Arnold van Rode - Parents Unknown?

P.S. I tried to summarize everything that is known / suggested with respect to Arnold I of Rode and his wives in the description field of their profiles

Private User added this. Thanks for all your work here, Willem. I'm happy t make the Curator fit with this.

Hans Vogels, expert in the area of medieval genealogy of the the south of the Netherlands, suggests that the first wife of Arnold I, count of Rode, might have been a Heilwiga, daughter of Siegfried III, Count of Walbeck and in the Nordthüringau and Guda, lady of Valkenburg. This because of the occurence of Arnold I and his sons Arnold II and Giselbert I as witnesses for Guda of Valkenburg in 1106/1107, an indication that the sons were close relatives of Guda. Hans Vogels proposes that:

- Guda's successor Gooswijn of Heinsberg was married to Oda of Walbeck, a daughter of Siegfried of Walbeck

- Gooswijn of Heinsberg acquired Valkenburg because of his marriage

- Siegfried of Walbeck not only was count of Walbeck, but might also have been lord of Valkenburg

- Siegfried of Walbeck might have been the first husband of Guda of Valkenburg

- after the death of Siegfried Valkenburg was not inherited by his daughter Oda and her husband Gooswijn of Heinsberg, but was given to Guda first and only was inherited by their daughter Oda after Guda has passed away

- Siegfried of Walbeck and Guda also had a second, younger daughter that married to Arnold I of Rode and that at least two sons, Arnold en Giselbert, were born from this marriage, and that these grandsons were present as witnesses when Guda made her donation in 1106/1107

- the daughter might have had the name Heilwig because the only known daughter of Arnold II (her only known granddaughter) also was given that name and she was not named after her maternal grandmother (Alveradis) or her mother (Aleid)

Hans Vogels clearly states that his is only a theory and that there is no hard evidence to support this theory. For this reason this information should only be presented as a hypothesis and should not be presented as a hard fact (source: Het graafschap, het geslacht en het kapittel van Rode (deel 1)", Heemschild. Driemaandelijkse uitgave van de Heemkundige kring De Oude Vrijheid te Sint-Oedenrode, winter 2005, Jaargang 39, nummer 4, pag. 123-124)

Surely the solution, though, is not to make Heilwig of Walbeck a NN - as she did exist. It is disconnect her from Arnold and just note that possible theory in the Curator Note?

Are all the three children
Arnoud II van Rode Giselbert I, lord of Rode and Philips, bisschop van Osnabrück also only a theory - or do we know for certain any of their parents?

Sorry if you've covered that above - I'm going through 65 inbox messages in quite a hurry - and this isn't a field I'm familiar with.

Hi Sharon Doubell I think N.N. is best because it is uncertain whether she existed at all. It is a theory from Hans Vogels based on his study of sources, but Hans clearly states that there is absolutely no evidence for this theory; the wife of Arnold I of Rode is not mentioned in any contemporary source and there is also not a single source that mentions a daughter Heilwig for Siegfried of Walbeck. Hans Vogels states that there must be a reason why Arnold I of Rode and his sons are mentioned as witnesses in a charter of Thierry of Fouron and his wife Guda and comes up with a possible explanation by giving Guda a sister (who might or might not have had the name Heilwig) that was Arnold's wife. Arnold being a brother-in-law would definitely explain why he and his minor sons were witnesses, but there might be a dozen other reasons.

With respect to the sons of Arnold I: Arnold II and Giselbert are sons for sure, they are mentioned in the charter of 1106/1107 together with their father. Philips, bishop of Osnabruck, is an assumption of a number of historians including Hans Vogels. But there are other historians that consider him as a member of the family of the counts of Katzenelnbogen. At present there is no contemporary source known that gives any details on his parentage. Personally I think the arguments for a Van Rode descent are more convincing than the arguments for a Van Katzenelnbogen descent, but there is no hard proof for either one of them. I have tried to explain this (in Dutch, did not have the energy to also translate it to English, but could try that if there is an interest) in his profile.

No - that's great Willem. I understand why NN. I will adjust the Curator Note. Thank you for all your work here - you are a star!

Yes, lovely work.