Renaud II (III), Comte de Clermont en Beauvaisis - Renaud II (III) of Clermont could not be born 7 years after his father Hugues' death (and when his mother was then 63 years old)

It looks like this one has all the right data, except it should be Renauld III (not II). And Renaud II's profile needs to be created and inserted between this one and his grandfather, Hugh. Renaud I is Hugh's father.

I don't think it will need any drastic revising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaud_II,_Count_of_Clermont-en-Beauv...

I think what I should have said, was this profile is fine as Renaud II, except the lifespan on it should be 1075-1152.

Then, Renaud III b. ca.1108.

Then finally Renaud de Clermont (with no marriage or issue) b.estimated between 1113 and 1167

Renaud de Clermont

I hope it's not real bad, because they're on one of my direct lines.

Renaud de Clermont

Another one, married to the mother of the profile in question. I think you're right, the whole family tree needs to be cleaned up, with proper sources cited on each and every one. Whether they're factual or not, we can't know for certain unless we take the time to research it ourselves. But that should have been done when these profiles were created to begin with. It's a lot more difficult and time consuming to clean up someone else's mess, than to do it right the first time.

If I got paid to do it, I'd quit my day job and work on this full-time. But I know that ain't happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Clermont

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_of_Clermont-en-Beauvaisis

House of Clermont

Renaud I of Clermont (1042–1088), son-in-law of Baldwin II

Hugh of Clermont (1088–1101), son of Renaud I

I'm unable to match any Geni profiles with any on this Wikipedia list. And most of the Geni profiles I've found in this area so far, are devoid of references.

Here's yet another one.

Renaud, Comte de Clermont-En-Beauvais

A lot of duplicates.

Renaud II of Clermont (1101–1161), son of Hugh I

Raoul I of Clermont (1162–1191), son of Renaud II and Constable of France

House of Clermont

Renaud I of Clermont (1042–1088), son-in-law of Baldwin II

Hugh of Clermont (1088–1101), son of Renaud I

Renaud II of Clermont (1101–1161), son of Hugh I

Raoul I of Clermont (1162–1191), son of Renaud II and Constable of France

(Sorry, the list I copied off Wikipedia was supposed to look like this.)

I tried to reconcile all the info in geni, and Wikipedia, and I think Wikipedia is clearly wrong in having Hugh. In your last list above, Renaud I born when father is 12 or 13, and Raoul II born when father is 60 or 61, not even considering ages of wives. I made some changes to the material from geni and Wikipedia and did add Renaud II 1075- with son Renaud III 1108-, this made Renaud II the spouse of Agnes and Renaud III spouse of Clemence of BAr the elder and father of Clemence the younger. It all looks consistent to me. Shall I send you a screen print of the profiles of what I came upo with? It makes sense, but doesn't use original sources, just the info the internet listings provided. Regarding documentation, I think the main issue is whether there is indeed documentary material supporting that the widower of Agnes married Clemence, which I don't expect is the case.

Yes, if you can send the screen print to my message inbox, or just post an image of it on the Media for this profile. You can always remove it later if you wish.

I just got here, and I'd like to spend some time this evening searching some old history and genealogy books for some primary sources (I'm leery about using information that doesn't cite references to back them up). If I find anything useful I'll be happy to share it here.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention that the person [Renaud II (III)] represented by this particular profile was NOT "born 1108". He was actually born "CIRCA" 1108. It does make a difference, genealogically speaking because it means he still is probably Hugues' son. Someone was just being very careful about reporting facts accurately. If you don't have the documentation handy for the exact date, you might still have enough documentation to make an estimate, as in this case.

I wouldn't make any drastic changes based on the "circa 1108" birth date.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/parclerdam.htm

It's a start. I'm still looking for old records, though.

Here's a nice French genealogical chart for the family, by Etienne Pattou (c. 2004).

http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/Clermont-Beauvaisis-Nesle.pdf

1. Renaud I de Creil (b. ca.1010 - d. after 1098)
Grand-Chambrier (ou Chambellan) de France (27/04/1048)

m. Ermentrude (Ermengarde) de Clermont

2. Hugues II de Clermont (aka Hugues I Creil ou de Senlis) called "de Mouchy" (b. ca.1030 in Clermont, Beavaisis, France - d. March, 1101)

m. Marguerite de Roucy, de Ramerupt OR Madeleine, d’Arcis

3. Renaud II de Clermont (ca.1075-78 -- before 1162 (ca.1152-56-61 ?), 1st comte de Clermont-en-Beauvaisis (1101-03, per Philippe I, by the rights of his wife)

m. ca.1102-03 Adélaïde (Alix) comtesse de Vermandois, Valois et Crépy

m. Clémence de Bar ca.1115-20-27 -- after 20/01/1182-83 comtesse de Dammartin

4. ) Raoul I "Le Roux" de Clermont (ca.1130 - 15/10/1191 (killed in battle at Acre, during the crusades) comte de Clermont en Beauvaisis

m. ca.1153-55 Alix (Adélaïde) de Breteuil (d. 1195-96-97)

Beyond Renaud II, author of this chart, Etienne Pattou, reported only Renaud de Clermont (b. ca.1129 - d. 1152), Raoul's NEPHEW (son of Etienne de Clermont), who should be (according to Pattou), Renaud III.

There was also on this pedigree an ancient "Renaud de Creil [not Clermont]" (b. ca.965-70 -- d. ca.1047) , who was the grandfather of Renaud I de Creil, de Clermont (husband of Ermantrude de Clermont), whom I listed first in this line.

But you know what, Stephen M Clauser -- I see now that you were absolutely right: The birth date here is probably wrong. It should be as on Wikipedia and also on this chart produced by Pattou, 1075-1078. The death year is apparently correct.

It took me awhile, but I finally caught on. I would still like to find some old records, for corroboration.

However, the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy's data is quite different, imho. And I'm not sure what their sources are. So you may want to look at that, too.

I'll feel better if I can find an old genealogical tome (I think I know of one, but it's late now, so maybe tomorrow). The one I'm thinking of is one I'm supposed to have in my collection but can't find yet. it's packed full of ancient pedigree charts.

HI, thank you for the quite response and this extensively informative link.
However, Clemence had two earlier husbands, the second of whom Lancelin II of Beauvais/Beauvaisis died 1134, which would be inconsistent with this chart showing two children born with Renaud II in 1130 and 1134. There may be other inconsistencies with the other marriages of some of these people- even if they are internally inconsistent they should be consistent with the other marriages. It’s very time consuming. I’ll look again tomorrow and go through all these links again. I haven’t accessed the Foundation’s charts so I’ll try to check those out tomorrow too. If we can find a contemporary document showing Renaud II married both Adelaide of Vermandois and Clemence of Bar that would be a good anchor for the other interpretations; but I still think that because at least two curated sources have such wildly different dob’s for Renaud II, they must have each had a documentary basis for a Renaud being born around those two very different dates, possibly different Renaud’s; and the second wife of Renaud was 37 to 52 years younger than he yet bore him 4 children after her own two previous marriages, while his daughter by his first marriage was born1104/5 while he has his second wife Clemence as born 1115/20/27 (I have 1106 from other sources. Pattou’s prominent displays of heraldry make me quite casually suspect he is interested in genealogy to support the heraldry rather than v-v., and he doesn’t tie any of his findings to specific sources

I agree we should fact check the dates, and I'll provide any sources I might find in my research. It would be wonderful if an interested Curator could also lend a hand and perhaps some advice as well.

However, it is not at all uncommon for a woman of that era to die the same year of the birth of her last child. Women died in childbirth fairly often in those days.

Nor is it very far-fetched for a young woman of that era to become widowed repeatedly, then marry a wealthy older gentleman. My g-aunt bore her fourth child at age 40, and her husband was 60 at the time.

Hi, I did check Medieval Lands, which itself may be the source of these discrepancies. I agree of course that relative ages alone have no intrinsic meaning; and its not that Clemence or anyone died in same year as last child, it is problematic that her second husband is living to 1134 but her chart shows a child born 1130 by the purported much much older third husband she married in 1135 when she was only 8 to 12, an unaddressed discrepancy both in Medieval Lands and Pattou; and also, her daughter Clemence (II) by her second husband was a great heiress , so it's not clear how a 3rd marriage for Clemence to the much older and perhaps much less wealthy Renaud would increase her prospects or safety. Thus, I think it is the genealogy of Clemence of Bar, and her daughter of the same name, the heiress, born with Clemence (I)'s second husband, which might best shed light on this- either there is convincing evidence of a marriage of this particular Clemence to Renaud, or not, and if she did, her own origins should be identified along with a new date of birth (which must be consistent with her parents' dates too). I'll have to study the Medieval Lands entries more carefully, they of course cite all the supporting data but it will take some serious note-keeping to separate which sources establish which events, and identify how those documented events lead to these inconsistent facts or to other possible new events/dates.

Okay, sounds like fun :) But remember that nobles often contracted marriages for their young children, long before they were allowed to cohabit and consummate such unions. So being married at age 8-12 really wasn't uncommon in Medieval society, was only a legality, and only meant that she was basically "engaged" to her future husband.

In records of that era, keep in mind that there was usually a record for bond or legal contract of marriage (like a marriage license, nowdays). But most marriages weren't consummated until after a separate church ceremony (i.e. "wedding"), when a marriage was then recorded within ecclesiastical (church or clerical) records.

Hi, Debra and Stephen! I'm one of the curators who works in the medieval part of the Geni tree and I curate some of these profiles. Generally, in terms of sources, we have followed the genealogical structure set out by Charles Cawley in the Medieval Lands Database (Foundation for Medieval Genealogy), which is based upon a critical interpretation of primary sources, which are all footnoted, supplemented by following the guidance of medieval genealogy specialists such as Katherine Keats-Rohan, Peter Stewart, Douglas Richardson, and Rosie BEvan (often from articles published--Keats-Rohan--or from discussions in the online group soc.gen.medieval, a former listserv which is now indexed as a Google Group). While Wikipedia is often helpful in pointing us to new scholarly sources, it is not usually the main source for us.

I haven't looked at this line in a year or two, and I will be glad to do so, add more source documents (please always read the narrative in the Overview tab, which is where we curators generally provide our source information), and make sure incorrect figures haven't become merged into the tree.

Currently, the chain of father to son on Geni (based on Master Profiles, which are the only ones that should concern you unless a person is missing a Master Profile) are:

--Hildouin de Breteuil, Vicomte de Chartres 970-1060 m. Emmeline NN
--Renaud I de Breteuil, Seigneur de Creil 1010-1098 m. Ermengardis de Clermont 1008-1050
--Hugues I de Breteuil, Comte de Clermont 1030-1101 m Marguerite de Ramerupt 1045-c1110
--Renaud II (III), Comte de Clermont (bef 1108-1162) m. Adele de Vermandois & Clemence de Bar

Charles Cawley (http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/parclerdam.htm) currently has a
--Renaud I (died bef. 1047)
--Hugues I (died after 1057)
--Renaud II (died after 1058) m. Ermentrude
--Hugues II (died aft. Nov 1099) m. Margaret de Ramerupt
--Renaud III (died bef 1162), Count of Clermont, m. Adelais de Vermandois and Clemence de Bar

As for your speculation that there is a missing generation between this latter Hugh (Hugues in French) and Renaud, it appears that several primary sources confirm that Renaud was the son of Hugh. Your concern about the 1108 birth year brings up an important issue to realize about genealogy and history in this period--we rarely know what year someone was born. The dates of their deaths (either before or after certain events which have been recorded) are much more certain. For that reason, I wouldn't worry about birth years--in fact, as a curator, I often remove them since someone probably just guesstimated them. Unless there is some event documenting or determining a birth year (e.g. the death of a parent is a good outer edge!), then you really can't determine it. People didn't have birth certificates back then. ;^)

Here's a post I found from Douglas Richardson. He also agrees that the sources place Renaud as Hugh's son. This discussion was about whether Hugh was also a Count of Clermont.

Medieval genealogy specialist Douglas Richardson writes in Soc.Gen.Medieval on 7 May 2012:

there is a charter of Renaud, Count of Clermont, dated 1152, in which he mentions "pater suus Hugo de Claremonte et Margarita mater ejus, et comites Cestrenses Hugo et Richardus ..."

See the following weblink for this charter:

http://books.google.com/books?id=phcOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA64

The only interpretation I can give the wording of the 1152 charter is
that Hugh de Claremont was not a count, but that Hugh and Richard were
Earls of Chester. If Hugh de Claremont was truly a count, I find it
inexplicable why his son, Renaud, would not accord that title to his
father in this document. However, not only did Renaud not refer to
his father as count, but neither did his two sisters or his brother-in-
law, Hugh, Earl of Chester, in their respective charters.

I further note that Lucay, Le Comté de Clermont en Beauvaisis (1878):
11 indicates that following Hugh de Claremont's death after 1102, his
son and heir, Renaud, first appears in 1114, as "seigneur de
Claremont" at the dedication of the Collégiale in that town. For
reference to that record, see the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QMonAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA11

Had Renaud been Count of Clermont in 1114, he surely would have been
so styled in this record. Given this evidence, I have to assume that
Hugh de Claremont was not a Count at the time of his death sometime
after 1102. Rather he was only "seigneur of Claremont," and was
succeeded by his son, Renaud, as "seigneur" not Count of Claremont.

I hope this helps!

Pam

P. S. I want to say that you have raised some very interesting and important questions in discussing these issues. The main advice I have is to not be as concerned with the birthdates and to realize that they are usually just guessed by someone somewhere and then have been inserted into Geni. However, if possible, we need to keep vigilant, as you're doing, to try to document dates and to raise red flags when they are inconsistent.

I appreciate it very much, Pam, thank you!