Talk:Adelaide of Normandy

Neutrality issue

There would seem to be an issue of neutrality here regarding Adelaide's mother. First, in citing the article Les femmes dans l’histoire du duché de Normandie by Elisabeth Van Houts, specifically footnote 22 on p. 23. The footnote starts out with (translated) "There is little doubt that Adelaide was a daughter of Robert the Magnificent and therefore a half-sister of William the Conqueror". As to the first part of that statement this seems to be the consensus but the same can't be said for the second part, that she was William's half-sister. That's not at all established and here has to be taken as an opinion. In the article there is a question regarding the cited Latin text in the GND, II, p. 272; does this mean she was his half-sister? The term in question on that page is soror utrina, literally sister by the same mother. A typical translation from a work of this period is taken to imply this to mean she was his half-sister. But Torigni was not a typical chronicler and wrote in a very plain simple style of Latin. So it has to be considered that he simply was recording a statement that they had the same mother and nothing else. Elsewhere in the same volume of the GND William and Adelaide are referred to as brother and sister. But, Torigni was also an indiscriminate collector of information, his main purpose being to catalog what he obtained from a wide variety of sources chronologically. He obtained oral and written information wherever he could and there is no way of determining which story regarding Adelaide might be the more correct. Orderic Vitalis [HE, II. 264] did state they were both children of Robert I, Duke of Normandy (filiam scilicet Rodberti Ducis), which seems raise the question is one correct and the other incorrect? One citation states they had the same mother and the other states they had the same father. Neither statement by either chronicler spoke of or excluded the other parent though. Also, both Orderic's and Robert's works exist in considerable numbers of manuscripts, not all of them matching the others exactly. So translators of both have come up with varying scenarios of this particular relationship. But other sources do add some input. The Complete Peerage, Vol I (1910) p. 351 & note (d) calls her "sister of William the Conqueror, being illeg. dau. of Robert, Duke of the Normans, by Herleve or Harlotta..." Footnote (d) on that same page seems to provide some of the basis for this citing a foundation charter of the Church of Saint-Martin at Auchy (Aumale) and regarding 'Adelidis' includes the words "sororis scilicet Wilielmi Regis Anglorum" (sister certainly of William King of the English). David Douglas, in William the Conqueror (1964), pp. 380-1, stated that Adelaide was either the sister or half-sister of William the Conqueror, however he thought it was more probable she was his sister of the whole blood. Stapleton, in his 'Observations on the History of Adeliza, Sister of William the Conqueror', Archaeologia vol. 26 (1836), pp. 349-60, gave several examples of charter evidence she was his full sister, even showing her as such in a genealogical chart as daughter of Duke Robert I and Herleva. Schwennicke, Europaische Stammtafeln, Band III, Teleband 4, Tafel 635 also mentions Adelaide as a daughter of Robert by Herleva. So arguably there are sources and learned opionions on both sides of the issue; but both sides of the issue aren't given full due. Given the complexity and various considerations, it is probably best not to delve into these but rather present a balanced and unbiased approach by listing Adelaide as a child of Robert I and a possible daughter of Herleva, even adding a short footnote touching on the reasons why there is no certainty to her mother's name. Or we could not mention a mother for her at all. Any thoughts on which might be the better approach? Bearpatch (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)