pdfStaying in the Family? The Role of the Vienne Kinship in Reclaiming the Neapolitan Heritage under King Charles I    

Gergely Kiss

University of Pécs

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Hungarian Historical Review Volume 13 Issue 1  (2024):3-17 DOI 10.38145/2024.1.3

Recent years of research have provided a much clearer understanding of the diplomatic relations of King Charles I. In the dynastic relations of the Angevin rulers of Hungary, the building and exploitation of kinship ties can be seen as an important tool. In this context, previous studies have completely neglected the role of Charles I’s two sisters, Beatrix and Clementia, although the former, as the wife of John II, dauphin of Vienne, and the latter, as the wife of the French king Louis X, had considerable diplomatic potential. The present study examines in more detail the network of relationships that developed through Beatrix. Beatrix is perhaps the more significant of the two sisters in part relations with Clementia were much more limited and also because attempts to recover the Neapolitan inheritance were more indirect in the relations with Clementia. This was not the case with the kinship of Vienne, through which Charles I tried to assert the interests of the Angevins of Hungary in the Neapolitan throne. The present study aims to show the role played by Beatrix’s husband, John II, lord of Tour de Pins, dauphin of Vienne, and his younger son, Humbert II, in achieving the objectives of the Angevins of Naples in Hungary.

Keywords: Angevins, Árpád dynasty, Naples, Dauphiné of Vienne, Hungary, dynastic relations, kinship


In the last years of the thirteenth century, fateful events took place in Naples. Two of the three children of Charles Martel and Clementia of Habsburg, Charles (Caroberto) and Beatrix, orphaned by the sudden deaths of their parents, were to experience a decisive change in their lives. In both cases, the already aged grandfather, King Charles II of Naples (1285–1309), and his son Robert played a decisive role in the events. On May 25, 1296, Beatrix was married to John II, dauphin of Vienne and lord of Tour de Pin (1306–1319).1 Shortly afterwards, in early 1297, Caroberto was excluded from the succession to the throne of Naples in favor of his uncle Robert and, as is well known, was soon afterwards sent on his way to take possession of his future inheritance in Hungary.2 Three events also took place in the first half of the fourteenth century that require further explanation. These events were also closely linked to Hungary and Naples, and they involved the Dauphiné playing an important, even leading role. In 1317, Caroberto, already king of Hungary as Charles I (1301–1342), asked his brother-in-law, Dauphin John II of Vienne (1306–1319), for help reclaiming the heritage of Naples, and a decade and a half later, the younger son of the latter was involved in Charles I’s negotiations in Naples in 1333, the aim of which was to secure the rule of the Angevins of Hungary over Naples by marrying Prince Andrew and Joan, the granddaughter of Robert I king of Naples (1309–1343). The dauphin also played a major role in the negotiations. Humbert II, who in the meantime had become lord of the Dauphiné, subsequently intervened in the “affairs of Naples.” In light of the events described above, it is reasonable to assume that the Dauphiné, in the vicinity of Provence, was in some way an active participant in relations between Naples and Hungary from the end of the thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth century. The only obstacle to this, at least so far, has been the scarcity of knowledge about one of the actors, the dauphin of Vienne. There are many relevant sources, so the neglect in the secondary literature of the role of the province is due not to a lack of information, but rather to a lack of interest.

In the case of Charles I, who succeeded the kings of the Árpáds, the dominant opinion in the secondary literature is still that the first Angevin ruler of Hungary, amid the struggle against the oligarchs to gain the Hungarian royal throne, had no real opportunity to claim his right to Naples. Fortunately, the situation is now much clearer as regards the ruler’s apparent inactivity in this area of foreign policy.3 In relation to Naples, it is important to note that Charles I had already attempted to recover his paternal inheritance before the negotiations between him and his uncle Robert I started after 1328. In Charles I’s attempts to gain control of Naples, the possibility of diplomatic mediation through dynastic kinship relations is evident. As we shall see below, the dauphins of Vienne played an important role in this.

Many of the details concerning the events discussed below were previously unknown due to a lack of research. This is not the only reason they merit our attention, however. They are also interesting because they shed some light on the diplomatic tools that were used to promote certain dynastic interests. Indeed, kinship ties allowed the parties to use the most natural means possible to further their goals, whether these aims concerned staking a claim to the Neapolitan inheritance of the Angevins in Hungary or forming or strengthening any kind of political alliance. The members of the dynasty, particularly the three children of Charles Martell, Charles, Beatrix, and Clementia (who were geographically very distant from one another), nevertheless actively helped one another, thus furthering the cause of the dynasty. This was also different from classical diplomacy in that the parties did not take the traditional route: they did not send diplomats or envoys to one another’s courts but rather sought to achieve their goals informally by winning each other over within the family. It is hardly necessary to go into detail concerning Caroberto’s career, and the real novelty lies with his two sisters, Clementia and Beatrix, and especially one of the latter’s sons, Humbert. In the following, only the latter will be discussed, so it is worth briefly outlining the main stages of his life.

Relatives Distant but Connected

The betrothal of Charles Martell’s daughters was in the diplomatic interests of the Angevins of Naples. Long after her siblings had been married, Clementia of Hungary4 became the wife of King Louis X of France (1314–1316) in 1315.5 She had a career that could have helped her brother a lot, but their relationship was rather casual.6 The queen of France was widowed a year after the marriage, and her political influence was severely reduced. Still, there was a strong bond between Clementia and the Dauphiné of Vienne in maintaining family ties and in the persistent cultivation of dynastic memory. In the years before her death in 1328, Clementia took several measures to preserve the dynastic memory of the Angevins of Naples, the Capetians, but in terms of direct personal relations, the Angevins of Hungary played little part, in contrast to their relatives in Vienne.7 Clementia’s sister, Beatrix of Hungary, lived in Dauphiné from 1296, as we have seen.8 She gave birth to a son, Guigues, in 1309 and a second child, Humbert, three years later.9 After the death of her husband, John II (1319), Beatrix became a Cistercian nun at Val-de-Bressieux. In 1345, she continued her life in the Beauvoir castle granted to her by her son Humbert II until 1349. She died in 1354 in the Abbey of Saint-Juste-en-Royans.10

Her son Humbert was born in 1312. Not much is known about his youth, he gained the title of Lord of Faucigny and the income that went with it. In 1328–1329, his mother Beatrix sent him to the court of King Charles I of Hungary, probably with the support of his aunt, the dowager Queen Clementia of France. He stayed there until 1332, when he was moved to the court of Robert I of Naples. In the autumn of 1333, he returned from here to Dauphiné to take over the government of the province after the death of his brother Guigues VIII (1319–1333). The last dauphin of Vienne, balancing among neighboring powers, made several attempts to sell the province. Finally, in 1349, Humbert II abdicated in favor of the French Valois dynasty. In 1345–1347, he took part in a crusade. On his return home, after the sale of the province, he joined the Dominicans and became a friar. In 1350, Clement VI appointed him patriarch of Alexandria. Two years later he became administrator of the Archdiocese of Reims, and in 1355 he was traveling to Avignon to be transferred to Paris when he died on route on May 22 at Clairmont.11

Dynastic Identity and Diplomatic Opportunities

It was extremely important for a dynasty to define itself, mainly by highlighting its links with related ruling families. From this point of view, one of the main elements of dynastic representation was the expression of identity. The instruments of this could be textual, as can be clearly seen in Beatrix’s case with the consistent use of the adjective “Hungarian.” With Clementia, it was expressed more indirectly. Another possibility was the use of visual elements for this purpose, whether in the form of symbols of authority on coins or in the most varied forms of coats of arms. The interpretation of these forms of symbolic expression can be based on research on numismatics and the history of art and heraldry, but it is also worth looking beyond the mere representational nature of these elements to their role in diplomacy. The most obvious use of the latter was to mobilize kinship relations to achieve diplomatic ends. This could be achieved either through recourse to a dynastic relative or through the gift or bequest of easily transported objects to various family members (gift-giving).12

But how did this all work for Clementia, Beatrix, and, especially, Humbert? It is relatively easy to trace the origins of these forms of symbolic expression and representation in the case of Clementia, because the sources regularly note that she was the daughter of the Hungarian king Charles Martel, who could have claimed the land of the Árpáds through his mother, Mary of Hungary (†1323). As the wife of Charles II of Naples and daughter of Stephen V of Hungary, she was the most active player in the propagation of representations of the Hungarian royal dynasty abroad. One need merely think of the frescoes and tombs of Santa Maria Donnaregina in Naples or the paintings of Simone Martini, who worked for the court of Naples.13 Mary “served as a mother” to Clementia, and they remained in contact even after Clementia left Naples.14 This is also important because in 1319, Clementia, Mary, Robert I, his wife Sancia of Mallorca were present at the translatio of the relics of St. Louis of Toulouse. Charles II’s son, who had entered the Franciscan Order and had been canonized shortly before, was a central figure in the establishment of the dynastic sanctity of the Angevins. St. Louis of Toulouse was the Angevin saint around whom the dynasty’s kinsmen, the Capetians and the Árpáds, clustered. The two ruling families were then surrounded by dynastic sanctity. But the interconnections involved much more than that, since close kinship ties were woven between the dynasties that were held up as models.15 These kinship ties were expressed in dynastic representation, resulting in the dual heraldic representations that appear regularly in both Naples and in the patrimony of Clementia, but also in that of the dauphin of Vienne, Humbert II. In any case, the point of origin must have been Naples, and it was due to their aspirations and efforts that this dynastic representation appeared and remained both in the Capetian court and in the Dauphiné. This additional aspect of kinship, the idea of dynastic sanctity, was embedded in all the courts concerned and was present in Naples, in the daily life and patrimony of Clementia, in the Dauphiné, and even in Hungary. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it did not remain a mere representational accessory, but rather, in addition to its obvious prestige and prestige-enhancing character, it was used for its diplomatic potential.

Dauphiné at the Service of the Interests of the Angevins in Hungary

John and Beatrix’s marriage16 was clearly intended to reinforce the alliance of the Dauphiné with the possessions of the Angevins of Naples in Provence, the Kingdom of France, and important territories in northern Italy and neighboring the empire, the preparation for which can be traced back to 1292.17 Later, first Humbert I (1282–1306) and then his son John II became vassals of King Charles II of Naples.18 With the marriage of 1296, the Angevins of Naples strengthened their position in northern Italy, on the eastern and northeastern frontiers of their own Provencal territories.19 In addition to Naples, the central and northern parts of Italy and the provinces of the former Kingdom of Arles played a key role in the plans to build the “Angevin Empire.” Provence and Forcalquier, as parts of this empire, could be seen as a secure hinterland in the 1260s–1280s, and the Angevin influence was strong in Piedmont, so the time had come to forge closer links with Dauphiné. But this alliance was also needed by the dauphin of Vienne, Humbert I, who, despite existing kinship ties,20 was facing territorial disputes with his cousin, Amédée V, count of Savoy.21 The settlement of these conflicts continued over the course of the following decades, and the relationship between the two provinces was characterized by a fragile peace and recurrent skirmishes.22

In close connection with this, a more serious system of confederation slowly developed around the Dauphiné in the first decade of the 1300s. From the reign of Rudolf I onwards, the dauphins of Vienne, whether John I (1263–1282) or Humbert I, had been on good terms with the Habsburgs. This did not change during the reign of John II, although King Henry VII of Germany (1308–1313) tried to gain the latter’s favor.23 This is mainly due to the fact that the Dauphiné already had influential allies in the early 1310s. John II had the support of the French royal family (Philip IV, Charles of Valois) and was not without the help and alliance of King Robert I of Naples. Their support from the French side is explained by an undoubted Savoy-Plantagenet alliance. Henry VII’s efforts to restore imperial power in Italy had a very serious effect on the political ambitions of Robert I, who, like his predecessors, was, on the contrary, interested in maintaining formal imperial supremacy. It is therefore not surprising to find Dauphiné among the important allies of Naples in the 1310s.24

Therefore, looking at the development of the dynastic political relations of the dauphin of Vienne at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Dauphiné was part of a Neapolitan-French alliance and also had good relations with the Habsburgs. It thus can be assumed that two decades after the marriage of John II and Beatrix in 1296, King Charles I of Hungary may have considered the dauphin of Vienne a suitable intermediary to secure his own claims in Naples. Because of the apparent strengthening of relations between Naples and Vienne in the early 1310s and in particular a six-year military alliance concluded in 1314,25 it is understandable why Charles I should have turned to his brother-in-law to assert his rights. Accordingly, on February 22, 1317, Charles I entrusted John II with the task of representing his interests as procurator and obtaining from King Robert of Naples the rights to the principalities of Salerno and Mont Sant Angelo. These rights originally had been granted to Charles Martel by his father as a hereditary fief, but in 1304, they were transferred by Charles II of Anjou to Robert, his third son, which is why the King of Hungary claimed his inheritance on the basis of the previous legal situation.26 The situation seemed all the more favorable, since at that time King Robert I of Naples had just managed to forge a Guelf alliance against the Ghibellines. He married his own son Charles to Catherine of Austria, daughter of Albert I of Habsburg (1316), and took action against the Visconti in Genoa. King Charles I of Hungary was also on good terms with the Habsburgs.27

Unfortunately, the sources reveal nothing about the consequences of this request. We do not know whether John II took any action on behalf of his brother-in-law or whether he even contacted Robert I. In addition to the request of the Hungarian king, there is only one report (of dubious credibility) according to which the Hungarian King Charles I would have asked the dauphin of Vienne to send one of his sons to him, who he would take care of in his court. There is no evidence that this request was actually made at the time, and it is more likely that this source preserved a memory of a later event, namely when John II’s younger son Humbert spent an extended period of time in the court of Charles I just over a decade later.28 Even if John II’s invitation did not lead to a decisive breakthrough, it is noteworthy that Charles I sought to exploit the diplomatic potential of family ties by involving his brother-in-law, the head of a strategically placed province. What is certain, however, is that Charles I did not win the rights he wanted, and it was more than a decade before any substantial progress was made on the Neapolitan succession.

Charles, son and heir of Robert I, Prince of Calabria, died in 1328. The consequences of his death are familiar from the secondary literature: negotiations began between the Kingdom of Naples and Hungary, leading to the betrothal of Robert I’s granddaughter Joan to Charles I’s son Prince Andrew in Naples in the autumn of 1333. The aim of the marriage was to regain the Neapolitan inheritance with the planned coronation of Andrew.29 Although Humbert, the youngest son of Beatrix, the widowed dauphine, could hardly have been involved in the preparatory diplomatic negotiations, it is worth noting that from 1329 he was at the court of his uncle, Charles I. The 17-year-old son had probably come here with the aim of acquiring knowledge of politics and preparing himself for his future reign. In the 1320s, his brother Guigues further strengthened his alliance with the French crown, and this was not altered by the fact that in early 1328, the last male descendant of Capetian lineage, Charles IV (1322–1328), was succeeded on the throne by Philip VI (1328–1350), the first Valois monarch.30 The strengthening of the French connection not only meant an alliance between the two monarchs, Charles IV, then Philip VI, and Guigues VIII, but also a new and more intense phase of relations between the relatives. Indeed, the fact that both Beatrix and Humbert figured so prominently in Clementia’s will and bequest can only be explained by the increase in the intensity of the relationship.31 And this was also the case with the relationship between Clementia and King Charles I of Hungary. In 1322–1323, the confessor of Clementia, Jacobus de Corvo, was apparently appointed bishop of Zagreb by Pope John XXII (1316–1334) at the intervention of the dowager queen, but this was ultimately rejected by Charles I, who supported his own candidate, Ladislaus Kaboli.32 There was only indirect contact between brother and sister at the time, probably through Roger Clarot of Clementia’s court.33 This could be seen as an isolated event. However, Humbert was on his way to the court of Charles I at the turn of 1328–1329, and several members of the Druget family, who were Clementia’s servants and kinsmen, appeared at the Hungarian court almost the day after the death of the dowager queen. This suggests that links between the courts of Paris, Vienne, and Hungary had always existed, but that they intensified rapidly in the second half of the 1320s.34 This is certainly remarkable and, in my opinion, explains why Beatrix’s younger son, the nephew of Clementia and King Charles I of Hungary, became the focus of diplomatic relations.

The question now is the extent to which the young and inexperienced Humbert could have been of any help to his uncle, Charles I. It seems that, for the time being, the first Angevin monarch of Hungary welcomed his nephew to his court more because of his future potential and close family ties. Humbert, who had good French and Neapolitan connections, could still be useful in the negotiations on the Neapolitan succession, which were just beginning at the time. The moment to take advantage of this opportunity came in 1332, when Charles sent his nephew to Naples. Robert I, who, like the Hungarian king, welcomed him, provided him with the benefits appropriate to his status and, as Charles had done, did not hesitate to employ Humbert for his own purposes. To achieve this goal, the king of Naples married Humbert to Marie des Baux, the daughter of one of his closest confidants, Bertrand III des Baux, Count of Andria. The mother of Humbert’s wife’s was none other than Beatrix of Anjou, daughter of Mary of Hungary. In this way, the dynastic links between the Angevins of Naples and of Hungary and the dauphins of Vienne were further strengthened. Humbert expressed this immediately in a typical manner. On the occasion of his marriage, he commissioned a tableau with the coats of arms of the Baux family and the Árpáds.35 He gave the name Andrew to his son, who was born shortly afterwards, a name which had no known tradition among the Angevins of Naples nor the dauphins of Vienne and was therefore due solely to the influence of the Angevin court in Hungary.36

In the light of all this, it is easier to understand why Robert I entrusted Humbert with the task of welcoming Charles I and his son Andrew to the court and accompanying them to Naples in September 1333.37 The presence of a well-known relative, who had previously spent time at the Hungarian royal court, obviously contributed to the success of the negotiations to settle the important question of the succession of Naples. However, Humbert was soon called away by the affairs of Dauphiné. On August 26, his brother Guigues VIII died unexpectedly, and he had to return as soon as possible to take over the government of the province, which was temporarily being administered by his mother, Beatrix of Hungary.38

As for Humbert’s activities in Italy, it may be concluded that Charles I was able to use him to promote his dynastic interests in Naples. Robert, for his part, did not let this opportunity pass unused either, for he had found in Humbert both a natural “family” intermediary for Charles, who was obviously anxious to inherit Naples, and an important ally in a province neighboring Provence. The fact that Humbert’s relations were cordial with both the Neapolitan ruler Robert and his maternal uncle Charles I explains why the last dauphin of Vienne figures so frequently in later Neapolitan-Hungarian relations.


The reclamation of the Neapolitan heritage was apparently one of the most important elements of the dynastic policy of King Charles I of Hungary. To achieve his goal, however, he mobilized almost exclusively the diplomatic potential of his kinship relations. In 1317, his brother-in-law John II, dauphin of Vienne, and in 1332–1333 his son, the Hungarian king’s nephew Humbert, served in this role. The Vienne kinship was valued by the Angevin monarch because of his good relations with the court of Naples. In addition to the fact of kinship, both of Charles I’s sisters, Clementia and Beatrix, promoted the dynastic identity of the Angevins and the Árpáds and emphasized it in the various ways in which they gave expression to their ties and their positions of influence. In addition, in the late 1320s, relations between these geographically distant relatives were strengthened again, when Charles I’s claim to the throne of Naples was renewed after 1317.

Archival Sources

Archives Départementales d’Isère, Grenoble (ADI)

Archives Départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, Marseille (ADBR)

Archivio Apostolico Vaticano [former Archivio Segreto Vaticano] (AAV)

Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (BNF)


Printed Sources

Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, französichen, spanischen zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes II. (1291–1327). Vols. 1–3. Edited by Heinrich Finke. Berlin–Leipzig: W Rotschild, 1908.

Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Vols. 1–9. Edited by Georgius Fejér. Budae: Regia Universitas Hungariae, 1828–1844.

Les registres de Boniface VIII. Vols. 1–4. Edited by Georges Digard, Maurice Faucon, Antoine Thomas, and Robert Fawtier. Paris: Boccard, 1884–1935.

Lettres secrètes et curiales du pape Jean XXII (1316–1334) relatives à la France. Vols. 1–7. Edited by Auguste Coulon, S. Clémencet. Paris: Fontemoing, Boccard. 1913–1972.

Magyar diplomácziai emlékek az Anjou-korból [Hungarian diplomatic relics from the Angevin era]. Vols. 1–3. Edited by Gusztáv Wenzel. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Könyvkiadó Hivatala, 1874–1876.

Moret de Bourchenu Valbonnais, Jean-Pierre. Histoire de Dauphiné et des princes qui ont porté le nom de Dauphins … Vol. 2. Genève: Fabri & Barillot, 1721.

Regeste Dauphinois ou répertoire chronologique et analytique des documents imprimés et manuscrits relatifs à lhistoire du Dauphiné, des origines chrétiennes à lannée 1349. Vols. 1–7. Edited by Ulysse Chevalier.Valence: Imprimerie valentinois, 1913–1926.

Registrum instrumentorum Deplhinorum Viennensium apud Sanctum Andream Grationopolis an[no] MCCCXLVI. Inventaire des archives des dauphins de Viennois à Saint-André de Grenoble en 1346. Edited by Ulysse Chevalier. Novigentum: A. Gouverneur, 1871.

Secondary Literature

Andenmatten, Bernard. “Savoie, Pierre II de.” In Dictionnaire historique de la Suisse. Académie suisse des sciences humaines et sociales, 2013. Online version https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/017867/2013-04-04/, accessed August 21, 2020.

Bárány Attila. “Anglia királya és a morvamezei csata” [The king of England and the battle of Dürnkrut] In Tiszteletkör. Történeti tanulmányok Draskóczy István egyetemi tanár 60. születésnapjára, edited by Gábor Gábor, Bence Péterfi, András Vadas, 39–46. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2012.

Buettner, Brigitte. “Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca. 1400.” Art Bulletin 83 (2001): 598–625.

Csukovits, Enikő. Az Anjouk Magyarországon: I. Károly és uralkodása (1301–1342) [The Angevin dynasty in Hungary: The reign of Charles I, 1301–1342]. Budapest: MTA BTK TTI, 2012.

Delisle, Lépold. “La vie de Jean Esmé.” Bibliothèque de l’École des chartes 50 (1889): 503–5.

Faure, Claude. “Le dauphin Humbert II à Venise et en Orient (1345–1347).” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 27 (1907): 509–62.

Fournier, Paul. “Le dauphin Humbert II.” Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 56, no. 8 (1912): 581–99.

Fournier, Paul. Le royaume d’Arles et de Vienne (1138–1378). Paris: Picard, 1891.

Galland, Bruno. Les papes d’Avignon et la maison de Savoie (1309–1409). Collection de l’École Française de Rome 247. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1998.

Gardner, Julian. “Seated Kings, Sea-Faring Saints and Heraldry: Some Themes in Angevin Iconography.” In L’État angevin: Pouvoir, culture et société entre xiiie et xive siècle. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’American Academy in Rome, l’École française de Rome, l’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, l’U. M. R. Telemme et l’Université de Provence, l’Università degli studi di Napoli “Frederico II” (Romme-Naples, 7–11 novembre 1995), 115–26. Rome: École française de Rome, 1998.

Hardi, Đura. Drugeti: Povest o usponu i padu porodice pratilaca Anzujskih kraljeva [Drugets: Story of the success and fall of the birth of the Anjou king’s grandchildren]. Filozofski Fakultet u Novom Sadu Odsek za Istoriju Monografije Knjiga 56. Novi Sad: Filozofski Fakultet, 2012.

Huffelmann, Annie M. Clemenza von Ungarn, Königin von Frankreich. Berlin: Dr. Walther Rotschild, 1911.

Kiss, Gergely. “Dinasztiák keresztútján a 13. század végén – a 14. század első felében. I. Károly testvérei (Klemencia, Beatrix) és rokonaik szerepe a dinasztikus kapcsolatok és -identitás alakulásában” [Dynasties at the crossroads in the late thirteenth century – first half of the fourteenth century. The role of Charles I’s sisters (Clementia, Beatrix) and their relatives in the development of dynastic relations and identity]. Dissertation Submitted to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pécs, 2021.

Kiss, Gergely. “The ‘cursed’ queen: Clementia of Hungary in the mirror of the contemporary narrative sources.” Medievalista 2023 (forthcoming).

Lemonde, Anne. “Delfinato, un piccolo grande stato.” Medioevo 123 (2007): 99–121.

Lemonde, Anne. “Le Dauphiné, trait d’union entre deux mondes? Grenoble-Paris-Naples, 1226–1349.” In Circulation des idées et des pratiques politiques. France et Italie (XIIIe–XVIe siècle), edited by Anne Lemonde, Ilaria Taddei, 129–48. Collection de l’École Française de Rome 478. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2013.

Lemonde-Santamaria, Anne. “Autour du transport du Dauphiné à la Couronne de France (1349).” In  Annexer? Les déplacements de frontières à la fin du Moyen Âge. Edited byPierreSavy, Stéphan Péquignot, 115–39. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2016.

Leone de Castris, Pierluigi. “La peinture à Naples de Charles Ier à Robert d’Anjou.” In L’Europe des Anjou: Aventure des princes angevins du xiii au xve siècle, edited by Francesco Aceto, 104–21. Paris: Somogyi Éditions, 2001.

Lucherini, Vinni. “The Journey of the Hungarian King Charles I from Visegrád to Naples (1333): political implications and artistic consequences.” The Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 341–62.

Maléth, Ágnes. A Magyar Királyság és a Szentszék kapcsolata I. Károly korában (1301–1342) [The relations of the Kingdom of Hungary and the Holy See during the reign of King Charles I, 1301–1342]. Pécs: PTE BTK Középkori és Koraújkori Történeti Tanszék, 2020.

Marcieu, Humbert de. “Saincte vie et glorieux trespassement de Jehan Esmé, sire de Molines.” Bulletin d’histoire ecclésiastique et d’archéologie religieuse des diocèses de Valence, Gap, Grenoble et Viviers 9 (1888): 57−94.

Mérindol, Christian de. “Entre la France, la Hongrie et Naples: les Anjou.” In Staaten, Wappen, Dynastien: XVIII. Internationaler Kongreß für Genealogie und Heraldik in Innsbruck vom 5. bis 9. September 1988, 145–70. Innsbruck: Stadtmagistrat Innsbruck, 1988.

Mérindol, Christian de. “L’héraldique des princes angevins.” In Les princes angevins du xiiie au xve siècle. Un destin européen, edited by Noël-Yves Tonnerre, and Élisabeth Verry, 277–310. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2003.

Mollat, Guillaume. Les papes d’Avignon (1305–1378). 2nd ed. Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1912.

Petrucci, Enzo. “Clemenza d’Angio, regina di Francia.” In Enciclopedia Dantesca, vol. 2, edited by Umberto Bosco, Giorgio Petrocchi et al., 40–41. Rome: Treccani, 1970.

Pinoteau, Hervé. “Promenade dans l’héraldique des Angevins de Naples et de Hongrie.” In Auxilium historiae : Tanulmányok a hetvenesztendős Bertényi Iván tiszteletére, edited by Tamás Körmendi, and Gábor Thoroczkay, 245–53. Budapest: ELTE BTK, 2009.

Skorka, Renáta. “De Luxembourg à Oradea: Histoire de la reine Béatrice de Hongrie”. Les princesses angevines: Femmes, identité et patrimoine dynastiques (Anjou, Hongrie, Italie méridionale, Provence, xiiie–xve siècle) – Varia – Atelier doctoral – Regards croisés. Ed. Marie-Madeleine de Cevins, Jean-Michel Matz, Gergely Kiss. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2017(Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, vol. 129, fasc. 2) 359–368.

Skorka, Renáta. “With a Little Help from the Cousins – Charles I and the Habsburg Dukes of Austria during the Interregnum.” Hungarian Historical Review 2, no. 2 (2013): 243–61.

Viard, Jules. “Philippe VI de Valois: la succession au trône.” Le Moyen Âge: revue d’histoire et de philologie, 2nd sr., 23 (1921): 218–22.

Voci, Anna Maria. “La capelle i corte dei primi sovrani Angioini di Napoli.” In L’État angevin. Pouvoir, culture et société entre XIIIe et XIVe siècle. Actes du colloque international organisé par l’American Academy in Rome, l’École française de Rome, l’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, l’U. M. R. Telemme et l’Université de Provence, l’Università degli studi di Napoli „Frederico II” (Romme-Naples, 7–11 novembre 1995), 447–74. Collection de l’École française de Rome 245. Rome: l’École française de Rome, 1998.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Kings and Oligarchs in Hungary at the Turn of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries.” Hungarian Historical Review 2 (2013): 211–42.

Zsoldos, Attila. “Les filles des rois arpadiens de Hongrie comme instruments d’une politique dynastique.” In Les princesses angevines: Femmes, identité et patrimoine dynastiques (Anjou, Hongrie, Italie méridionale, Provence, xiiie–xve siècle) – Varia – Atelier doctoral – Regards croisés, edited by Marie-Madeleine de Cevins, Jean-Michel Matz, Gergely Kiss, 351–58. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 129, fasc. 2. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2017.

1 ADI B 3137; Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 77–78; Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 3, no. 14711. See also: ADBR B 401; Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 3, no. 14816, 14846.

2 AAV Registra Vaticana, vol. 48, fol. 269r-v; Digard et al., Les registres de Boniface VIII, vol. 8, no. 1977.

3 In particular, the alliance with the Habsburgs and the attention paid to the struggles for the German royal and imperial thrones, as well as the much more intensive relations with the papacy, should be emphasized, contrary to earlier opinion. Skorka, “With a Little Help”; Maléth, A Magyar Királyság, 143–47.

4 The appearance of the adjective “Hungarian” next to Clementia’ name is one of the very rare exceptions. It is found only in a continuation of Guillaume de Nangis’s Chronique abrégée (version “C”) and in Lescot’s variant of the Grandes chroniques de France. It is perhaps thanks to these influential narrative sources that the form “Clementia of Hungary” became established in the public consciousness. Kiss, “The ‘cursed’ queen,” especially Appendix, no. 3 and 4.

5 Acta Aragonensia, vol. 1, 110–12, 241–42, vol. 3, 172, 211–12; Huffelmann, Clemenza von Ungarn, 9–14; Petrucci, “Clemenza d’Angio,” 40; Voci, “La capelle i corte,” 465, note no. 96; Zsoldos, “Kings and Oligarchs, 218–19.

6 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 35–129.

7 Clementia made several foundations for masses, for example in Saint-Denis, the sanctuary of the Capetians, and in Tours, but she was also linked to the dynastic memory of the Angevins of Naples, from Paris, via Aix-en-Provence, to Naples and Bari. In her will, the widowed queen of France had left, among other things, valuable objects to her sister and her son Humbert, whom she also made her heir-general. For the testament, see: BNF Nouvelles Acquisitions Françaises, 9636. fol. 9r–11r, items 10, 79, 84; BNF Département des Manuscrits Clairambault vol. 471. fol. 1r–95r. (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9000674p/f9.image Accessed on July 7, 2018), items no. 1, 89.

8 From 1318 onwards, she consistently used the adjective “Hungarian” (“de Ungaria”) next to his first name. She did so for the first time in a document recording a donation to his sons after the death of his spouse (1319). Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 178–79; Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 225, 261–62.

9 Lemonde-Santamaria, “Autour du transport du Dauphiné.”

10  Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 179, 611–13.

11 In Hungarian: Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 231–60. See also: Faure, “Le dauphin Humbert II”; Fournier, “Le dauphin Humbert II”; Lemonde, “Le Dauphiné.”

12 Charles II, for example, minted a coin bearing the double cross of the Árpáds. In her will, Clementia specified exactly which object of value was to be given to which of her relatives. Mérindol, “Entre la France, la Hongrie et Naples,” 151, figure 4; Pinoteau, “Promenade dans l’héraldique,” 246; Buettner, “Past Presents,” mainly 598. For Clementia’s testament and the distribution of her legacy see: BNF NAF 9636. fol. 9r–11r, no. 10–12, 74, 76–79; BNF Département des Manuscrits Clairambault vol. 471, fol. 1r–95r. (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9000674p/f9.image – accessed on July 7, 2016), no. 1, 20–22, 87–89.

13 For these artistic commissions, see with further references: https://www.wga.hu/html_m/s/simone/4altars/1louis/1s_louis.html – accessed on July 10, 2020. Cf. Leone de Castris, “La peinture à Naples,” 111–12; Mérindol, “L’héraldique des princes angevins,” 289; Gardner, “Seated Kings,” 123–24.

14 Coulon, Lettres secrètes et curiales, vol. 1, no. 779. Cf. Mollat, Les papes d’Avignon,68.

15 Charles I of Anjou was the younger brother of King Louis IX, and in 1269, a double marriage was contracted between the Angevins of Naples and the Árpáds: the later Charles II and Mary of Hungary, and Prince Ladislaus (later King Ladislaus IV of Hungary, 1272–1290) and Isabella (Elizabeth) of Anjou were married. Wenzel, Magyar diplomácziai emlékek, vol. 1, 4–26, no. 4–21; Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 48 and note no. 119 with further references.

16 See note 1.

17 For the preparation and background events, see: Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 216–17 and note no. 1035–1036.

18 ADI B 3850; Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 3, no. 15050. See also Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 3, no. 15157, 15179.

19 Galland, Les papes d’Avignon,91–92.

20 Humbert I’s mother-in-law Béatrice de Faucigny was the daughter of the former Count of Savoy, Peter (1263–1268). Andenmatten, “Savoie, Pierre II de.”

21 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 216–18; Galland, Les papes d’Avignon, 92.

22 The background to this was the rivalry between the Capetians and the Plantagenets, who were related to the Savoy through Henry III’s wife Eleanor of Provence, whose mother was Beatrix of Savoy. Bárány, “Anglia királya,” 42.

23 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 221–22.

24 Ibid., 219–23.

25 Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 148–50; Galland, Les papes d’Avignon,93.

26 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae, vol. 8/2, 41–42. Cf. Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 170–71; Fournier, Le royaume d’Arles,378, note no. 2.

27 In May 1318, the king of Hungary sent an envoy to John of Luxembourg to ask one of his sisters to marry him, and Beatrix was chosen. Skorka, “De Luxembourg à Oradea.”

28 Cf. Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 4, no. 19532; Registrum instrumentorum Deplhinorum, 5, no. 13.

29 Csukovits, Az Anjouk Magyarországon I. I. Károly és uralkodása,113–115.

30 Viard, “Philippe VI de Valois”; Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 228–30.

31 BNF NAF 9636. fol. 9r–11r, no. 10–12, 74, 76–79; BNF Département des Manuscrits Clairambault vol. 471, fol. 1r–95r. (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b9000674p/f9.image – accessed on July 7, 2016), no. 1, 20–22, 87–89.

32 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 184, note no. 938, 197–199, Függelék F-9, no. 112.

33 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 198–99, Függelék F-9, no. 281.

34 For the Druget family, see Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 526, no. 31, 531, no. 84, 535, no. 119, 536, no. 139; Zsoldos, “Kings and Oligarchs,” 219–20, 224; Zsoldos, “Les filles des rois arpadiens”; Hardi, Drugeti.

35 Valbonnais, Histoire de Dauphiné, 277.

36 Ibid.280; Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 238.

37 Cf. Marcieu, “Saincte vie,” 69−70; Regeste Dauphinois, vol. 5, no. 25720; Delisle, “La vie de Jean Esmé,” 503−5; Maléth, A Magyar Királyság, 157, note no. 994; Lemonde, “Delfinato, un piccolo grande stato,” 6; Lucherini, “The Journey,” 346–47.

38 Kiss, “Dinasztiák keresztútján,” 236.