NOTES

ASC Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

GG Gesta Guillelmi, William of Poitiers

GRA Gesta Regum Anglorum, William of Malmesbury

GND Gesta Normannorum Ducum, William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni

OV Ecclesiastical History, Orderic Vitalis

INTRODUCTION

  1. Barlow, William I, p. 185; Clay.

  2. C.N.L. Brooke, “ ‘Both Small and Great Beasts’: An Introductory Study,” in Baker, p. 1.

  3. OV, I, p. 35; III, p. 213.

  4. Musset, Les actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, p. 38. It was customary for a scribe to distinguish between the crosses by writing the name of the witness next to each one.

1: “OF KINGLY LINE”

  1. The spelling of names was by no means consistent in the eleventh century. Baldwin was also known as Baudouin, and Adela as Adelais.

  2. Jumièges began his account, Gesta Normannorum Ducum (The Deeds of the Norman Dukes), in the 1050s and completed it in 1070–71. Although it is of great value as the earliest and most detailed of the eleventh-century histories, the Gesta is not wholly reliable and exaggerates the Normans’ achievements. Despite its short-comings, Jumièges’s account became one of the most influential of the Norman period. It was subsequently added to and revised by other chroniclers, notably Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, and was widely available in the Middle Ages. No fewer than forty-seven manuscript copies exist in libraries and archives across Europe.

  3. OV, II, p. 281. Orderic lists the children as Robert the Frisian, Arnulf, Baldwin, Odo Archbishop of Trier, Henry the clerk, Matilda, and Judith, wife of Earl Tostig. But Orderic’s account of Flemish affairs is riddled with mistakes, and he had no direct experience of events there. In fact, Judith was the daughter of Baldwin IV, Arnulf was the son of Baldwin VI, and there is no record of an Odo of Trier among Baldwin and Adela’s offspring.

  4. Ibid., p. 105.

  5. Ducarel, p. 64, provides an illustration of Matilda’s Flemish and French descent, tracing her ancestors back to the seventh century.

  6. The name took various forms, including Mathilde, Mahtild, Mahault, Molde, and Maud. Matilda herself was often referred to as Maud.

  7. D. Nicholas, p. 89.

  8. Ibid.

  9. Hilton, p. 22.

10. R. A. Brown, pp. 31–32.

11. D. Nicholas, p. 51.

12. GG, pp. 31, 33.

13. GRA, I, p. 437. The Gesta was an extraordinarily ambitious work, spanning more than eleven hundred years: from the Roman invasion of England to the last decade of Henry I’s reign. The account is riddled with scandal and hearsay, but is still invaluable as a source of social and political history, and the fact that the author was born of Anglo-Norman parents made his history more balanced. Malmesbury was one of the few chroniclers who lived and worked in England. He was also one of the youngest: he was just twenty-nine or thirty years old when the Gesta was completed.

14. Strickland, p. 22.

15. A. Campbell, p. 47.

16. Barlow, Life of King Edward, p. 83.

17. ASC, pp. 160–61; A. Campbell, p. 47.

18. Hilton, p. 26.

19. Ibid., p. 27.

20. OV, II, p. 225; Aird, Robert Curthose, p. 36.

21. Hilton, p. 25.

22. Corinthians 7:13.

23. Cowdrey, Register of Pope Gregory VII, pp. 219–20. Gregory later wrote in the same vein to Matilda. See below, pp. 173–74.

24. GG, p. 33.

25. Cowdrey, Register of Pope Gregory VII, p. 228.

26. GG, p. 33.

27. ASC, p. 134.

28. Starkey, p. 80.

29. ASC, p. 154.

30. GRA, I, p. 323.

31. ASC, p. 158. Much doubt was cast by contemporary chroniclers upon Harold’s legitimacy. The author of the Abingdon Manuscript for the year of his accession claims that he was in fact the bastard son of a shoemaker. Jumièges, meanwhile, claims that Harold was Cnut’s bastard son by his concubine, Aelfgifu. GND, II, p. 105.

32. ASC, p. 160. This was not the first time that Emma had been forced to flee her adopted country. Following a raid upon London by Sweyn “Forkbeard” in 1013, after which he usurped the throne, she had “turned across the sea” to her brother Richard II, the duke of Normandy. GRA, I, p. 305. Her then husband, King Aethelred, had dispatched their sons Edward and Alfred across the Channel soon afterward. ASC, p. 144; GND, II, p. 7.

33. GRA, I, p. 337.

34. ASC, pp. 160–61; A. Campbell, p. 47.

35. ASC, pp. 160–61; A. Campbell, pp. 51, 53.

36. ASC, p. 161.

37. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies it was poison: “Harthacnut died as he stood at his drink, and he suddenly fell to the earth with an awful convulsion.” ASC, p. 162.

38. Ibid., pp. 162–63.

39. Ibid., p. 172.

40. Most English exiles who sought refuge in Flanders were accommodated first at St.-Omer because it was the closest major town to the Channel coast. This was the case when Tostig again sought refuge in Flanders shortly before the Norman invasion of England in 1066.

41. Barlow, Life of King Edward, p. 37.

42. The two brothers spent the next ten years in Flanders, and they would remain friends with Matilda for the rest of her life. Both men fought on Duke William’s side in the Battle of Hastings and were rewarded richly for it. When she became queen of England, Matilda gave Baldwin thirty acres of land in Shalford, Essex. He married Emma, a kinswoman of William’s, who was evidently acquainted with Matilda, because she appeared in charters relating to La Trinité, the abbey that Matilda later founded.

43. OV, II, p. 225. In common with other monastic chronicles, the Historia began as a history of Orderic’s own religious house, St.-Évroult in southern Normandy, but it rapidly grew into a work of staggering ambition that encompassed the entire history of the Norman dynasty. The range and vibrancy of the material that it contains is truly remarkable. As well as drawing upon earlier histories, documentary sources, and oral traditions, Orderic also included some of his own memories from his childhood in England. The result is a rich and engaging narrative that brings the Norman period vividly to life. Admittedly, at times Orderic is too prone to peddling anecdotes, rumors, and legends, and it is not always clear whether he has based these upon a lost source or simply hearsay. But the fact that, like Malmesbury, he was born of Anglo-Norman parentage gave him a greater objectivity than the likes of Poitiers and Jumièges, and as he wrote his account during the reign of William and Matilda’s youngest son, Henry, he evidently felt at liberty to explore the more shadowy aspects of his protagonists’ lives.

44. GRA, I, p. 437.

45. Burgess and Holden, p. 199.

46. Strickland, p. 24.

47. GND, II, p. 129.

48. Delisle, Receuil de Travaux d’Érudition, pp. 223–24, 224–25.

49. Ibid., pp. 223–24 (author’s translation).

50. Laing, III, p. 76.

51. Chronique Rimée de Philippe Mouskes, p. 174. See also Lair, p. 15.

52. This was carried out by Professor Dastugue, director of the anthropology laboratory of the Regional University Hospital in Caen.

53. A thegn was a recognized grade of nobility in eleventh-century England. It described a wealthy landowner who was a dependent of the king or an earl and who was wealthy enough to support a prestigious estate and a retinue of men. Brihtric and his peers were referred to in pre-Conquest sources as optimates (“best men”) or procures (“chief men”). His great-grandfather may have been Aelfgar, “the king’s kinsman,” a Devon landowner whose death in 962 is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

54. “A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century: The Family, Estates and Patronage of Beorhtric son of Aelfgar,” in Keats-Rohan, Family Trees, p. 50. A hide was a measurement used to calculate the amount of land tax due from its owner. There is no precise definition of the size of a hide. In Anglo-Saxon times, it simply meant enough land to support a household.

55. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, p. 86. Strickland, p. 23, claims that his surname of “Meaw” or “Snaw” may have derived from his fairness.

56. Dugdale, II, p. 60; Turgis, p. 11.

2: WILLIAM THE BASTARD

  1. One of the foremost authorities on William and the Norman Conquest, D. C. Douglas, states that it was most likely in the autumn of 1028. He bases this upon the early narrative De Obitu Willelmi, which claims that in September 1087, William was in the fifty-ninth year of his life. This, together with the broad agreement by contemporary chroniclers that William was in his eighth year when his father died, has led Douglas to this conclusion. Douglas, William the Conqueror, p. 368. For an alternative view, see Planché, I, pp. 77–82.

  2. Malmesbury rejects as “very doubtful” the theory that Robert’s later pilgrimage to Jerusalem was in repentance for this evil deed. GRA, I, p. 309.

  3. GND, II, pp. 39 and 41.

  4. Also known as Herleve, Arlette, Arletta, and Arlotte.

  5. A useful analysis of the subject is provided by Houts, “Origins of Herleva.”

  6. GRA, I, p. 427.

  7. Another version has Herleva dreaming that a tree grew out of her womb and stretched out over Normandy and England. Burgess and Holden, p. 167.

  8. GRA, I, p. 427. This tale is repeated in Burgess and Holden, p. 167.

  9. GRA, I, p. 427.

10. Adelaide married Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu; Lambert II, count of Lens; and Odo II of Champagne.

11. See, for example, GND, II, p. 96n.

12. Herleva also had at least two daughters by Herluin (Muriel and Isabella), and possibly two others. However, the evidence for their lives is sketchy.

13. GND, II, p. 97. He also referred to him as “William the Bastard” in his Ecclesiastical History. See OV, IV, p. 111.

14. Poitiers was archdeacon of Lisieux, one of the most important cathedrals in Normandy. As such, he was well acquainted with the ducal family and the workings of the Norman court. Like Jumièges, he was writing at the same time as the events that he described, but his account, the Gesta Guillelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum (The Deeds of William, Duke of the Normans and King of the English), which was completed in around 1077, was hardly a balanced appraisal. Written at the duke’s command, it was little more than a propaganda piece to praise—and, more important, to justify—William’s actions.

15. GRA, I, p. 427.

16. GND, II, p. 81. Although William’s date of birth is most often assumed to be 1027 or 1028, Robert of Torigni claims that he was only five years old when his father left him in charge of the duchy. It seems unlikely that Robert would have entrusted his kingdom to one quite so young.

17. Ibid.

18. Malmesbury claims that Robert’s servant, Ralph Mowin, had poisoned him in the hope of assuming control of the duchy. However, when Mowin returned to Normandy, the truth came to light and he was “universally rejected as a monster and departed into lifelong exile.” GRA, I, p. 309.

19. Malmesbury asserts that in 1086, shortly before William’s own death, he sent a mission to reclaim his father’s remains from Nicaea so that he could have them reburied in his native Normandy. The envoys succeeded in recovering Robert’s body, but had only reached as far as Apulia in Italy when they learned of William’s death and therefore decided to bury Robert in Italy. GRA, I, pp. 505, 507. Further evidence of William’s veneration of his late father is provided by Professor Bates, who points to the fact that William founded an abbey in 1063 and dedicated it to St. Stephen. This saint had been uncelebrated in Normandy until Duke Robert acquired one of his fingers during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The relic was sent back to Normandy after the duke’s death and sparked a major cult. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 43.

20. GRA, I, p. 427.

21. GND, II, p. 97.

22. OV, IV, p. 83.

23. Le Vaudreuil was on the river Seine south of Rouen.

24. GND, II, p. 91.

25. Ibid., p. 121.

26. GRA, I, p. 335.

27. GND, II, p. 91.

28. GRA, I, p. 451.

29. Ibid., p. 477.

30. ASC, p. 219.

31. Southern, Life of St. Anselm, p. 56.

32. GND, II, p. 125.

33. The stigma of William’s birth would still be felt by his successors a century later. His great-grandson, Henry II, snubbed the bishop of Lincoln at a picnic one day because they had quarreled. The king was mending a leather bandage on his finger with a needle and thread. Seeing this, the bishop quipped: “How like your cousins of Falaise you do look.” Luckily for him, Henry appreciated the joke. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 58.

34. ASC, p. 219; Forester, p. 217.

35. GND, II, p. 121; GG, p. 9. See also Searle, Chronicle of Battle Abbey, pp. 41, 93.

36. GND, II, p. 189. This is corroborated by Malmesbury, who claims that William was “a practising Christian as far as a layman could be, to the extent of attending mass every day and every day hearing vespers and matins.” GRA, I, p. 493.

37. Clover and Gibson, p. 61.

38. OV, II, p. 239.

39. ASC, p. 219.

40. GRA, I, p. 507.

41. According to Malmesbury, the two men were of very different character. He describes Robert of Mortain as “dense and slow-witted,” whereas Odo “was a man of much livelier mind” who was “a great double-dealer and showed great cunning.” GRA, I, p. 507.

42. The eighteenth-century historian Rapin claims that there were reports that William was “very much addicted to women in his youth,” but there are no contemporary sources to corroborate this. Rapin, p. 81.

43. Ibid.

44. GRA, I, p. 501.

45. GND, II, p. 189.

46. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 137.

47. GND, II, p. 189.

48. GRA, I, p. 509.

49. Bates, William the Conqueror, pp. 138–39.

50. GND, II, p. 189.

51. GRA, I, p. 511.

52. Ibid., p. 509.

3: THE ROUGH WOOING

  1. GND, II, p. 129.

  2. GG, p. 31.

  3. Ibid.

  4. GND, II, p. 129.

  5. Fauroux, pp. 275–77.

  6. GND, II, p. 129; Blaauw, p. 109.

  7. Strickland, p. 26.

  8. Chronicon Turonense, p. 348.

  9. “Cronique attribuée à Baudoin d’Avesnes,” p. 559.

10. Chronicon Turonense, p. 348.

11. “Cronique attribuée à Baudoin d’Avesnes,” p. 559.

12. Indeed, another account claims that on a later occasion he killed her instantly by kicking at her from his horse and driving his spur into her breast. See p. 77.

13. Philippe Mouskes and Baldwin of Avesnes, Chronique Rimée de Philippe Mouskes, pp. 175–77; “Cronique attribuée à Baudoin d’Avesnes,” p. 559.

14. Strickland, p. 25.

15. “Interdixit et Balduino comiti Flandrensi, ne filiam suam Willelmo Normanno nuptui daret; et illi, ne eam acciperet.” Mansi, col. 742.

16. Robert had also repudiated his first wife, Rozala of Italy, when she failed to give him an heir. Ironically, his third wife, Constance of Arles, gave him the sons he had hoped for but incited them to rebel against their father.

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 of 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 1059, 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.

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.

  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. TheWinchester 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.

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”

  1. ASC, p. 209.

  2. Eadmer, p. 26.

  3. He was referred to as duke in a number of charters, and by his father’s biographer, Jumièges. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 152.

  4. Bridgeford, p. 209. It has been estimated that Odo’s total fortune in England was worth £43.2 billion in modern money. Ibid.

  5. ASC, p. 219; Eadmer, p. 17.

  6. OV, II, p. 265.

  7. Ibid., pp. 203, 205.

  8. Ibid., p. 202n. By contrast, Poitiers praises their “wise vigilance” and strong sense of justice and claims that the English rebelled without provocation. GG, pp. 181, 183.

  9. Pelteret, p. 83.

10. The document was a confraternity agreement signed by Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester, and various other important English ecclesiastics sometime between 1075 and 1078. It included a declaration of loyalty to William and Matilda. Mason, “Wulfstan of Worcester.”

11. Delisle, Receuil de Travaux d’Erudition, pp. 223–24.

12. Rudborne, Historia Major, cited in Strickland, p. 99.

13. ASC, p. 212.

14. GRA, I, p. 503.

15. Ibid.

16. Cowdrey, Register of Pope Gregory VII, p. 75.

17. Ibid., pp. 357–58.

18. GND, II, p. 71. See also Crispin.

19. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 564–65.

20. Ibid., pp. 621–23.

21. It is not clear who Hugolin of Cherbourg was, or what his offense had been. Round, p. 425; Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 638–39.

22. Riley, p. 194.

23. GRA, I, p. 505.

24. OV, III, p. 115.

25. Less credibly, in his original text, Malmesbury claims that Richard “caught some sickness from breathing the foggy and corrupted air.” There was an outbreak of malaria in Hampshire at that time, but the fact that most sources refer to an accident involving hunting makes this the more likely cause of death. GRA, I, p. 505. See also GND, II, p. 216n; Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 159; Strickland, pp. 76–77.

26. OV, III, p. 115.

27. According to the educational traditions of the day, boys were dubbed a knight between the ages of thirteen and twenty-two, after emerging from childhood. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 13, 13n, 16. This means that Richard might have been even younger when he died. Aird points out that Richard’s brothers were all knighted in their mid- to late teens, and therefore asserts that Richard’s death could well have been as early as 1069. Aird, Robert Curthose, pp. 56–57. Robert of Torigni, one of the more reliable of the early medieval chroniclers, claims that Richard was killed in 1074, when he was about nineteen. GND, pp. 251, 279.

28. OV, III, p. 115.

29. Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 79n, 80. See also Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 312. It is not known why Matilda chose Eadgifu for this benefaction. The woman may have been known to her through her chamberlain, Humphrey, from whom Eadgifu held her lands. William made a similar bequest in Richard’s memory by granting the town of Tewin in Hertfordshire to a man named Halfdane.

30. Musset, “La Reine Mathilde,” p. 193.

31. Round, p. 26; Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 737–38. For another example, see Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, I, p. 35.

32. GRA, I, p. 505.

33. Migne, cols. 1215–16; Barlow, William Rufus, p. 443; M.A.E. Green, I, pp. 35–38.

34. Migne, p. 156; Houts, Normans in Europe, pp. 197–99.

35. Coulton and Swinton, p. 33. According to this account, Simon had converted to the religious life after having his late father’s remains disinterred. Upon seeing “the wasted body of him who had been his powerful and daring father,” he realized the futility of the political world and resolved to turn his back on it for good. Ibid., p. 33.

36. Abrahams, pp. 255–56. The editor of this work surmises that the sister in question could have been Constance, but there is no evidence for this. See also Barlow, William Rufus, p. 444.

37. OV, III, p. 115.

38. Southern, Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, pp. 92–93.

39. Elisabeth van Houts has shed new light upon the careers of Matilda’s daughters, in particular Adelida, and she provides an excellent analysis of their varying fates in “The Echo of the Conquest in Latin Sources.”

40. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 13. A similar theory was put forward in the early twentieth century by Turgis, p. 43, who claimed that the girl was named Alice, was very beautiful and virtuous, and died when she reached puberty.

41. Delisle, Rouleaux des Morts, pp. 181–82. The legend that Adeliza was buried at Bayeux (which originated with Orderic) is still repeated by the cathedral guides today.

42. GRA, I, p. 505. Jumièges concurs that Adelida “died as a girl of marriageable age”: GND, II, p. 263. William of Poitiers does not mention her death at all, which is interesting, as he was writing at the time that it would have occurred. This has led Professor Barlow to suspect that her tragic death en route to Spain was “merely a romantic story”: William Rufus, p. 443.

43. Houts, Normans in Europe, pp. 132–33; Houts, “Echo of the Conquest in Latin Sources,” pp. 139–40.

44. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 31.

45. Abrahams, p. 198. William evidently did not mind being superseded by his daughter in this respect. Langtoft claims that she was a favorite with her father, who “loved [her] so much.” Wright, Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, I, p. 433.

14: “A FAITHLESS WIFE”

  1. Abrahams, pp. 198–99, 255–56.

  2. Morris, vol. V, no. loW7:3 and 8; W. Dugdale, The Baronage of England (London, 1675). See also Planché, pp. 72–74.

  3. Planché, p. 73.

  4. Turgis, pp. 44–46.

  5. OV, II, pp. 219, 221.

  6. Strickland, pp. 71–72. Another theory is that the tale derived from the story of King Eadwig’s wife or mistress by Osbern or Eadmer. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, III, p. 662.

  7. GRA, I, pp. 501, 503.

  8. Cited in Strickland, p. 72.

  9. GRA, I, pp. 501, 503.

10. Turgis claims that the ducal couple also argued frequently over money because William was miserly and his wife was generous. However, there is no mention of this in any of the original sources, and the charters attest to the fact that the duke made at least as many bequests as did his wife.

11. OV, III, p. 11. The abbey church of Bec was also dedicated that year, but William and Matilda did not attend the ceremony.

12. Ibid., pp. 13,15.

13. GND, I, Appendix. Douglas points out that in two charters issued in 1096, Robert seems to date his tenure of the duchy from 1077 or 1078. Douglas, William the Conqueror, pp. 228–29. See also Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 94–96.

14. Davis, “William of Jumièges,” pp. 597–606.

15. OV, II, p. 359.

16. Bates, William the Conqueror, pp. 146–47.

17. GRA, I, p. 701. For a similar account, see OV, IV, pp. 115, 119.

18. Robert would sire a host of illegitimate children during his lifetime. But he would be superseded in this respect by his youngest brother, Henry, whose promiscuity was notorious. He took a string of English mistresses and fathered numerous bastards before he married Edith-Matilda of Scotland in 1100.

19. GND, II, p. 195.

20. OV, III, p. 99.

21. Ibid., p. 115.

22. GRA, I, p. 543.

23. Ibid., p. 701.

24. OV, II, p. 357; IV, p. 93.

25. GND, II, p. 185.

26. GRA, I, p. 703.

27. OV, II, p. 357.

28. Ibid., III, p. 103.

29. GRA, I, p. 701.

30. OV, III, pp. 97, 99.

31. GRA, I, p. 701; OV, II, p. 357.

32. OV, III, p. 99.

33. GRA, I, p. 701. Orderic Vitalis claims that William had reacted in a more considered way, and that only after reflecting carefully upon the matter did he refuse his son’s request, persuading him “to wait for a more opportune time to acquire them.” He contrasts William’s reasonable behavior with Robert’s petulance, claiming that in response to his father’s calm refusal, Robert cried: “I did not come here to listen to a lecture, for I have had more than enough of these from my schoolmasters … I will no longer fight for anyone in Normandy with the hopeless status of a hired dependent.” OV, II, p. 357; III, pp. 99, 101. However, Orderic—more than Malmesbury—made use of hindsight in his account, which reads as a moralizing indictment against filial insubordination. From what we know of William and Robert’s relationship, Malmesbury’s account seems more credible.

34. GRA, I, p. 701; OV, III, p. 101.

35. OV, III, p. 101. A similar quote is cited on p. 99.

36. The town was known as Laigle in the eleventh century, and Orderic Vitalis claims that its name derived from the fact that an eagle’s nest was found in an oak tree during the building of the castle. OV, II, p. 357.

37. Although Orderic tended to combine rumor with fact in his account, the story of what happened at L’Aigle might well be true in most details. The town lay just ten miles from the abbey of St.-Évroult, in which he wrote his history, so he would have been able to draw upon local knowledge of the event. Professor Bates doubts that Matilda’s youngest son, Henry, played the part assigned to him, because he would have been nine years old at the time. Bates, William the Conqueror, pp. 237–38. But this was in an era when children—particularly those in noble households—were treated as adults from a much younger age than is the case today. Henry’s father, William, had been a year younger when he assumed control of the duchy. It is therefore possible that Henry did collude with his brother William in goading Robert into rebellion, as Orderic claims. OV, II, pp. 357, 359.

38. Ibid., p. 359.

39. A castellan was a caretaker or governor of a castle.

40. OV, II, p. 359.

41. GRA, I, p. 701.

42. ASC, pp. 213–14.

43. OV, III, p. 103.

44. Ibid., pp. 104n, 105. The role of messenger was extremely important. Often the letters they conveyed would contain only information that would not necessarily be damning if discovered, the more sensitive part of the communication being left to the messenger to convey orally. Little wonder that they were among the most trusted servants at court.

45. OV, III, p. 103.

46. Ibid.; GRA, I, p. 503.

47. Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers, pp. 109–10.

48. Strickland, pp. 80–81, claims that Roger de Beaumont was the informant and cites Malmesbury as her source, but the latter contains no reference to this. Her statement that William was in England when he received the news is also unlikely, given that most sources place him in Normandy at this time.

49. OV, III, p. 103.

50. Carey, p. 77n. Carey claims that Matilda erected a “Calvaire” (prayer station) at the spot afterward, no doubt in penance for her disobedience.

51. OV, III, p. 103.

52. Ibid., pp. 103, 105.

53. Ibid., p. 105.

54. Ibid. Samson, described as “shrewd and eloquent and chaste,” proved well suited to the monastic life and spent the next twenty-six years there. William evidently forgave him for his involvement in the family rift, because it is alleged that he offered him the see of Le Mans in 1082. Barlow, William I and the Norman Conquest, p. 182.

55. GRA, I, p. 503.

56. Ibid., p. 439. The quote is taken from the Roman poet Ovid’s celebrated work Metamorphoses. Although Malmesbury was referring to the personal history of Count Fulk IV of Anjou, it was apt for William and Matilda at this point of their marriage.

57. Beech, pp. 352–53. There is a legend that still persists at La Chaise-Dieu that an English queen was buried in the abbey. The four main candidates are King Harold II’s wife and mistress, Edith of Mercia and Edith “Swanneck” respectively; Edward the Confessor’s wife, Edith; and Matilda. The first three had no known connections with the abbey, whereas Matilda had known of it since its inception in 1052 because her husband had witnessed the foundation charter. Fauroux, pp. 297–99. Beech also points to the fact that the bequest made to the abbey was very similar to those Matilda made to other religious houses, notably Caen and St.-Évroult. Beech, pp. 368–69. However, although it is almost certain that Matilda was the anonymous queen who sought Adelelme’s assistance, there is no reason to suppose that she was buried there. The evidence to support her burial at Caen is irrefutable.

58. OV, II, p. 361.

59. The contemporary spelling was Gerberoi.

60. Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 31.

61. OV, III, p. 109.

62. ASC, pp. 213–14. According to Malmesbury, it was Robert who had shot his father’s horse, although this is not mentioned by any other source. GRA, I, p. 477.

63. Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 33.

64. It is interesting that in the contemporary sources and the debates by recent historians, all the focus has been on whether Robert knew that he was fighting his father. Whether William had recognized his son has apparently not been considered. The assumption seems to have been that Robert would have been harder to recognize among the swell of other young warriors who fought that day. Yet he, like his father, was of a distinctive bearing, and his diminutive height should have made him easy to identify—particularly by the man who had so frequently made fun of it. If the duke had knowingly slain Robert, this would have been a lesser crime: his son was a rebel for whom death would have been a just punishment. But if he had gained the upper hand in the struggle, would he, like Robert, have flinched from striking the final blow? From what we know of his cruelty and ruthlessness, it is hard to believe that he would.

65. ASC, pp. 213–14.

66. GRA, I, p. 477.

67. OV, III, p. 113.

68. A catamite is a young man who is involved in a sexual relationship with an older man.

69. OV, III, pp. 105, 107, 109.

15: “URMURS OF LOUD AND HEARTFELT GRIEF”

  1. Adela was buried at the abbey.

  2. OV, II, p. 285.

  3. Migne, p. 156.

  4. Matilda never forgot the effort that Simon had made on her behalf. Upon his death in 1084, she dispatched a monk to Rome laden with gold and silver “to pay for the burial of the man of God,” and she ordered a magnificent tomb to be erected there. Ibid.; Houts,Normans in Europe, p. 199.

  5. Cowdrey, Register of Pope Gregory VII, pp. 358–59.

  6. OV, III, p. 113.

  7. Ibid.

  8. Round, p. 22; OV, III, p. 112. Easter fell on April 12 that year.

  9. Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 241.

10. OV, III, p. 113.

11. Ibid., II, p. 357; III, p. 113.

12. This may have been Adela’s second betrothal. There is evidence to suggest that as a child she was promised to Simon Crispin, the count of Amiens, but that this fell through when he chose the monastic life instead.

13. The marriage itself was celebrated at Chartres, although the exact date is uncertain. The marriage negotiations seem to have been quite protracted, and the ceremony might not have taken place until as late as 1085, when Adela’s name first appears in a charter as Stephen’s wife. OV, III, pp. 116n, 117; Morey and Brooke, p. 78n.

14. Morey and Brooke, pp. 65–66; Hilton, p. 40. Edith married Matilda’s youngest son, Henry, who took her as his wife after he became king in 1100. She became known as Matilda upon her marriage to Henry, which might have been out of respect for his late mother. The description provided by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of her mother, Margaret, with regard to her marriage to King Malcolm of Scotland could equally have applied to Matilda and William: “The apostle Paul, teacher of all nations, declared: ‘The unbelieving man is saved through his believing wife’ … that is in our language: ‘Very often the unbelieving man is sanctified and saved through a righteous wife’ … This aforesaid queen afterwards performed many useful works in that land to the glory of God, and also throve well in the royal estate, just as was natural to her.” ASC, pp. 201–2.

15. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 636–37.

16. The reference to the younger Matilda that appears in Domesday Book implies that she was no longer living, which would place her death before 1086, when the survey was compiled. The idea that she died young is supported by the fact that she soon disappears from the contemporary sources.

17. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 559–62; Morris, vol. VI, no. 17:1; vol. VII, no. 17:1.

18. Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, no. 12; Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 157n; Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 292–95.

19. Gathagan, “Embodying Power,” p. 206.

20. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, I, pp. 49–50.

21. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 763–64.

22. Turgis, p. 50.

23. OV, IV, p. 45. Freeman asserts that Matilda had suffered a “long sickness” but does not substantiate his claim: History of the Norman Conquest, IV, p. 651.

24. Round, p. 157; Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 258–62.

25. Bates, Regesta Regum, p. 296. See also Musset, Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant, p. 112.

26. OV, IV, p. 45. Orderic inaccurately states that Matilda died on November 3. He was probably confusing the date with the celebration of her funeral at St.-Évroult the day after her death: ibid., p. 45n. John of Worcester specifies that November 2 was a Thursday: Darlington and McGurh, III, p. 41.

27. Most sources imply that William was at his wife’s side when she died. It has been suggested by a later source that he was in England when he heard the news that she was dying, and that he left for Normandy with all haste but arrived too late. However, there is no evidence for this in the contemporary records. Turgis, p. 50; OV, III, pp. 103, 105.

28. GRA, I, p. 503.

29. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, IV, pp. 651–52.

30. See, for example, William’s gifts to Edmund’s in Northamptonshire. Morris, vol. XXI, no. 8:4.

31. OV, IV, pp. 44–46.

32. Lair, p. 28.

33. See, for example, Round, pp. 106, 112, 123, 142, 167, 233, 436.

34. Certe si fortis, in Delisle, Receuil de Travaux d’Érudition, pp. 223–24. Fulcoius continued the theme in another poem dedicated to her memory, Tempore quae nostro.

35. The eulogy was entitled Consilii virtus decor.

36. ASC, p. 215.

37. Delisle, Receuil de Travaux d’Érudition, pp. 224–25.

38. GRA, I, p. 503; OV, IV, p. 45.

39. OV, IV, p. 45.

40. Carey, p. 79.

41. Davis, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, I, p. 85; M.A.E. Green, I, p. 11.

42. OV, IV, p. 45.

43. Ducarel, p. 65; Strickland, p. 104. The abbess gave the ring to her father, the constable of France, when he received Charles IX at Caen in 1563, the year after the riots. It is not clear what became of it afterward. Ducarel, p. 66, claims that “a very curious manuscript” preserved at La Trinité contained an account of Matilda’s wardrobe, jewels, and “toilette,” but noted with some regret that he was not permitted to make a copy of it. This may be the same list referred to above (p. 43), which is still preserved in the abbey today.

44. The tomb measures three feet high by six feet long. Ducarel, p. 63.

45. OV, IV, p. 45.

46. Ibid. pp. 45, 47. Orderic’s version of the epitaph is faithful to the original, with the exception of a few minor variations of spelling. See also Boüard, Histoire de la Normandie, plate 13; Douglas, William the Conqueror, opp. p. 341; Bates, William the Conqueror, p. 153.

16: “THE STORMS OF TROUBLES”

  1. OV, IV, p. 47.

  2. ASC, p. 218.

  3. GRA, I, p. 509.

  4. ASC, p. 216. See also Riley, pp. 159–60. Domesday Book consists of two volumes—“Great Domesday” and “Little Domesday.” “Great” comprises a survey of all the counties of England south of a line from the river Tees to the river Ribble in North Yorkshire and Lancashire. The land above that line was evidently still too autonomous for the survey to be completed. This larger volume excludes Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk, which are covered by “Little.”

  5. GRA, I, p. 509. See also Burgess and Holden, p. 291. Orderic Vitalis agrees that William grew “very corpulent” in his later years. OV, IV, p. 79.

  6. ASC, pp. 217–18.

  7. As Marjorie Chibnall states: “The death of Queen Matilda on 2 November 1083 probably removed the only influence capable of preventing conflict between the two.” OV, III, p. 112n. In a similar vein, Professor Barlow comments: “Queen Matilda’s death on 2 November 1083 probably removed his [Robert’s] last friend at court.” Barlow, William Rufus, p. 38.

  8. OV, III, p. 115.

  9. Orderic Vitalis cities both places at different points of his narrative. OV, II, p. 352; III, p. 115.

10. Orderic Vitalis claims that the marriage had taken place some ten years earlier, following William’s attack on the province. When he had been unable to take it by force, the “statesman king … devised another plan to profit himself and his heirs. He made a treaty of friendship with Alan Fergant and gave him his daughter Constance in marriage with great ceremony at Caen.” OV, II, pp. 351, 353. However, Orderic’s account of Breton affairs is very confused, and none of the other sources give this date for the marriage. Indeed, Alan Fergant did not become count until 1084. It is possible that Constance had been betrothed to him in 1076, when she was still a child, but there is no evidence to suggest that this was the case. Jumièges differs slightly from the commonly accepted date of 1086, claiming that the marriage took place the following year. GND, II, pp. 254, 261. Although Orderic claims that Constance “lived with her husband as a faithful wife for fifteen years,” she was countess of Brittany for a fraction of that time. Her reign was brought to an abrupt end by her premature death in 1090.

11. The Vexin was divided into two parts: the Norman Vexin, which lay between the rivers Epte, Andelle, and Seine, and the French Vexin, situated between the Epte, the Seine, and the Oise.

12. GRA, I, p. 511; GND, II, p. 193. Orderic claims that the duke “fell ill from exhaustion and heat.” OV, IV, p. 79.

13. GND, II, p. 185.

14. GRA, I, p. 511.

15. Malmesbury asserts that William “filled the house with complaints that death should overtake him when he had long been planning to reform his life.” GRA, I, p. 511. By contrast, Jumièges writes that the duke accepted his fate calmly. GND, II, p. 185. From what we know of William’s character, it seems unlikely that he would have been so philosophical, and the image of him fighting death as he would any opponent is more believable. He may have lain in this state for as much as six weeks.

16. GND, II, p. 185.

17. Ibid., p. 189.

18. John of Worcester attests that William, like Matilda, died on a Thursday. Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 47.

19. OV, IV, pp. 101–3.

20. It is not clear whether this Herluin was related to the man of the same name who married William’s mother, Herleva. Strickland, p. 101, asserts that it was “in all probability” William’s stepfather himself, although this is unlikely. Quite apart from the fact that he would have been of a very advanced age by 1087, if it had indeed been the original Herluin who arranged William’s funeral, the chroniclers would have named him as such.

21. Eadmer, p. 26; Burgess and Holden, p. 297.

22. GRA, I, p. 511.

23. OV, IV, p. 105.

24. Burgess and Holden, p. 295.

25. OV, IV, pp. 101–9.

EPILOGUE: “MOTHER OF KINGS”

  1. Houts, “Echo of the Conquest,” p. 139; Houts, “Latin Poetry and the Anglo-Norman Court,” pp. 46–47; Abrahams, pp. 198–99, 255–56.

  2. Round, p. 142.

  3. Cecilia died on July 13, 1127. GND, II, p. 149n; OV, III, p. 11; IV, pp. 46n, 47. Jumièges implies that Cecilia’s tenure was rather longer than this, for he claims that she “governed the abbey for many years after the death of Matilda the first abbess of the house.” GND, II, p. 261. GRA, II, cites the date of her death as July 13, 1127 (p. 154). Another source claims that Cecilia was in her seventieth year when she died, although this is not substantiated by any of the contemporary sources. Planché, I, p. 83.

  4. Abrahams, pp. 198–99, 255–56.

  5. Jumièges incorrectly states that Adela bore four sons and one daughter; GND, II, p. 263. Orderic Vitalis also lists four sons (William, Theobald, Stephen, and Henry): OV, III, p. 117. Another account states that she had six sons (William, Theobald, Odo, Stephen, Philip, and Henry) and five daughters (Lucia, Agnes, Eléanore, Alix, and Lithuise). Her biographer, Kimberly LoPrete, claims she had between six and eight children, and she names Theobald, Odo, Stephen, Henry, and Agnes. Carmi Parsons and Wheeler, p. 317.

  6. GRA, I, p. 505.

  7. OV, V, p. 325.

  8. Ibid.

  9. Ibid., VI, p. 43.

10. GND, II, p. 263; OV, V, p. 325.

11. Abrahams, pp. 198–99, 255–56.

12. GND, II, p. 277.

13. Stafford, “Women and the Norman Conquest,” pp. 226–27.