From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval

Just thought I would drop a note to memorialize my trip down a rabbit
hole (probably reinventing the wheel, but so be it).

I was looking at some sources for the daughter of Edward the Elder who
married Sihtric, and came across a note in Wikipedia that cited Benjamin Hudson for the fact that 13th century church historian John de
Wallingford had named the wife of Sihtric as Orgiva, which my gut
reaction told me was probably a scribal error for Otgiva, in turn
representing the Anglo-Saxon name Eadgifu, but that couldn't be, right? Eadgifu married Charles of France.

That sent me to Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes,
pp. 28, 29, wherein he reports what John de Wallingford said: that
Sihtric married to Orgiue, daughter of Edward, and that by her he was
father of Olaf Sihtricson. He described John's chronicle as being based
on an earlier source, and expressed incredulity that the earlier source
might have invented this genealogical detail, and he concluded that Olaf should be accepted as son of a woman named Orgiue, and thus grandson of
Edward as reported by this relatively late chronicle.

Now, really curious, I went to the original Wallingford chronicle, and
got a bit of a surprise (I was forced to consult an older version than
the one Hudson used, but I doubt this makes a material difference). In
the chronicle, it does indeed report that Orgiva married Sictric, but
that doesn't really do justice to what it says. It reports that Edward
had three sons and one daughter, Orgiva.

[As an aside here, this is the first red flag. While we may not be able
to say with certainty how many daughters Edward had, 'one' isn't in the running as a reasonable answer.]

This Orgiva, he reports, was married to Charles of France (i.e. she is
indeed Eadgifu). After Charles' death, she and her son Louis fled to
England, and then |athelstan married the widow Orgiva to Sictric, making Sictric a king so that Orgiva wouldn't have to lower her status from the
queen she had formerly been to countess. This represents an obvious
problem because Charles died in 929, while Sihtric seems to have died in
927, making the whole scenario absurd.

Conclusions:

1) John of Wallingford was very much confused, and there is every reason
to look at his entire account with heightened skepticism. Specifically,
there is no reason to entertain that the wife of Sihtric was named
Eadgifu, and the claim that Olaf was her son must also be viewed
harshly. Indeed, with this marriage of Sihtric occurring in 925 at the earliest, but more probably in 926, it is hard to imagine a son born to
that marriage having the juice to force his way into being co-king of
York in 941. (Hudson seems never too have considered the chronology.)

2) Benjamin Hudson should be ashamed of himself. He cherry-picked the
part of the story that fit his desired narrative and pretended the rest,
which severely impeaches its reliability, didn't exist. One would think
the blatantly false narrative of the widow Eadgifu remarrying to a man
who had died two years before her husband might have assuaged his
incredulity that this source would invent genealogical details, but no.
At one time I puzzled over how such an established scholar could
maintain belief in a historical Ragnar Lothbrok and family, but seeing
what he did here with John of Wallingford's chronicle, I am no longer surprised.

taf
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 23:59:26 +0000, taf wrote:

Just thought I would drop a note to memorialize my trip down a rabbit
hole (probably reinventing the wheel, but so be it).

I was looking at some sources for the daughter of Edward the Elder who married Sihtric, and came across a note in Wikipedia that cited Benjamin Hudson for the fact that 13th century church historian John de
Wallingford had named the wife of Sihtric as Orgiva, which my gut
reaction told me was probably a scribal error for Otgiva, in turn representing the Anglo-Saxon name Eadgifu, but that couldn't be, right? Eadgifu married Charles of France.

That sent me to Benjamin Hudson, Viking Pirates and Christian Princes,
pp. 28, 29, wherein he reports what John de Wallingford said: that
Sihtric married to Orgiue, daughter of Edward, and that by her he was
father of Olaf Sihtricson. He described John's chronicle as being based
on an earlier source, and expressed incredulity that the earlier source
might have invented this genealogical detail, and he concluded that Olaf should be accepted as son of a woman named Orgiue, and thus grandson of Edward as reported by this relatively late chronicle.

Now, really curious, I went to the original Wallingford chronicle, and
got a bit of a surprise (I was forced to consult an older version than
the one Hudson used, but I doubt this makes a material difference). In
the chronicle, it does indeed report that Orgiva married Sictric, but
that doesn't really do justice to what it says. It reports that Edward
had three sons and one daughter, Orgiva.

[As an aside here, this is the first red flag. While we may not be able
to say with certainty how many daughters Edward had, 'one' isn't in the running as a reasonable answer.]

This Orgiva, he reports, was married to Charles of France (i.e. she is
indeed Eadgifu). After Charles' death, she and her son Louis fled to
England, and then |athelstan married the widow Orgiva to Sictric, making Sictric a king so that Orgiva wouldn't have to lower her status from the queen she had formerly been to countess. This represents an obvious
problem because Charles died in 929, while Sihtric seems to have died in
927, making the whole scenario absurd.

Conclusions:

1) John of Wallingford was very much confused, and there is every reason
to look at his entire account with heightened skepticism. Specifically,
there is no reason to entertain that the wife of Sihtric was named
Eadgifu, and the claim that Olaf was her son must also be viewed
harshly. Indeed, with this marriage of Sihtric occurring in 925 at the earliest, but more probably in 926, it is hard to imagine a son born to
that marriage having the juice to force his way into being co-king of
York in 941. (Hudson seems never too have considered the chronology.)

2) Benjamin Hudson should be ashamed of himself. He cherry-picked the
part of the story that fit his desired narrative and pretended the rest, which severely impeaches its reliability, didn't exist. One would think
the blatantly false narrative of the widow Eadgifu remarrying to a man
who had died two years before her husband might have assuaged his
incredulity that this source would invent genealogical details, but no.
At one time I puzzled over how such an established scholar could
maintain belief in a historical Ragnar Lothbrok and family, but seeing
what he did here with John of Wallingford's chronicle, I am no longer surprised.

taf

Thats the trouble with these later sources, they tell you more but its
often garbled and makes things even more confusing. But isnt the basis
for all these later stories the ASC, which says Athelstan met Sitric at Tamworth 926 and there Sitric married his sister. As Sitric died not
long after, its unknown whether she had any children with him, and as
the ASC didnt name her, its unclear who she was. I believe theres
another 13th cent tradition confusing her with St.Edith of Polesworth
who was surely a 7th century person. And as none of these later
historians were Anglo-saxons, they probably didnt know how to write down
the saxon names properly anyway. I think if you add all these sources
together, dont you end up with Edward thr Elder having 3 daughters
called Edith/Edgive/Ogiva/Edgifu?

Athelstan seems to have used his sisters to make many political
alliances, yet he never married or had any recorded children himself and
seems always to have regarded his 2 younger bros Edmund and Eadred as
his heirs.

Mike
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.genealogy.medieval

On 7/3/2025 4:22 PM, miked wrote:

Thats the trouble with these later sources, they tell you more but its
often garbled and makes things even more confusing. But isnt the basis
for all these later stories the ASC, which says Athelstan met Sitric at Tamworth 926 and there Sitric married his sister. As Sitric died not
long after, its unknown whether she had any children with him, and as
the ASC didnt name her, its unclear who she was.

Yes, I think all of the later mentions of the sister marrying Sihtric
are elaborations on the Chronicle's rudimentary mention. For example,
William of Malmesbury's claim that Sihtric's wife shared AEthelstan's
mother, Ecgwynn, was in my opinion likely resulted from an
overly-precise interpretation of the word 'sister' in the Chronicle,
reading 'sister' as 'full-sister' when the original chronicle author was
not being that precise.

I believe theres
another 13th cent tradition confusing her with St.Edith of Polesworth
who was surely a 7th century person.

Roger of Wendover recorded this. His account is clearly problematic, but people seem to have latched onto it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if
this widow of Sihtric is identical to one of the other known daughters,
such as the one who married the 'prince near the Jupiter Mountains', or
the lay-sister.

And as none of these later
historians were Anglo-saxons, they probably didnt know how to write down
the saxon names properly anyway. I think if you add all these sources together, dont you end up with Edward thr Elder having 3 daughters
called Edith/Edgive/Ogiva/Edgifu?

This combines two distinct AS names. Edith comes from Eadgyth, while
Edgive and Ogiva, along with many other dubious readings such as Orgive
in the document we have been talking about, are from Eadgifu.

Equally important, one can't just 'add all of the sources together' for
the names, because they often give contradictory names to the same
woman, or the same name to different women. However, no single account
gives the same name to more than one, which is another reason to not
trust Roger of Wendover's account making Sihtric's wife the same woman
as St. Edith of Pollesbury (since the same name is well documented for
another daughter). Over all, if I remember correctly from looking at it
the other night, we would have two Eadgyths and two Eadgifu's but in
each case one of them is of dubious authenticity (either their name or
their existence itself).

Also problematic is the daughter married to 'Louis of Aquitaine' - I
have often wondered if this isn't a genealogical doppelganger, not for
the one married to the 'prince near the Jupiter Mountains' as some have
tried to combine her with, but for the actual mother of Louis IV, that
through the course of copying and repackaging, one of them accumulated
so many errors by the time the material found their way to William of Malmesbury he didn't recognize it as the same person - this happened to
one Scottish queen, who now exists in most modern accounts as two
sisters married to different people.


And while I am at it, I think I owe Hudson an apology, as I now realize
I had two researchers crossed in my head - it was Alf Smyth who I was
thinking of that accepted the Ragnar Lothbrok traditions as authentic history.I don't know Hudson's view. He did still deserve being taken to
task for cherry-picking the Wallingford chronicle.

taf
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2