Renaud de Courtenay, 2 people or 1?

Question

For many years the Renaud de Courtenay who is attested in France up to 1149, is thought to be the same person as Renaud de Courtenay who first appears in England in 1161. This version has Renaud quarrelling with Louis VII King of France perhaps in supporting his then wife Eleanor of Aquitaine, and is deprived of his territories and exiled.  Courtenay and presumably other territories were inherited by his daughter Elisabeth, who was promptly married to Pierre, one of Louis' younger brothers, and they founded a younger line of the Courtenay family who were Emperors of Constantinople for a period and eventually died out in the 1700s.

However this version may have first emerged in 1735, and there certainly appears to be no contemporary evidence for them being the same man.  There is a post on the Gen-Medieval site which outlines some of the issues.  It refers to a book by Serversmith (not sure if this will take you to the correct page 2423).  On the other side Charles Cawley looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion that they are the same man.

If Renaud was deprived of his territory and banished, then you would have to expect that it was for a serious crime (treason?) but there seems to be no mention of this in any chronicle.  Also surely there would be a record of Renaud or his sons or grandsons attempting to regain some or all of the territory?

I'm inclined to think there should be 2 profiles, one for French Renaud, and one for English Renaud.  Any other ideas of how to deal with this problem?

Comments

For some reason, this old G2G post is being seen as a reason to block edits on connected profiles. I find that hard to comprehend, but anyway, I will re-open this discussion below.

Answer 1

"Royal Ancestry" D. Richardson Vol. II. page 314

[[Courtenay-57|Reynold de Courtenay]], of uncertain parentage. He married (1st) an unidentified wife, ____, kinswoman of Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. They had three sons, William, Robert, and Reynold, and one daughter, Egeline. He married (2nd) after 1173 Maud FitzRobert. He was first recorded as holding lands in Devon in 1175-6. Sometime prior to his death, he granted two islands in the Thames between Witteneiam [?Wittenham] and Wadeiam [?Waddeson] to Abingdon Abbey. He died before Michaelmas 1191. In 1204-5 the king presented to the chapel of Musbury, Devon, which should have been in his widow, Maud's gift. In 1215 the king directed the Constable of Wallingford to deliver to her seisin of the vill of Waddesdon, Buckinghamshire, which formed part of her dower. In 1220 she sued Robert de Courtenay an Reynold de Courtenay (her nephews and step-grandsons) for the manors of Oakhampton, Chawleigh, Chulmleigh, Kenn, and Musbury, and Sampford, Devon and Hemington, Somerset, which she claimed as her right; Robert answered that no claims under French titles were valid; Maud rebutted that the properties were in England and she was English. Maud died shortly before 3 August 1224. In 1227 a mandate was sent to the sheriff of Gloucestershire ordering him to make enquiry of Peter FitzHerbert concerning scutage for the manor of Okehampton, Devon which belonged to Maud de Courtenay.

Comments

Thank you for this, that indicates that Richardson thinks they are two seperate men.

---

You are welcome, John, happy to do what I can.

Answer 2

John, the post is unclear and apparently that is leading to confusion and problems. The issues raised by the post have in fact not been worked on as far as I can see, but OTHER issues connected to these profiles are apparently not allowed to be worked on!? I think none of us should tell a wiki to wait a few years while we think about something. But anyway...

In the Richardson quotation posted here which you say shows that Richardson thinks Renaud is two different people, I do not see how you derive that conclusion.

It is in any case unclear why you think the person currently split between [[Courtenay-435]] (who has the English children) and [[Courtenay-57]] (his full brother on Wikitree who has the English wife who is the mother of those children), should be split into two people with two different parents (French and English).

One SGM discussion you might be referring to is about whether a ROBERT de Courtenay was born in France or England. See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/SywW3Ab0vyA/IXQ3EVGrbQIJ

Another aspect of the SGM discussions is about the connection to the Donjon family: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/SywW3Ab0vyA/lnv4SajTXnoJ

However see Peter Stewart's later post: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.medieval/psv2U0Vkd-s/wERwaoKEHmMJ

I presume the latter post is most relevant? Note that Peter Stewart and Richardson (who you think agrees with you) do not seem to agree. Richardson points out that Robert de Courtenay was called a kinsman of the French queen.

I would add another concern, Reginald the son, our Courtenay-58, and the father of Robert, married the sister of Maud his father's wife. Maud can not be his mother.

But if there is reason to doubt the parentage of RENAUD, it is still not clear why you are enforcing the situation on Wikitree that we currently have, where the two Renauds that you are holding separate both still have the SAME "French" parentage, and the English part of their family is divided between them.

Given what I have now read, I trying to think of ways to make different changes "around" your merge block, at least uniting the parts which need to be united, because you've told me on your profile page that you can't do anything about the merge block.

Comments

Sorry Andrew, you seem quite upset by this issue and I'm not fully sure why?

I do admit that I didn't follow through and separate these two profiles when I indicated I would, and that they are both still attached to the same parents, and there needs to be a division of the children, with Elisabeth and possibly another daughter the children of the French Renaud de Courtenay,and the 3 sons and another daughter the children of the English Renaud de Courtenay..

However I still firmly believe that they are different, but probably related men, but I'm not blocking anything, if you have evidence to the contrary, then please post it.  My understanding is there is no primary evidence either French or English that indicates they are the same man, and no sources that confirm the usual supposition that Renaud (and his 3 sons) were deprived of their French territory and the daughter Elisabeth made the heir.

There is no dispute over the parents of the French Renaud de Courtenay, so if Douglas Richardson, and Peter Stewart indicate that the English Renaud de Courtenay's parents are uncertain, then I can only interpret this as they also have come to the conclusion that they are different men, but I know that there are other sources that have the opposite view; The Complete Peerage, and Keats-Rohan for instance.

As I explained, I am currently away for a work conference, and have limited time and none of my usual resources to work on this, but more than happy to work with you to resolve this once I return this coming weekend.

---

John, you are keeping the profiles wrong. No one has argued for what is now in Wikitree. You have also refused discussion, but insisted on being a merge-blocking profile manager. This has gone a long time. So yes of course that is frustrating. I find it hard to understand why that would be hard to understand.

I've been working on feudal baronies for more than a year and in cases like this I've tried to patiently ask people to look at things, and then returned weeks, months, etc, later, in long cycles. But in this case there is no sign that you will ever even reply, and instead your reactions have been defensive. Maud and Hawise, two sisters, married the same family, but currently I can not show that. As far as I know, the doubts you have read about should have no impact on this particular issue. This is a purely artificial problem, extended over a very long period.

One way or another you should at least make sure that the real doubts about one or two people do not spread like a disease and make all the profiles around them impossible to fix for years. If on the other hand all we have our doubts, no clear solution, then we should just register doubts in the various usual ways and keep working? I am open to different approaches but once again, there is no doubt that the situation right now is wrong according to everyone.

If you have not had time, over several years, to propose a concrete new family construction, then following the standard pedigree in Complete Peerage would at least allow Wikitree to keep going, and from that position it would be no more difficult to make future changes should they be required. The situation we have now is certainly wrong according to ALL accounts.

As you know, you rejected a merge two years ago and I have tried to communicate with you about this several times more since. You've refused clear explanation, but you've made sure you are in a position to block some types of changes. 

I think this is a good example of why the profile manager system should be given up entirely for pre-1500 profiles. It can only be used as a tool against other editors, to avoid discussion. In pre 1500, people should have to give evidence. If you do not have time to look into the case, and frankly you are not sure what your own case is, then I do not think it is appropriate that you have set yourself up as profile manager in a way which even affects efforts to clean up related families. 

As far as I can see there are various doubts that can be raised, but there is no clear proposal being made. I think that unlike you, I've explained your possible sources, but I don't see what practical consensus we can take from those discussions as a new family structure.

Can we please at least pick one believable option for now in order to avoid this blockage creating knock-on effects? If we are going to go with Peter Stewart (which requires no merge, but which means Wikitree is taking a strong new position), then we need to cite him and his sources/explanations, and we need to put children with the correct fathers and (where known) mothers. 

Shall I do that? Did you have a plan about which is the "French" one and which is the lord of Sutton?

---

There is a comment on one of the profiles as to which I recommended be the French one and which the English, but by all means decide as you think best.

---

OK John, I take it we are going to have to put together the case for two Renauds as per Peter Stewart's post, and I'll do it that way when I get a moment.