• Born: Le Forez, Loire, Lyonnais/Rhone-Alpes, France
• Married: Before 1 Jul 985/6
• Died: 11 Oct 1000

  Research Notes:

"Artaldi comitis" donated property to the church of Saint-Irénée de Lyon by charter dated "pridie Kal Jul, xlviii anno regni Chunradi" ([985/86]), subscribed by "domni Artaldi…comitis…cum…conjuge…Tetbergiæ…domni Ugonis abbatis fratris eius, Adcelinæ abbatissæ…". "Artaldus comes, Gerardi quondam nobilis viri et Gimbergiæ filius" donated property "in pago Lugdunensi in ago Cegniacensi…in villa Toriniaco" to Savigny by charter dated 994, subscribed by "Artaldi comitis et uxoris eius Theodebergiæ". "Artaldus comes" donated property to Cluny by charter dated Apr 995. It is possible that the seigneurs de Beaujeu...were related in some way to the comtes de Lyon et de Forez. Samuel Guichenon, in his Histoire de la Souverainté de Dombes written in 1662, cites earlier secondary sources which quote an epitaph (disappeared by the date of Guichenon's work) which records the death in "the year 99" of "Artaudus comes Lugdunensis et comes Forensis et dominus Bellijoci et Umfredus frater eius et mater eorum qui obiit anno 99". Guichenon cites another version of the epitaph, from "une ancienne généalogie manuscrite" which he found in the archives of the "chapitre de Saint-Jean de Lyon", which reads "Artaudus comes Lugdunensis ac Forensis, dominus Bellijoci, anno 999" and "Artaldus filius et mater eius". The editor of the 1874 edition of Guichenon records yet another version, from "la chronique trouvée à Belleville" which reads "…Artaldus comes Lugd. et Forensis dns Stephanus comes frater eius et Amphredus Bellijoci dns et pater et frater eorum, obiit dictus Artaldus 993". Guichenon's conclusion is that none of these versions is likely to be genuine, based on his supposition that pre-1000 epitaphs are infrequent and that those which exist record only names and titles not the territories ruled. Paradin notes that “deux escussons des armoiries de Forez et Beaujolais” were on the epitaph. Auguste Bernard confirms that the inscription could not therefore have been contemporary as such arms did not exist in the 10th century. We are therefore left with little evidence to corroborate the claimed family connection with the seigneurs de Beaujeu. ¹