17. Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 76.
18. Ibid.
19. GND, II, p. 147.
20. Blaauw, pp. 109–10, certainly believes this was the case and asserts it strongly. See also Mason, William II, p. 27.
21. Prentout, pp. 14–29, provides a useful précis of this argument. See also Boüard, Guillaume le Conquérant, pp. 163–65; Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 380.
22. This theory was put forward by the mid-nineteenth-century medievalist Thomas Stapleton, in “Observations in Disproof.” See also Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, pp. 86–87, 651–60, and Appendix O; Freeman, “Parentage of Gundrada”; Blaauw; Lair, pp. 25–26; Planché, pp. 134–35; Prentout, pp. 9–14; Waters; Guérard, p. 201; H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 52.
23. Also referred to as “Gundrada” and “Gundred.”
24. There is no direct reference to Matilda’s being the mother of Gerbod and Frederic; this is inferred from contemporary evidence about Gundreda’s brothers. Orderic Vitalis claims that Gundreda was the sister of Gerbode, a Fleming, to whom Duke William later gave the earldom of Chester. His account is confirmed by a reference in the chronicle of Hyde Abbey to “Gerbodo” from Flanders, brother of a countess. A number of references contained within Domesday Book to a man named Frederic from Flanders led Stapleton to conclude that he, too, was a brother of Gundreda—and therefore a son of Matilda. Another nineteenth-century historian claims that there was a third son, Richard Guett, who was listed as the brother of “the Countess of Warren” in a bequest to Bermondsey Abbey, although the evidence for this is flimsy. OV, II, p. 221; Edwards, pp. xcvii, 296; Morris, vol. XVIII, no. 18:7; Clay, pp. 44–45; Planché, pp. 136–37, 144.
25. This is supported by another Lewes charter, which records that the manor of Carleton in Norfolk was given to the priory by “Matilda, mother of the Countess Gundred.” Clay, pp. 43, 61; Freeman, “Parentage of Gundrada,” p. 681; M.A.E. Green, I, pp. 73n, 77.
26. Clay, pp. 40–41, 44, 56–57; M.A.E. Green, I, pp. 74–75. Strickland, pp. 97–98, accepts this theory and confidently names Gundreda as the “sixth and youngest daughter of the Conqueror and Matilda.” The belief that Gundreda was the daughter of William and Matilda evidently still prevailed in the sixteenth century. The British Library contains a sketch from around the time of Henry VIII’s reign that shows the couple with three of their sons and three of their daughters. Gundreda is included among the latter. BL Harleian 1449 fo.6b. The badly damaged tombstone that bore Gundreda’s epitaph was discovered at Isfield Church near Lewes in 1774 by the antiquary Sir William Burrell, who reerected it in St. John’s Church, Southover. In 1845, her lead coffin was discovered by workmen during the construction of the Lewes and Brighton railway. It bore the inscription “Gundrada” and lay alongside that of her husband, William of Warenne, in the grounds of St. Pancras Priory, Lewes, which they had founded. The coffins were later reinterred in a specially constructed chapel at the priory. H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 52; Clay, pp. 40–41, 44.
27. If they were not mother and daughter, Matilda and Gundreda do seem to have been well acquainted. Gundreda shared Matilda’s Flemish descent and might have been affiliated to her father’s court. The evidence suggests that she was of noble birth, and the intriguing inscription on her tomb implies that she was part of the ducal family itself. It is possible that she was a daughter of one of Matilda’s brothers. There is no Gundreda listed among their children, but the records concerning female offspring are notoriously sketchy during this period, and she could in any case have been illegitimate. Alternatively, she may have been a member of Matilda’s household—the duchess retained a number of Flemish ladies in her service throughout her life. It has even been suggested that Gundreda was adopted by Matilda and William as a child. Certainly, the couple seem to have held her in some esteem, for they granted various estates to her and her husband. Gundreda, for her part, was grateful to Matilda, for she later gave her the manor of Cariton in Cambridgeshire as a gift. Clay, pp. 43, 54–55, 56–57, 59–62. See also H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 52.
28. OV, II, p. 105.
29. This had been a controversial marriage. According to one account, Richildis had proved as unwilling a bride as Matilda, and had refused to marry Robert for fear of offending the emperor. This had prompted Count Baldwin to take matters into his own hands. He gathered a troop of soldiers together and took Richildis by force to Flanders, where she was married to his son before any further protests could arise. Lair, pp. 21–22.
30. Round, p. 421; Smet, p. 552; Fauroux, pp. 254, 284–86, 293–95, 302–3; Chronicon Turonense, p. 348. For a more recent discussion of the subject, see Davis, “William of Jumièges,” pp. 603–4; Barlow, William Rufus, p. 8n; Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 379–80.
31. GG, p. 33. Presumably Matilda would also have been presented with lavish gifts by her husband-to-be, as this was traditional. An old English poem prescribed: “A king shall buy a queen with goods, with cups and with bracelets.” Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, p. 57.
32. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 42.
33. Licquet claims that it was celebrated at Rouen: Turgis, p. 22n. Wace, meanwhile, asserts that the venue was Eu: Burgess and Holden, p. 199.
34. Turgis, p. 23.
35. “Cronique attribuée à Baudoin d’Avesnes.” See also Strickland, pp. 27–28.
36. GND, II, p. 131.
37. Bates, Normandy Before 1066, pp. 199–201. See also Bates, William the Conqueror, pp. 55–56; GND, II, p. 148n. A recent biography of Lanfranc supports this theory, and cites a letter from Pope Nicholas to Lanfranc implying that the prelate had not visited Rome during the early part of 1059, when the ban was lifted. Gibson, pp. 69n, 109–10.
38. They were Robert Champart, abbot of Jumièges, and Jean de Ravenne, abbot of Fécamp.
39. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, pp. 105–6.
40. GRA, I, p. 495.
4: BIRTH OF A DYNASTY
1. GND, II, pp. 129, 131.
2. GG, p. 33.
3. OV, III, p. 36.
4. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 56.
5. Burgess and Holden, p. 199.
6. Not to be confused with the chronicler William of Jumièges, with whom there was apparently no connection.
7. Wulfnoth and Haakon would remain in Normandy for the next thirteen years. Another theory is that they were there as part of a bargain struck between Earl Godwine and King Edward. The English king had apparently demanded that the two men be placed under Duke William’s guardianship to ensure that the earl would not rebel against him.
8. GRA, I, p. 355.
9. Ibid., p. 417.
10. Brown, Normans and the Norman Conquest; Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, I, p. 413.
11. Bradley, p. 348.
12. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 137.
13. The date of Richard’s birth is cited as c. 1055 in GND, II, pp. 216n, 290–91. This is the earliest account to mention Matilda’s second son. One source claims that William Rufus was born as early as 1056. However, his biographer, Professor Barlow, places his date of birth at around 1060. He quotes Malmesbury’s statement that William’s death occurred when he was major quadragenario (above the age of forty), although he admits that this phrase may have simply meant that William was no longer young. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 3n. William’s nickname is assumed to refer to his red hair, which may have recurred in his father’s family due to its Viking ancestry. But contemporary writers agree that his hair was “yellow” or “blond,” and variously claim that it was his red beard or ruddy complexion that earned him his nickname. See, for example, GRA, I, pp. 566–67. This is discussed further in Mason, William II, pp. 9–11.
14. OV, II, p. 225.
15. The exception is Orderic Vitalis, who, in his revision of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, completely ignored Jumièges’s paragraph about William and Matilda’s offspring and the succession. This may have been a tactful omission because he was conscious o
f the turbulent relationship between William and his eldest son.
16. GND, II, p. 131. In his later revision of this work, Robert of Torigni provides a little more detail, saying that Matilda’s children by William included “Robert, who after him held the duchy of Normandy for some time, and William who ruled the kingdom of England thirteen years, and Richard who died in his youth … and four daughters.” Torigni, who was writing in the 1130s, was a methodical and conscientious historian, more concerned with recording the information as he found it than with dramatizing it for the benefit of his audience. As prior of Le Bec and later abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, he played a much more active role in the secular world than either Jumièges or Orderic had been able to, and the insights that he provides into the political world of Normandy are therefore of value.
17. GND, II, pp. 261, 263; GRA, I, p. 505; OV, II, pp. 105, 225; IV, p. 351; GG, pp. 59, 61, 95, 96, 157; Burgess and Holden, pp. 199, 223. Historians have differed almost as much as contemporary chroniclers in their accounts of William and Matilda’s daughters. Some of the most useful analyses include Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 88–92, Appendix A; Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, pp. 666–70; D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact upon England (London, Folio Society, 2004), Appendix C; OV, III, pp. 114–15n; Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 441–45; Pryde et al., Handbook of British Chronology, p. 31. See also Madden, p. 31.
18. Also referred to as Adelais, Adelida, and Aelgiva.
19. OV, IV, p. 351.
20. See, for example, Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 383; Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 151.
21. The only account that contradicts this is the nineteenth-century poem written in Matilda’s honor by H. M. Carey. She claims that “several of Matilda’s children died in their infancy” and cites Orderic Vitalis as her source, even though there is nothing in his account to substantiate it. Carey, p. 16n.
22. The ministrations of doctors often did more harm than good. For example, the treatment advocated for a woman who suffered excessive bleeding after childbirth was to bleed her first from one ankle and then the other. Leyser, p. 281.
23. R. V. Turner, p. 21.
24. The names that were chosen for William and Matilda’s daughters cast further doubt upon the separate existence of Agatha. There is no known source for this name from either side of the family, nor does it have any other obvious connections. Indeed, its absence from most contemporary sources suggests that it was a highly unusual name. Only Orderic Vitalis refers to it: once as the name of William and Matilda’s daughter, and once as a third-century virgin and martyr who was commemorated at Catania in Sicily. OV, III, p. 86.
25. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 14. See also James, pp. 13–23. The theory continues that youth was from twenty-nine to fifty; dignity from fifty-one to seventy; and thereafter was old age.
26. Delisle, pp. 224–25.
27. Fauroux, pp. 434–35, 409–15.
28. GRA, I, p. 543.
29. Strickland, p. 80, claims that Roger de Beaumont had played a role in the education of William and Matilda’s children, but there is no contemporary evidence to substantiate this.
30. Migne, p. 156; Houts, “Norman Conquest Through European Eyes.” The two might have been related through Matilda’s mother, Adela. Matilda also witnessed a grant to Rouen cathedral by Simon in 1075. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 720–21.
31. Migne, p. 156; Houts, Normans in Europe, p. 199.
32. GRA, I, p. 543.
33. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 94–96; Fauroux, no. 141; Round, p. 421.
34. Other notable examples of mothers advising their sons on political affairs included Berthe de Blois, who upon the death of her husband, Hugh IV of Maine, advised their young son Herbert to ingratiate himself with Duke William. Meanwhile, Harold Godwinson would have done well to heed his mother Gytha’s advice not to do battle with William at Hastings in 1066. Truax, “From Bede to Orderic Vitalis,” pp. 49–50.
35. For example, William of Poitiers mentions a daughter of William and Matilda who was betrothed to Count Herbert of Maine. GG, pp. 59, 61.
36. Foreville, pp. 92, 120.
37. It has been suggested that William Rufus was close in age to Cecilia and that his parents may therefore have intended to commit him to the duke’s abbey of St.-Étienne at the same time that Cecilia entered her mother’s foundation at La Trinité in 1066. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 22.
38. Round, p. 108.
39. OV, V, p. 177. He was also known as “Arnulf the grammarian” and was later appointed chaplain and chancellor to Matilda’s eldest son, Robert. He taught Cecilia at La Trinité, the abbey that Matilda founded at Caen, where he was also schoolmaster and chaplain to the other nuns. David, p. 219; GND, II, p. 53n.
40. For praise of Cecilia and Adela’s beauty, see Abrahams, pp. 199, 255.
41. K. A. LoPrete, “Adela of Blois as Mother and Countess,” in Carmi Parsons and Wheeler, p. 319.
42. They included “Ilgerius, pedagogue of Robert,” who is listed among the witnesses to a charter that was confirmed by William shortly before he departed for the invasion of England. Fauroux, pp. 437–38; Aird, Robert Curthose, p. 37; K. A. LoPrete, “Adela of Blois as Mother and Countess,” in Carmi Parsons and Wheeler, p. 315.
43. GRA, I, p. 493. All the chroniclers attest to Lanfranc’s exceptional intellect and ability. Orderic Vitalis hails him as “remarkably well-versed in the liberal arts, a man full of kindness, generosity, and piety, who devoted much time to alms and other good works.” He also claims that “By intellect and learning Lanfranc would have won the applause of Herodian in grammar, Aristotle in Dialectic, Cicero in rhetoric, Augustine, Jerome, and the other commentators on the Old and New Testaments in scriptural studies.” OV, II, pp. 147, 251. Eadmer, meanwhile, describes him as “a man of energetic character and possessed of outstanding knowledge in studies both sacred and secular.” Eadmer, p. 10.
44. OV, III, p. 101.
45. GRA, I, p. 701.
5: DUCHESS OF NORMANDY
1. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 638–39.
2. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 149.
3. Ibid., p. 147.
4. Ibid., p. 29.
5. GND, I, p. 5.
6. ASC, p. 221. As king of England, William would be widely criticized for the draconian measures that he introduced to protect game. Malmesbury condemned him for the destruction that was entailed in creating his favorite hunting ground, the New Forest, and Orderic claimed that sixty parishes were laid waste in the process, although this was an exaggeration. William, he said, had “replaced the men with beasts of the forest so that he might hunt to his heart’s content.” OV, V, p. 285. See also Forester, p. 217.
7. Forester, p. 217.
8. GND, II, p. 147. The Lateran Councils of the Roman Catholic Church were so named because they were held in the Lateran Palace, a former papal residence, in Rome between the seventh and the eighteenth centuries.
9. GND, II, pp. 147, 149.
10. Burgess and Holden, pp. 199, 201.
11. Ibid. The full verse runs:
Before their union was allowed
A hundred prebends they endowed:
A hundred poor men clothed and fed,
To sick and crippled gave their bread
At Cherbourg and at Rouen,
At Bayeux too, no less than Caen–
These pious gifts are with us still
As founded by the ducal will.
12. The same stone was later used for building work in England, notably the choir of Canterbury Cathedral.
13. GND, II, p. 149. The date of La Trinité’s foundation depends upon the length of Abbess Matilda’s tenure. For this we must rely upon Orderic Vitalis, but his accounts leave room for doubt. In the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, he claims that Abbess Matilda ruled for forty-eight years, but in his Historia Ecclesiastica he says it was forty-seven years. There is some confusion as to when he dated her tenure from—i.e., when the abbey was first operational in 10
59, or when it was dedicated in June 1066. GND, II, pp. 148–49n; OV, IV, p. 47. For a further discussion on this point, see Musset, “La Reine Mathilde,” pp. 191–210.
14. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, p. 15.
15. GG, p. 85.
16. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, p. 109.
17. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 90. Orderic Vitalis inaccurately claims that William built both churches, completely overlooking Matilda’s role in commissioning La Trinité. OV, II, pp. 11, 191. It is true that William had more involvement in the foundation of La Trinité than Matilda did in St.-Étienne, judging from the frequency of his name on its charters. But the sources make it abundantly clear that La Trinité was very much Matilda’s project.
18. OV, II, p. 11.
19. OV, VI, p. 451. This would be completed by her youngest son, Henry, who turned it into the priory of Le Bec. His heart was later buried there, which may have been intended as a compliment to his mother. The rest of his remains were buried at his father’s abbey of St.-Étienne in Caen.
20. Bates, Regesta Regum, p. 93.
21. The wording used was “Hoc viderunt Guillelmus Rex et Mathildis regina.” Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 183–87, 271–95, 302, 530–33, 625–27, 750–51, 767–69; Round, pp. 141, 429, 431; Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, I, pp. 8, 30, 33, 41.
22. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 176–78, 632–33, 643–46, 722–23, 750–51, 759–62, 774–75; Fauroux, pp. 343–44, 375–76, 377–78, 396–98, 408–9, 442–46.
23. The lands included Bures-en-Bray, Maintru, and Osmoy-St.-Valéry. For the contention that Matilda was comparatively poor before the Conquest, see Musset, “La Reine Mathilde,” p. 193. As well as the dowry that a woman brought to her marriage, which represented her share of her family’s inheritance, she was also endowed with dower rights in her husband’s lands.
24. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 530–33.
25. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant.
26. OV, III, pp. 135–39.
27. GRA, I, p. 501.
28. Strickland, p. 37.
29. Carey, p. 79.
Queen of the Conqueror Page 29
