7. Turgis, p. 47.
8. Matilda later granted the manor to Roger de Busci.
9. Dugdale, II, p. 60. See also Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, IV, Appendix O.
10. H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 7.
11. Morris, vol. V, no. 1:8; VI, no. 17:1, VII, no. 1:15–29, 17:1, 54:8, 56:19; VIII, no. 17:8; IX, no. 1:57–72, 13a:2, 24:1, 27:1, 40:4; 52:25 and 30; X, no. 1:13–19; XIII, no. 52; XV, no. 1:47, 69:6–7; XXII, EG2:3; XXXI, no. 68:30; XXXII, no. 1:11, 60:3, 82:1, B3:j.
12. These Gloucestershire lands reverted to the crown after Matilda’s death and were then granted by William to their third son, William Rufus.
13. An excellent analysis of Brihtric’s landholdings and what became of them is provided by Ann Williams in “A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century.” The lands that Matilda retained are as follows: (Gloucestershire) Tewkesbury, Old Sodbury, Avening, Fairford, Thornbury; (Dorset) Frome St. Quintin, Cranborne, Ashmore; (Devon) Northlew, Halwill, Clovelly, Bideford, Littleham, Langtree, Iddesleigh, Winkleigh, Ashreigny, Lapford, Irishcombe, High Bickington, Morchard Bishop, Holcombe Burnell, Halberton, Ashprington; (Cornwall) Connerton, Coswarth, Binnerton, Trevalga, Carwogie.
14. Strickland, pp. 90–91. Strickland cites her source as a charter dated 1082. There are two charters involving bequests from Matilda to La Trinité that year, but neither mentions Nailsworth: Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 287–88, 292–95. It is possible—but unlikely—that Strickland had access to a charter that has eluded the editors of later collections.
15. FitzOsbern also seized a number of Brihtric’s other possessions, including the revenues of Hanley Castle and Forthampton and land at Bushley in Worcestershire. He may have been given these as a reward for the part that he played in quashing the rebellion. Williams, “West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century,” p. 62.
16. Sancho had inherited Castile and Garcia had inherited Galicia.
17. Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni all concur that the daughter who was betrothed to Alfonso was the same one who had earlier been allied to Harold of England. Only Malmesbury claims that they were two different girls, although he admits that he cannot remember their names. William of Poitiers, on the other hand, refers to a daughter of William who was fought over by two kings of Spain, but he fails to name her altogether. GND, II, pp. 160–61, 263; GRA, I, pp. 419, 505; OV, III, pp. 114n, 115; GND, II, pp. 160–61, 262–63; GG, p. 95. See also Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, IV, pp. 852–53.
18. OV, III, p. 115.
19. Foreville, p. 143; OV, III, p. 114n. See also Douglas, pp. 381–82; Houts, Normans in Europe, p. 198n. There is some confusion as to the identity of the two Spanish kings because there were three brothers to whom Ferdinand I bequeathed his Spanish dominions. Although Alfonso is most often cited as the king who eventually triumphed, one historian has cast doubt upon this. In her translation of Orderic’s Ecclesiastical History, Marjorie Chibnall claims that Orderic referred to Adeliza’s betrothed simply as “rex Galicie” and probably did not mean Alfonso because he usually called him “Hildefonsus.” However, she concludes that there is a “strong case” for Alfonso’s being the man involved, even if Orderic did not believe that this was so. OV, III, pp. 114–15n. The plans for a Spanish marriage for William and Matilda’s daughter may have begun as early as 1064, with the siege of Barbastro in northern Spain, at which a contingent of Norman soldiers was present.
20. OV, III, p. 115.
21. Ibid.
22. The circumstances of this match are not known, and there is some room to doubt whether it ever took place. However, Strickland argues that it was more likely to have been Edwin rather than the late king Harold to whom Adeliza was so attached that she eschewed all others. She argues that they were closer in age and that Edwin “had, in all probability, been privileged with some intimacy with the princess.” There is no evidence for this in the contemporary sources, however. Strickland, pp. 96–97.
23. GG, p. 179. Easter fell on April 8 that year.
24. OV, II, p. 141.
25. GG, pp. 175, 177.
26. Ibid., p. 175.
27. OV, II, p. 199.
28. GG, p. 181.
29. OV, II, p. 199.
30. Ibid., p. 285.
31. Ibid., pp. 211, 285. For a contrasting view, see GND, II, p. 179.
32. OV, II, p. 215.
33. Ibid.
34. Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, I, p. 411.
35. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 594–601, 863–65; Domesday Book, vol. V, no. 67:1.
36. ASC, p. 402.
37. Strickland, p. 22.
38. There is some debate as to whether Matilda was already pregnant when she arrived in England, because the chroniclers cite different dates for the birth. Orderic Vitalis simply states that the child was born “within a year of her coronation”: OV, II, p. 215. The Winchester Chronicle, meanwhile, reports that the birth occurred “not many days” after her coronation: “Annales monasterii de Wintona,” in Luard, vol. XXXVI, part I, p. 27.
39. J. L. Nelson, p. 70.
40. Ibid.
41. Strickland, pp. 62–63, claims that William was recrowned at the same ceremony, but there is no contemporary evidence for this.
42. The name “Whit” probably derives from the white garments that were traditionally worn on this day. ASC, p. 202n. See also Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 7.
43. There is some suggestion that the coronation took place at Winchester rather than Westminster. The sources are frustratingly ambiguous, but given the importance of the occasion and the need to make it as high-profile as possible, Westminster seems more likely. This also ensured continuity with William’s coronation. Luard, vol. II, p. 27; vol. III, p. 424.
44. Laudes were ritual chants sung during Mass at great religious festivals. They honored the powers wielding authority in heaven and on earth, and were therefore entirely appropriate for such an occasion. The argument that they were first used in England at Matilda’s coronation can be found in Cowdrey, “Anglo-Norman Laudes regiae,” pp. 50ff. See also Gathagan, “Trappings of Power.”
45. Hilton, p. 34.
46. Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, I, p. 413.
47. Strickland, pp. 63–64.
48. Ibid., p. 63. The grant was on the condition that the manor provide this dish at future coronations in perpetuity.
49. A list of the witnesses to the charter regarding St.-Martin-le-Grand is provided by Keynes, pp. 242–43.
50. They embarked at the city of St.-Omer. Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 7. Orderic Vitalis inaccurately states that they went to France, even though St.-Omer was part of Flemish territory at this time. OV, II, p. 225.
51. Hilton, p. 34.
10: “THE ENGLISH TUMULTS”
1. ASC, p. 202.
2. GND, II, p. 183.
3. This estimate is provided by Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 210.
4. Tomkeieff, p. 29. It is not clear where William and Matilda stayed while this palace was under construction. Work had begun on a new castle in Winchester at about the same time, and if this was finished first they might well have taken up residence there temporarily. Even though the kitchens tended to be separate from the main palace in order to minimize the risk of fire, William’s new palace at Winchester fell victim to this fate in 1140 and was never rebuilt.
5. Abrahams, pp. 255–56. A transcript of the section of the poem that describes the tapestry can be found in S. A. Brown, Appendix III. See also Houts, Normans in Europe, pp. 125–28.
6. Beowulf, lines 994–96.
7. See, for example, Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 247, 276, 287, 293.
8. OV, II, p. 215.
9. GRA, I, p. 711.
10. Stevenson, Historical Works of Simeon of Durham, p. 550.
11. According to Eadmer, “Lanfranc had the ear of King William, not merely as one of his advisers but rather as his principal adviser.” Eadmer, p. 12.
12. GRA, I, pp.
709, 711. See also OV, II, p. 215. When he became king, Henry gave greater attention to the education of his daughter, the future empress Matilda, than was usual for the time, and she reached such a standard of intellect that she was able to understand government documents in Latin. Hilton, p. 159.
13. OV, II, p. 233.
14. GRA, I, p. 363. See also OV, II, pp. 219, 221.
15. OV, IV, p. 95.
16. Ibid., II, pp. 231, 233.
17. Stevenson, Historical Works of Simeon of Durham, p. 551.
18. GND, II, p. 181.
19. Sweyn did have a valid claim to the English throne, because he was the son of King Cnut’s sister and the cousin of King Harthacnut.
20. She was there in time for the Easter celebrations at Winchester, but it is not clear how soon before that she arrived.
21. OV, II, pp. 222–23n.
22. Round, p. 21.
23. GRA, I, p. 509.
24. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 107.
25. Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, p. 101.
26. Biddle, p. 57.
27. Strickland, p. 63.
28. Carey, p. 14n.
29. Domesday Book, vol. VI, no. 24p.
30. Strickland, p. 87. The cost of feeding the royal court rose even higher during the reign of William and Matilda’s son, William Rufus, whose notorious excesses put an unbearable pressure on the rural economy. Caring nothing for the hardships that his people suffered as a result, he and his followers plundered the land through which they passed. What they could not eat, they burned, and to show their disdain for the local populace, they washed their horses’ feet in the leftover wine and ale.
31. Delisle, Receuil de Travaux d’Erudition, pp. 224–25.
32. Bates, Regesta Regum, p. 296. See also Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, p. 112.
33. Morris, vol. VI, no. 67:86.
34. Strickland, p. 67.
35. OV, II, p. 223.
11: “MUTUAL AND LASTING HOSTILITY”
1. Orderic Vitalis cites these dates, and his estimate is supported by two charters for the abbey of St.-Gabriel in Calvados, which were attested by Matilda at Valognes. Douglas, p. 211n.
2. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 634–35. For a related grant, see pp. 638–39.
3. According to Orderic Vitalis, this marriage had resulted from a rift between Robert and his father. He claims that they had had such a serious quarrel when Robert was a young man that Baldwin had disowned him and sent him into exile. Robert had sought refuge with his father’s enemy, Florence, duke of Frisia, who had given him his daughter in marriage. Upon hearing of this, Baldwin “flew into a violent rage” and disinherited Robert, making his younger brother Arnulf heir instead. OV, II, pp. 281, 283. In fact, Arnulf was the son of Baldwin’s eldest son and heir (also called Baldwin), who became Count Baldwin VI in 1067 upon his father’s death. Baldwin V had not been at all opposed to Robert’s marriage.
4. GND, II, pp. 225, 227.
5. GRA, I, p. 475.
6. OV, II, p. 281; GND, II, p. 147. Orderic Vitalis claims that fitzOsbern had been instructed to act as coregent with Matilda, but this is not supported by any other source. Neither is his assertion that the English king went in person to Flanders to take up arms on Arnulf’s behalf, although it is likely that William returned to Normandy for a brief spell around that time.
7. OV, II, pp. 215, 217, 218. Malmesbury claims that fitzOsbern was eager to undertake the mission because he hoped to marry the widow Richildis, for whom he had a consuming passion. However, his account of the revolt as a whole is severely flawed, and his claim is not corroborated by any other contemporary source. GRA, I, p. 475. Nevertheless, Douglas asserts that there was some truth in it. He claims that it was Richildis who sought fitzOsbern’s aid, offering herself in marriage to him and placing her son Arnulf in his wardship. According to his account, her offer was accepted with alacrity. Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 217.
8. GND, II, p. 225.
9. OV, III, pp. 215, 217.
10. The tale of Agatha’s betrothal to Edwin is told by the nineteenth-century poet H. M. Carey in Matilda of Normandy, p. 42n. Turgis also relates that Agatha was betrothed to Edwin, “beau frère d’Harold,” whom she loved deeply, and that when he was killed in the revolt, she was so inconsolable that she rejected any further talk of matrimony by taking the veil. Turgis, p. 41.
11. OV, II, pp. 280–82.
12. Ibid, p. 285. The reference to “another brother” is a mistake. Orderic Vitalis claims that Arnulf was Robert’s brother, whereas he was in fact his nephew.
13. Ibid.
14. GRA, I, p. 481. This took place in the autumn of 1085 and posed such a threat to William’s rule that he drafted in “a larger force of mounted men and foot soldiers from France and Brittany than had ever come to this country, so that people wondered how this country could maintain all that army.” Chibnall, Anglo-Norman England, p. 37. All his preparations were for nothing: Cnut was murdered before any invasion force could be launched.
15. OV, II, p. 285.
16. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 37.
12: “MATILDA, WEALTHY AND POWERFUL”
1. GND, II, p. 183.
2. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 164.
3. These were exclusive to England, because the Norman dukes did not have crowns—this was the prerogative of their nominal overlord, the king of France. Even so, William and Matilda did bend the rules slightly by wearing their English crowns at great occasions of state in Normandy.
4. As such, William followed a similar pattern to his predecessor, who had tended to celebrate these festivals at the same locations. The annals of Winchester claim that the Christmas crown-wearings took place at Worcester, but most other sources concur that they were usually at Gloucester. Stevenson, “Annals of the Church of Winchester,” p. 356. An excellent analysis of these gatherings, including their origins, is provided by M. Biddle, “Seasonal Festivals and Residence: Winchester, Westminster and Gloucester in the Tenth to Twelfth Centuries,” vol. VIII (1985), pp. 51–72.
5. ASC, p. 402.
6. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 168.
7. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 247, 276, 287, 293. The most elaborate of these is coniunxque sua reginarum nobilissima, Baldoini incliti ac strenuissimi Flandrensium comitis filia regisque Francorum Henrici neptis clarissima. See also H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 41.
8. See, for example, Farrer, vols. I–III, nos. 559, 1002; vol. IV, no. 1; vol. VI, no. 1; Stafford, “Women and the Norman Conquest,” pp. 244–45.
9. W. W. Skeat (ed.), Aelfric, Lives of the Saints, Early English Text Society, vol. II (London, 1900), p. 6.
10. A useful analysis of Domesday Book’s references to the queen’s household before and after 1066 is provided by Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, Appendix II, pp. 306–23.
11. Morey and Brooke, p. 538.
12. Wright, Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets.
13. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 145.
14. Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, p. 98.
15. Van Caenegem, p. 157.
16. Gathagan provides an excellent analysis of Matilda’s judicial role in the context of her predecessors and contemporaries in chapter 4, “Embodying Power,” pp. 145–73.
17. Riley, pp. 189–91; Clover and Gibson, pp. 45, 47, 49.
18. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 307–14; Stevenson, Historical Works of Simeon of Durham, p. 555.
19. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 152.
20. Bates, Regesta Regum, p. 869. For another example, see pp. 619–20.
21. Ibid., pp. 201–9, 463–65, 594–601, 603–4, 863–65. The grant for St.-Martin-le-Grand was one of the first English charters in which Matilda was involved, for it was confirmed at her coronation in 1068. Matilda’s signum is also found on a diploma relating to Worcester Cathedral, but as this has been reliably dated to 1067, her signature must have been added after her arrival in England. Ibid., pp. 987–90.
<
br /> 22. Eadmer, p. 12.
23. OV, II, p. 239.
24. Ibid., IV, pp. 45, 47.
25. Gundulph had a talent for architecture as well as religious observance. William employed his skill in the construction of various key Norman buildings, most notably the Tower of London.
26. See, for example, Morris, vol. V, no. 53:2; XXIII, no. 3:4.
27. Strickland, pp. 9, 57.
28. When they refused, Thurstan summoned armed retainers, who “shot cruel arrows in their midst,” killing several monks. OV, II, p. 271.
29. GRA, I, p. 727.
30. Morris, vol. XV, no. 1:24.
31. Houts, Normans in Europe, p. 199.
32. GRA, I, p. 351.
33. GG, p. 115.
34. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 55.
35. While a queen or consort might be afforded some attention in contemporary chronicles, farther down the social scale the lives of women in the early medieval period are typically obscure. The rise of monasticism afforded them some distinction, but only if they enjoyed particular longevity or were extraordinarily generous in their benefactions. A cousin of Matilda named Beatrice of Valenciennes was among those considered worthy of note. She married Gilbert, son of Richard of Heugleville, who shared kinship with Duke William. According to Orderic, he was a great-grandson of William’s uncle, Duke Richard II. This made the two men cousins, albeit distant. Richard had established a town at Auffay in the region of Talou, Normandy, and founded a priory of secular canons there, which was linked to the influential monastery of St.-Évroult. His son Gilbert gained renown as a soldier in William’s forces, but was evidently a pious man. Although he took part in the Norman invasion of England in 1066, he refused to take his share of the spoils and instead focused his energies upon developing the priory of Auffay. His wife was no less devout, and it was at her suggestion that the secular canons were replaced by monks in 1079. OV, III, pp. xix–xx.
36. Hilton, p. 420, provides an excellent analysis of the role of women in Beowulf.
13: A “WHOLLY WRETCHED MOTHER”
Queen of the Conqueror Page 31
