"Rodolfus rex" jointly with "Agiltrude regina coniuge nostra nec non archiepiscopo Burchardo fratre nostro et comitibus Rodulpho et Uberto" gave the castle of Moras to "Umberto episcopo eiusque matri domine Freburgie et nepotibus eius, Wigonis bone memorie filiis, Umberto Wigoni Willelmo" by charter dated 6 Jun 1009. His birth date range, estimated consistent with the birth date ranges which are estimated for the other members of this family, means that Guigues was probably still a child at the date of this charter. "…Wigonis et Umberti filiorum fratris eius…" signed the charter dated 1012 under which "Umbertus Grationopolensis ecclesiæ præsul" donated property to the abbey of Saint-Chaffre.
Comte d’Albon. "Wigo comes filius Gotelenne" donated "ecclesiam de Visilia" to Cluny by undated charter, subscribed by "Wigonis filii sui, Ainardi de Domena, duobus de fratribus suis Attanulfi Wigonis, Bermundi de Aurel, Humberti nepotis sui". This charter is dated to  in the compilation of Cluny charters. The document refers to Hugues abbot of Cluny, who is named in documents between 1048 and 1090. If  is the correct date, it would have been signed towards the end of the lives of all three of the Domène brothers who subscribed the document: they are named in charters for Domène between  and . It is therefore possible that the document dates from earlier in the abbacy of Hugues, in which case the donor could be Guigues [III] "Vetus". If this was correct, it would also resolve the problem of the identity of Gotelene. Chorier’s Histoire de Dauphiné suggests that "Gotelenne" was a corruption derived from the word "Catalonia" and therefore that this charter refers to Guigues [III]’s son by Ines de Barcelona. This seems an unlikely explanation as the name "Catalonia" has not been observed in contemporary charters to describe Barcelona and adjacent counties collectively.... A charter dated 29 Apr 1050 records the donation by "Guigoni…maiori, qui postea effectus est monachus…et Adelai comitissæ, et alii Guigoni, filio illius Guigonis…et uxori eius Petronillæ" to Saint-Pierre de Vienne. "…Guigo comes et filius eius Guigo…" witnessed the charter dated 27 Jan 1052 which records an agreement between the archbishop of Vienne and the canons of the church of Romans. "Vuigo comes" donated property "in parrochia Heroneii" to Domène by undated charter which names "dominus Hugo Prior de Domina" (whose priorship is dated to  to , indicating that the donor was Guigues [III] "Vetus"). "Guigo comes qui nomine vocor senex atque filius meus Guigo pinguis" donated property to Oulx by charter dated 1063. “Wigo” (signed “Wigonis comitis”) granted “sponse mee…Agnetis” various properties “in dotalitio”, including “castellum Albionem…Moratum…et Vallem…in comitatu Viennensis” by charter dated “VI Id Mai, luna XXma VIa regnante Henrico rege”, subscribed by “Pontii episcopi”, the date corresponding to the year 1070. He became a monk at Cluny.
The necrology of the Priory of Saint-Martin-des-Champs records the death "X Kal Mai" of "Wigo comes". The necrology of the priory of Saint-Robert records the death "X Kal Mai" of "Guigo comes qui cognominatus est Vetus". No document has yet been found which identifies the year of his death. However, considering the date of his second marriage, and the birth of his son by his second wife, it is likely that he died in [1074/75]. He was dead by 12 Nov 1076, the date of the testament of his father-in-law Ramon Berenguer Comte de Barcelona which provides for the reversion of the testator’s county to "filium Guigonis de Albion quem habuit de filia sua Agnes" in case of extinction of his descendants in the male line. This wording implies that both Ines and Guigues were deceased at the time. Prudhomme distinguishes two individuals in place of "Guigues [III]". He states that the older Guigues died in 1034, married "Gotelenne", and that his son was the second person, Guigues "Vetus". He cites no primary source in support of his theory, in particular no document which indicates that one of the counts Guigues died in 1034. The division of this person into two seems unnecessary to explain the primary sources. The family relationships shown in this document leave no primary source reference unexplained. In any case, it seems appropriate that Guigues "Vetus" should be identified with Guigues [III] as he would have well merited his nickname, assuming that his birth date is correctly estimated as shown above. 1