Gundrada's existence
Stewart, Peter
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 20 October 2000 19:59
> To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> Cc: Stewart, Peter
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> Gundrada's son William and Henry I's natural daughter were
> prohibited from marrying because they were related in the
> fourth generation on one side and the sixth generation on the
> other. Waters' point is that is because of the known descent
> of the Warennes from a sister of Gunnora (he gives a pedigree
> of the Warrennes, which I think has been superseded, but I
> think the degrees of the relationship remain the same.
> <snip>
I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean that Gundrada's
son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition through
four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
In any event, as to Gundrada's place in the generations her family, it seems
that Elizabeth van Houts might have solved this problem already. Todd
Farmerie has mentioned her article in Anglo-Saxon Studies last year, and if
she presents good evidence linking the Frederick murdered by Hereward to the
Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke family, this presumably also indicates that he was
more likely a brother than a son of Warlop's Gerbod II (see Todd's posting
of 7 July 2000).
However, the name Frederick does not appear at all in this family according
to Warlop, and would have been uncommon enough in Flanders - perhaps this
indicates a connection further afield, maybe even with a ducal family where
the name was used, such as that of Swabia from which it later passed to
Lorraine. I don't have access to Anglo-Saxon Studies 10 to see what van
Houts has to say on the point, but if Frederick was a "brother" of William
de Warenne through being a uterine brother of Gundrada, he was possibly not
related by blood to either Gerbod. For all I know, Gundrada may have been
only a half-sister to the earl of Chester, sharing a father with him and a
mother with Frederick, which could also help to explain the chronological
questions raised by Douglas Richardson - i.e. she could well have been young
enough to be her brother's daughter....
Can anyone post the details from Elizabeth van Houts' article?
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean that Gundrada's
> son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition through
> four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
> that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
The nature of their relationship has been discussed here in relationship
to the famous Gunnora. It was thought at the time that William de
Warenne was son of Ranulph de Warenne by a niece of Gunnora. Katherine
Keats-Rohan has presented a good argument that William was actually son
of Ranulph (II) by Emma, and he in turn was daughter of Beatrice,
daughter of Tesselin, vicomte of Rouen, who married a niece of Gunnora.
(It should be pointed out that a recent article suggests that it was
Tesselin's son Richard who married the Gunnorid niece, which would
disrupt the suggested descent.)
> In any event, as to Gundrada's place in the generations her family, it seems
> that Elizabeth van Houts might have solved this problem already. Todd
> Farmerie has mentioned her article in Anglo-Saxon Studies last year, and if
> she presents good evidence linking the Frederick murdered by Hereward to the
> Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke family, this presumably also indicates that he was
> more likely a brother than a son of Warlop's Gerbod II (see Todd's posting
> of 7 July 2000).
As I recall, she doesn't present much at all, counting on
identifications already made (her interest, at any rate, was in
Hereward).
> However, the name Frederick does not appear at all in this family according
> to Warlop, and would have been uncommon enough in Flanders - perhaps this
> indicates a connection further afield, maybe even with a ducal family where
> the name was used, such as that of Swabia from which it later passed to
> Lorraine.
The name can be found closer to home, in Luxembourg - after all, Baldwin
IV of Flanders married the daughter of Frederick of Lux.
> Can anyone post the details from Elizabeth van Houts' article?
I have been looking for my copy (which I have not seen since my July 7
post), unsuccessfully. Sorry.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> "Stewart, Peter" wrote:
> >
> > I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean that Gundrada's
> > son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition through
> > four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
> > that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
>
> The nature of their relationship has been discussed here in relationship
> to the famous Gunnora. It was thought at the time that William de
> Warenne was son of Ranulph de Warenne by a niece of Gunnora. Katherine
> Keats-Rohan has presented a good argument that William was actually son
> of Ranulph (II) by Emma, and he in turn was daughter of Beatrice,
> daughter of Tesselin, vicomte of Rouen, who married a niece of Gunnora.
>
Ich! How did that happen?! This should read "he in turn was son of
Ranulph (I) de Warenne by Beatrice, daughter of Tesselin . . .
taf
Chris Phillips
<<
> <snip>
> Gundrada's son William and Henry I's natural daughter were
> prohibited from marrying because they were related in the
> fourth generation on one side and the sixth generation on the
> other. Waters' point is that is because of the known descent
> of the Warennes from a sister of Gunnora (he gives a pedigree
> of the Warrennes, which I think has been superseded, but I
> think the degrees of the relationship remain the same.
> <snip>
I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean that Gundrada's
son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition through
four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
>>
The parents of Gunnora are shown by Waters as the 4-times great grandparents
of Henry's daughter, and the 2-times great grandparents of Gundrada's son.
So Gundrada's son would be the 5th cousin, twice removed upwards, of Henry's
daughter.
I think Gundrada is unlikely to have been a uterine brother to Gerbod the
Earl of Chester, as Clay (in Early Yorkshire Charters, vol.8) points out
that Earl Hamelin, c.1182, is described as the advocate of St Bertin.
Hamelin was married to Gundrada's great granddaughter, and Clay says, in his
cautious style, that "the style may tend to furnish evidence that Gundreda,
and therefore her brother, was a member of the family which held the
hereditary office of advocate, and that in some way, of which at present
there is no proof, the representation of the family passed to her heir."
I have been looking at the St Bertin cartulary and other
evidence cited by Warlop (and others). I'm still a bit bewildered at the
moment, but I hope to post a summary if I can clarify things.
I'd also be grateful if anyone can post a summary of what van Houts says
about Frederick, as that's one of the sources I haven't been able to track
down. I think you may well be right that - if Frederick _was_ Gundrada's
brother - the name came from further afield, as there's no local Frederick
in the 11th century in the index of Haignere's edition of the St Bertin
cartulary (although he omitted some material that had been printed in an
earlier edition by Guerard, which I've yet to see).
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
<<
> "Stewart, Peter" wrote:
> >
Gundrada's
> > son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition
through
> > four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
> > that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
>
> to the famous Gunnora. It was thought at the time that William de
> Warenne was son of Ranulph de Warenne by a niece of Gunnora. Katherine
> Keats-Rohan has presented a good argument that William was actually son
> of Ranulph (II) by Emma, and he in turn was daughter of Beatrice,
> daughter of Tesselin, vicomte of Rouen, who married a niece of Gunnora.
>
Ich! How did that happen?! This should read "he in turn was son of Ranulph
(I) de Warenne by Beatrice, daughter of Tesselin . . .
>>
Sorry - obviously I'm out of date on the Warennes' descent from Gunnora. I
realised that Chester Waters' version had been superseded, but had thought
that current thinking still made William I of Warenne a great nephew of
Gunnora (which vol.12 of the Complete Peerage does - although I don't know
whether that view is jettisoned in vol.14, which I don't have a copy of).
Having said that, Chester Waters' argument against Matilda of Flanders being
Gundrada's mother, based on the prohibition, depends only on the prohibition
being made on the grounds of a distant relationship (we don't even need to
know the details of the relationship). The argument is that the marriage
wouldn't have been prohibited on the grounds of a distant relationship if
the parties were more closely related.
In this sense, the argument still seems valid against any close blood
relationship between Gundrada and the counts of Flanders. (Waters actually
presents a second argument, based on the _lack_ of a prohibition of the
marriage of William II of Warenne to Elizabeth of Vermandois, despite the
fact that unsuccessful attempts had been made to prohibit Elizabeth's first
marriage, to Robert, Count of Meulan, on the grounds of a common descent
from Robert's twice and Elizabeth's thrice great grandfather. Waters argues
that if Gundrada had been the daughter of Matilda of Flanders, Elizabeth and
William II would have had a closer common ancestor in Robert II of France.
If this argument is accepted, it is equally valid against Gundrada being a
descendant of Matilda's parents, Baldwin of Flanders and Adela.)
I'd be interested to look at the argument mentioned, by Keats-Rohan. Is it
in the paper mentioned in your page on the soc.genealogy.medieval web site -
"Aspects of Torigny's Genealogy Revisited" in Nottingham Medieval Studies
37:21-7?
Incidentally, the version given above seems to be different from the version
on that page, which is that Richard, the son of Tesselin (not Tesselin
himself), married a niece of Gunnora, so that the Warennes were not actually
related by blood to the Dukes of Normandy. Ironically, if this is correct,
the wheel could turn full circle, and - as far as the prohibition argument
is concerned - allow the "Dukes" mentioned on Gundrada's gravestone to be
the Dukes of Normandy after all!
I wonder if Keats-Rohan commented on how her hypothesis related to the
prohibition of the marriage of William II of Warenne and Henry I's daughter,
on which previous authors have placed so much reliance.
Chris Phillips
Stewart, Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
> Sent: Monday, 23 October 2000 19:48
> To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> Cc: Stewart, Peter
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> Peter Stewart wrote:
> <<
> > <snip>
> > I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean
> > that Gundrada's son and Henry I's daughter were traced
> > at the time of prohibition through four and six generations
> > respectively to their common ancestor? How does that
> > accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
>
>
> The parents of Gunnora are shown by Waters as the 4-times
> great grandparents of Henry's daughter, and the 2-times great
> grandparents of Gundrada's son. So Gundrada's son would
> be the 5th cousin, twice removed upwards, of Henry's
> daughter.
This is getting more confused, I think - by my calculations the answer above
would make them second cousins twice removed, while the relationship
outlined in my question would make them third cousins twice removed.
But I don't suppose it matters now. Can you tell us if this is by any chance
one of the marriages referred to by Constance Bouchard in her article
*Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries*,
Speculum 56.2 (1981)? She writes:
"When Henry I of England was attempting to arrange suitable marriages for
his daughters, he and the proposed spouses drew family trees to be compared
- and Henry decided against at least two marriages because both partners
were descended from a forester whose name was not even remembered".
I'm not sure if the prohibition Waters was writing about came from clerics
or was just a decision of the king. In the latter case, it seems that
Keats-Rohan's theory might have been news to him.
>
> I think Gundrada is unlikely to have been a uterine brother
> to Gerbod the Earl of Chester, as Clay (in Early Yorkshire
> Charters, vol.8) points out that Earl Hamelin, c.1182, is
> described as the advocate of St Bertin.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that this was an equal possibility - my
speculation was just that she might have shared a father with Gerbod and a
mother with Frederick.
Peter Stewart
Renia
> Peter Stewart wrote:
> <<
> > <snip>
> > Gundrada's son William and Henry I's natural daughter were
> > prohibited from marrying because they were related in the
> > fourth generation on one side and the sixth generation on the
> > other. Waters' point is that is because of the known descent
> > of the Warennes from a sister of Gunnora (he gives a pedigree
> > of the Warrennes, which I think has been superseded, but I
> > think the degrees of the relationship remain the same.
> > <snip>
>
> I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean that Gundrada's
> son and Henry I's daughter were traced at the time of prohibition through
> four and six generations respectively to their common ancestor? How does
> that accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
> >>
>
> The parents of Gunnora are shown by Waters as the 4-times great grandparents
> of Henry's daughter, and the 2-times great grandparents of Gundrada's son.
> So Gundrada's son would be the 5th cousin, twice removed upwards, of Henry's
> daughter.
>
> I think Gundrada is unlikely to have been a uterine brother to Gerbod the
> Earl of Chester, as Clay (in Early Yorkshire Charters, vol.8) points out
> that Earl Hamelin, c.1182, is described as the advocate of St Bertin.
> Hamelin was married to Gundrada's great granddaughter, and Clay says, in his
> cautious style, that "the style may tend to furnish evidence that Gundreda,
> and therefore her brother, was a member of the family which held the
> hereditary office of advocate, and that in some way, of which at present
> there is no proof, the representation of the family passed to her heir."
>
> I have been looking at the St Bertin cartulary and other
> evidence cited by Warlop (and others). I'm still a bit bewildered at the
> moment, but I hope to post a summary if I can clarify things.
>
> I'd also be grateful if anyone can post a summary of what van Houts says
> about Frederick, as that's one of the sources I haven't been able to track
> down. I think you may well be right that - if Frederick _was_ Gundrada's
> brother - the name came from further afield, as there's no local Frederick
> in the 11th century in the index of Haignere's edition of the St Bertin
> cartulary (although he omitted some material that had been printed in an
> earlier edition by Guerard, which I've yet to see).
>
> Chris Phillips
Regarding Gerbod, Earl of Chester for a short time, in 1070. He is said (CP) to
have returned to his "native country where he was taken prisoner at the battle
of Cassel, 1071, and kept captive for a long period, never coming back to
England".
Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he was made
prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to be
created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
Renia
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote:
> This is getting more confused, I think - by my calculations the answer
above
> would make them second cousins twice removed, while the relationship
> outlined in my question would make them third cousins twice removed.
Maybe there are differences in usage, or maybe I'm just plain wrong. I've
always thought that in a case like this, William II would be Henry's
daughter's fifth cousin, twice removed upwards, but she would be his third
cousin, twice removed downwards. By the way, this "fifth cousin" phrase is
just Chester Waters, so it isn't really a vital question of evidence - but I
think that is how he arrived at the description.
> But I don't suppose it matters now. Can you tell us if this is by any
chance
> one of the marriages referred to by Constance Bouchard in her article
> *Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries*,
> Speculum 56.2 (1981)? She writes:
>
> "When Henry I of England was attempting to arrange suitable marriages for
> his daughters, he and the proposed spouses drew family trees to be
compared
> - and Henry decided against at least two marriages because both partners
> were descended from a forester whose name was not even remembered".
>
> I'm not sure if the prohibition Waters was writing about came from clerics
> or was just a decision of the king. In the latter case, it seems that
> Keats-Rohan's theory might have been news to him.
I don't know whether this is one of the marriages Bouchard refers to, but
I'll certainly add her article to my list. The prohibition Waters uses is in
a letter of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, but it doesn't mention the
names of any of the ancestors in question (or even Henry's daughter). He
just assumed that the common descent was from Gunnora's parents, as has - by
the sound of it - almost everyone else until Keats-Rohan. _Except_, I see
that in an article by G.H.White (Genealogist, new series vol.37), he does
cast some doubt on the Warennes' descent from Gunnora, by pointing to
several marriages which would have been within the prohibited degrees if
they had been her descendants - he did not know of any dispensations having
been granted for these marriages. (Perhaps this is part of Keats-Rohan's
case?) White concludes "If [dispensations were] not [granted], the obvious
inference is that the house of Warenne did not descend from either a brother
or sister of Gunnor. But in that case, how are we to explain the
relationship between the second Earl of Surrey and Henry I's daughter stated
so definitely by Anselm? The fact that the projected marriage was abandoned
seems to show that the king did not contest the alleged consanguinity".
_If_ the Warennes were not descended from Gunnora, how is the relationship
to be explained? Of course, it may be that the Warennes had a different
genealogical link to the Dukes of Normandy (although White's third
marriage - between Isabel, daughter of the 3rd Earl of Surrey, and William,
son of King Stephen, seems to rule out such a connection, with as much force
as it rules out a descent from Gunnora).
On the other hand, possibly the relationship stated by Anselm could give a
clue as to Gundrada's descent. Given that Gundrada was a Fleming, it seems
equally likely that the connection mentioned by Anselm could be between
those of Gundrada (the groom's father) and Matilda of Flanders (the bride's
grandmother). There seems to be quite a bit of scope for cousinships there,
through various routes, and also scope for some of these to give Gundrada a
descent from families containing ducal Fredericks, such as the Lorraine
possibility you suggested previously - I wonder if Matilda's Luxembourg
ancestors are known top be related to the Dukes of Lorraine?
It is a bit awkward, though, to find a relationship which gives six
generations on one side, and four on the other (however exactly these are to
be counted).
> Can you tell us who had already made the identification of this murdered
> Frederick with the Flemish family of the Gerbods?
This connection was first suggested - although not very clearly - by
Stapleton, in an 1846 paper in the Archaeological Journal, and was more
clearly explained by Loyd in 1934, in the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal,
of which Renia Simmonds posted an extract.
Incidentally, I think Renia asked if the date was known for Frederick's
murder by Hereward. Clay says "the date would be c.1070" - I presume, from
what is known about Hereward's career.
Chris Phillips
PS Renia Simmonds wrote:
<<
Regarding Gerbod, Earl of Chester for a short time, in 1070. He is said (CP)
to have returned to his "native country where he was taken prisoner at the
battle of Cassel, 1071, and kept captive for a long period, never coming
back to England".
Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he was
made prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to
be created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
>>
I think CP's comment comes from Orderic Vitalis, which I think implies that
Hugh was created Earl of Chester while Gerbod was still alive. He just
follows his account of Gerbod with "Interea rex Cestresem consulatum Hugoni
de Abrincis ... concessit".
There are a couple of monastic chronicles, one of which is cited by Warlop,
that give more details, to the effect that Gerbod became a monk after the
battle of Cassel, which would be consistent with his earldom being given to
someone else. I'll try to post more details when I can get the Flemish
evidence straightened out a bit more.
douglasr...@hotmail.com
I've been wondering if the possibility has been considered that
Frederick was the uterine brother of William I de Warenne, rather that
of William's wife, Gundred. I don't have the Warenne family tree in
front of me, so I don't know if this is conceivable. Regardless, I
think all possibilities should be considered. Whoever Frederick was,
he appears not to have used the surname de Warenne. This suggests to
me that he probably wasn't a full brother to William I de Warenne.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
In article
<BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au>,
Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au (Stewart, Peter) wrote:
> Comments interspersed.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
> > Sent: Monday, 23 October 2000 19:48
> > To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> > Cc: Stewart, Peter
> > Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
> >
> >
> > Peter Stewart wrote:
> > <<
> > > <snip>
> > > I'm still not quite clear on Waters' point - does this mean
> > > that Gundrada's son and Henry I's daughter were traced
> > > at the time of prohibition through four and six generations
> > > respectively to their common ancestor? How does that
> > > accord with their being "fifth" cousins?
> >
> >
> > The parents of Gunnora are shown by Waters as the 4-times
> > great grandparents of Henry's daughter, and the 2-times great
> > grandparents of Gundrada's son. So Gundrada's son would
> > be the 5th cousin, twice removed upwards, of Henry's
> > daughter.
>
> This is getting more confused, I think - by my calculations the
answer above
> would make them second cousins twice removed, while the relationship
> outlined in my question would make them third cousins twice removed.
>
> But I don't suppose it matters now. Can you tell us if this is by any
chance
> one of the marriages referred to by Constance Bouchard in her article
> *Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh
Centuries*,
> Speculum 56.2 (1981)? She writes:
>
> "When Henry I of England was attempting to arrange suitable marriages
for
> his daughters, he and the proposed spouses drew family trees to be
compared
> - and Henry decided against at least two marriages because both
partners
> were descended from a forester whose name was not even remembered".
>
> I'm not sure if the prohibition Waters was writing about came from
clerics
> or was just a decision of the king. In the latter case, it seems that
> Keats-Rohan's theory might have been news to him.
>
> >
> > I think Gundrada is unlikely to have been a uterine brother
> > to Gerbod the Earl of Chester, as Clay (in Early Yorkshire
> > Charters, vol.8) points out that Earl Hamelin, c.1182, is
> > described as the advocate of St Bertin.
>
> I certainly didn't mean to imply that this was an equal possibility -
my
> speculation was just that she might have shared a father with Gerbod
and a
> mother with Frederick.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I'd be interested to look at the argument mentioned, by Keats-Rohan. Is it
> in the paper mentioned in your page on the soc.genealogy.medieval web site -
> "Aspects of Torigny's Genealogy Revisited" in Nottingham Medieval Studies
> 37:21-7?
Yes.
> Incidentally, the version given above seems to be different from the version
> on that page, which is that Richard, the son of Tesselin (not Tesselin
> himself), married a niece of Gunnora, so that the Warennes were not actually
> related by blood to the Dukes of Normandy.
The version given here is Keats-Rohans, that involving Richard in van
Houts'.
Unfortunately, ambiguity exists in two places. First, in the
Keats-Rohan paper, she errs at one point in stating the relationship
between people, contradicted elsewhere in the same paper. It seems
clear that she is arguing for a marriage of Tesselin to the niece, as
she calls no attention to the fact that Beatrice would not be a Gunnorid
were Richard the Rouen vicompte married to the niece. Thus her
reconstruction is in contrast to the conclusions reached by a source
cited by van Houts in her summary of the genealogy. I have not been
able to get my hands on the original article, but van Houts' citation
states that it proves that it was in fact Richard who married the
niece. There is no easy way to reach a conclusion one way or the other,
at least until I see the strength of the "proof".
> I wonder if Keats-Rohan commented on how her hypothesis related to the
> prohibition of the marriage of William II of Warenne and Henry I's daughter,
> on which previous authors have placed so much reliance.
What is important about this prohibition is not what the actual pedigree
was, but what they thought it was at the time. It must be remembered
that the genealogies as they survive are based on RObert of Torigny,
writing about this time, and therefor representing the current (then)
thought. Corrections to his work to better represent reality do not
affect what was thought to be the case at the time.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I don't know whether this is one of the marriages Bouchard refers to, but
> I'll certainly add her article to my list. The prohibition Waters uses is in
> a letter of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, but it doesn't mention the
> names of any of the ancestors in question (or even Henry's daughter). He
> just assumed that the common descent was from Gunnora's parents, as has - by
> the sound of it - almost everyone else until Keats-Rohan. _Except_, I see
> that in an article by G.H.White (Genealogist, new series vol.37), he does
> cast some doubt on the Warennes' descent from Gunnora, by pointing to
> several marriages which would have been within the prohibited degrees if
> they had been her descendants - he did not know of any dispensations having
> been granted for these marriages.
Marriage prohibitions were sometimes as political as the marriages
themselves. There is one documented case where a marriage was
barred/annulled, while a marriage between the siblings of the bride and
groom (obviously related in the same degree) was allowed to stand. That
fact, in and of itself, makes all such arguments based on the lack of a
prohibition of lesser weight.
> (Perhaps this is part of Keats-Rohan's case?)
No. She is just "fixing" the descent, not invalidating it.
> White concludes "If [dispensations were] not [granted], the obvious
> inference is that the house of Warenne did not descend from either a brother
> or sister of Gunnor. But in that case, how are we to explain the
> relationship between the second Earl of Surrey and Henry I's daughter stated
> so definitely by Anselm? The fact that the projected marriage was abandoned
> seems to show that the king did not contest the alleged consanguinity".
The kinship of Warenne to the Norman Dukes, through the family of
Gunnor, was accepted dogma, recorded by Robert of Torigny. There is
every reason to believe that both Henry and Anselm thought it existed,
even if they were in error.
> On the other hand, possibly the relationship stated by Anselm could give a
> clue as to Gundrada's descent. Given that Gundrada was a Fleming, it seems
> equally likely that the connection mentioned by Anselm could be between
> those of Gundrada (the groom's father) and Matilda of Flanders (the bride's
> grandmother).
As I said, there is every reason to think Anselm was talking about the
Warenne relationship. That does not, necessarily, imply that there was
not a relationship between Gundrada and Matilda, even a slightly closer
but more obscure one.
> There seems to be quite a bit of scope for cousinships there,
> through various routes, and also scope for some of these to give Gundrada a
> descent from families containing ducal Fredericks, such as the Lorraine
> possibility you suggested previously - I wonder if Matilda's Luxembourg
> ancestors are known top be related to the Dukes of Lorraine?
As I pointed out to Peter privately, I don't know that a whole lot of
faith should be placed on the epitaph linking Gundrada to a family of
Dukes. (For example, that one of Eadweard the Exile's sons-in-law is
called "king" by one source and a "duke" by the other.) I would not be
surprised if the claim to a ducal bloodline is exageration, imprecission
or confusion.
taf
Chris Phillips
<<
I've been wondering if the possibility has been considered that Frederick
was the uterine brother of William I de Warenne, rather that of William's
wife, Gundred. I don't have the Warenne family tree in front of me, so I
don't know if this is conceivable. Regardless, I think all possibilities
should be considered. Whoever Frederick was, he appears not to have used
the surname de Warenne. This suggests to me that he probably wasn't a full
brother to William I de Warenne.
>>
This hasn't been suggested, as far as I know.
Frederick is called the 'frater' of William in the Domesday Book, and also
his brother in the Gesta Herewardi and his 'germanus'
in the Hyde chronicle - both these being later sources. The
arguments against his being William's brother, as given by Loyd, were posted
by Renia Simmonds a few days ago; these are based on the rarity of his name
in Normandy at that time, and his seeming appearance as a witness in
Flanders in 1067.
So if he were a _uterine_ brother of William, that would suggest William's
mother, as well as his wife, was Flemish. I've only seen very sketchy
details of the Warenne wives, although perhaps Keats-Rohan's work gives more
information. But if it were the
case, I should think Frederick might as well be William's full brother as
his uterine one.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Todd Farmerie wrote:
<<
Unfortunately, ambiguity exists in two places. First, in the Keats-Rohan
paper, she errs at one point in stating the relationship between people,
contradicted elsewhere in the same paper. It seems clear that she is
arguing for a marriage of Tesselin to the niece, as she calls no attention
to the fact that Beatrice would not be a Gunnorid were Richard the Rouen
vicompte married to the niece. Thus her reconstruction is in contrast to
the conclusions reached by a source cited by van Houts in her summary of the
genealogy. I have not been able to get my hands on the original article,
but van Houts' citation states that it proves that it was in fact Richard
who married the niece. There is no easy way to reach a conclusion one way
or the other, at least until I see the strength of the "proof".
>>
Thanks for the extra details. I'll see if I can track down a copy of van
Houts' source (assuming it's cited in the paper you refer to on the web
page - Elisabeth M C van Houts. Robert of Torigni as Genealogist. in Studies
in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, p.215-33). The British
Library may be able to produce it, although judging by their recent
performance I shouldn't count on it.
<<
What is important about this prohibition is not what the actual pedigree
was, but what they thought it was at the time. It must be remembered that
the genealogies as they survive are based on RObert of Torigny, writing
about this time, and therefor representing the current (then) thought.
>>
I understand your argument - that Anselm's prohibition was based on the
(apparently) mistaken tradition reflected by Robert of Torigny. I suppose
there's pretty strong support for this view, from the fact that the
relationship in the prohibition agrees with Robert's version, particularly
as the relationship is so lop-sided, involving as it does a difference of
two generations between the prospective groom's and bride's descents from
the common ancestors. I still find it a bit surprising, though, that William
II de Warenne wouldn't be in a position to refute the claim that his
grandmother was a niece of Gunnora, if this weren't the case. But I suppose
stranger things have happened.
<<
As I pointed out to Peter privately, I don't know that a whole lot of faith
should be placed on the epitaph linking Gundrada to a family of Dukes. (For
example, that one of Eadweard the Exile's sons-in-law is called "king" by
one source and a "duke" by the other.) I would not be surprised if the
claim to a ducal bloodline is exageration, imprecission or confusion.
>>
Fair enough, particularly as the epitaph isn't contemporary - I haven't seen
an attempt to date it closely, but the Victoria County History describes it
as late 12th century. So it may date from as much as a century after
Gundrada's death. And obviously the monks of Lewes later showed themselves
to be pretty keen on glorifying their foundress, although they eventually
claimed a royal, not ducal, descent for her.
Chris Phillips
U...@aol.com
PSim...@cwcom.net writes:
<< Regarding Gerbod, Earl of Chester for a short time, in 1070. He is said
(CP) to
have returned to his "native country where he was taken prisoner at the
battle
of Cassel, 1071, and kept captive for a long period, never coming back to
England".
Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he was
made
prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to be
created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
Renia
>>
II. 1. HUGH D'AVRANCHES, styled by his contemporaries "VRAS," or "LE
GROS" and, in after ages (from his rapacity) "Lupus," was son and heir of
Richard (LE Goz), VICOMTE AVRANCHES, &C., in Normandy (son of Thurstan LE
Goz), by Emma, [----]. He is generally supposed to have fought at the battle
of Hastings (1066), when, at the utmost, he would have been but 19 years old;
anyhow, not long afterwards in 1071, he received from the King, his maternal
uncle, the whole of the county Palatine of Chester (exception the Episcopal
lands) "to hold as freely by the Sword, as he [the King] himself held the
Kingdom of England by the Crown," becoming thereby Count Palatine thereof, as
EARL OF CHESTER. He succeeded his father, who was living as late as 1082, as
VICOMTE D'AVRANCHES, &C., in Normandy. In the rebellion (1096) against
William II, he stood loyally by his Sovereign. He m. Ermentrude, daughter of
Hugues, COUNT OF CLERMONT in Beauvaisis, by Margaret, daughter of Hilduin,
COUNT OF Rouci and MONTDIDIER. Having founded the Abbeys of St. Sever in
Normandy and St. Werburg at Chester (besides largely endowing that of Whitby,
co. York), he became a monk 3 days before he died 27 July 1101, at St.
Werburg's. He was buried in the cemetery at St. Werburg, but his body was
afterward removed to the Chapter House by Earl Ranulph le Meschin. [CP
3:165, 14:170]
]
Hastings resulted in gains to all Normans, one being Hugh 'Lupus' d'Avranches
from the d'Avranches family Viscount of Avranches. Another being Nigel St
Sauveur son of Nigel St Sav Viscount of the Cotentine. Hugh became Earl of
Chester and Nigel died in Battle of Cardiff c1072. Nigel's young son,
William, became Constable of Chester (along with lots of other lands
including Halton, Salop etc). Now remember William's grandfather, Nigel was
still alive in Nornamdy and still the powerful Viscount of the Cotentin.
William had a brother Richard FitzNigel who became Baron Malpas by marriage
to the Hugh d'Avrances family.
Always optimistic--Dave
Suzanne Doig
>Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he was made
>prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to be
>created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
Orderic Vitalis answers this to a certain extent:
Lib IV (fol ii:219)
[At the time of the defeat of the Mercian earls:] "The king had
already given the city and county of Chester to the Fleming Gerbod,
but he was continually molested by the English and Welsh alike. At
length he received a message from the men he had left behind in
Flanders to administer his hereditary honor, urgently requiring his
return, and obtained permission for a short visit from the king. But
there by misfortune he fell into the hands of his enemies, and loaded
with fetters and deprived of all earthy happiness he learned through
long wretchedness to compose songs of lamentation. Meanwhile the king
granted the county of Chester to Hugh of Avranches, son of Richard
called Goz, who with Robert of Rhuddlan, Robert of Malpas, and other
fierce knights, wrought great slaughter amongst the Welsh."
[there is a note that Hugh held Chester by 22 February 1071]
So it seems that poor Gerbod, beset on all sides, had Chester taken
from him because he couldn't hold it properly against the Welsh and
English. Orderic also states at Lib VI cap 2 that Gerbod of Flanders
returned to his own people.
Incidentally, a couple of pages after this passage, it quite
explicitly states that Gerbod's sister Gundreda married William de
Warenne [when Orderic mistakenly included William among the list of
earls of c.1071 creation].
Among Orderic's fellow monks at Saint Évroul were Arnold, former
chaplain of Hugh d'Avranches, and Roger de Warenne, nephew of William
de Warenne, so one might expect his knowledge of these families to be
reasonably good (and he discusses them in some detail).
Suzanne
* - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
Suzanne Doig - remove *!* from reply-to address
http://www.geocities.com/smdnz/
Stewart, Peter
> From: Todd A. Farmerie [mailto:farm...@interfold.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 October 2000 15:05
> To: Stewart, Peter
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> >
> > Can you tell us who had already made the identification of this
> > murdered Frederick with the Flemish family of the Gerbods?
>
> basically stating "Frederick of O-S, who was called "brother
> of WIlliam de Warenne" and was brother of Gundred." I
> don't recall the arguments for the identification being presented.
>
> > > > However, the name Frederick does not appear at all in this
> > > > family according to Warlop, and would have been uncommon
> > > > enough in Flanders - perhaps this indicates a connection further
> > > > afield, maybe even with a ducal family where the name was
> > > > used, such as that of Swabia from which it later passed to
> > > > Lorraine.
> > >
> > > The name can be found closer to home, in Luxembourg - after
> > > all, Baldwin IV of Flanders married the daughter of Frederick of
> > > Lux.
> >
> > hereditary rank as counts rather than dukes - I was speculating around
> > that qualification, from Gundrada's epitaph.
>
> Yes, that is the case, but I am not sure this is so critical a
> difference. In describing one of the sons-in-law of Edward the Elder,
> one historian calls him a king, the other a duke. I would not put
> confusion, imprecision, or exageration beyond the realm of possibility
> in such an epitaph. Likewise, it is difficult to produce a
> genealogical context in which a Swabian (or the like) duke ended up with a
close
> relative a member of the minor Flemish nobility, while a descent, for
> example, from Luxembourg (even indirectly through Baldwin IV's wife
> Ogive) is easier to envision.
>
My apologies - I replied to Todd's posting in some haste yesterday, and my
typing fingers beat my brain into action: his suggestion is a far more
promising one than mine on a number of counts (or dukes....). I do think
this point could be of some moment in the question of Gundrada's ancestry.
In fact the first Friedrich to become a duke in Swabia attained that rank
only a few years at most before Gundrada's death. On the other hand the
contemporary counts of Luxembourg in the line of Wigerich were of ducal
descent, and carried the name Frederick into several related houses.
Otgive of Luxembourg died before her husband the count of Flanders so is not
a candidate for becoming related to the Gerbods en seconds noces. However,
her sister Gisele was married to a lesser Flemish lord and widowed at some
time in the early- to mid- 1050s, around the time Gundrada may have been
born. Interestingly, she and Radulf (or Ralph) of Aalst (Alost), advocate of
St Peter's abbey in Ghent are credited with four sons by Warlop, none of
them named Frederick. It seems to me that a woman with markedly
higher-ranking antecedants than her husband and having at least that many
sons would have been likely to name one of them after her father. If the
murdered Frederick's ancestry is not proven to be from the
Oosterzele-Scheldewindeke family, is it possible that he was in fact a son
of Radulf of Aalst and Gisele of Luxembourg, and younger brother of Gilbert
de Gand, lord of Folkingham? If so, his absence from charter or other
records in Flanders may have been due to leaving for Normandy and then
England in his elder brother's retinue at an early age. It is notable that
Gilbert's pedigree also got mixed up with William the Conqueror's family by
English historians. Does anyone know of reasons that preclude a close
connection between him and Frederick and/or Gundrada and the Warennes?
Equally, although there is only very loose circumstantial evidence and not a
skerrick of proof known to me, is it possible that Gisele of Luxembourg
remarried around 1053 to the father of Gerbod II, quondam earl of Chester
and gave birth to Gundrada within a year or two after that? Apparently the
necrology recording the lady's death does not name a husband. It may be
quite unrelated, of course, but the name Godfrey, common amongst Wigerich's
descendants, also appears later in the family of the Gerbods, although the
precise connection of its first bearer in that line is unknown.
By the way, I think the chronolgy of the Oosterzele-Schelderwindeke males as
reconstructed by Warlop calls for revision. He suggests that Gerbod I,
advocate of St Bertin's in 986, could have been the father of Gerbod II who
was apparently advocate from 1042 until 1067, still vigorous enough to kill
count Arnulf III in 1071 after which he perhaps became a monk, and in turn
the father of Gerbod III killed at Ramla in 1102. That is surely too much of
a stretch - perhaps there were two men, in two generations rather than one,
who have come to be represented as a single Gerbod II. I don't have access
to Haigneré's edition of the St Bertin cartulary to check for any clues in
support of this. Maybe a Gerbod IIa was the father of Gundrada, and Gerbod
IIb was the brief & elusive earl of Chester.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
> To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> Cc: Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au; PSim...@cwcom.net
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> refers to, but I'll certainly add her article to my list. The prohibition
> Waters uses is in a letter of St Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury,
> but it doesn't mention the names of any of the ancestors in question
> (or even Henry's daughter).
Chris
I hope I didn't mislead you into making any special effort to locate
Constance Bouchard's article - the quote I posted was all she had to say on
the subject of Henry I's daughters. It just struck me that William de
Warenne should have known who his own grandmother was, and if this episode
mentioned by Bouchard, who was a careful historian, could be shown to
involve him then Keats-Rohan's revision of the pedigree would fall over.
However, the exact relationship to the famous forester is left in doubt. (I
wonder if the duchess Gunnora was actually both daughter and sister-in-law
to foresters.)
Since the matter was taken up by St Anselm, it looks as if the proposed de
Warenne match probably wasn't one of those rejected by the king on his own
initiative.
The Bouchard article is interesting on its own account, as always with her.
Regards
Peter
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Hastings resulted in gains to all Normans, one being Hugh 'Lupus' d'Avranches
> from the d'Avranches family Viscount of Avranches. Another being Nigel St
> Sauveur son of Nigel St Sav Viscount of the Cotentine. Hugh became Earl of
> Chester and Nigel died in Battle of Cardiff c1072. Nigel's young son,
> William, became Constable of Chester (along with lots of other lands
> including Halton, Salop etc). Now remember William's grandfather, Nigel was
> still alive in Nornamdy and still the powerful Viscount of the Cotentin.
> William had a brother Richard FitzNigel who became Baron Malpas by marriage
> to the Hugh d'Avrances family.
It is far from certain that William Fitz Nigel of Halton was son of Niel
of St. Sauveur. The latter did have two sons named William, but I have
seen three Williams identified as his sons. I don't know that any of
the three are correct. As to Richard Fitz Nigel, I don't even know that
he was brother of William FItz Nigel, let alone son of Niel.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Fair enough, particularly as the epitaph isn't contemporary - I haven't seen
> an attempt to date it closely, but the Victoria County History describes it
> as late 12th century. So it may date from as much as a century after
> Gundrada's death. And obviously the monks of Lewes later showed themselves
> to be pretty keen on glorifying their foundress, although they eventually
> claimed a royal, not ducal, descent for her.
At this late date, it is possible that the claim of her being daughter
to William and Matilda had already arisen. If that is the case, then it
is the Dukes of Normandy to which it erroneously refers, and is of no
help in placing Gundreda's true parentage.
taf
Stewart, Peter
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
Would anyone let alone the monks of Lewes have failed to call a descent from
William & Matilda "royal" by the late 12th century?
I think the ducal title was still exotic enough to English ears that
attention would have been paid to the specifics of any such claim,
throughout the period from Gundrada's death to her posthumous
memorialisation.
Peter Stewart
Renia
Oderic. Any ideas, anyone, where I might get a copy, in England.)
Renia
Suzanne Doig wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:06:34 +0100, Renia <PSim...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he was made
> >prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to be
> >created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
>
Suzanne Doig
Peter) wrote:
>But I don't suppose it matters now. Can you tell us if this is by any chance
>one of the marriages referred to by Constance Bouchard in her article
>*Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries*,
>Speculum 56.2 (1981)? She writes:
>
>"When Henry I of England was attempting to arrange suitable marriages for
>his daughters, he and the proposed spouses drew family trees to be compared
>- and Henry decided against at least two marriages because both partners
>were descended from a forester whose name was not even remembered".
>
>I'm not sure if the prohibition Waters was writing about came from clerics
>or was just a decision of the king. In the latter case, it seems that
>Keats-Rohan's theory might have been news to him.
Teh objection to the marriage of William de Warenne to one of Henry's
daughters came from the church, in the person of Archbishop Anselm,
according to CP. It quotes as a source for this statement: "Migne,
Patrologia, vol. clix—Epist. S. Anselmi, lib. iv, ep. 84; cf. ante,
vol. xi, Appendix D, pp. 119—20; E.Y.C., vol. viii, pp.41—43."
I may have missed the discussion, but what does Anselm's letter
actually say? (Is this the 4 & 6 generations people have been
discussing? My server seems to have eaten some of the thread.)
Gryphon801
volumes by Oxford UP (1969-80). It will not be inexpensive.
Chris Phillips
That's an interesting suggestion, and some such connection seems quite
plausible, but I wonder whether this runs into chronological difficulties at
the Luxembourg end. I don't have any information to hand on Gisele of
Luxembourg, but could she be of child-bearing age in the 1050s? This would
seem to be much later than Ogive/Otgive's child-bearing period.
At the Oosterzele end, I have been looking at some of the evidence cited by
Warlop, and finding it rather confusing - I'm hoping to post a summary of it
in two or three days if I can get hold of a couple more sources. From what
I've seen so far, it does seem likely that Gerbod the Earl of Chester was
the same person described by Warlop as Gerbod II, rather than the one he
calls Gerbod III. If this is correct, it would mean the later Earl Gerbod
and his (elder?) brother Arnold were of age by 1063, so in your theory I
think Gundrada would have to be half-sister of Gerbod and Arnold, sharing
the same father, and half-sister of Frederick, sharing the same mother. Not
that any of the evidence would forbid that, as far as I know. The chronology
would also be a bit tight for Gundrada herself, but not impossible.
In principle, Waters' argument could also be put against this relationship,
as it would lead to a cousinship one generation closer on each side than
that stated in Anselm's prohibition (although I note Todd Farmerie's
suggestion that a slightly closer, but more obscure, relationship would be
permissible from this point of view). Again, if for the sake of argument we
suppose (pace Todd) that Anselm _wasn't_ referring to a common descent from
Gunnora's parents, real or legendary, it might suggest seeking a
relationship similar to the one suggested above, but starting one generation
further back. This would fit Anselm's bill exactly, and might also ease any
chronological difficulties.
One other slight indication in favour of the connection being earlier than
1053 might be the description of Arnold of Oosterzele as "vir illuster" in a
charter of 1063, and in a later chronicle as "vir dives and nobilis". He
seems likely to be of the same generation as Gundrada, and perhaps partook
of her noble descent, whatever it may have been.
> By the way, I think the chronolgy of the Oosterzele-Schelderwindeke males
as
> reconstructed by Warlop calls for revision. He suggests that Gerbod I,
> advocate of St Bertin's in 986, could have been the father of Gerbod II
who
> was apparently advocate from 1042 until 1067, still vigorous enough to
kill
> count Arnulf III in 1071 after which he perhaps became a monk, and in turn
> the father of Gerbod III killed at Ramla in 1102.
I'm not sure Warlop does quite suggest this. Unless I've missed another
reference elsewhere, he just says Gerbod I and Gerbod II "are probably very
close relatives". I'm sure you're right that there must be more than three
generations here, though.
The early references I've seen to Gerbods, attesting charters, are:
975 Gerbod [Haignere]
986 Gerbod, advocate [Haignere]
994 Gerbod [Haignere; he notes, though, that the first witness to this
charter is a man known to be dead]
1026 Gerbod, advocate [Stapleton; not given by Haignere - possibly in an
earlier edition of the cartulary by Guerard, that the British Library is
having trouble finding]
1042 Gerbod, advocate, and also Gerbod, monk [Haignere]
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
<<
I may have missed the discussion, but what does Anselm's letter
actually say? (Is this the 4 & 6 generations people have been discussing? My
server seems to have eaten some of the thread.)
>>
Yes, this is where the four and six generations comes from.
The Latin text of Anselm's letter to Henry I is printed by Stapleton, from
the Migne reference you give. The relavant part is:
"quia pacta est filiam suam dare Guillelmo de Vuarenne: cum ipse et filia
vestra ex una parte sint cognati in quarta generatione, et ex altera in
sexta".
"because it has been agreed to give his daughter to William of Warenne: he
and your daughter being related on the one side in the fourth generation and
on the other in the sixth"
[my attempt at a translation - I didn't notice previously the odd way she is
"filiam suam" in one clause and "filia vestra" in the next, though...]
This relationship agrees with the traditional descent of the Warennes from
the family of Gunnora given by Robert de Torigny, in which William I of
Warenne's mother is a niece of Gunnora. Todd Farmerie referred to recent
proposals to modify that descent, in ways that would either add more
generations, or remove the connection with Gunnora altogether. But if I've
understood correctly, he thinks that, because it was believed at the time,
the traditional descent is still the likeliest explanation of the
relationship in Anselm's letter.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
> The Latin text of Anselm's letter to Henry I is printed by Stapleton, from
> the Migne reference you give.
Sorry. It was printed by Chester Waters, not Stapleton.
Chris Phillips
Renia
for Waterstone's! (But next Christmas!)
By the way, has anyone got "Domesday People" by Katherine Keats-Rohan? It's
available in England by order only, it seems, so I can't even get a glance at it.
Renia
douglasr...@hotmail.com
If Gundred de Warenne descended from the Counts of Flanders, then her
son, William II's marriage to the daughter of King Henry I would have
been blocked on that basis, not simply the common descent from the
family of Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy. It appears that the Gunnor
connection was the only kinship between the two parties cited by
Anselm. As such, I have to assume that Gundred was not descended from
the Counts of Flanders.
Consequently, I think we are left with the statement on her tomb that
Gundred was descended from a ducal family. I find that interesting to
say the least. Do you have Waters' comments available regarding a
possible descent from the Dukes of Burgundy?
As for Frederick, I see he was called "germanus" in one source to
William I de Warenne. I have seen that word used to describe uterine
brothers. If Frederick was Flemish, it doesn't follow that William I
de Warenne's mother was necessarily Flemish. All it means is that
William I de Warenne's mother had a marriage to a Flemish man by which
match she had a son named Frederick. As such, William I de Warenne
can be Norman and his "brother" Frederick be Flemish without there
being any conflict. The fact that Frederick did not use the name de
Warenne suggests to me that he was not William I de Warenne's full
brother. The possibility also remains that he was Gundred's brother.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
In article <002201c03e6a$9e750ae0$12149fd4@oemcomputer>,
Gryphon801
Renia
or what you are responding to!) What do you think of it?
Renia
Chris Phillips
Douglas Richardson wrote:
<<
If Gundred de Warenne descended from the Counts of Flanders, then her son,
William II's marriage to the daughter of King Henry I would have been
blocked on that basis, not simply the common descent from the family of
Gunnor, Duchess of Normandy. It appears that the Gunnor connection was the
only kinship between the two parties cited by Anselm. As such, I have to
assume that Gundred was not descended from the Counts of Flanders.
>>
This is essentially what I was referring to as "Waters' argument" in the
message you quoted - that there was unlikely to be any closer kinship
between the parties than Anselm mentioned. As I mentioned, this argument
could indeed be put against Peter Stewart's suggestion of a common descent
from Frederick of Luxembourg, as the kinship would be slightly closer. (Of
course, this argument presumes Anselm would have known of the relationship,
and so has much less force than Waters' original deployment of it, against a
hypothesis that would make the parties first cousins).
Anselm's letter doesn't actually specify a descent from Gunnora, only the
degree of the relationship. Since, as Todd Farmerie pointed out, the
relationship of the Warennes with Gunnora has recently been questioned, it's
only a presumption that Anselm was referring to the Gunnora connection
(though Todd thinks it likely he was). If he wasn't, then there's the
possibility that the reference was to a relationship between Gundrada and
Matilda of Flanders.
<<
Consequently, I think we are left with the statement on her tomb that
Gundred was descended from a ducal family. I find that interesting to say
the least. Do you have Waters' comments available regarding a possible
descent from the Dukes of Burgundy?
>>
Yes. Waters conjectured - in two letters to "The Academy" (p.597, 28
December 1878 and p.457, 24 May 1879) that Gundrada's maternal grandparents
might have been Reynold of Burgundy and his wife Judith of Normandy. His
main reason for suggesting this seems to have been the misconception - which
he admitted in his little book on Gundrada - that Anselm's letter implied
that the couple were related in two different ways - on the one hand through
common ancestors 6 generations before Henry I's daughter (Gunnora's parents)
and on the other through common ancestors 4 generations before her (Richard
II of Normandy and Judith).
In his book, however, he explains Anselm's letter as referring instead to a
single relationship, with the common ancestors 6 generations before Henry
I's daughter, and 4 before William II of Warenne. Nevertheless, he does put
forward again the suggestion that Gundrada was a descendant of the house of
Burgundy - though without being as specific as he had been earlier. In
support of this, he suggests that Gundrada's second son Rainald had a
characteristically Burgundian name, and points to William's and Gundrada's
enthusiasm for the Cluniac order. Neither of these arguments seems to me to
have very much force. (Of course, ironically, his own argument based on
Anselm's prohibition could also be used against his original suggestion that
Gundrada's grandparents were Reynold of Burgundy and Judith.)
<<
If Frederick was Flemish, it doesn't follow that William I de Warenne's
mother was necessarily Flemish. All it means is that William I de Warenne's
mother had a marriage to a Flemish man by which match she had a son named
Frederick. As such, William I de Warenne can be Norman and his "brother"
Frederick be Flemish without there being any conflict.
>>
Yes. That seems to be another possibility, which I hadn't thought of.
Chris Phillips
Colin Bevan
on this list from time to time.
It is a solid scholarly piece of work consisting of 563 pages.
Contents Page
INTRODUCTION
Prefatory remarks: Nation, Region and Mobility 3
1.Domesday Book and Domesday Prosopography 13
2.Provenance and the past: Territorial Descriptors and Domesday
Prosopography 30
3.The Bretons and the Norman Conquest 44
Concluding remarks: the Continental Origins of Domesday Book Landholders
59
Appendix I: The Lindsey Survey 77
Text 77
Index 90
Appendix II: The Northamptonshire Survey 98
Text 98
Index 110
DOMESDAY PEOPLE: PROSOPOGRAPHY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
Principles of Prosopography 121
Prosopography of Domesday Book 123
Bibliography and Abbreviations 543
From page 123 onward Keats-Rohan makes a tremendous effort in identifying
every person named in the Domesday Book, gives a biography with sources and
lists the places where they are mentioned in the Book. I value this work
because of its scholarship and the fact that there is no other work of its
kind where the information contained can be located all in one place. If I
have any criticism, it is that the work is not indexed, which makes it
difficult locating someone by their surname or origin. It also means that
family members are not grouped together in the Prosopography because people
are listed by their forename only.
I hope this information is of some help.
Cheers
Rosie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <PSim...@cwcom.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
Gryphon801
already have a breakdown of its contents. It is a work of great value, IMHO.
Renia
just as soon as he likes.
Renia
Stewart, Peter
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
>
> The Latin text of Anselm's letter to Henry I is printed by
> part is: "quia pacta est filiam suam dare Guillelmo de Vuarenne:
> cum ipse et filia vestra ex una parte sint cognati in quarta
> generatione, et ex altera in sexta".
>
Are you certain that Anselm meant "descended through" 4 and 6 generations
when he said they were "related in" ditto? The relationship I have suggested
places their common ancestor Frederick of Luxembourg in the fourth and sixth
generation if you count the individuals' own. Archbishops and saints can tot
up relationships in idiosyncratic ways, not unlike some SMG members today.
(It wasn't all that long after the turn of the first millennium, when the
question of ordinals we have been recently bored with must have presented
itself.) Does anyone know what Anselm's usage was elsewhere?
Gisele was clearly younger than Otgive, who died in 1030. Gilbert de Gant
seems to have been born around 1040, appearing in charters from 1056. His
eldest brother Baldwin appears from 1042, perhaps born as early as 1026.
Otgive is supposed by some authorities to have been born ca 986, though I'm
not sure of the rationale. Even if this is correct, her full sister Gisele
could have been born as late as 1010 or a few years before, and still have
given birth to Gundrada in the earl- to mid- 1050s.
Warlop suggests the father/son relationship I mentioned for Gerbods I and II
in the table on page 1021, where he shows the connection with a dotted line
(while placing them more definitely in succeeding generations), and I think
also in the text in vol 1 or 2 but I can't check this at present.
Douglas Richardson's suggestion about Frederick's parentage runs into a
hurdle in the onomastics - why would a Flemish father and a Norman mother
come up with this name?
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Yes, Renia, I have this one and use it constantly and have quoted bits of it
> on this list from time to time.
> It is a solid scholarly piece of work consisting of 563 pages.
> From page 123 onward Keats-Rohan makes a tremendous effort in identifying
> every person named in the Domesday Book, gives a biography with sources and
> lists the places where they are mentioned in the Book. I value this work
> because of its scholarship and the fact that there is no other work of its
> kind where the information contained can be located all in one place. If I
> have any criticism, it is that the work is not indexed, which makes it
> difficult locating someone by their surname or origin. It also means that
> family members are not grouped together in the Prosopography because people
> are listed by their forename only.
I agree with this opinion. While a few errors have come to light, that
is not surprising for a book of this size. There are also acouple of
drawbacks which should be rectified with the appearance of the second
volume, specifically, the lack of an index, and the failure to indicate
whenther cross-referenced individuals appear in this volume or the one
yet to appear (they are simply indicated by a q.v.). This last is
further exacerbated by the compilers use of modern english equivalents
for names in the text, while organizing entries according to the
spelling appearing in the original source. THese issues should be
clarified with the publication of the second volume. Finally, some of
the discussions of material still subject to much debate (such as the
potential Spanish connections of Toeny) lack sufficient detail. This is
perhaps asking too much of a source of this magnitude. I think this
book and its successor would be a useful addition for anyone with
interest in England during the period.
taf
Renia
Renia
Suzanne Doig
>Thank you for posting this, Suzanne. (It strikes me that I could do with a copy of
>Oderic. Any ideas, anyone, where I might get a copy, in England.)
The local univeristy library (where I have been looking this up) has
an old 2-volume English translation, and the c1972? 6-volume parallel
text edition by Marjorie Chibnall (published by Oxford). I'd love a
copy of the latter but it has that extremely expensive look about it.
I couldn't find more than cursory extracts in any of the online
libraries.
Richard Borthwick
indispensable is a great help with its two types of indices personarum. I
too am looking forward to the publication of vol.2 of *Domesday People*.
rgb
Chris Phillips
> Are you certain that Anselm meant "descended through" 4 and 6 generations
> when he said they were "related in" ditto? The relationship I have
suggested
> places their common ancestor Frederick of Luxembourg in the fourth and
sixth
> generation if you count the individuals' own. Archbishops and saints can
tot
> up relationships in idiosyncratic ways, not unlike some SMG members today.
> (It wasn't all that long after the turn of the first millennium, when the
> question of ordinals we have been recently bored with must have presented
> itself.) Does anyone know what Anselm's usage was elsewhere?
That's a fair point - if Anselm _wasn't_ referring to a relationship through
Gunnora, there could be scope for ambiguity in how he counted the
generations.
Incidentally, having read a little of the thread on cousins last night, I
can understand better the difficulty over fifth/third cousins earlier. It
does appear there are two usages here - one according to which the parties
would be third cousins, the other according to which they would be third or
fifth, according to which way round the relationship was stated. I don't
know which usage is "standard", but the one I've always used is the same as
described by John Ravilious. (Chester Waters just described them as "fifth
cousins", which is actually different from either...)
Incidentally, it would certainly be interesting to see if there's a case
that would clarify Anselm's usage, to see whether it could be consistent
with your second [/fourth] cousin relationship.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Nathaniel Taylor
cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris Phillips) wrote:
> Peter Stewart wrote:
> > Are you certain that Anselm meant "descended through" 4 and 6 generations
> > when he said they were "related in" ditto? The relationship I have
> suggested
> > places their common ancestor Frederick of Luxembourg in the fourth and
> sixth
> > generation if you count the individuals' own. Archbishops and saints can
> tot
> > up relationships in idiosyncratic ways, not unlike some SMG members today.
> > (It wasn't all that long after the turn of the first millennium, when the
> > question of ordinals we have been recently bored with must have presented
> > itself.) Does anyone know what Anselm's usage was elsewhere?
>
> That's a fair point - if Anselm _wasn't_ referring to a relationship through
> Gunnora, there could be scope for ambiguity in how he counted the
> generations.
>
> Incidentally, having read a little of the thread on cousins last night, I
> can understand better the difficulty over fifth/third cousins earlier. It
> does appear there are two usages here - one according to which the parties
> would be third cousins, the other according to which they would be third or
> fifth, according to which way round the relationship was stated. I don't
> know which usage is "standard", but the one I've always used is the same as
> described by John Ravilious. (Chester Waters just described them as "fifth
> cousins", which is actually different from either...)
Anselm was doing what was standard in canonical consanguinity reckoning,
noting that there were two different lengths (usually *gradus* or
'degrees', not 'generationes') of descent from the common ancestor. I
don't see any ambiguity in this famous letter. Unfortunately there is
very little surviving material documenting (as this letter does) actual
clerical investigation of and calculation of consanguinity in vetting a
proposed marriage from this period.
Nat Taylor
douglasr...@hotmail.com
Nat is right. Anselm was using standard canonical consanguinity
reckoning. These are counted as "degrees" of kinship or affinity.
The church almost always got the relationships between the two parties
counted correctly. Every once in a great while, though, I find a
degree missing. I've also learned that dispensed couples usually
married up to the best family they had in common in their ancestry.
Otherwise, there would obviously have been no incentive for the two
families to go to the trouble of obtaining a dispensation for the
couple to marry.
If William I de Warenne didn't possess a descent from Duchess Gunnor's
family, then I suppose it is possible that his wife Gundred was related
somehow to the Counts of Flanders. That would also create a close
kinship between Gundred's son, William II de Warenne, and King Henry
I's daughter.
Incidentally, the only relationship in the first degree I have ever
encountered (i.e., between siblings) is mentioned in a document
generated by King Henry VIII, which I haven't seen. The first degree
relationship was alluded to by the King about the time he married Anne
Boleyn, evidently because he formerly had kept Anne's sister, Mary
(Boleyn) Cary, as his mistress. Under prevailing church practices, if
King Henry VIII had prior sexual intercourse with Anne's sister, Mary,
he would need to get dispensed to marry Anne, as Anne and Mary were
related in the first degree.
As far as the latest dispensation I have ever encountered, I found a
dispensation mentioned in a marriage record dated about 1850 in
Montreal, in which two first cousins married each other. I assume the
local Presbyterian Church issued the dispensation in question, as the
two parties were both Presbyterians. I don't know how hard or easy it
would be to locate the original dispensation. Anyone know?
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
In article <nltayl0-2610...@128.163.52.179>,
Reedpcgen
>is not surprising for a book of this size.
When I made a couple specific queries before the book came to press, Katharine
told me it was impossible to do detailed biography from outside sources on all
persons involved. What she has done so well is to draw everything possible
from the sources consulted.
The second forthcoming volume ought to be even more valuable, in that I
understand there will be an index, and since difficult sources that are not as
readily available as Domesday are interpreted.
Paul C. Reed
Chris Phillips
> Gisele was clearly younger than Otgive, who died in 1030. Gilbert de Gant
> seems to have been born around 1040, appearing in charters from 1056. His
> eldest brother Baldwin appears from 1042, perhaps born as early as 1026.
> Otgive is supposed by some authorities to have been born ca 986, though
I'm
> not sure of the rationale. Even if this is correct, her full sister Gisele
> could have been born as late as 1010 or a few years before, and still have
> given birth to Gundrada in the earl- to mid- 1050s.
I think this connection is appealing, because Baldwin of Ghent - who I
didn't realise until today was another son of this Gisele - does appear in
connection with the Oosterzele/Scheldewindeke family. In "Ex miraculis et
translationibus S Bavonis", which is one of the sources cited by Warlop,
it's said that in 1067 Arnold of Oosterzele (whom I'd tentatively identify
as a brother of Gerbod and Gundrada) seized land belonging to the monastery
of St Bavon (Bavo?) at Ghent, and that after his death the lands he had
taken were restored by his relatives, "inito consilio per Balduinum de Ganda
et Arnulfum et Gerbodum, nepotes eius" (counsel having been undertaken by
Baldwin of Ghent and Arnold and Gerbod, his nephews [or grandsons?]).
Unfortunately, there may be another chronological fly in the ointment.
"Signum Rodulfi Gandensis" occurs in the list of attestations of an
adjudication by Count Baldwin, between the advocates of St Bertin and the
abbey. In Haignere's edition, it is no 71, and dated 1042, and Warlop
identifies this as a reference to Ralph of Aalst, the husband of Gisele.
However, when discussing the advocates of St Bertin (on p.382), he suggests
that it should really be dated 1056, as a similar charter dated 1056 had
been printed by Duchesne (actually, Warlop refers here to Haignere's no 72,
but comparison with Duchesne shows he really meant no 71). Actually, a
similar text had also printed by Stapleton - including Ralph's attestation -
and dated 1056.
If this is correct, it's a bit awkward, as it would shift the possible
marriage date of Gisele forward another four years, which would further
strain the chronology at both ends. Maybe more research is called for, as
there's quite a long list of attestations, and I would have thought the 1042
versus 1056 issue could be settled definitely by examining them. I suppose
that it could also perhaps be argued that this could be Ralph's son of the
same name instead of him - I don't know.
I did come across one other bit of evidence that I think _must_ bear on
Gundrada's ancestry somehow, but at the moment I can't see how. In van
Lokeren's edition of the charters of St Peter's Abbey at Ghent is (vol.1,
p.87) a note that in 1042, Gerard of Oudenaarde gave the abbey two "mansos"
in the town of Oosterzele and six slaves, for the soul of his wife Gundrada.
Surely this Gundrada, connected with Oosterzele, is somehow related to the
Countess of Surrey! Warlop says this Gerard had a brother Hugh of
Oudenaarde, whom he makes a son of Ingelbert of Petegem, a descendant of a
man of the same name who - oddly enough - was advocate of St Peter's Abbey
in Ghent (though Warlop doesn't connect him with the Aalst family).
Any suggestions on how this Gerard and Gundrada can fit into the family of
Gerbod and Gundrada will be very welcome!
Chris Phillips
Stewart, Peter
> From: nlt...@pop.uky.edu [mailto:nlt...@pop.uky.edu]
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2000 0:35
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
>
> reckoning, noting that there were two different lengths (usually
> *gradus* or 'degrees', not 'generationes') of descent from the
> common ancestor. I don't see any ambiguity in this famous letter.
> Unfortunately there is very little surviving material documenting
> (as this letter does) actual clerical investigation of and calculation
> of consanguinity in vetting a proposed marriage from this period.
>
> Nat Taylor
There is no doubt that the degree of consanguinity between Gundrada's son
and Henry I's daughter would have been expressed as being "in the third and
fifth degree" according to standard medieval practice, if my hypothesis
about the Luxembourg ancestry were correct.
However, as Nat noted, Anselm does not express it in that way. My suggestion
is that he may have been totting up the generations he saw tabulated and
omitting a generation zero for each party, perhaps with an ulterior motive
of putting across that no dispensations could be expected for royal unions
in the next-remote degree either. It must have been an extremely vexed
question at the time, and Henry didn't have quite the resources at his
disposal to attract interest in his daughters from Constantinople or Kiev,
say, which might have eased the dilemma slightly. The king might have been
angling for more latitude in contracting for his illigitimate offspring.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into Anselm's locution, but it still isn't what
would normally be expected.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2000 7:40
> To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> Cc: Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> If this is correct, it's a bit awkward, as it would shift the possible
> marriage date of Gisele forward another four years, which
> would further strain the chronology at both ends. Maybe more
> research is called for, as there's quite a long list of attestations, and
> I would have thought the 1042 versus 1056 issue could be settled
> definitely by examining them. I suppose that it could also perhaps
> be argued that this could be Ralph's son of the same name instead
> of him - I don't know.
Warlop seems to agree with the last point - he suggests this 1056 charter is
the first attestation of Ralph the son (table, page 588), with 1052 as the
latest of the father (page 587).
> I did come across one other bit of evidence that I think
> _must_ bear on Gundrada's ancestry somehow, but at the
> moment I can't see how. In van Lokeren's edition of the charters
> of St Peter's Abbey at Ghent is (vol.1, p.87) a note that in 1042,
> Gerard of Oudenaarde gave the abbey two "mansos" in the town
> of Oosterzele and six slaves, for the soul of his wife Gundrada.
> Surely this Gundrada, connected with Oosterzele, is somehow
> related to the Countess of Surrey! Warlop says this Gerard had a
> brother Hugh of Oudenaarde, whom he makes a son of Ingelbert
> of Petegem, a descendant of a man of the same name who - oddly
> enough - was advocate of St Peter's Abbey in Ghent (though
> Warlop doesn't connect him with the Aalst family).
>
> Any suggestions on how this Gerard and Gundrada can fit into
> the family of Gerbod and Gundrada will be very welcome!
Is there any reason to suppose that the mansos in Oosterzele did not come to
Gerard with his wife Gundrada in the first place? The likeliest relationship
of a woman with that name dead before 1042 might be as a sister of the
Gerbod (IIa?) who was father of the countess. It is a name known to be in
the family in the next generation after all, though not an unexampled one in
other Flemish families at the time.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
> From: Richard Borthwick [mailto:rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2000 18:24
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Keats-Rohan.Domesday People
>
>
> <snip>
> > I agree with this opinion. While a few errors have come to
> > light, that is not surprising for a book of this size. There are
> > also acouple of drawbacks which should be rectified with the
> > appearance of the second volume, specifically, the lack of an
> > index, and the failure to indicate whenther cross-referenced
> > individuals appear in this volume or the one yet to appear
> > (they are simply indicated by a q.v.). This last is further
> > exacerbated by the compilers use of modern english
> > equivalents for names in the text, while organizing entries
> > according to the spelling appearing in the original source.
> > THese issues should be clarified with the publication of the
> > second volume. Finally, some of the discussions of material
> > still subject to much debate (such as the potential Spanish
> > connections of Toeny) lack sufficient detail. This is
> >perhaps asking too much of a source of this magnitude. I think this
> >book and its successor would be a useful addition for anyone with
> >interest in England during the period.
> >
> >taf
> >
> I agree with Todd's remarks. I think K K-R's *Domesday Names*
> while not indispensable is a great help with its two types of indices
> personarum. I too am looking forward to the publication of vol.2 of
> *Domesday People*.
> rgb
Does anyone know when the second volume is due to appear?
And does the COEL database (if available yet) give further details on the
Toeny's possible Spanish links?
Peter Stewart
Richard Borthwick
> > -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Borthwick [mailto:rg...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au]
>> Sent: Thursday, 26 October 2000 18:24
>> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: Keats-Rohan.Domesday People
>>
>>
>> <>
>>> also acouple of drawbacks which should be rectified with the
>>> appearance of the second volume, specifically, the lack of an
>>> index, and the failure to indicate whenther cross-referenced
>>> individuals appear in this volume or the one yet to appear
>>> exacerbated by the compilers use of modern english
>>> equivalents for names in the text, while organizing entries
>>> according to the spelling appearing in the original source.
>>> THese issues should be clarified with the publication of the
>>> second volume. Finally, some of the discussions of material
>>> still subject to much debate (such as the potential Spanish
>>>book and its successor would be a useful addition for anyone with
>>>interest in England during the period.
>>>
>>>taf
>>>
>> I agree with Todd's remarks. I think K K-R's *Domesday Names*
>> while not indispensable is a great help with its two types of indices
>> personarum. I too am looking forward to the publication of vol.2 of
>> *Domesday People*.
>> rgb Does anyone know when the second volume is due to appear? And
>does the COEL database (if available yet) give further details on the
>Toeny's possible Spanish links? Peter Stewart
This is what KK-R says on the book:
"Domesday People... II. Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum will follow in 2000.
This companion volume will yield the first key to all the persons named in
the administrative records produced in England in the century after the
Conquest, and the first discussion of the whole of post-Conquest genealogy,
not merely the part relating to 'the baronage/peerage'."
I think this might be a bit optimistic. I have not seen or received any
pre-publication material, but I am expecting a reply today from Boydell on
the matter and will post it when I get it.
Richard Borthwick
Chris Phillips
<<
[I wrote]
> If this is correct, it's a bit awkward, as it would shift the possible
> marriage date of Gisele forward another four years, which
> would further strain the chronology at both ends. Maybe more
> research is called for, as there's quite a long list of attestations, and
> I would have thought the 1042 versus 1056 issue could be settled
> definitely by examining them. I suppose that it could also perhaps
> be argued that this could be Ralph's son of the same name instead
> of him - I don't know.
Warlop seems to agree with the last point - he suggests this 1056 charter is
the first attestation of Ralph the son (table, page 588), with 1052 as the
latest of the father (page 587).
>>
Warlop certainly refers (p.590) to the St Bertin charter (Haignere no 71),
as an occurrence of Ralph the father. (As his overall dates for the father
are 1031/34-1052, he is presumably following Haignere's date of 1042, not
1056, despite his comment assigning it to 1056 elsewhere in the text)
I didn't have time today to make detailed notes of what Warlop said about
Ralph the son. I noted the date 1056 as his first occurrence, but not the
source. Does this date come from Gisla's charter of 1056 for St Peter's
Abbey (which "her sons" Baldwin, Ralph and Gilbert attest), or from the St
Bertin charter? If Warlop cites the latter for the son as well as the
father, he is certainly being inconsistent. Only one Ralph is mentioned in
the St Bertin charter, so it must be either the father or the son, but not
both!
<<
[I wrote]
> I did come across one other bit of evidence that I think
> _must_ bear on Gundrada's ancestry somehow, but at the
> moment I can't see how. In van Lokeren's edition of the charters
> of St Peter's Abbey at Ghent is (vol.1, p.87) a note that in 1042,
> Gerard of Oudenaarde gave the abbey two "mansos" in the town
> of Oosterzele and six slaves, for the soul of his wife Gundrada.
> Surely this Gundrada, connected with Oosterzele, is somehow
> related to the Countess of Surrey! Warlop says this Gerard had a
> brother Hugh of Oudenaarde, whom he makes a son of Ingelbert
> of Petegem, a descendant of a man of the same name who - oddly
> enough - was advocate of St Peter's Abbey in Ghent (though
> Warlop doesn't connect him with the Aalst family).
>
> Any suggestions on how this Gerard and Gundrada can fit into
> the family of Gerbod and Gundrada will be very welcome!
Is there any reason to suppose that the mansos in Oosterzele did not come to
Gerard with his wife Gundrada in the first place? The likeliest relationship
of a woman with that name dead before 1042 might be as a sister of the
Gerbod (IIa?) who was father of the countess. It is a name known to be in
the family in the next generation after all, though not an unexampled one in
other Flemish families at the time.
>>
That might be one possibility, but I feel we know so little about Gundrada's
forebears that it's difficult to rule out others. I take it that Warlop's
evidence would prevent Gerard being a brother of one of the earlier Gerbods
(although I haven't seen it yet). But is there anything to prevent Gerard
and Gundrada being Gundrada's maternal grandparents (I think Warlop doesn't
cite any evidence of the "Gerbod" family being connected with Oosterzele
before the 1060s)? But I agree it's also possible Gerard could be a
brother-in-law of one of the Gerbods, his wife having brought property in
Oosterzele to the marriage.
Chris Phillips
Stewart, Peter
> From: Chris Phillips [mailto:cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2000 10:38
> To: GEN-ME...@RootsWeb.com
> Cc: Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> > > definitely by examining them. I suppose that it could also perhaps
> > > be argued that this could be Ralph's son of the same name instead
> > > of him - I don't know.
>
> > Warlop seems to agree with the last point - he suggests this
> > 1056 charter is the first attestation of Ralph the son (table, page
588),
> > with 1052 as the latest of the father (page 587).
> >
>
>
> Warlop certainly refers (p.590) to the St Bertin charter (Haignere no 71),
> as an occurrence of Ralph the father. (As his overall dates for the father
> are 1031/34-1052, he is presumably following Haignere's date of 1042,
> not 1056, despite his comment assigning it to 1056 elsewhere in the text)
>
> I didn't have time today to make detailed notes of what Warlop said
> about Ralph the son. I noted the date 1056 as his first occurrence, but
> not the source. Does this date come from Gisla's charter of 1056 for
> St Peter's Abbey (which "her sons" Baldwin, Ralph and Gilbert attest),
> or from the St Bertin charter? If Warlop cites the latter for the son as
> well as the father, he is certainly being inconsistent. Only one Ralph is
> mentioned in the St Bertin charter, so it must be either the father or the
> son, but not both!
>
It seems I was bamboozled by the co-incident date - I don't have access to
Haigneré, Guerard, Duchesne or Stapleton, so cannot tell whether the dating
to 1056 is ironclad or whether this is an attestation of the father or son.
Warlop (from memory) expresses doubt about the point and is not definite
that the elder Ralph died in 1052.
However, I don't think it would strain the chronology too far for Gisele to
be the mother of Gundrada. As mentioned before, I don't understand the
rationale for placing the birth of Gisele's sister Otgive quite as early as
ca 986 - her son Baldwin of Lille was born around 1010 or later, so she
might have been a whole decade younger for all I know. There was another
sister, who was an abbess, supposed to have died around 1100, and a span of
roughly 114 years for two full siblings' lives is highly unusual (although
not impossible, of course, and I supposes abbesses didn't often work
themselves into the grave prematurely).
Gisele's eldest known child was Baldwin I, lord of Aalst & advocate of St
Peter's at Ghent, whom Warlop shows for the first time in 1046 citing van
Lokeren's edition of the cartulary of his abbey. If Gisele was born as late
as 1014, and her eldest son in, say, 1030, there would be no particular
stretch in placing Gundrada's birth as late even as 1058. However, this
would mean her son William de Warenne must have been born when she was very
young indeed. Perhaps Douglas Richardson will comment on whether his career
allows for a mother of the age indicated, or just a few years older.
Peter Stewart
Suzanne Doig
>As for Frederick, I see he was called "germanus" in one source to
>William I de Warenne. I have seen that word used to describe uterine
>brothers. If Frederick was Flemish, it doesn't follow that William I
>de Warenne's mother was necessarily Flemish. All it means is that
>William I de Warenne's mother had a marriage to a Flemish man by which
>match she had a son named Frederick. As such, William I de Warenne
>can be Norman and his "brother" Frederick be Flemish without there
>being any conflict. The fact that Frederick did not use the name de
>Warenne suggests to me that he was not William I de Warenne's full
>brother. The possibility also remains that he was Gundred's brother.
As for the Flanders connection, do we know which lands in Flanders
were inherited by Gundred's 2nd son Reinald de Warenne, and from whom
he inherited them - i.e. were they lands acquired by his father in his
lifetime and passed on to the second son, or were they from his
mother? If so, might this provide some more specific clue to Gundred's
Flemish connections?
Stewart, Peter
> From: smd49@*!*its.canterbury.ac.nz
> [mailto:smd49@*!*its.canterbury.ac.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2000 12:57
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> were inherited by Gundred's 2nd son Reinald de Warenne, and from whom
> he inherited them - i.e. were they lands acquired by his father in his
> lifetime and passed on to the second son, or were they from his
> mother? If so, might this provide some more specific clue to Gundred's
> Flemish connections?
That could be helpful - also is there a connection between the Norfolk lands
held by the Frederick murdered by Hereward and the Folkingham lands held by
Gilbert de Gand, whom I have suggested might have been brothers?
Although it still lacks for any evidence, the relationships brought about by
a possible second marriage of Gisele to the father of Gerbod could help to
explain why he was co-opted as earl of Chester when the Norman invaders were
faced with a shortage of man- or noble- power, despite the reasonably
predictable failure of a Flemish lordling there.
Peter Stewart
Reedpcgen
>the administrative records produced in England in the century after the
>Conquest, and the first discussion of the whole of post-Conquest genealogy,
>not merely the part relating to 'the baronage/peerage'."
>I think this might be a bit optimistic.
Actually, as I understand it what Katharine has done is exhaust all entries in
the Pipe Rolls, Cartae Baronum, etc., in fact all surviving administration or
government generated records from 1066-1166.
This was initially done in the COEL data base. Her web site gives numbers on
the people and status included in COEL.
There actually aren't that many surviving governmental records for this period,
and it makes sense to exhaust them once and for all.
I believe what wasn't covered (I might be wrong on this) are private charters,
deeds, and cartularies; the Rolls Series, etc.
But it will stil lprove invaluable, as that is a gaping hole in most lines that
trace back to that period.
Paul
Richard Borthwick
be published this year might be a bit optimistic. I certainly agree with
Paul about the do-ability of the project.
Richard
Todd A. Farmerie
> Peter Stewart wrote:
> > Gisele was clearly younger than Otgive, who died in 1030. Gilbert de Gant
> > seems to have been born around 1040, appearing in charters from 1056. His
> > eldest brother Baldwin appears from 1042, perhaps born as early as 1026.
> > Otgive is supposed by some authorities to have been born ca 986, though
> I'm
> > not sure of the rationale. Even if this is correct, her full sister Gisele
> > could have been born as late as 1010 or a few years before, and still have
> > given birth to Gundrada in the earl- to mid- 1050s.
> I think this connection is appealing, because Baldwin of Ghent - who I
> didn't realise until today was another son of this Gisele - does appear in
> connection with the Oosterzele/Scheldewindeke family. In "Ex miraculis et
> translationibus S Bavonis", which is one of the sources cited by Warlop,
> it's said that in 1067 Arnold of Oosterzele (whom I'd tentatively identify
> as a brother of Gerbod and Gundrada) seized land belonging to the monastery
> of St Bavon (Bavo?) at Ghent, and that after his death the lands he had
> taken were restored by his relatives, "inito consilio per Balduinum de Ganda
> et Arnulfum et Gerbodum, nepotes eius" (counsel having been undertaken by
> Baldwin of Ghent and Arnold and Gerbod, his nephews [or grandsons?]).
Maybe we are trying to push the chronology in the wrong direction. What
if Gisela was not so much younger than Otgive (speaking of which, could
we be missing something here - this name looks a lot like Eadgyfu to me,
but that's another thread), but appears so because her eldest progeny
was female. If Baldwin of Ghent first appears in 1032, a sister could
have been born in the 1010s, married and easily have had a daughter born
in the 1040s/50s, as we have been speculating for Gundreda. Could then
this Gerbod, nepos Baldwin de Ganda be the Earl of Chester?
taf
douglasr...@hotmail.com
I think an approximate birth date of 1045/50 for Gundred de Warenne is
acceptable. I assume she married William I de Warenne shortly after
the Conquest in 1066, but presumably before 1070. Such a chronology
would barely work for her to be a younger half sister of Baldwin, Count
of Flanders. But, if so, such a relationship would not agree with
Anselm's statement (discussed here on the newsgroup) which set forth
the degree of kinship between Gundred's son and King Henry I's
daughter. If the Warenne family and King Henry I were related to one
another by common descent from the Counts of Flanders, then we need to
consider a more distant kinship, if Anselm's statement is correct.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
In article
<BE9CF8DEAB7ED311B05...@v003138e.crsrehab.gov.au>,
Chris Phillips
> Actually, as I understand it what Katharine has done is exhaust all
entries in
> the Pipe Rolls, Cartae Baronum, etc., in fact all surviving administration
or
> government generated records from 1066-1166.
>
> This was initially done in the COEL data base. Her web site gives numbers
on
> the people and status included in COEL.
>
> There actually aren't that many surviving governmental records for this
period,
> and it makes sense to exhaust them once and for all.
>
> I believe what wasn't covered (I might be wrong on this) are private
charters,
> deeds, and cartularies; the Rolls Series, etc.
If I've understood correctly, the database does include a reasonable number
(about 60 published collections) of private charters, but obviously no
attempt has been made to cover these exhaustively. What she calls her
"foundation texts", which the database was constructed from, are marked with
an asterisk in the bibliography at the back of Domesday People I.
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
Peter Stewart wrote:
> It seems I was bamboozled by the co-incident date - I don't have access to
> Haigneré, Guerard, Duchesne or Stapleton, so cannot tell whether the
dating
> to 1056 is ironclad or whether this is an attestation of the father or
son.
> Warlop (from memory) expresses doubt about the point and is not definite
> that the elder Ralph died in 1052.
Yes - I think his 1052 date for the elder Ralph is just his last known
charter appearance, as "Rodulfus Gandensis et filius eius Balduuinus".
As far as the date goes, Haignere gives one date - 1042 - as part of his
Latin text, and Duchesne and Stapleton another (I don't think Stapleton was
copying from Duchesne, as from memory Duchesne's list of witnesses is
abbreviated - unfortunately I didn't realise at the time its possible
significance, so I didn't copy Duchesne's version verbatim). So I think
Warlop is probably suggesting that Haignere just misread the date.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look as though I'll have access to Guerard's
edition either - it seems to be missing from the British Library (possibly
destroyed in the Blitz, they said!). It's not clear to me from Stapleton's
paper whether he was copying from Guerard (which I can't see that he refers
to) or whether he had seen the original.
As to whether this is father or son, I can only quote Stapleton's text, in
which the list of attestations starts with Count Baldwin and the
ecclesiastics, and list continues with:
Count Eustace, Count Roger, Count Ingelram, Robert of Bethune, "Signum
Rodulfi Gandensis", Elgotus Attrebatensis, Gerbodo the advocate (and so on).
I don't know which Ralph it is, but if it's the younger (his father being
dead), I presume there must have been some special reason why he, and not
his elder brother Baldwin of Ghent, attested.
>If Gisele was born as late
> as 1014, and her eldest son in, say, 1030, there would be no particular
> stretch in placing Gundrada's birth as late even as 1058. However, this
> would mean her son William de Warenne must have been born when she was
very
> young indeed. Perhaps Douglas Richardson will comment on whether his
career
> allows for a mother of the age indicated, or just a few years older.
From what people have said earlier, I think the toughest constraint comes
from both Gundrada's sons, William and Rainald, being of fighting age in
1090. In fact, Chester Waters (citing Orderic Vitalis) says that Rainald was
"old enough to command an army" in 1090 (but I haven't seen exactly what
Orderic says).
Anyhow, as I've hit a brick wall with Guerard, I think I'll try over the
next few days to summarise what I've been reading about the Oosterzele
family. (I think I have already mentioned the most salient points, though.)
Chris Phillips
Chris Phillips
<<
Maybe we are trying to push the chronology in the wrong direction. What if
Gisela was not so much younger than Otgive (speaking of which, could we be
missing something here - this name looks a lot like Eadgyfu to me, but
that's another thread), but appears so because her eldest progeny was
female. If Baldwin of Ghent first appears in 1032, a sister could have been
born in the 1010s, married and easily have had a daughter born in the
1040s/50s, as we have been speculating for Gundreda. Could then this
Gerbod, nepos Baldwin de Ganda be the Earl of Chester?
>>
Yet another interesting suggestion!
I have to say that Warlop interprets the text to mean that Arnold and Gerbod
are the dead Arnold's "nepotes", not Baldwin's.
Also, I had been thinking in terms of Gerbod the Earl of Chester being the
dead Arnold's brother (whom Warlop calls Gerbod II), rather than the nepos
(Gerbod III). (Warlop also thinks that it was "perhaps" Gerbod II who fought
at Casselt - and the latter seems to be the Earl of Chester.) I think the
chief difficulty in identifying the Earl of Chester with Gerbod III is the
statement that the Gerbod who fought at Casselt became a monk, whereas
Gerbod III seems to remain active afterwards. (Having said that, there's
also an awkward appearance of a Gerbod as advocate in 1075 - however, this
may not be the strongest evidence, as it comes in a 14th century "vidimus",
and the date 1075 is Haignere's correction of the date 1070 given in that
source.)
But anyway, why not have a sister of Baldwin of Ghent marrying into the
"Gerbod" family, as you suggest, and make her the mother of Arnold II,
Gerbod II and Gundrada? Baldwin of Ghent would be the dead Arnold's uncle.
Ralph of Aalst (if it is he) would be attesting in 1056 Baldwin's
adjudication of a dispute between St Bertin's abbey and Gerbod the
advocate - either his grandson if we think this advocate was Gerbod II, or
his son-in-law if we think it was Gerbod II's father (Peter's IIa?). If we
still think Frederick is a brother of Gundrada, he could be named after his
maternal grandmother's father. Moreover, the chronology seems a lot easier
with this framework. Of course, it's still speculation...
Chris Phillips
Suzanne Doig
Phillips) wrote:
>From what people have said earlier, I think the toughest constraint comes
>from both Gundrada's sons, William and Rainald, being of fighting age in
>1090. In fact, Chester Waters (citing Orderic Vitalis) says that Rainald was
>"old enough to command an army" in 1090 (but I haven't seen exactly what
>Orderic says).
I checked all of Orderic's references to Rainald, which refer to
events in 1088, 1090 and 1105/06.
The first reference comes at the time of William I de Warenne's death,
and mentions that he was succeeded by his sons William and Rainald,
sons of Gundred, and that "they were distinguished for their integrity
and might under both William and Henry, kings of England." There is no
mention whether they were adults or minors as of 1088.
The next reference comes from the events of 1090, when all three of
William the Conqueror's sons were at each other:
"On 3 November Gilbert of Laigle brought a contingent of knights for
the duke's [Robert's] service, coming to the south gate of the city
[Rouen] over the Seine bridge; meanwhile Reginald of Warenne hurried
to the Cauchoise gate with three hundred knights in support of Conan
[a leading citizen of Rouen, who planned to hand over the town to
William Rufus].... So one body of the citizens ran to drive back
Gilbert and his men, while another attempted to unbar the west gate
and let in Reginald with his men."
I suppose the problem with this passage is determining whether Rainald
was their *military* leader, or *feudal* leader. With his father
already dead, he would presumably have been at the head of his men
regardless of his age so long as he was old enough to fight with them.
There are other examples from Orderic of men leading troops into major
engagements at the age of 20 or 21 (e.g. Roger de Mowbray at the
Battle of the Standard).
If he were, say, 18 at this time, and his brother William only a year
or so older, then we could still have a birth date as late as 1057 for
their mother (cf. c.1040 as an earliest possible date), but early
1050s seems a little more likely.
It sounds as though Rainald might have been a bit of a loose cannon
(if that's not an anachronistic simile) whatever his age - in 1105,
now supporting Duke Robert, Rainald and others broke a peace treaty
and took Robert fitz Hamon and others of King Henry's men hostage.
Henry fitted out a fleet to cross to Normandy to get them back. In
1106, before Tinchebray, Rainald was involved in a plot to capture
Henry - the holder of Dive offered to hand it back to Henry if he came
with few men, while actually intending to capture him and take him to
Robert. When Henry reached Dive, Rainald and others were holding the
fortress, and "shouted out with guffaws and abuse as the king
approached." Not best pleased, Henry took the fortress with his small
force and captured Rainald. Just before the battle of Tinchebray,
Henry released Rainald. William de Warenne, commander of one of
Henry's columns, was said to have been "particularly delighted at his
brother's release and boldly urged all his comrades on to victory."
(Smart move on Henry's part!)
Chris Phillips
> On 27 Oct 2000 01:47:42 -0700, cgp...@cgp100.dabsol.co.uk (Chris
> Phillips) wrote:
>
> >From what people have said earlier, I think the toughest constraint comes
> >from both Gundrada's sons, William and Rainald, being of fighting age in
> >1090. In fact, Chester Waters (citing Orderic Vitalis) says that Rainald
was
> >"old enough to command an army" in 1090 (but I haven't seen exactly what
> >Orderic says).
>
> I checked all of Orderic's references to Rainald, which refer to
> events in 1088, 1090 and 1105/06.
[snip]
> If he were, say, 18 at this time, and his brother William only a year
> or so older, then we could still have a birth date as late as 1057 for
> their mother (cf. c.1040 as an earliest possible date), but early
> 1050s seems a little more likely.
It seems the chronology would be extremely tight, but not impossible.
On the question of whether Ralph of Aalst was really still alive in 1056 (or
whether the witness who appears in that year could have been his son of the
same name), I've been looking at the article "Who were the parents of
Gilbert de Gand?" by Raymond W. Phair, on this group's web site, at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~medieval/gant.htm
This article refers to a "Ralph son of Ralph" who appears in a charter of St
Peter's abbey at Ghent in 1056, who he thinks may be Ralph son of the Ralph
of Aalst we are interested in. Raymond Phair discusses whether this "Ralph
son of Ralph" could have been Ralph of Aalst, but says the latter seems to
have been dead by 1056 (but without giving his reason for thinking this).
Anyhow, he evidently thought it plausible that Ralph the son could have been
described in this way after the father's death. If so, this charter wouldn't
help us one way or the other.
Raymond Phair also cites an article by M.Rubincam, which says that Ralph
witnessed a gift by Count Baldwin to the Abbey of St Omer in 1056, but
doesn't cite a source. I would guess this is the charter for St Bertin's
Abbey at St Omer, which we've already discussed. Phair says that Rubincam
thought this was Ralph of Aalst, but suggests it was more likely the younger
Ralph. Again, he doesn't say why - for some reason he seems to have thought
Ralph the father was dead by this time.
Chris Phillips
Stewart, Peter
> From: Todd A. Farmerie [mailto:farm...@interfold.com]
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2000 17:31
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> <snip>
> direction. What if Gisela was not so much younger than
> Otgive (speaking of which, could we be missing something
> here - this name looks a lot like Eadgyfu to me, but that's
> another thread), but appears so because her eldest progeny
> was female. If Baldwin of Ghent first appears in 1032, a
> sister could have been born in the 1010s, married and easily
> have had a daughter born in the 1040s/50s, as we have been
> speculating for Gundreda. Could then this Gerbod, nepos
> Baldwin de Ganda be the Earl of Chester?
>
This would be neat in pushing the connection back to the generation that
literally matches Anselm's formulation. However, Gisela has been reasonably
firmly identified as the mother of Gilbert de Gand, lord of Folkingham who
is supposed to have been born around 1040. Gisela's marrriage with Radulf of
Aalst is dated to ca 1030 by Richard Sherman [*The Continental Origins of
the Ghent Family of Lincolnshire*, Nottingham Medieval Studies 22 (1978)].
If she was actually older than her sister Otgive, whose marriage is dated to
1012 by Karl Werner, she would have to have been born around 995 at the
latest. We know that Gilbert had at least one younger brother, Ragenfridus,
who in this chronology must have been a very late baby. A likelier scenario
seems to me that Gisela was in fact considerably younge than her sister the
countess of Flanders, and perhaps brought up at her court after their
father's death in 1019 - otherwise her marriage to a Flemish lord of no
special importance in Luxembourg is hard to fathom. Other sisters made more
politically valuable alliances: if Gisela had been married elsewhere before,
and during her father's lifetime, some trace of this could be expected in
the record.
Peter Stewart
pennyedwards
<U...@aol.com> wrote in message news:36.d11948...@aol.com...
> In a message dated 10/24/00 3:18:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
> PSim...@cwcom.net writes:
>
> << Regarding Gerbod, Earl of Chester for a short time, in 1070. He is said
> (CP) to
> have returned to his "native country where he was taken prisoner at the
> battle
> of Cassel, 1071, and kept captive for a long period, never coming back to
> England".
>
> Is there know documentation that the Earldom was taken from him when he
was
> made
> prisoner? Either that, or he died, allowing Hugh Vicomte d'Avranchin to
be
> created Earl of Chester in 1070/71. What is known of this?
>
> Renia
> >>
> II. 1. HUGH D'AVRANCHES, styled by his contemporaries "VRAS," or "LE
> GROS" and, in after ages (from his rapacity) "Lupus," was son and heir of
> Richard (LE Goz), VICOMTE AVRANCHES, &C., in Normandy (son of Thurstan LE
****
> Goz), by Emma, [----]. He is generally supposed to have fought at the
battle
> of Hastings (1066), when, at the utmost, he would have been but 19 years
old;
> anyhow, not long afterwards in 1071, he received from the King, his
maternal
> uncle, the whole of the county Palatine of Chester (exception the
Episcopal
> lands) "to hold as freely by the Sword, as he [the King] himself held the
> Kingdom of England by the Crown," becoming thereby Count Palatine thereof,
as
> EARL OF CHESTER. He succeeded his father, who was living as late as 1082,
as
> VICOMTE D'AVRANCHES, &C., in Normandy. In the rebellion (1096) against
> William II, he stood loyally by his Sovereign. He m. Ermentrude, daughter
of
> Hugues, COUNT OF CLERMONT in Beauvaisis, by Margaret, daughter of Hilduin,
> COUNT OF Rouci and MONTDIDIER. Having founded the Abbeys of St. Sever in
> Normandy and St. Werburg at Chester (besides largely endowing that of
Whitby,
> co. York), he became a monk 3 days before he died 27 July 1101, at St.
> Werburg's. He was buried in the cemetery at St. Werburg, but his body was
> afterward removed to the Chapter House by Earl Ranulph le Meschin. [CP
> 3:165, 14:170]
> ]
> Hastings resulted in gains to all Normans, one being Hugh 'Lupus'
d'Avranches
> from the d'Avranches family Viscount of Avranches. Another being Nigel St
> Sauveur son of Nigel St Sav Viscount of the Cotentine. Hugh became Earl of
> Chester and Nigel died in Battle of Cardiff c1072. Nigel's young son,
> William, became Constable of Chester (along with lots of other lands
> including Halton, Salop etc). Now remember William's grandfather, Nigel
was
> still alive in Nornamdy and still the powerful Viscount of the Cotentin.
> William had a brother Richard FitzNigel who became Baron Malpas by
marriage
> to the Hugh d'Avrances family.
>
> Always optimistic--Dave
Question from: pennye...@ukonline.co.uk
I have asterisked my query **** , what do you mean by Emma [ ---- ]?
>
Stewart, Peter
> From: pennyedwards [mailto:pennye...@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2000 8:31
> To: Stewart, Peter
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> >
>
> If Gundred/Gundrada was a daughter of William I, how would
> this affect the history books? I hope this is not too foolish a question.
>
No-one on the SMG list would give credence to this possibility nowadays, I
trust, though it will surface in books and on-line genealogies for ever I
suppose. The source of the error was probably explained at the start of this
thread (I was "unsubscribed" at the time - I wonder how it came to be
labelled "Gundrada's existence", which is not under question as far as I
know).
The lady was not important enough to figure much in histories, except in the
odd footnote perhaps. However, she is an ancestor of many soc.med.gen
participants, and her parentage has been a famous crux over the past 150
years at least for genealogists studying Norman families in England.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> This would be neat in pushing the connection back to the generation that
> literally matches Anselm's formulation. However, Gisela has been reasonably
> firmly identified as the mother of Gilbert de Gand, lord of Folkingham who
> is supposed to have been born around 1040.
I appear to have misread something dealing with the chronology, but even
if Gilbert's estimated birthdate is approximately right, he could easily
have a sibling 10 years older (he was not the oldest son).
> Gisela's marrriage with Radulf of
> Aalst is dated to ca 1030 by Richard Sherman [*The Continental Origins of
> the Ghent Family of Lincolnshire*, Nottingham Medieval Studies 22 (1978)].
So a daughter born 1031 could have been mother of Gundreda, who we have
been speculatively dating b. 1045-1055.
> If she was actually older than her sister Otgive, whose marriage is dated to
> 1012 by Karl Werner, she would have to have been born around 995 at the
> latest.
Let me clarify here - I meant older than we had been speculating, not
older than her sister. I would still view her as being a younger
sister.
taf
Stewart, Peter
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Gundrada's existence
>
>
This, along with many other permutations, is certainly as possible as my
suggestion.
I am still placing less reliance on the view that Anselm's stated
relationships were necessarily following Robert de Torigny through the
Norman line (whether right or wrong) to the purported niece of Gunnora &
Herfast, and so I was trying to find a Flemish connection that kept to the
same differentials, albeit a generation closer that his literal meaning
would imply.
That is why I jumped to some scatter-shot reasons not to push out an extra
generation on one side only. However, the marriage of Gisele of Luxembourg
to Radulf of Aalst is the only one we know about, so it is of course just as
valid to speculate on an unknown daughter of that union as on a second
marriage to get from Gisele herself to Gundrada - in general I would prefer
to add in a conjectural event rather than a person, but that is moot. Unless
I am mistaken, the relationship of Gundrada to Matilda of Flanders would
become stretched in Todd's suggestion to that of first cousins three times
removed. I think the chronology suggested above is more comfortable than the
previous idea of a daughter of Gisele born in the 1010s, as this would
depend on Frederic of Luxembourg, who lived until late in 1019, marrying two
of his daughters to the counts of Flanders and Altdorf (the latter also a
duke of Carinthia), with a third allied in his lifetime to a comparatively
negligeable Flemish noble.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
> From: Stewart, Peter [mailto:Peter....@crsrehab.gov.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2000 11:05
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: Gundrada's existence
>
>
> Unless I am mistaken, the relationship of Gundrada to Matilda
> of Flanders would become stretched in Todd's suggestion to
> that of first cousins three times removed.
And of course I was mistaken - Todd's speculation would make them second
counsins once removed.
Peter Stewart
Stewart, Peter
Wrong and wrong again! They would be second cousins, full stop.
I should try putting these things on paper, like St Anselm.
Peter Stewart