GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1995-11 > 0815261887


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Canute II King Denmark/England married Emma deCourcy of Normandy
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 21:38:07 GMT


[I was going to let this pass, but having seen it in two other groups, I
will answer it. For future reference, this is the appropriate group for
this type of question, not in s.g.misc or s.g.french.]

In a previous article, (Nietzsche) says:

>Canute II king Denmark/England & Emma of Normany, deCourcyRichard
>I the fearless of Normandy, Duke of Normandy b. 933,
>daughter Emma married Canute (as her second husband) to make
>better ties between the Norman & Viking relatives.
>

Canute, King of Denmark and England married Emma (of Normandy) daughter of
Richard I. By tradition, he is Cnut II of Denmark, but clear evidence for
the historical nature of Cnut I (usually assigned as father of Gorm the
Old) is lacking. Emma married first AEthelred II, and then Canute, but her
motives were probably not so simple as portrayed (and probably had a little
to do with having liked being Queen enough to want a second term).

Neither Emma nor Richard I could accurately be called de Courcy.

>Richard II the Good of Normandy: had
>
>1st son Richard III of Normandy, Duke of Normandy
>2nd son Robert II the Devil of Normandy, Duke of Normandy
>

Most numbering systems ignore Rollo's supposed baptismal name and call the
Devil Robert I. The name Robert II usually refers to William's oldest son,
who succeeded his father in Normandy, but not England.

>Robert II has William the Conqueror as a son, who later takes over
>England & Governs Normandy
>
>What are the links to William the Conqueror that make him a
>deCourcy or version of name? ( I have a source that states the
>His father & fathers father etc.. were deCourcy.

There are no such links.

>Then why don't
>other books use this name? His best friend was related to him,
>Richard deCourcy.

His best friend? I think not.

>(whos line out lined in "Royal Ancestry of
>Magna Carta Barons" shows Richard deCourcy coming down from
>Charles III, King of France.) In that line where does the name
>deCourcy begin?
>

Again, this is fantasy. If there was a de Courcy descent from Charles III,
it is through several female links, and not a direct father to son linkage.
In other words, even if they did use surnames at the time of Charles III,
which they didn't, then Charles's surname would not have passed to Richard.
(In fact, I seriously doubt, even if Richard existed at the time claimed,
that his surname predated his own generation.) The more important question
to ask is "In that line where does the authentic genealogical descent
begin?"

Here is the story. From the time of the earliest Anglo-Norman genealogies,
families have been tracing their ancestors to someone who accompanied
William the Conqueror. More inventive sources then refer to this family
founder (as often as not totally invented, or taken from much later and
thrown back in time) as a friend and kinsman of the Conqueror. It is only
one step more to invent the intervening generations. I am not specifically
familiar with the de Courcys, but am familiar enough with the Dukes of
Normandy to know that the de Courcys have no direct descent from the
family. Someone just invented this link, and assigned the de Courcy
surname to all of the Dukes based on the invented tie. The Dukes of
Normandy never used a surname, not de Courcy or anything else. If there
was any genealogical link between the de Courcys and the Dukes of Normandy,
it either is lost to the mists of time, or happenned after the conquest.

When faced with one of these origin tales regarding an Anglo-Norman family,
the first thing you should do is throw it out :). But seriously, you
should look at it with a high degree of skepticism, particularly if it
claims a descent from a companion of the Conqueror. Most such descents are
invented, and only experience will enable you to evaluate what isvalid and
what is the result of the active imagination of the author.

Todd

This thread: