30. Round, pp. 341–42; Fauroux, p. 432.
31. GRA, I, p. 501.
32. Ibid.
33. OV, III, pp. 103, 105.
34. Round, p. 425.
35. Carey, p. 16.
36. Turgis, p. 10 (author’s translation).
37. There was also a portrait of Matilda’s future husband, William, and their sons, Robert and William. She commissioned the paintings when the abbey was built. They survived until the seventeenth century, when the room in which they were housed was demolished. The engravings were reproduced in a work by the French Benedictine monk Bernard de Montfaucon, in Les monuments de la monarchie française, 5 vols. (Paris, 1729–33).
38. Turgis, p. 10n.
39. GG, p. 149; GRA, I, p. 501.
40. GRA, I, p. 277.
41. Laing, III, p. 94.
42. Morris, vol. V, no. 67:1. This is corroborated by the mortuary roll of Abbess Matilda of the abbey of La Trinité, Caen, which includes a request that prayers be said for Duchess Matilda and three of her daughters, including the younger Matilda. Delisle, Rouleaux des Morts, pp. 181–82. If William and Matilda had as many daughters as the sources imply, it would have been unusual if none of them had shared their mother’s name, so this lends the accounts credibility.
43. Fauroux, Hilton, p. 38.
44. GG, p. 63.
45. GRA, I, p. 441.
46. GND, II, p. 151; GRA, I, p. 441.
47. GRA, I, p. 337.
6: EARL HAROLD
1. GRA, I, p. 417.
2. An excellent summary of the unification of England is given in Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 91. See also Fletcher, pp. 13–24.
3. Loyn, p. 315.
4. GRA, I, p. 419. Eadmer, meanwhile, attests that Harold and his men were stripped of all their most valuable possessions before being released. Eadmer, p. 6.
5. GRA, I, p. 417.
6. GG, p. 69.
7. Eadmer, p. 6.
8. GRA, I, p. 419.
9. GND, II, p. 161.
10. GRA, I, p. 441.
11. OV, II, p. 137.
12. Barlow, Life of King Edward, p. 49.
13. Laing, III, p. 76.
14. Carey, p. 14.
15. Laing, III, p. 76.
16. Ibid.
17. GG, p. 71.
18. OV, II, pp. 135, 137.
19. Eadmer, p. 7.
20. GRA, I, p. 419. Eadmer, p. 7, also mentions this, but does not name the girl. There is a great deal of confusion among the contemporary sources about which daughter was betrothed to Harold. The girl’s name is variously given as Agatha, Adela, Adeliza, and Adelida. The chroniclers differ not only from each other, but also within their own accounts. In his Ecclesiastical History, Orderic Vitalis refers to the girl as Agatha, but as Adelaide in his additions to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum: OV, III, p. 114n, 115. Wace’s account is more confused still. He claims that Matilda had just two daughters, Cecilia and Adela, and he is the only chronicler who attests that Adela was betrothed to Harold: Burgess and Holden, pp. 199, 223. We can be reasonably certain that Adeliza, Adelida, and Agatha were one and the same girl, and given that Adela was not even born when Harold visited Normandy, his intended bride must have been Adeliza. As William and Matilda’s eldest daughter, she was the most suitable candidate for a betrothal of this significance.
21. Laing, III, p. 76. See also Forester, p. 206.
22. Eadmer, p. 7.
23. Laing, III, p. 76.
24. Hill, pp. 24–26; Grape, p. 40. An earlier proponent of this theory is Turgis, pp. 41–42.
25. Andrew Bridgeford provides a compelling account of this mystery, alongside a myriad of others that the tapestry poses, in his excellent study.
26. GND, II, p. 161.
27. Eadmer, p. 8.
28. Ibid.
29. Carey, p. 46.
30. GRA, I, p. 447.
31. Eadmer, p. 8.
7: CONQUEST
1. OV, II, p. 137.
2. ASC, p. 194.
3. GND, II, p. 167; OV, II, p. 171.
4. GRA, I, p. 447.
5. OV, II, p. 145.
6. GRA, I, p. 449.
7. Strickland, p. 45.
8. Their sons Robert, Richard, and William witnessed the document confirming Cecilia’s entry. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, p. 53; Fauroux, pp. 442–46; Dugdale, p. 1072.
9. Around twenty young girls entered La Trinité with Cecilia that day. The endowments that they brought with them made the abbey so prosperous that it was able to survive with no other income until the French Revolution.
10. Freeman, however, argues that Cecilia must have been William and Matilda’s firstborn daughter for their relinquishing of her to the abbey to have been a sufficient sacrifice. None of the contemporary sources corroborate this theory, and the evidence is stronger that Adeliza was the eldest. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, p. 385. Meanwhile, M.A.E. Green, I, p. 5, asserts that Cecilia did not enter the cloister until 1074, and that the ceremony in 1066 was merely to pledge her as a future novice of the abbey. “In the summer of 1075, after completing a year’s trial, the girl expressed her steadfast desire to take the monastic vows.” However, Green probably confused this with the fact that in 1075 Cecilia took her vows as a fully ordained nun, having spent the previous nine years as a novice in the abbey.
11. GND, III, p. 149. See also OV, III, p. 9; IV, p. 47.
12. OV, III, pp. 9, 11; IV, p. 47. Orderic cites the date of Cecilia’s entry to La Trinité as 1075. OV, III, p. 9n; Walmsley, p. 429.
13. GND, II, p. 261.
14. The tapestry depicts ten men in the ship, but this was undoubtedly representative of many more.
15. Another account describes the sails as being painted in several places with three lions—the device of the Norman ensign—although this is doubtful, because armorial ensigns were not introduced until much later.
16. The figure was also thought to represent their third son, William Rufus. Burgess and Holden, p. 239. See also Houts, “The Ship List of William the Conqueror”; Houts, Normans in Europe, pp. 130–31.
17. GG, pp. 175, 177, 181; Houts, “The Echo of the Conquest in Latin Sources,” pp. 149–51. Figureheads had long been believed to have a magical as well as a symbolic function. For this reason, it was customary to remove them from ships before they arrived at their destination, because the inhabitants of the land that received them were afraid of being cursed. The Bayeux Tapestry shows that this happened with the ships of William’s fleet when it arrived on England’s shores.
18. Other theories for the ship’s name include “foolish” or “foolish woman,” a less common meaning derived from the Latin translation. This could have been a jest implying that Matilda was unwise to let her husband embark upon such a risky enterprise. Houts, “The Ship List of William the Conqueror,” p. 172.
19. The evidence suggests that Matilda chose one of her own servants to captain the ship. Orderic Vitalis names him as Stephen, son of Airard. This may have been the same man who is listed as “Stephanus seruiens comitisse” in the foundation charter of the duchess’s abbey at Caen, La Trinité. Ibid., pp. 172–73. Fifty-four years later, Stephen’s son commanded the White Ship when it was shipwrecked off the coast of Normandy. Among those lost was Matilda’s grandson, the heir to England, and her granddaughter Matilda, daughter of Adela.
20. Burgess and Holden, p. 235.
21. ASC, p. 194. This “star” was Halley’s comet, and the Bayeux Tapestry represents it as coinciding with Harold’s coronation, which was a case of dramatic license, for it could only have been seen in England between April 24 and 30. For other English commentaries on the phenomenon, see Riley, pp. 137–38; Darlington and McGurk, II, p. 601.
22. GND, II, pp. 162n, 163.
23. OV, II, p. 135. In a similar vein, Jumièges claimed “it portended, as many said, a change in some kingdom.” GND, II, pp. 162n, 163.
24. GG, p. 103. Edward III took ten thousand men to
France in 1346, and Henry V’s force in 1415 probably comprised around fifteen to twenty thousand men.
25. Jumièges also cites this figure, although Douglas claims that it was more likely to have been around one thousand at most: William the Conqueror, pp. 183–4n. Brown’s estimate is more conservative still, at six or seven hundred: Normans and the Norman Conquest, p. 130. See also Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, pp. xv–xvi.
26. GND, II, pp. 165, 167. See also OV, II, p. 145.
27. Thorpe, II, p. 12; OV, II, p. 356; III, pp. 98, 112; IV, p. 92; GND, I, Appendix; ASC, pp. 213–14. See also OV, II, p. 357; IV, p. 93.
28. A recent source claims that Matilda and Anne of Kiev were friends and that their sons Robert and Philip played together as children. Beguiling though this image is, there is no evidence for it in the contemporary sources. Fettu, p. xx.
29. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 186.
30. Bates, Normandy Before 1066, p. 151.
31. Truax, p. 117.
32. Strickland, p. 42.
33. William held at least three great councils as he made his preparations to invade England: one at Lillebonne, another at Bonneville-sur-Touques, and a third at Caen. It is not clear at which of these Matilda’s position as regent was confirmed, but given that the Caen council did not take place until June, the former two are more likely.
34. Foreville, p. 261; GG, p. 179.
35. OV, II, p. 263.
36. A reference by Orderic Vitalis implies that Montgomery was coregent, but this is not substantiated elsewhere and would hardly have been consistent with William’s policy of empowering family members above his nobles. There has in fact been some debate as to whether Montgomery was among those who stayed behind when the duke embarked upon his enterprise. Whereas both William of Poitiers and Orderic Vitalis assert that he was one of Matilda’s advisers, Wace goes into some detail about the pivotal role that Montgomery played at the Battle of Hastings. However, the former chroniclers were closer to the events, both in time and geography, so their accounts are more reliable. Similarly, it has been suggested that Hugh d’Avranches, who hailed from a powerful noble family in southwest Normandy, accompanied William to England in 1066 rather than playing a more political role back in the duchy. He seems, though, to have been confused with his father, Richard, who is known to have fought at Hastings, and there is compelling evidence that Hugh did not go to England until the following year. GND, II, p. 267n; OV, II, p. 211; Bates, “Origins of the Justiciarship,” pp. 6–9; Planché, pp. 181–84; II, pp. 16–17.
37. GG, p. 179.
38. OV, III, p. 99.
39. ASC, pp. 195, 197.
40. According to his account, the two men were “close friends” because they had married two sisters, Judith and Matilda. In fact, Judith was Matilda’s aunt.
41. OV, II, p. 141.
42. Malmesbury refers to Hardrada as “Harold Fairhair, king of Norwegians.” GRA, I, p. 421.
43. Ibid. See also ASC, pp. 197–98.
44. GRA, I, p. 449. See also Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 7.
45. GRA, I, p. 449. See also OV, II, p. 171.
46. GND, II, p. 165.
47. Brown, Normans and the Norman Conquest, p. 133.
48. GRA, I, p. 451. Wace gives a slightly different account of the incident, and credits William himself with the quickness of thought: “When the duke first disembarked, he fell forward on to the palms of his hands; at once a loud cry arose and everyone said: ‘This is a bad sign!’ But he cried out to them: ‘My lords, by the splendour of God! I have taken possession of the land in my two hands.’ ” Burgess and Holden, p. 241. This account is corroborated by Searle, Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 35.
49. Strickland, p. 49.
50. ASC, pp. 199–200. See also OV, II, p. 173.
51. GG, p. 131. For a similar account, see OV, II, p. 175.
52. GRA, I, p. 457; GG, p. 135; Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, pp. 27, 29.
53. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 27; GG, p. 133.
54. GRA, I, p. 455.
55. Wace claims that Harold continued fighting after his eye was “put out” by an arrow and was subsequently felled by a blow to the thigh, whereupon “there was such a throng … that I cannot say who killed him.” Burgess and Holden, p. 287. There was little of Harold’s body left to identify when his grief-stricken mistress, Edith “Swanneck,” later walked through the carnage of the battlefield in the hope of rescuing her lover’s remains for burial. A grisly account of his slaughter is provided by Guy, bishop of Amiens: Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 33.
56. GG, pp. 137, 139.
8: “A FATAL DISASTER”
1. GRA, I, p. 457.
2. GND, II, pp. 169, 169n.
3. Searle, pp. 39, 41.
4. OV, II, p. 179. For a similar account, see GG, pp. 139, 141.
5. ASC, pp. 199–200.
6. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 35.
7. OV, II, p. 179. His account is taken from William of Poitiers: GG, p. 141. A similar version is provided by Guy, bishop of Amiens: Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 35. They are contradicted by Malmesbury, who claims that William agreed to release his rival’s body for an honorable burial: GRA, I, p. 461.
8. GRA, I, p. 423.
9. Fauroux, p. 27; Ducarel, p. 36.
10. OV, II, p. 225.
11. Some doubt has been cast upon whether Guy of Amiens was Matilda’s chaplain. He is cited as such by Orderic Vitalis, but Professor Barlow has questioned whether a French bishop would have attended a duchess of Normandy. True, Matilda had strong family connections with France, and Guy was also descended from the French royal family. But he was routinely to be found at the court of the French king and regularly witnessed charters there, whereas he is not known to have witnessed any charters in Normandy or England, including the two charters that were granted on the day of Matilda’s coronation. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. xvii.
12. Orderic Vitalis claims that Guy had already written the poem when he came to England with Matilda in 1068. Some scholars believe the poem was not his work at all and that it was written much later. However, Professor Barlow has put forward convincing evidence to support Orderic’s claim. Particularly convincing is the fact that William of Poitiers almost certainly made use of it when writing his history. Barlow also believes that it was written to further the cause of Eustace of Boulogne rather than at Matilda’s prompting. Matilda was not mentioned in the prologue, as might be expected if she had commissioned it, but it is possible that her name appeared at the end of the work, which has since been lost. See also Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio; OV, II, p. 369; Houts, “Latin Poetry,” pp. 53–56; Bridgeford, pp. 22–23.
13. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 3.
14. William’s apologist, William of Poitiers, was also fond of comparing him to Caesar, but he went further than Guy of Amiens by claiming that he was superior to the celebrated Roman emperor. See, for example, GG, pp. 155, 169, 171, 173, 175.
15. B. de Montfaucon, Les monuments de la monarchie française, vol. II (Paris, 1730), p. 2. See also Bridgeford, pp. 30–31.
16. Strickland, pp. 64–65.
17. Bridgeford, p. 156.
18. GG, p. 177.
19. Bridgeford, pp. 9, 165.
20. Andrew Bridgeford puts forward a convincing case for this.
21. Bridgeford, p. 162.
22. GG, p. 143.
23. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 39.
24. GG, p. 149; Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. lxxxix. See also Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, I, p. 413.
25. Barlow, Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, p. 45.
26. OV, II, p. 185. For another account of the incident, see GG, p. 151.
27. GG, pp. 260, 179; Fauroux, p. 197.
28. William did not grant her the county of Kent as he had promised, but instead gave it to his half-brother Odo. The reason for this is not clear.
29. Strickland, p. 87.
30. It is possible that Matilda did not conceive until William’s return from the Conquest in spring 1067. But by this reckoning, she would have given birth in early 1068, which would have allowed a very short (though not impossible) gap between this birth and that of her last child, Henry.
31. Houts, “Echo of the Conquest,” pp. 145–46. See also Fettu, p. 17.
32. This idea is explored by Houts, “Echo of the Conquest,” pp. 147–49.
33. Hilton, p. 33.
34. Darlington and McGurks, III, p. 27.
35. ASC, p. 200.
36. The English tend to be referred to as the “native” population when comparisons are drawn with the conquering Normans, but this term is misleading. In fact, England was made up of a complex patchwork of nationalities reflecting the many invasions that she had suffered over the centuries.
37. OV, II, p. 199; GG, p. 181; GRA, I, pp. 459, 461.
38. GRA, I, p. 461.
39. Ibid., p. 471.
40. OV, II, p. 191.
41. Clover and Gibson, pp. 31,33. Matilda had added her voice to the many who urged Lanfranc to take the post and had let it be known that she had prayed he would relent. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, pp. 344–45.
42. Riley, p. 142.
43. OV, II, p. 267. Orderic Vitalis claims that William’s daily revenue was £1,061 10s and 3 halfpence. Although this is a very precise estimate, it is likely to be exaggerated. Ibid., p. 267n.
44. Stevenson, Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, p. 491.
45. OV, II, p. 269.
46. Ibid., p. 271.
47. Riley, p. 142.
48. Ibid.
49. OV, II, p. 257.
50. Ibid., p. 269.
51. Loyn, p. 324. See also Leyser, pp. 74–90.
52. GRA, I, pp. 415, 417.
53. OV, II, p. 257.
54. ASC, p. 220. This is corroborated by Orderic Vitalis, OV, II, p. 193, and William of Poitiers, GG, pp. 159, 161.
9: QUEEN OF ENGLAND
1. Douglas, p. 85.
2. OV, II, p. 91.
3. Ibid., IV, p. 83.
4. GG, pp. 33, 179.
5. Abrahams, pp. 255–56.
6. Boüard, Guillaume le Conquérant, pp. 403–4. This legend has left its mark on the topography of modern-day Caen, for the Rue Froide still exists, and some claim that a collection of crosses in the city marks the spot where Matilda’s “Croix Pleureuse” used to stand.
Queen of the Conqueror Page 30
