Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I (48 page)

26.
GND, II, pp. 165, 167. See also OV, II, p. 145.

27.
Thorpe, II, p. 12; OV, II, p. 356; III, pp. 98, 112; IV, p. 92; GND, I, Appendix; ASC, pp. 213–14. See also OV, II, p. 357; IV, p. 93.

28.
A recent source claims that Matilda and Anne of Kiev were friends and that their sons Robert and Philip played together as children. Beguiling though this image is, there is no evidence for it in the contemporary sources. Fettu, p. xx.

29.
Stafford,
Queen Emma and Queen Edith
, p. 186.

30.
Bates,
Normandy Before 1066
, p. 151.

31.
Truax, p. 117.

32.
Strickland, p. 42.

33.
William held at least three great councils as he made his preparations to invade England: one at Lillebonne, another at Bonneville-sur-Touques, and a third at Caen. It is not clear at which of these Matilda’s position as regent was confirmed, but given that the Caen council did not take place until June, the former two are more likely.

34.
Foreville, p. 261; GG, p. 179.

35.
OV, II, p. 263.

36.
A reference by Orderic Vitalis implies that Montgomery was coregent, but this is not substantiated elsewhere and would hardly have been consistent with William’s policy of empowering family members above his nobles. There has in fact been some debate as to whether Montgomery was among those who stayed behind when the duke embarked upon his enterprise. Whereas both William of Poitiers and Orderic Vitalis assert that he was one of Matilda’s advisers, Wace goes into some detail about the pivotal role that Montgomery played at the Battle of Hastings. However, the former chroniclers were closer to the events, both in time and geography, so their accounts are more reliable. Similarly, it has been suggested that Hugh d’Avranches, who hailed from a powerful noble family in southwest Normandy, accompanied William to England in 1066 rather than playing a more political role back in the duchy. He seems, though, to have been confused with his father, Richard, who is known to have fought at Hastings, and there is compelling evidence that Hugh did not go to England until the following year. GND, II, p. 267n; OV, II, p. 211; Bates, “Origins of the Justiciarship,” pp. 6–9; Planché, pp. 181–84; II, pp. 16–17.

37.
GG, p. 179.

38.
OV, III, p. 99.

39.
ASC, pp. 195, 197.

40.
According to his account, the two men were “close friends” because they had married two sisters, Judith and Matilda. In fact, Judith was Matilda’s aunt.

41.
OV, II, p. 141.

42.
Malmesbury refers to Hardrada as “Harold Fairhair, king of Norwegians.” GRA, I, p. 421.

43.
Ibid. See also ASC, pp. 197–98.

44.
GRA, I, p. 449. See also Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 7.

45.
GRA, I, p. 449. See also OV, II, p. 171.

46.
GND, II, p. 165.

47.
Brown,
Normans and the Norman Conquest
, p. 133.

48.
GRA, I, p. 451. Wace gives a slightly different account of the incident, and credits
William himself with the quickness of thought: “When the duke first disembarked, he fell forward on to the palms of his hands; at once a loud cry arose and everyone said: ‘This is a bad sign!’ But he cried out to them: ‘My lords, by the splendour of God! I have taken possession of the land in my two hands.’ ” Burgess and Holden, p. 241. This account is corroborated by Searle,
Chronicle of Battle Abbey
, p. 35.

49.
Strickland, p. 49.

50.
ASC, pp. 199–200. See also OV, II, p. 173.

51.
GG, p. 131. For a similar account, see OV, II, p. 175.

52.
GRA, I, p. 457; GG, p. 135; Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, pp. 27, 29.

53.
Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 27; GG, p. 133.

54.
GRA, I, p. 455.

55.
Wace claims that Harold continued fighting after his eye was “put out” by an arrow and was subsequently felled by a blow to the thigh, whereupon “there was such a throng … that I cannot say who killed him.” Burgess and Holden, p. 287. There was little of Harold’s body left to identify when his grief-stricken mistress, Edith “Swanneck,” later walked through the carnage of the battlefield in the hope of rescuing her lover’s remains for burial. A grisly account of his slaughter is provided by Guy, bishop of Amiens: Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 33.

56.
GG, pp. 137, 139.

8:
“A
FATAL DISASTER”

  
1.
GRA, I, p. 457.

  
2.
GND, II, pp. 169, 169n.

  
3.
Searle, pp. 39, 41.

  
4.
OV, II, p. 179. For a similar account, see GG, pp. 139, 141.

  
5.
ASC, pp. 199–200.

  
6.
Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 35.

  
7.
OV, II, p. 179. His account is taken from William of Poitiers: GG, p. 141. A similar version is provided by Guy, bishop of Amiens: Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 35. They are contradicted by Malmesbury, who claims that William agreed to release his rival’s body for an honorable burial: GRA, I, p. 461.

  
8.
GRA, I, p. 423.

  
9.
Fauroux, p. 27; Ducarel, p. 36.

10.
OV, II, p. 225.

11.
Some doubt has been cast upon whether Guy of Amiens was Matilda’s chaplain. He is cited as such by Orderic Vitalis, but Professor Barlow has questioned whether a French bishop would have attended a duchess of Normandy. True, Matilda had strong family connections with France, and Guy was also descended from the French royal family. But he was routinely to be found at the court of the
French king and regularly witnessed charters there, whereas he is not known to have witnessed any charters in Normandy or England, including the two charters that were granted on the day of Matilda’s coronation. Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. xvii.

12.
Orderic Vitalis claims that Guy had already written the poem when he came to England with Matilda in 1068. Some scholars believe the poem was not his work at all and that it was written much later. However, Professor Barlow has put forward convincing evidence to support Orderic’s claim. Particularly convincing is the fact that William of Poitiers almost certainly made use of it when writing his history. Barlow also believes that it was written to further the cause of Eustace of Boulogne rather than at Matilda’s prompting. Matilda was not mentioned in the prologue, as might be expected if she had commissioned it, but it is possible that her name appeared at the end of the work, which has since been lost. See also Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio;
OV, II, p. 369; Houts, “Latin Poetry,” pp. 53–56; Bridgeford, pp. 22–23.

13.
Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 3.

14.
William’s apologist, William of Poitiers, was also fond of comparing him to Caesar, but he went further than Guy of Amiens by claiming that he was superior to the celebrated Roman emperor. See, for example, GG, pp. 155, 169, 171, 173, 175.

15.
B. de Montfaucon,
Les monuments de la monarchie française
, vol. II (Paris, 1730), p. 2. See also Bridgeford, pp. 30–31.

16.
Strickland, pp. 64–65.

17.
Bridgeford, p. 156.

18.
GG, p. 177.

19.
Bridgeford, pp. 9, 165.

20.
Andrew Bridgeford puts forward a convincing case for this.

21.
Bridgeford, p. 162.

22.
GG, p. 143.

23.
Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 39.

24.
GG, p. 149; Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. lxxxix. See also Wright,
Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft
, I, p. 413.

25.
Barlow,
Carmen de Hastingae Proelio
, p. 45.

26.
OV, II, p. 185. For another account of the incident, see GG, p. 151.

27.
GG, pp. 260, 179; Fauroux, p. 197.

28.
William did not grant her the county of Kent as he had promised, but instead gave it to his half-brother Odo. The reason for this is not clear.

29.
Strickland, p. 87.

30.
It is possible that Matilda did not conceive until William’s return from the Conquest in spring 1067. But by this reckoning, she would have given birth in early 1068, which would have allowed a very short (though not impossible) gap between this birth and that of her last child, Henry.

31.
Houts, “Echo of the Conquest,” pp. 145–46. See also Fettu, p. 17.

32.
This idea is explored by Houts, “Echo of the Conquest,” pp. 147–49.

33.
Hilton, p. 33.

34.
Darlington and McGurks, III, p. 27.

35.
ASC, p. 200.

36.
The English tend to be referred to as the “native” population when comparisons are drawn with the conquering Normans, but this term is misleading. In fact, England was made up of a complex patchwork of nationalities reflecting the many invasions that she had suffered over the centuries.

37.
OV, II, p. 199; GG, p. 181; GRA, I, pp. 459, 461.

38.
GRA, I, p. 461.

39.
Ibid., p. 471.

40.
OV, II, p. 191.

41.
Clover and Gibson, pp. 31,33. Matilda had added her voice to the many who urged Lanfranc to take the post and had let it be known that she had prayed he would relent. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest
, pp. 344–45.

42.
Riley, p. 142.

43.
OV, II, p. 267. Orderic Vitalis claims that William’s daily revenue was £1,061 10s and 3 halfpence. Although this is a very precise estimate, it is likely to be exaggerated. Ibid., p. 267n.

44.
Stevenson,
Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon
, p. 491.

45.
OV, II, p. 269.

46.
Ibid., p. 271.

47.
Riley, p. 142.

48.
Ibid.

49.
OV, II, p. 257.

50.
Ibid., p. 269.

51.
Loyn, p. 324. See also Leyser, pp. 74–90.

52.
GRA, I, pp. 415, 417.

53.
OV, II, p. 257.

54.
ASC, p. 220. This is corroborated by Orderic Vitalis, OV, II, p. 193, and William of Poitiers, GG, pp. 159, 161.

9: Q
UEEN
OF ENGLAND

  
1.
Douglas, p. 85.

  
2.
OV, II, p. 91.

  
3.
Ibid., IV, p. 83.

  
4.
GG, pp. 33, 179.

  
5.
Abrahams, pp. 255–56.

  
6.
Boüard,
Guillaume le Conquérant
, pp. 403–4. This legend has left its mark on the
topography of modern-day Caen, for the Rue Froide still exists, and some claim that a collection of crosses in the city marks the spot where Matilda’s “Croix Pleureuse” used to stand.