Queen of the Conqueror

by Tracy Joanne Borman

  1. ASC, p. 209.

  2. Eadmer, p. 26.

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

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

  5. ASC, p. 219; Eadmer, p. 17.

  6. OV, II, p. 265.

  7. Ibid., pp. 203, 205.

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

  9. Pelteret, p. 83.

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

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

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

  13. ASC, p. 212.

  14. GRA, I, p. 503.

  15. Ibid.

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

  17. Ibid., pp. 357–58.

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

  19. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 564–65.

  20. Ibid., pp. 621–23.

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

  22. Riley, p. 194.

  23. GRA, I, p. 505.

  24. OV, III, p. 115.

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

  26. OV, III, p. 115.

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

  28. OV, III, p. 115.

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

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

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

  32. GRA, I, p. 505.

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

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

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

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

  37. OV, III, p. 115.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  44. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 31.

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

  14: “A FAITHLESS WIFE”

  1. Abrahams, pp. 198–99, 255–56.

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

  3. Planché, p. 73.

  4. Turgis, pp. 44–46.

  5. OV, II, pp. 219, 221.

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

  7. GRA, I, pp. 501, 503.

  8. Cited in Strickland, p. 72.

  9. GRA, I, pp. 501, 503.

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

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

  12. Ibid., pp. 13,15.

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

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

  15. OV, II, p. 359.

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

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

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

  19. GND, II, p. 195.

  20. OV, III, p. 99.

  21. Ibid., p. 115.

  22. GRA, I, p. 543.

  23. Ibid., p. 701.

  24. OV, II, p. 357; IV, p. 93.

  25. GND, II, p. 185.

  26. GRA, I, p. 703.

  27. OV, II, p. 357.

  28. Ibid., III, p. 103.

  29. GRA, I, p. 701.

  30. OV, III, pp. 97, 99.

  31. GRA, I, p. 701; OV, II, p. 357.

  32. OV, III, p. 99.

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

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

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

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

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

  38. Ibid., p. 359.

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

  40. OV, II, p. 359.

  41. GRA, I, p. 701.

  42. ASC, pp. 213–14.

  43. OV, III, p. 103.

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

  45. OV, III, p. 103.

  46. Ibid.; GRA, I, p. 503.

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

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

  49. OV, III, p. 103.

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

  51. OV, III, p. 103.

  52. Ibid., pp. 103, 105.

  53. Ibid., p. 105.

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

  55. GRA, I, p. 503.

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

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

  58. OV, II, p. 361.

  59. The contemporary spelling was Gerberoi.

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

  61. OV, III, p. 109.

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

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

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

  65. ASC, pp. 213–14.

  66. GRA, I, p. 477.

  67. OV, III, p. 113.

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

  69. OV, III, pp. 105, 107, 109.

  15: “URMURS OF LOUD AND HEARTFELT GRIEF”

  1. Adela was buried at the abbey.

  2. OV, II, p. 285.

  3. Migne, p. 156.

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

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

  6. OV, III, p. 113.

  7. Ibid.

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

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

  10. OV, III, p. 113.

  11. Ibid., II, p. 357; III, p. 113.

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

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

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

  15. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 636–37.

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

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

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

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

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

  21. Bates, Regesta Regum, pp. 763–64.

  22. Turgis, p. 50.

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

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

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

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

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

  28. GRA, I, p. 503.

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

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

  31. OV, IV, pp. 44–46.

  32. Lair, p. 28.

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

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