Gundred, the Conqueror, and the spurious charter of 1085 (LONG)
Leo van de Pas
At 12:42 AM 3/11/98 GMT, you wrote:
>Subject: Re: William Longspee's True Mother
>From: leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
>Date: Sat, Mar 7, 1998 21:15 EST
>Message-id: <1.5.4.32.1998030...@mail.iinet.net.au>
>
>At 03:49 PM 3/7/98 -1000, you wrote:
>>A great deal of useful information has been sifted out and presented here on
>>SGM. We're all the richer for it.
>>
>>However, one key element in our chain of logic that should not be forgotten
>>is that simply because William Longespee is allegedly reported to have said
>>that his Mother was a "Countess Ida" that does not automatically make it so.
>>
>I agree. For instance, Brandenburg in his book on Charlemagne's descendants
>page 40 gives Gundred (with a question mark) as daughter of William the
>Conqueror. However, in the notes, page 135, (my translation) "William de
>Warenne calls in 1085 Queen Mathilde the mother of his wife." I think
>most people will accept that Queen Mathilde was married only once (never
>mind Gerbod) and also that Gundred is not the Conqueror's nor Mathilde's
>daughter.
>>Leo van de Pas
>
>This is not a valid comparison, so if you are going to use this argument to
>object to the Bradenstoke Cartulary, you will have to find a DIFFERENT example.
>
......Why? William de Longespee calls his mother Countess Ida.
William de Warenne calls Queen Mathilde his mother-in-law. One may be
correct the other one I think is wrong. I am not doubting the cartulary
as I haven't seen it, never heard of it before it was mentioned.
>
>The 1085 charter you cite was spurious.
.......I can only try to help by pointing out what records in regards
to these questions can be found. The notes I referred to were added to
Brandenburg's original book.
This is clear from both internal and
>external evidence. As William Addams Reitwiesner pointed out in a previous
>post, there is a very detailed discussion of this in Early Yorkshire Charters,
>v. 8, which covers the Honour of Warenne.
......The notes I referred to where in regards to Gundred NOT IDA.
>The motivation for making Gundred daughter of William the Conqueror was to
>connect Lewes Priory with a famous origin. The spurious 1085 charter you refer
>to was part of their foundation charter, which itself is spurious. Many
>foundation charters are spurious, such as St. Werburg in Chester, St. Mary's
>Tyntern, co. Monmouth, etc. So one has to examine the internal and external
>evidence carefully.
>
>Dugdale, writing in the seventeenth century, was not foolish enough to follow
>the erroneous account of Gundred's parentage in his Baronage (1:74). Citing
>Orderic, he stated simply she was "Sister of Gherbode, a Fleming, to whom King
>William the First had given the City and Earldom of Chester [Rex Guillelmus ...
>et Guillelmo de Guarenna, qui Gundreda, sororem Gherbodi conjugem habebat,
>dedit Sutregiam. Orderic, ii, 221.].'
>
>So if Dugdale was not led astray, it was simply the aspirations and stupidity
>of later scholars that carried them off onto the wrong path. The Chronicle of
>Hyde Abbey (Roll Series, p. 296), says of the Earl of Chester, "Quo tempore
>comes Cistrensis decessit Gerbodo, frater Gondradae comitissae. Flandriamque
>veniens...." So one main argument against a connection with the Conqueror or
>his wife was that they, as very important people, were completely omitted in
>these references (odd indeed if you are familiar with such source material).
..........What do you think? I live in Australia and that should tell you
enough. I needed to verify the parents of Hermann Goering and rang the
State Library which has a special section for this sort of biographical
questions. After I had said can you help me with the name of the parents
of Hermann Goering, I was asked: "Is this a Western Australian family?"
>Another main argument was a discovery of Chester Waters, published in 1884.
>Archbishop Anselm had written Henry I (about 1107) stating that one of the
>kIng's daughters should not be married to William de Warenne because they were
>distantly related [cum ipse et filia vestra ex una parte sint cognati in quarta
>generatione, et ex altera in sexta (one was fourth in descent from a common
>ancestor, the other sixth)]. If Gundred had been Queen Maud's daughter, her
>son would have been first cousin of King Henry's daughter. That would have
>been the relationship objected to in 1107 if it were the fact, not some distant
>connection.
.........Queen Matilde, of course, is a descendant of Alfred the Great.
>The English historian Freeman (who had a high reputation for his day, but that
>has not stood the test of time) finally admitteded false the theory that
>Gundred was daughter of the Conqueror or his wife QUeen Maud in the English
>Historical Review (1888). He examined the Lewes documents afresh "and stated
>that there was no ground either for the old belief that Gundreda was the
>daughter of king William and queen Maud, or ... that she was the daughter of
>the queen but not the daughter of the king.... There is nothing to show that
>Gundreda was the daughter either of King William or Queen Matilda; there is a
>great deal to show that she was not."
.......Why are you preaching to the converted?
<big snip>
>
>It is useless to spout out opinions and questions unless they are addressed
>specifically to our problem. Baiting the group does no good. Thomas Reed
>Powell, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard, said, 'There are two things
>you can do. You can argue about it, or you can look it up.'
..........What do you mean : spout out opinions? What do you mean : Baiting
the group?
.....For your memory: Spencer Hines pointed out : Because William de
Longespee said that Countess Ida was his mother, it doesn't have to be so.
I produced a sample of a record (spurious or not) of someone calling
Queen Matilda his wife's mother. I have not expressed any opinions,
if you regard this mentioning of a record as baiting, well, that is your
opinion. Apparently you prefer the Thomas Reed Powell's "You can argue
about it" instead of looking up WHAT exactly was said.
Leo van de Pas
D. Spencer Hines
Vide infra.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<19980311064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I was not making a personal attack on Leo van de Pas, and did not mean it
to be
>taken as such. He was simply citing a charter Brandenburg referred to that
>was, as far as he knew, a trustworthy source.
>
>But the comparison is still not valid. The one charter is clearly
spurious.
>There is no reason to believe the Bradenstoke Cartularty is not genuine,
based
>on historical criticism, documentary analysis, internal and external
evidence,
>etc. Again, if a claim is made that it IS a fraud, there should be SOME
>compelling reason for challenging it.
>
>The last statement I made about looking things up instead of arguing is
still
>valid. I was hoping that when we argue back and forth about topics in this
>group that we would put forth substance and citations, rather than just
>opinions (which get us no where as there is no agreed authority to judge
the
>arguments or cited authority against which to measure).
>
>Again, I encourage participation by all, but hope that we discuss concrete
>matters, rather than going on and on about spelling or opinions.
>
>pcr
>
You would do well to start out by taking your own advice. Don't quote from
a modern index to a copy of the Bradenstoke Priory Cartulary, as some before
you have done. If you have knowledge of the extant ur-documents in this
matter --- from personal study and perusal, then lay out your argument.
The burden of proof in this matter of the identity of William Longespee's
Mother rests on the shoulders of the advocates for a particular scenario and
a particular woman. No one is required to prove that a document was forged.
I've not said any relevant document was forged.
The shoe is clearly on the other foot. Advocates must prove the provenance
and authenticity of their sources and then proceed, with evidence and logic,
to make a clear and convincing case. Absent such compelling evidence and
logic, the best they can hope for is a tentative judgment of "possible" or
"probable."
D. Spencer Hines
Exitus acta probat --- President George Washington [1732-1799]
D. Spencer Hines
You'd also do well to learn how to spell "Cartulary."
A bit of a credibility destroyer that.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Reedpcgen wrote in message
<19980311064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>I was not making a personal attack on Leo van de Pas, and did not mean it
to be
>taken as such. He was simply citing a charter Brandenburg referred to that
>was, as far as he knew, a trustworthy source.
>
>But the comparison is still not valid. The one charter is clearly
spurious.
>There is no reason to believe the Bradenstoke Cartularty [sic] is not
Reedpcgen
Subject: Re: William Longspee's True Mother
From: leov...@iinet.net.au (Leo van de Pas)
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 1998 21:15 EST
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.1998030...@mail.iinet.net.au>
At 03:49 PM 3/7/98 -1000, you wrote:
>A great deal of useful information has been sifted out and presented here on
>SGM. We're all the richer for it.
>
>However, one key element in our chain of logic that should not be forgotten
>is that simply because William Longespee is allegedly reported to have said
>that his Mother was a "Countess Ida" that does not automatically make it so.
>
I agree. For instance, Brandenburg in his book on Charlemagne's descendants
page 40 gives Gundred (with a question mark) as daughter of William the
Conqueror. However, in the notes, page 135, (my translation) "William de
Warenne calls in 1085 Queen Mathilde the mother of his wife." I think
most people will accept that Queen Mathilde was married only once (never
mind Gerbod) and also that Gundred is not the Conqueror's nor Mathilde's
daughter.
>Leo van de Pas
This is not a valid comparison, so if you are going to use this argument to
object to the Bradenstoke Cartulary, you will have to find a DIFFERENT example.
The 1085 charter you cite was spurious. This is clear from both internal and
external evidence. As William Addams Reitwiesner pointed out in a previous
post, there is a very detailed discussion of this in Early Yorkshire Charters,
v. 8, which covers the Honour of Warenne.
The motivation for making Gundred daughter of William the Conqueror was to
connect Lewes Priory with a famous origin. The spurious 1085 charter you refer
to was part of their foundation charter, which itself is spurious. Many
foundation charters are spurious, such as St. Werburg in Chester, St. Mary's
Tyntern, co. Monmouth, etc. So one has to examine the internal and external
evidence carefully.
Dugdale, writing in the seventeenth century, was not foolish enough to follow
the erroneous account of Gundred's parentage in his Baronage (1:74). Citing
Orderic, he stated simply she was "Sister of Gherbode, a Fleming, to whom King
William the First had given the City and Earldom of Chester [Rex Guillelmus ...
et Guillelmo de Guarenna, qui Gundreda, sororem Gherbodi conjugem habebat,
dedit Sutregiam. Orderic, ii, 221.].'
So if Dugdale was not led astray, it was simply the aspirations and stupidity
of later scholars that carried them off onto the wrong path. The Chronicle of
Hyde Abbey (Roll Series, p. 296), says of the Earl of Chester, "Quo tempore
comes Cistrensis decessit Gerbodo, frater Gondradae comitissae. Flandriamque
veniens...." So one main argument against a connection with the Conqueror or
his wife was that they, as very important people, were completely omitted in
these references (odd indeed if you are familiar with such source material).
Another main argument was a discovery of Chester Waters, published in 1884.
Archbishop Anselm had written Henry I (about 1107) stating that one of the
kIng's daughters should not be married to William de Warenne because they were
distantly related [cum ipse et filia vestra ex una parte sint cognati in quarta
generatione, et ex altera in sexta (one was fourth in descent from a common
ancestor, the other sixth)]. If Gundred had been Queen Maud's daughter, her
son would have been first cousin of King Henry's daughter. That would have
been the relationship objected to in 1107 if it were the fact, not some distant
connection.
The English historian Freeman (who had a high reputation for his day, but that
has not stood the test of time) finally admitteded false the theory that
Gundred was daughter of the Conqueror or his wife QUeen Maud in the English
Historical Review (1888). He examined the Lewes documents afresh "and stated
that there was no ground either for the old belief that Gundreda was the
daughter of king William and queen Maud, or ... that she was the daughter of
the queen but not the daughter of the king.... There is nothing to show that
Gundreda was the daughter either of King William or Queen Matilda; there is a
great deal to show that she was not."
EYC 8:43-44 (and attached appendices) summarizes the internal evidence of this
(ONE, not two or more) charter that caused the controversy.
(1) It is a document from a fifteenth-century chartulary purporting to be the
foundation charter of Lewes priory, and states, "pro salute domine mee Matildis
regine matris uxoris mee." ["This document is not the transcript of a genuine
charter; and there is strong evidence to show that it was the copy of a
compilation of a later date."]
(2) "In a genuine charter of the Conqueror to Lewes priory there is an erasure
after the mention of Gundreda over which had been written in a later hand the
words "filie mee." In other words, it was added to an original charter (yes,
they do sometimes exist) at a later date.
(3) There is actually a genuine charter dated c. 1078-1082 which predates the
supposed foundation charter (original in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale. Ecole
des Chartes, lithograph facsimiles, no. 549), in which William de Warenne and
his wife Gundreda give the abbey of Cluny land and the church of St. Pancras,
at Lewes, with the assent of King William I (who retained his lordship therein,
as holder in chief). It is signed with the crosses of "Willelmi regis
Anglonorum, M[athildis] regine Anglorum, Willelmi comitis filii regis, Willelmi
de Warenna, Gundrede uxoris W. de Warenna, Robert de Bellomonte" and others,
but no mention of relationship between William de Warenne and his wife and
William the Conqueror, his wife or son William is made. This is the genuine
foundation charter, and predates the forgery. "The latest date for the present
charter is 1083, when queen Maud died. Another charter dated 1081-3 (EYC
8:56-7, no. 4) is a confirmation by William I of the manor of Heacham, co.
Norfolk (held by William de Warenne) given to Lewes priory to pray for the
souls of King Edward, count Robert the king's father, the king himself and his
wife queen Maid, his sons and successors, and then seperately for the souls of
William de Warenne and Gundreda his wife. William II also later confirmed this
(no. 5).
(4) So the fictitious foundation charter of 1085 was not the first or even
second charter. "A detailed examination of its contents confirms the
suspicions which are invited by its general character and trend. After an
invocation of the Trinity it proceeds to a discursive account of how William
and his wife went to Cluny" [etc.] and "the grantor had caused king William II
in his council at Winchester to confirm the charter and witness it by the sign
of the cross with his own hand and by the signs of the bishops, earls and
barons then with him. There are in fact no subscriptions. Speaking generally
it is difficult to conceive anything more dissimilar in form and tone to the
genuine eleventh-century charters which have come down to us."
Several general tests are then applied to the charter. "The first discloses an
anachronism which cannot be explained away, and which is fatal to the
authenticity of the charter. The grantor states that after the death of
Gundreda his wife he gave to the monks of Lewes the manor of Heacham in Norfolk
... and that King William II had confirmed the gift.... But [in the actual
original which I referred to above] it is there stated that Heacham was to be
possessed by the monks as William de Warenne held it on the day when he was
alive and dead." So the fictitious charter says that William de Warenne
himself was alive when King William II confirmed it, but the original
confirmation of William II which does survive states that William de Warenne
was dead. There is further discussion of internal evidence which also proves
the foundation charter of 1085 to be spurious, but I will not go on here.
Further evidence of the fraud of the account in the Lewes Chartulary (which was
compiled in 1444, but there is a copy at the Biblioteque National dated 1417)
is that in its account for the year 1085 it records, "Obiit Gundrad Cometissa."
Yet her husband was not made an Earl until 1088.
The point to be made in all of this is that the 1085 charter purporting Gundred
to be daughter of William the Conqueror is spurious. It has all the hallmarks
of being a later invention. The TWO charters we have discussed from the
Bradenstoke Cartulary are completely different. They HAVE been examined on the
basis of external and internal evidence, and there is no reason to believe they
are not genuine. They meet al lthe criteria. To question them, you need a
reason why.
It is useless to spout out opinions and questions unless they are addressed
specifically to our problem. Baiting the group does no good. Thomas Reed
Powell, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard, said, 'There are two things
you can do. You can argue about it, or you can look it up.'
Good advice. So let's stop wasting time and space arguing and look up the
facts. SPECIFIC facts. We have taken the general arguments into consideration
already and have used them ourselves. Let's get on with it.
pcr
Reedpcgen
I was not making a personal attack on Leo van de Pas, and did not mean it to be
taken as such. He was simply citing a charter Brandenburg referred to that
was, as far as he knew, a trustworthy source.
But the comparison is still not valid. The one charter is clearly spurious.
There is no reason to believe the Bradenstoke Cartularty is not genuine, based
Reedpcgen
>
>You'd also do well to learn how to spell "Cartulary."
>
>
I tend to cite things exactly as they appear in texts. Had you bothered to go
to the library (I expect the university where you work has a decent library),
and checked the sources I cited, you would see that in some sources the
compilations of charters are called cartularies, as in the Cartulary of
Bradenstoke, and in others called chartilaries. EYC 8:59, etc. refers to "the
Lewes Chartulary." Mr. Hines, you really emphasize your ignorance when you
step into what you know not and criticise it. Learn your historical sources
for this period before you put your foot into your mouth by attacking others
for use of sources or spelling.
>
>A bit of a credibility destroyer that.
>
>
Ignorance, ignorant of its ignorance? Or just one of the illuminati?
pcr
Frank Mitchell
In article <6e5e4f$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "D. Spencer Hines"
<shi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You'd also do well to learn how to spell "Cartulary."
>
> A bit of a credibility destroyer that.
That what?
Sloppy grammar that.
carpe diem
--
Frank Mitchell, Arizona