a married woman who had a child other by than her husband was not likely to admit it, so the child was brought up by the couple as their own. The proportion of women cheating and having children thereby seems to have varied significantly by society, class, and period (say a range of 3%-10%). 3% is not significant in societies where the available choices of partners (by class, by social interaction, or by geography) is limited; an unacknowledged illegitimate child, or his/her close descendants, are likely to close cousins, and so share almost all of the same genes. Plus (without contraception) having your husband away for a long time is not a good recipe for cheating unless you live in very tolerant times; if he is away for a year and you give birth at the end of the year, he will know the child is not his (and so will all your neighbours). Much better to cheat while your husband is there. But (in, say, the sixteenth century, in houses which were small by modern standards, servants etc all over the place) it wasn't easy - though it happened.

Much easier if you were a peasant working in the fields, of course.

Mark

for i know and i dont know mutch about (new genealogy hobby) i think the family ancestry was important whenever the time was (1500 1600,,,,,,) but talking genealogical from paysan or aristocratic its just a passby(trying to get nobility)
surly you know the major diference mr Dickinson between
aristocratic and nobility aristocratie from/by nobility by heridity

some times ago that was decide to get true pedegree ancestry from AP male only (i repeate my own writing alot)

as queen(queen consort) have no right or little for most of we know( sure we know that men heridited land from marriage and got extra title also) but its not talk mutch

woman have alway keep power to decide
when we look at some pre aranged marriage it is ablolutly normal for a non aristocratic view to maybe pass the true gene to a (secrets host) today those are called illegitimate

but this illegetimacy is from wich point of view ?

and more we know from genealogy more we see family gravited toward the same other famlily beyond the branch of geni tree as we see them as illegetimate or consangine

i was out of the topic but i still think that mathilda X was a mother and a secret keeper from a big family (all legetimate)

Kings are a bit different - for some people it was a matter of *pride* to have a wife/sister/daughter who was a Royal Mistress, especially if they personally gained anything by the deal.

This was a fairly "early-period" idea, though, and gradually the Church shamed them out of it.

Illegitimacy (and women's property rights) were treated with hugely varying results at different times and different places in Western Europe. The idea that married women in England before 1066 could own, and leave, their property in their own right was thought shocking and absurd as late as the early ninetenth century, but it is clear that this is true from extant Anglo-Saxon wills.

The Empress Matilda's grandfather was illegitimate. Any chidren (and their spouses), whether legitimate or not, would have had some possibility of succeeding to the throne, and would have kept their ancestry clear.

Mark

Will a family finder dna test or Mtdna test will prove it or not?

i like to read a discution about legetimate line
or a project with profile it can be fun to look at

I do not claim to know about the science behind DNA testing. What is obvious from paper records is that paternal and maternal lines of recorded (or as Martin would say, supposed) ancestries often or even usually intertwine, so that while I might get a positive DNA test with my father I am unlikely to get a positive DNA test with my great (x whatever) grandfather which proves the intermediate steps, even if it seems to prove some sort of relationship.

I think a lot of DNA testing on internet genealogy is just profiteering.

Mark

i totaly agree 100% mr Dickinson

It´s like taking two sets of cards and then shuffle them, you never know the outcome, two brothers may end up as having just 50% in common,
as for the realibility I would consider max 5 generation, then it loses it's value. Every person is unique, and in the long aspect, unless you aren't a result of heavily inbred, you are related with the most of the person who lived 2000 years ago whos lineage survived to our days.
Just me thinking.

For example, a question. Sir John Seymour, of Wolf Hall (father-in-law of Henry VIII) notoriously had a lasting affair with his daughter-in-law, wife of Sir Edward Seymour, later Lord Protector. Sir Edward even had his "children " de-legitimised by Act of Parliament on the grounds that he could not tell whether they were his sons or his brothers. Could any DNA test resolve this?

Mark

@Agnes Plantagenet Does it really matter if a child is illegitimate or not? None of us are going to assend to any throne. I've found going back and finding out that I just may be a 26x granddaughter of someone in the 1100's is wonderful. History was never one of my strong suits in college, now I spend 4-6 hrs a night looking at the past and really don't care who ......who. I want to know it all. I want to find the blood line royal or not, because I'm already here and no past event is going to change that. I won't be a Queen except in my mind. If Matilda Maud is the mother great, if not than who is??? linda

I believe this discussion thread, may interest anyone in this discussion, interested in learning more about DNA, it's groupings and what or what not, it can find... in more detail.
It doesn't really begin, until page three, which is why I have decided to link, to this page... please, do, read on and especially note, the responses from Justin Swanstrom. ;-)

http://www.geni.com/discussions/144233?page=3

For the record: Ulf's "shuffling" metaphor refers to autosomal DNA (what you get from both parents).

Y-DNA is handed down father to son exclusively (Y chromosome, daughters can't have any), is *never* "reshuffled", and mutates relatively slowly.

mtDNA is handed down in the maternal line - first-generation sons can receive it but they can't pass it on. What with name changes etc. it is much harder to establish a paper trail for maternal line of descent, but it mutates even more slowly than Y-DNA.

I'm not as up on all the minutiae as Justin is (he's actively engaged in DNA research), but I think I have a good basic understanding.