Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I (49 page)

  
7.
Turgis, p. 47.

  
8.
Matilda later granted the manor to Roger de Busci.

  
9.
Dugdale, II, p. 60. See also Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest
, IV, Appendix O.

10.
H.W.C. Davis, I, p. 7.

11.
Morris, vol. V, no. 1:8; VI, no. 17:1, VII, no. 1:15–29, 17:1, 54:8, 56:19; VIII, no. 17:8; IX, no. 1:57–72, 13a:2, 24:1, 27:1, 40:4; 52:25 and 30; X, no. 1:13–19; XIII, no. 52; XV, no. 1:47, 69:6–7; XXII, EG2:3; XXXI, no. 68:30; XXXII, no. 1:11, 60:3, 82:1, B3:j.

12.
These Gloucestershire lands reverted to the crown after Matilda’s death and were then granted by William to their third son, William Rufus.

13.
An excellent analysis of Brihtric’s landholdings and what became of them is provided by Ann Williams in “A West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century.” The lands that Matilda retained are as follows: (Gloucestershire) Tewkesbury, Old Sodbury, Avening, Fairford, Thornbury; (Dorset) Frome St. Quintin, Cranborne, Ashmore; (Devon) Northlew, Halwill, Clovelly, Bideford, Littleham, Langtree, Iddesleigh, Winkleigh, Ashreigny, Lapford, Irishcombe, High Bickington, Morchard Bishop, Holcombe Burnell, Halberton, Ashprington; (Cornwall) Connerton, Coswarth, Binnerton, Trevalga, Carwogie.

14.
Strickland, pp. 90–91. Strickland cites her source as a charter dated 1082. There are two charters involving bequests from Matilda to La Trinité that year, but neither mentions Nailsworth: Bates,
Regesta Regum
, pp. 287–88, 292–95. It is possible—but unlikely—that Strickland had access to a charter that has eluded the editors of later collections.

15.
FitzOsbern also seized a number of Brihtric’s other possessions, including the revenues of Hanley Castle and Forthampton and land at Bushley in Worcestershire. He may have been given these as a reward for the part that he played in quashing the rebellion. Williams, “West-Country Magnate of the Eleventh Century,” p. 62.

16.
Sancho had inherited Castile and Garcia had inherited Galicia.

17.
Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigni all concur that the daughter who was betrothed to Alfonso was the same one who had earlier been allied to Harold of England. Only Malmesbury claims that they were two different girls, although he admits that he cannot remember their names. William of Poitiers, on the other hand, refers to a daughter of William who was fought over by two kings of Spain, but he fails to name her altogether. GND, II, pp. 160–61, 263; GRA, I, pp. 419, 505; OV, III, pp. 114n, 115; GND, II, pp. 160–61, 262–63; GG, p. 95. See also Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest
, IV, pp. 852–53.

18.
OV, III, p. 115.

19.
Foreville, p. 143; OV, III, p. 114n. See also Douglas, pp. 381–82; Houts,
Normans in Europe
, p. 198n. There is some confusion as to the identity of the two Spanish kings because there were three brothers to whom Ferdinand I bequeathed his Spanish dominions. Although Alfonso is most often cited as the king who eventually triumphed, one historian has cast doubt upon this. In her translation of Orderic’s
Ecclesiastical History
, Marjorie Chibnall claims that Orderic referred to Adeliza’s betrothed simply as “rex Galicie” and probably did not mean Alfonso because he usually called him “Hildefonsus.” However, she concludes that there is a “strong case” for Alfonso’s being the man involved, even if Orderic did not believe that this was so. OV, III, pp. 114–15n. The plans for a Spanish marriage for William and Matilda’s daughter may have begun as early as 1064, with the siege of Barbastro in northern Spain, at which a contingent of Norman soldiers was present.

20.
OV, III, p. 115.

21.
Ibid.

22.
The circumstances of this match are not known, and there is some room to doubt whether it ever took place. However, Strickland argues that it was more likely to have been Edwin rather than the late king Harold to whom Adeliza was so attached that she eschewed all others. She argues that they were closer in age and that Edwin “had, in all probability, been privileged with some intimacy with the princess.” There is no evidence for this in the contemporary sources, however. Strickland, pp. 96–97.

23.
GG, p. 179. Easter fell on April 8 that year.

24.
OV, II, p. 141.

25.
GG, pp. 175, 177.

26.
Ibid., p. 175.

27.
OV, II, p. 199.

28.
GG, p. 181.

29.
OV, II, p. 199.

30.
Ibid., p. 285.

31.
Ibid., pp. 211, 285. For a contrasting view, see GND, II, p. 179.

32.
OV, II, p. 215.

33.
Ibid.

34.
Wright,
Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft
, I, p. 411.

35.
Bates,
Regesta Regum
, pp. 594–601, 863–65; Domesday Book, vol. V, no. 67:1.

36.
ASC, p. 402.

37.
Strickland, p. 22.

38.
There is some debate as to whether Matilda was already pregnant when she arrived in England, because the chroniclers cite different dates for the birth. Orderic
Vitalis simply states that the child was born “within a year of her coronation”: OV, II, p. 215. The
Winchester Chronicle
, meanwhile, reports that the birth occurred “not many days” after her coronation: “Annales monasterii de Wintona,” in Luard, vol. XXXVI, part I, p. 27.

39.
J. L. Nelson, p. 70.

40.
Ibid.

41.
Strickland, pp. 62–63, claims that William was recrowned at the same ceremony, but there is no contemporary evidence for this.

42.
The name “Whit” probably derives from the white garments that were traditionally worn on this day. ASC, p. 202n. See also Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 7.

43.
There is some suggestion that the coronation took place at Winchester rather than Westminster. The sources are frustratingly ambiguous, but given the importance of the occasion and the need to make it as high-profile as possible, Westminster seems more likely. This also ensured continuity with William’s coronation. Luard, vol. II, p. 27; vol. III, p. 424.

44.
Laudes were ritual chants sung during Mass at great religious festivals. They honored the powers wielding authority in heaven and on earth, and were therefore entirely appropriate for such an occasion. The argument that they were first used in England at Matilda’s coronation can be found in Cowdrey, “Anglo-Norman Laudes regiae,” pp. 50ff. See also Gathagan, “Trappings of Power.”

45.
Hilton, p. 34.

46.
Wright,
Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft
, I, p. 413.

47.
Strickland, pp. 63–64.

48.
Ibid., p. 63. The grant was on the condition that the manor provide this dish at future coronations in perpetuity.

49.
A list of the witnesses to the charter regarding St.-Martin-le-Grand is provided by Keynes, pp. 242–43.

50.
They embarked at the city of St.-Omer. Darlington and McGurk, III, p. 7. Orderic Vitalis inaccurately states that they went to France, even though St.-Omer was part of Flemish territory at this time. OV, II, p. 225.

51.
Hilton, p. 34.

10:
“THE ENGLISH
TUMULTS”

  
1.
ASC, p. 202.

  
2.
GND, II, p. 183.

  
3.
This estimate is provided by Douglas,
William the Conqueror
, p. 210.

  
4.
Tomkeieff, p. 29. It is not clear where William and Matilda stayed while this palace was under construction. Work had begun on a new castle in Winchester at about the same time, and if this was finished first they might well have taken up residence
there temporarily. Even though the kitchens tended to be separate from the main palace in order to minimize the risk of fire, William’s new palace at Winchester fell victim to this fate in 1140 and was never rebuilt.

  
5.
Abrahams, pp. 255–56. A transcript of the section of the poem that describes the tapestry can be found in S. A. Brown, Appendix III. See also Houts,
Normans in Europe
, pp. 125–28.

  
6.
Beowulf
, lines 994–96.

  
7.
See, for example, Bates,
Regesta Regum
, pp. 247, 276, 287, 293.

  
8.
OV, II, p. 215.

  
9.
GRA, I, p. 711.

10.
Stevenson,
Historical Works of Simeon of Durham
, p. 550.

11.
According to Eadmer, “Lanfranc had the ear of King William, not merely as one of his advisers but rather as his principal adviser.” Eadmer, p. 12.

12.
GRA, I, pp. 709, 711. See also OV, II, p. 215. When he became king, Henry gave greater attention to the education of his daughter, the future empress Matilda, than was usual for the time, and she reached such a standard of intellect that she was able to understand government documents in Latin. Hilton, p. 159.

13.
OV, II, p. 233.

14.
GRA, I, p. 363. See also OV, II, pp. 219, 221.

15.
OV, IV, p. 95.

16.
Ibid., II, pp. 231, 233.

17.
Stevenson,
Historical Works of Simeon of Durham
, p. 551.

18.
GND, II, p. 181.

19.
Sweyn did have a valid claim to the English throne, because he was the son of King Cnut’s sister and the cousin of King Harthacnut.

20.
She was there in time for the Easter celebrations at Winchester, but it is not clear how soon before that she arrived.

21.
OV, II, pp. 222–23n.

22.
Round, p. 21.

23.
GRA, I, p. 509.

24.
Stafford,
Queen Emma and Queen Edith
, p. 107.

25.
Stafford,
Queens, Concubines and Dowagers
, p. 101.

26.
Biddle, p. 57.

27.
Strickland, p. 63.

28.
Carey, p. 14n.

29.
Domesday Book, vol. VI, no. 24p.

30.
Strickland, p. 87. The cost of feeding the royal court rose even higher during the reign of William and Matilda’s son, William Rufus, whose notorious excesses put an unbearable pressure on the rural economy. Caring nothing for the hardships that his people suffered as a result, he and his followers plundered the land through which they passed. What they could not eat, they burned, and to show
their disdain for the local populace, they washed their horses’ feet in the leftover wine and ale.

31.
Delisle,
Receuil de Travaux d’Erudition
, pp. 224–25.

32.
Bates,
Regesta Regum
, p. 296. See also Musset,
Les Actes de Guillaume le Conquérant
, p. 112.

33.
Morris, vol. VI, no. 67:86.

34.
Strickland, p. 67.

35.
OV, II, p. 223.

11:
“MUTUAL AND LASTING HOSTILITY”

  
1.
Orderic Vitalis cites these dates, and his estimate is supported by two charters for the abbey of St.-Gabriel in Calvados, which were attested by Matilda at Valognes. Douglas, p. 211n.

  
2.
Bates,
Regesta Regum
, pp. 634–35. For a related grant, see pp. 638–39.

  
3.
According to Orderic Vitalis, this marriage had resulted from a rift between Robert and his father. He claims that they had had such a serious quarrel when Robert was a young man that Baldwin had disowned him and sent him into exile. Robert had sought refuge with his father’s enemy, Florence, duke of Frisia, who had given him his daughter in marriage. Upon hearing of this, Baldwin “flew into a violent rage” and disinherited Robert, making his younger brother Arnulf heir instead. OV, II, pp. 281, 283. In fact, Arnulf was the son of Baldwin’s eldest son and heir (also called Baldwin), who became Count Baldwin VI in 1067 upon his father’s death. Baldwin V had not been at all opposed to Robert’s marriage.