THE PRINCESS' ASSASSIN

 The Princess's Assassin

 Ordericus Vitalis

English history from the Norman invasion onward is usually found to contain at least one reference to Ordericus Vitalis. He was born in Atcham, Shropshire, England as the oldest son of Oder, a French monk of Orleans. Ordericus' father had entered into the service of Roger de Montgomerie, who was the first Earl of Shrewsbury. From the age of five years, Ordericus began his religious schooling in Shrewsbury under the tutelage of an English monk named Siward.

Ordericus became an Oblate in Saint Evroul Abbey in Normandy at age 11 years when his parents paid 30 marks  for his admission. he expresses the conviction that they imposed this exile upon him from an earnest desire for his welfare. Oder's [father of Ordericus]respect for the monastic life is attested to by his own entry, a few years later, into a monastery which the earl had founded at his persuasion. Orderic, on the other hand, felt for some time, as he stated, like Joseph in a strange land. He did not know a word of French when he reached Normandy. His book, though written many years later, shows that he never lost his English cast of mind or his attachment to the country of his birth. Monks in Normandy had difficulty pronouncing his birth name and so he was given Vitalis [from the Theban legions of Christian Martyrs] to which added to the title of his great chronicle the epithet Angligena ("English-born"). Ordericus becam a Deaon in 1093, a Priest in 1107 but he left his cloister to visit England and other parts of Normandy and France. Orderic's first literary efforts were a continuation of Williiam of Jumieges "Gesta normannorum ducum", a broad history of the Normans and their dukes from the founding of Normandy. His own works were led by  his "Historia Ecclesiastica "(Ecclesiastical History), which he built up over the History years. Sadly, Ordericus did most of his work by copying from the Gesta Normanorum Ducum when it came to the history of the Norman invasion and took note of the many charters written by the Royal Family and the Norman Counts [later English Earls] that were in vogue at the time. It should be noted that Ordericus wrote his work on the Normans some 50-60 years after the events and that most of his work was copied from rather than proven from. Still his  History grew under his hand until it became a general history [athough error ridden] of his own [1100ad onward] time
At St Evroul, visitors from England used the Abbey as a rest stop, it was constantly entertaining visitors from southern Italy, where it had established new Abbeys. Ordericus, though he witnessed no great events, was well-informed about them. In spite of an over-done style, he somehow managed to have his history accepted in religious circles. His work is badly arranged and he moves from place to place without explanation, sometimes mentioning things without showing sources and it is sometimes hard to believe his efforts due to the numerous errors he includes.. Yet he does show in some areas, what life was like during his time It becomes obvious that he had a hidden dislike for the Norman conqueror and his English side shines through on several occasions. His work practically ends in mid 1141, though he added some finishing touches in 1142. He finally states that he was then old and he probably he did not survive long past that year.

Charters and Histories 1066-1142.

Orderic, in his History, has created minor hiccups for Historians during the 19th and twentieth centuries. Several historian with some Latin knowledge have attempted to rewrite history by following the errors made by Ordericus Vitalis and by trying to make them appear correct. This has sadly damned more than one of them and several others have placed their reputations in the hands of an uncertain fate.

A Brief Outline

of the lives of

GUNDRAD,

and

WILLIAM EARL DE WARENNE,

with

A Copy and Literal Translation

of the

Latin Epitaph on the Tombstone of Gundrad,

in the

Church of Southover,

Lewes, Sussex.

By the Rev. John Scobell, M.A.,

Rector of Southover.

Lewes:

MDCCCXLV

[1845]

Brief Outline

of

The Life of Gundrad,

Gundrad was the fourth Daughter of William the Conqueror. Her mother, Queen Maud, was daughter of the fifth Earl of Flanders, and grand-daughter of Robert, King of France, son of Hugh Capet. She was born in the Dutchey of Normandy, and after her Father had attained the Crown, came, it is probable, first into England with her Mother in 1067, previous to the Queen's Coronation, being then about 16 or 17 years old.
Not long after she married William de Warenne, a Nobleman of Normandy, who was also the first Earl of Surrey in England, and who, related to the Duke of Normandy by descent, had held a distinguished command in the memorable and eventful battle of Hastings. No nobleman received greater marks of favor from the Conqueror than his son-in-law, William de Warenne. Lands and Lordships in almost every part of England were conferred upon him. In Sussex, he held the whole Rape of Lewes. He rebuilt and enlarged the Saxon Castle of Lewes, and after his marriage with the Daughter of the Conqueror, made it their chief residence.
About the year 1070, Earl William de Warenne and his wife Gundrad left England, intending to proceed to Rome. Finding, however, the country in a state of war, and it was unsafe to

prosecute their journey, they turned aside, and took up their abode for some time at a Monastery at Cluny, in Burgundy, on the banks of the Garonne, in which the discipline and black habit of St Benedict were adopted. The monks of Cluny were hospitable and charitable. The most regular devotions, bodily labour, and strict self-denial were enjoined by the rules of their Order. A favourable impression was produced upon the minds of Gundrad and the Earl; and having previously intended to form a religious House near to their Castle of Lewes, they now determined that the Monks to be there established, should be of this Order, and in connexion with this Cluniac Monastery.
They, in consequence, requested of the Abbot of Cluny, that he would send three or four Monks for the forming of the intended Monastery; promising to endow it, and to found it at the site of the Church of St Pancras, Southover, under the Castle of Lewes, which, originally a Saxon Church and constructed of wood, the Earl had already rebuilt with stone.

 The Abbot of Cluny, although at first averse to the petition, objecting to the distance and danger, eventually yielded to their request, and sent over Lanzo, the first Prior, and three other ecclesiastics with him. The deeds for all those grants and charters, those lands and privileges, which Gundrad and Earl Warenne had promised, received soon after the royal confirmation. Thus they became the Founders of the Priory of Lewes, commencing in the sixth, and completing it in the twelfth year after the conquest. Its walls embraced an area of 32 acres. This great Cluniac Priory rapidly advanced in riches and eminence, and down to the end of the 15^th Century was the spot chosen, not only by succeeding Earls of Warenne, but by numerous other noble Individuals for the place of their burial.
Gundrad and her Husband had issue, William and Rainold, the Progenitors of the Earls that followed.
They occasionally resided at Castleacre, in Norfolk, where also they had built a castle, founded a second Cluniac Monastery, and had large possessions; and there (May 27), in the year of our Lord 1085, she died in childbirth, being, as is calculated, about 35 years of age; two years after the Queen her Mother; two years before her Father the Conqueror; and three years before her Husband. She was buried in the Chapter House of the Church of St Pancras, within the Priory at Lewes,- and there, in the year 1088, the body of William de Warenne also was laid, ten years after it's foundation. In 1538 the destruction of the Priory was completed: with all it's possessions, it was then surrendered by Crowham, the last Prior, to the Crown, and bestowed upon Thomas Lord Cromwell. By his agent, as a letter from one of them, still extant in the British Museum, witnesses, this venerable pile was "hewed," "cut away," "plucked down," and "pulled to the ground," "with as much diligence and saveing as might be." "We brought from London 17 persons, three carpenters, two smiths, two plummers, and one that keepeth the furnace. Every one of these attendeth to his own office: ten of them heweth the walls, about the which are the three carpenters. These make props to underset where the others cut away; the others break znd cut the walls. These men are exercised much better than the other men we find in the countrie. Wherefore we must bothe have more men and other things also that we have need of. A Tuesday they began to cast the lead, and it shall be done with such diligence and saveing as may be; so that our trust is that your Lordship shall be much satisfied with what we doe."
Two hundred and thirty-seven years after this scene of desolation and dilapidation, the black marble slab which had formerly covered the remains of Gundrad in the Chapter House of St Pancras Church, within the Priory of Southover,* beautifully carved and bordered with Latin verses in her honour, cut in the rim and down the middle, was discovered by Dr Clarke, of Buxted, in the Church of Isfield, about seven miles distant, being there made use of as a tombstone over one of the Shirley Family; and at his suggestion, and through his exertions, it was in 1775 restored as
*The late F. Beltz, Esq., Norroy King of Arms, whose name and memory will long live at the Herald's Office, once informed me that he had seen and examined a slab of marble of similar design, character of workmanship, and quality of stone, in Normandy, to the memory of Queen Maud, the Mother of Gundrad, who, it is known, was interred (1083) in the Church of St Mary at Caen, within the Nunnery which she had there founded near as possible to its original site, and removed to the Parish Church of Southover, immediately adjoining the ruins of the Priory. Seventy years after this discovery, on the morning of Tuesday Oct 28^th, 1845, in forming a cutting for the Lewes and Brighton Railway through the grounds formerly occupied by the Priory, the workmen came upon several compartments, each about six feet square, and formed by transverse dwarf walls, such as might be supposed to have supported the stone floors of the Chapter House. Two of these squares immediately adjoining each other, were covered with slabs of Norman stone; these being removed, in each there appeared a leaden cist, or coffer, ornamented externally by a large net work of interlaced cords moulded in the lead, about three feet long, a foot wide, and eight inches deep, each containing the bones of a human body. On the upper side of one cist was inscribed the name GVNDRADA, and on the other WILLIELMVS. The letters are old - resembling in character, and in some forms of abbreviation, those on the tombstone of Gundrad, and most distinctly legible. It is obvious from the length of these coffers, that their bones had been transferred to them from some previous tombs, and that long after their first burial, being found in a state of decay, they were, from love and veneration, and for the sake of greater security, placed in these leaden chests.*
The teeth are numerous and perfect. The bones are found to be of firm texture; hard, solid bones, and in a high state of preservation, especially those of Gundrad. Several of the bones of Earl Warenne are missing; the lead at the bottom of this cist had become greatly impaired, almost destroyed, and some of them, upon their disinterment by the workmen, may have fallen through. Those of Gundrad are as nearly complete and perfect as possible, and judging from the length of them, the bodies must have been above the middle stature: that of Gundrad probably about 5 ft  7 in or 8 in, and that of Earl Warenne upwards of six feet.
*"Whose bones were since taken up and laid into a coffer." - Speed - "Raigne of William Rufus"

Of the genuine antiquity of these relics there cannot be the slightest doubt. The actual remains of the royal Daughter and Son-in-Law of the Conqueror have been torn from their resting places and exhibited to the gaze of the world 760 years after their first interment.
These illustrious relics are now also deposited in the Church of Southover, and there the Remains of the Dead, and the Tombstone to her honour are brought together again; and again Gundrad and Earl Warenne lie, side by side, in the consecrated House of God.

Copy of the Latin Verses on the Tombstone of Gundrad.

Stirps Gundrada Ducum decus evi nobile germen;
Intulit ecclesiis Anglorum balsama morum;
Martha fuit miseris fuit ex pietatis et equi;
Pars obiit Marthe Superest pars magna Marie;
O pie Pancrati testis pietatis et equi;
Te facit heredem tu elemens suscipe Matrem;
Sexta kalendarum Junii lux obvia carnis
Fregit Alabastrum

Literal Translation

Gundrad, the issue of a race of Dukes, the ornament of her age, a noble scion, brought into the Churches of the English the Balsams of her moral virtues.
A Martha she was to the distressed; for piety a Mary.
Martha's part has gone its course, Mary's great part survives.
O pious Pancras, witness of her Piety and Equity, you she makes her heir, do you, meek Man, sustain your Mother.
That adverse morn, the sixth before the day of the Calends of June, broke in pieces the sweet-scented alabaster Vessel of the Flesh.

Translated into English Verse

Gundrad, of her age the grace,
Noble Branch, of noble race,
Comforted our Church of God,
By the virtuous ways she trod.

To the Poor, a Martha she;
Mary, too, in Piety.
Martha's office now is past,
Mary's now for ever last.

Holy Pancras! Thou dost know
All her grace and truth below;
Thee she richly makes her Heir,
Now meek Man, your Mother bear,
Take Her to your special care.

Before June's Calends were begun,
Sad Day! - the sixth - her race was run;*
Her alabaster Frame was rent,
And all its fragrant odours spent.

        * The 27^th of May.

Southover Rectory, Lewes, November 3^rd, 1845. 

The above has been included here to show that since the time of her death, Gundred has been protected along with her husband by the monks of Lewes Priory and then at Southover. Mention has been made that Gherbod the Fleming was a brother to Gundred and that mention came down to us via Ordericus Vitalis. There are two possible answers to this fable, one is that Gherbod's mother was a child minder for Queen Matilda and that Gundred and other children belonging to the Queen, were foster brothers and sisters and if Ordericus can be believed at all in his statement, it may also be that Gherbod was one of the monks assigned to the priory of Lewes and would have been a "Brother". Whatever the case, too many English historians have now put their reputations on the line and the moment that DNA tests are done on the bones of William and his wife along with DNA tests on Matilda, the eating of the pudding will have been done. It should be noted here that the Anglo-Saxon vengeance had it's way with the destruction of the priory in the time of Thomas Cromwell and also note should be taken of the short space of time between the deaths of Matilda, King William, Gundred and Wiilliam de Warren. I wonder if something nasty may have caused them to pass away so close to each other in time?

AFTER THE DUST HAS SETTLED

The Princess Gundrada
Throughout the annals of history, many persons of note have been denigrated because of hate and jealousy. Few though have been attacked with the zeal shown by Anglo-Saxon historians who have used with great gusto the words of a senile old man writing his religious history in Normandy 60 years after the Norman conquest of Britain. This man was named Ordericus Vitalis who was prone to many proven errors in his work and who used his work to [erroneously] destroy a Princess of England. Sadly, his followers down through the ages involved themselves in a character assassination against Gundrada. 
The Anglo-Saxons have long been annoyed with the conquest and at every chance, have come out vociferously against anything and everything that even remotely gives that a chance at name calling or denigration.
The Anglo-Saxons began by trying to denigrate King William the Conqueror whom they have continually referred to as the "bastard" and also his wife Matilda, whom they tried to label a tart.When this failed, they turned on Gundrada and her husband, hero of Hastings, William De Warren. When that attack began to turn sour, they then went all out to try and show that Gundrada was not the daughter of the King or his Queen and so began a [so far] two century war of erroneous words. 
 This stupidity has given Princess Gundrada a Fleming Monk [Gherbod] as a brother, whom they also called her father and even husband of Queen Matilda all because they could not make out why Vitalis had made this single unexplained statement. Historians of the 19th and 20th centuries made Gherbod the Fleming [at least twenty years or even thirty years older than Gundrada] the focus of their attention when they could not prove any of their beliefs except from the single statement by Ordericus Vitalis who wrote only that Gundred was the sister of Gherbod the Fleming.  It was because of the senseless works of three modern historians [19th and 20 centuries] and an error by a senile old chronicler that this Blog will attempt to right the wrongs bestowed by Anglo-Saxon writers. Within this work will be included extracts taken from the records of much earlier historians and also from the charters of King William the first, William de Warren and for those who follow the work of Orderic Vitalis [an English/French monk] and the two or three modern historians who gave cause to this controversy by suggesting that one of his numerous errors was correct. 
Orderic cannot be chastised too much for it is those who did not work hard enough in all areas once Orderic had made his mistakes but instead, they tried even harder to prove his error to be a correct statement. The further they entered into it, the more their own names were in danger of being sullied [Stapleton, Waters and Dudale] and this danger caused great anger among them when they could not prove their statements to be correct. 
The anger became so fierce as to cause them to completely discard the charters written by the King, his Queen and the Earl Warren. The beginning of this can be seen in the The Kings charter  stating that the "later hand" inserted filea meae [my daughter], they tried to show that this later hand was an attempt at forgery and not one of trying to show what had been written on a fading parchment. The final issue used by the character assassins, is the charter in which William De Warren names Queen Matilda as the mother of his wife, upon finding that this charter is unquestionable and true, the assassins try to show that this charter is also a forgery. This is impossible, it was simply a charter recording a family gift of goods given to Lewes Priory so why [in heavens name] would it be a forgery? If this is how these historians have written their histories, what errors must be contained inside them! I believe that William De Warren and Gundrada, after having arranged for a new Priory to be guilt at Lewes, also arranged for a few monks to be brought from France to be entrenched at the new Priory. I also believe that Ordericus in his reference to Gherbod being brother to Gundrada to Gherbod, simply meant that he was one of the "Brothers" brought over from France. This may be borne out by the reference to an unknown "brother" of William De Warren named "Frederick" who is also named as a brother of Gherbod. Both Gherbod and Frederick were monks, both were, as monks, known as Brother Frederick and Brother Gherbod. Historian who remain loyal to the Royal Family state that Ordericus Vitalis made an error or Gherbod was simply a foster brother of Gundrada as his mother was a child minder [foster mother] to Queen Matilda's children.

Chapter I
The Battle of Hastings 1066.
Prior to the conquest of England, William Duke of Normandy fell in love with Matilda of Flanders, who according to some early writers refused Duke William's advances causing him to visit her in a way that captured her heart. Matilda forthwith refused to marry any other than Duke William and so the scene was set for a lifetime together.
This though would be a marriage hard to form, for upon application, the Pope refused to allow it because Duke William and Matilda were distantly related. Duke William was 4th cousin on one side and 6th cousin on the other to his bride to be. It took them two years to get a special dispensation to marry but had already had at least one child with one-on-the-way. The couple went on to have 11 or 12 children with at least two kings among them.




Statue of Queen Matilda.France

Hastings  
Duke William of Normandy had been earlier promised the throne of England by Edward the Confessor but somehow Harald managed to take the throne which caused consternation in Normandy and a few Northern Kingdoms. Harold was first attacked by north men at York and after defeating them, found that Duke William had arrived at Hastings with his army. Harald was quite a plucky fighter and he marched his men first to London and after a weeks rest, then proceeded on to Hastings. The rest is history that is well recorded on tapestry and in many books on the English defeat that still smarts today.
Matilda and family come to England.
Queen Matilda brought her family including Gundrada to England about one year after the defeat of Harald at Hastings, of course celebrations were in order for the great victory over the Viking led Anglo-Saxons. Division of estates between the Norman Lords took place quickly and each General had a goodly share of the spoils.
The marriage of Gundrada
Duke William had obviously offered his daughter Gundrada to his distant cousin William De Warrenne and the marriage took place when Gundrada was about 16 or 17 years old. It is here that we shall offer up the work named below, of Sir George Duckett, a much respected historian.
For those who are not studied in Latin, it is not easy to understand, so for the lay person, type into Google; Translate to Latin; and then enter the word or small sentence you may wish to understand.

Chapter II 

Observations

on the

Parentage of Gundreda

The

Daughter of William Duke of Normandy

And

Wife of William de Warenne

[Warren Shield]

By

Sir George Duckett, Bart, FSA

1878

Observations on the parentage of Gundreda, the daughter of William, Duke of Normandy, and Wife of William de Warenne.
By Sir G. Duckett, Bart.

(Communicated at Whitehaven, December 11^th, 1877.)
It is, doubtless, known to most members of the Cumberland and Westmorland Archaeological Society, that the second husband of Gundreda, Countess of Warwick, was William, surnamed of Lancaster, Baron of Kendal. She was the daughter of William de Warenne, the second Earl of Surrey, by Isabel de Vermandois, and consequently granddaughter of Gundreda, the fifth daughter of William, Duke of Normandy, the subject of the following notice.
This connection with Westmorland would alone entitle the paper, now submitted to the members of the Society, to figure in it's Transactions, but the additional fact of the Countess Gundreda's marriage with Roger de Glanvill, as her third husband, after the decease of W. de Lancaster, renders the much controverted point of the parentage of her grandmother, a matter of historical interest for the Northern counties, seeing that such husband was Sheriff of Northumberland from the 31 Henry II. To Richard I. The authorities for these authenticated facts are given below.¹

1 Dugdale Bar. i, 73, 421 sq; John Rous of Warwick [Hist. MS. Bibl. Cotton]; Ordercus Vitalis [Hist. Eccles.]; William of Jumieges [Ed Ducesne 1619]; Milles' "Catalogue of Honor" [Ed 1610]; Mon i, 708a, n 60; Mag Rot. Pip. 16, H II., Lanc.; Coram Rege, i John, 3 m, 17 dorso; Madox's Exchequer ii, 236; 3d Report App. P. 321; William of Poictou [Ed Guizot].
In turning to page 149 of the "Yorkshire Archaeological Journal" (vol iv); to certain pages of "Notes and Queries" (5^th S iv, pp 386, 476); and to Murray's "Handbook for Sussex" (under Lewes), one's attention is forcibly drawn to a question, which, it would have been imagined, ought long since to have been set at rest, viz., the parentage of Gundreda, as wife of William de Warenne (Guillaume de Varenne), 1^st Earl of Surrey.
The writer in the otherwise ably written paper, in the periodical first named, in enumerating the several Yorkshire Tenants in Domesday, runs counter to the opinion usually received until of late years, and quoting Ordericus Vitalis, assumes Gundreda to have been the sister of one Gherbod, a Fleming. This alleged relationship seems first to have been assigned to her by Dugdale on the same authority, and after him, in more recent times, by Mr Stapleton,² F.S.A., and a writer of considerable merit, Mr Freeman,³author of the "Norman Conquest."
It seems inconceivable that Dugdale, from whom so many have gleaned their information, should have overlooked the Conqueror's charter giving to the monks of St Pancreas the Manor of Walton, in Norfolk, and the Foundation Charter of Lewes Priory, still extant, which are incontestably clear, and of themselves sufficient to refute any doubt on this subject. As a question of history, it is a matter of regret, and to ourselves of supreme astonishment, that the arguments which of late years have been set forth by the late Mr Blaauw,⁴ to whom the merit is due of having so successfully controverted the attempt to cast a doubt on the parentage of Gundreda, as the Conqueror's daughter, should not long since have settled this disputed point. It only shews on what slight (or rather worthless) grounds a false position may be held, and it's evil consequences propagated.
A solitary passage, on the authority of this nearly contemporary historian, Ordericus Vitalis, extracted from

2 Archaeological Journal, Vol iii p.1-26
³ History of the Norman Conquest, vol iii, app p 645-658.
⁴ Archaeologia, xxxii p 108-125. See also some remarks by Lord Stanhope,- Proc Soc of Ant, vol v, p 138-139

Both Dugdale and Stapleton have been discredited for their attempted attack on the Princess Gundrada by numerous historians but if you throw enough at the wall, some of it will stick {What I find incredible, is the tenacity with which the Anglo-Saxon historians go after King William and his family and also their attempts to denigrate Gundrada even though they know who she was, they keep trying to lower the esteem of a victorious Norman Royal Family. [rjw]
his so-called "Ecclesiastical History," is forcibly insisted on, and thus from time to time revives the attempt to disprove the marriage of William de Warenne with a daughter of the Conqueror. The passage alluded to has been construed as an inference that Gundreda was simply the stepdaughter of the Conqueror, namely, the daughter of Queen Matilda by a former husband, being therein recorded as the Sister of Gherbod, a Fleming to whom the Conqueror had first granted the City and Earldom of Chester, although the assertion is supported by no other chronicler, resting solely on the authority of the historian in question, and notwithstanding that the work is of considerable length, is nowhere again repeated by him.

Since the 1800's, those who follow Ordericus have conveniently set aside those documents and charters they cannot refute and have chosen to use faded documents as their proofs. I personally believe that Ordericus Vitalis made one of his usual blunders and placed  Gherbod where he was not meant to be [rjw].

After recapitulating the lands and counties which the Conqueror had portioned out to certain of his Norman followers, Ordericus, in passing to the county of Surrey, which was granted to William of Warenne, observes:- "et Guillelmo de Guarenna (Warenna) qui Gundredam sororem Gherbodi conjugem habebat, dedit Surregiam," having shortly before stated:- "Cestriam et comitatum ejus Gherbodo Flandrensi jamdudum rex dederat" (Ord. Vit. "Historia Eccles." Pars. Ii., Lib. Iv., c. vii.; Migne, "Patrologia," clxxxviii, pp. 271, 331, 515, 583). His reason for granting him the Earldom of Chester we believe to have made apparent in the sequel.
Now, with a view to refute the perversion of the real facts as regards Gundreda, we may observe that the question of her parentage is open to two entirely opposite considerations. First, as to the authority of Ordericus Vitalis as an authentic historian, if, as prima facie it would seem, he has used the word "soror" in its usually accepted sense, in which case, as will be evident, its employment is capable of entire refutation; and secondly, irrespective of any implied want of authenticity, whether Ordericus has not employed the word in the sense we are disposed to take it, which puts the question in a totally different light, as we will shew hereafter.
Mr Blaauw observes in his paper in the "Archaeologia" (xxxii., 108), in answer to Mr Stapleton (who had undertaken to disprove the marriage of William de Warenne with a daughter of the Conqueror, on the ground of Gundreda being the Queen's daughter by a divorced husband, named Gherbod), that "on matters of the Royal pedigree his acknowledged errors are so numerous as to deprive him of much authority;" that he [Ordericus Vitalis] wrote his Chronicle "when a very old man, with a confused memory of the details;" that he has erred again "in making Matilda to survive the Conqueror," and again "in stating the grant of the Earldom of Surrey to have been conferred in that monarch's time, whereas it was bestowed in that of his son Rufus."
The foundation charter of the Priory of Lewes, dedicated to St Pancras, expressly states Gundreda to have been the Queen's daughter; the words of William de Warenne on the occasion of his founding that house, indubitably prove Queen Matilda to have been her mother, and can be taken in no other sense: the words are, "pro salute dominae meae Matildis Reginae matrix uxoris meae." It is therefore self-evident from this fact, that Gherbod the Fleming must equally have been Queen Matilda's son, but although sufficient opportunity is afforded Ordericus, he never once mentions him as her son, neither does he in any part of his "History" represent the Queen to have been united to a previous husband, in fact no trace of such an assertion can be found in any contemporary, or subsequent chronicler. As to the pretended marriage of (Queen) Matilda with Gherbod the Fleming, and her subsequent divorce, which Mr Stapleton endeavors to maintain, Mr Blaauw explains at some length how the confusion may have arisen [Archaeol. xxxii, 120], and we have elsewhere given additional, and we believe conclusive, reasons in disproof of this supposition. Not one of the Norman chroniclers, he observes, with any exception, "has dropped the smallest hint of any husband or child, or consequently any such divorce on the part of Matilda previous to her marriage with the King." All authorities in fact concur in proving the reverse; they all allude to Duke William's affianced bride as a young unmarried girl, pucelle (puella), and the only inference is that William of Normandy was Gundreda's father.
Sir H Ellis, in his "Introduction to Domesday" (i.507), observes; "Gundreda was really a daughter of the Conqueror. William de Warenne's second charter of foundation, granted to Lewes Priory in the reign of Rufus, states this fact distinctly:- Volo ergo quod sciant qui sunt et qui futuri sunt, quod ego Willielmus de Warenna Surreiae comes, donavi et confirmavi Deo et Sancto Pancratio, et monachis Cluniascensibus, quicumque in ipsa ecclesia Sancti Pancratii Deo servient in perpetuum; donavi pro salute animae meae, et animae Gundredae uxoris meae, et pro anima domini mei Willielmi regis, qui me in Anglecam terram adduxit, et per cujus licentiam monachos venire feci, et qui meam prioreum donationem confirmavit, et pro salute dominae meae Matildis reginae, matris uxoris meae, et pro salute domini mei Willielmi regis, filii sui, post cujus adventum in Anglicam terram hanc cartam feci, et qui me comitem Surregiae fecit." (Cott. MS. Vesp. F. XV; Lappenberg, p 216.)
Gundreda is also acknowledged by the Conqueror himself as his daughter. The charter, by which the King gave the manor of Walton, in Norfolk, to the same Priory, on its first foundation by W. de Warenne and his wife,⁵ distinctly styles her his daughter. He gives it, "pro anima domini et antecessoris mei Regis Edwardi ... et pro anima Gulielmi de Warenna, et uxoris suae Gundredae filiae meae et haeredum suorum."

 [The words filiae meae mean my daughter and these and other parts of the text had faded and someone [in a later hand] had written in these two words above to show Gundrada was the kings daughter before the text completely faded away. [rjw] 
 
(Intro. Domesday. I. 507.)
Again, in the Ledger Book of Lewes are these words:- "Iste (William de Warenne), primo non vocabatur nisi solummodo, Willielmus de Warenna, postea vero processu temporis a Willielmo Rege et Conquestore Angeliae, cujus filiam desponsavit, plurium honoratus est," etc. (Watson's Memoirs, i. 36.)
Those who, relying on Ordericus Vitalis, seek to disprove this fact, insist that the words, "filiae meae" in the Conqueror's charter are an interpolation, but a minute inspection of the original MS. In the Cottonian Library (Vespas. F. iii. Fo. I), in no way warrants this belief; on the contrary, the words "filiae meae" are simply interlined in.


5 The Queen, her mother, gave Carleton, on the same occasion, to their newly-founded Priory at Lewes.explanation of words which were originally written, but which have disappeared from decay; indeed the whole charter has faded, and has been rubbed with gall. Mr Blaauw remarks on the words "filiae meae" thus: "A close and repeated examination of this MS. By Weston Styleman Walford, Esq., and myself, has furnished very sufficient proof that the words of the original should be read thus:- "Pro anima Gulielmi de Warenna et uxoris sue Gondrade filiae meae et heredum suorum," not "pro me et heredibus meis," as substituted by Mr Stapleton (Archaeol. Jour., iii. 2), for words "filie mee et heredum suorum" (Archaeologia, xxxii. 117).
Moreover, among the original benefactors of the Abbey of Lewes, Gundreda is named conjointly with her brother Henry I. of England:- "In Norfolcia (among other possessions) Karletuna quam dedit Matilidis regina, mater Henrici Regis et Gundredae Comitissae;"⁶ 

[here the Norman haters try to take away the "et" making what should read , Matilda the Queen, mother of King Henry and Gundrada, into something that denies Countess Gundrada as part of the Royal family. Gundrada was by no means an English Countess at this time but as William De Warenne had been given Surrey, it was expected he would be made Earl and she would become Countess of Surrey at the same time.] [rjw]

 Whilst the Chartulary of the same Abbey (at fo. 106) further certifies to her affinity to the Conqueror:- "Iste (William de Warenne) jacet in capitulo Lewensi juxta Dominam Gundredam, comitissam suam et filiam praedicti Regis Conquestoris;" and again (at fo. 103) - "Domina Gundreda, Comitissa Surreyae, filia Conquestoris, quae sepulta est in capitulo Lewensi cum conjuge suo." [These last facts the excavations in the Chapter house of the above Priory in 1845 have [been] thoroughly established.]
Irrespective of the undeniable evidence of these charters and chartulary references, until a recent date, with the sole exception of Dugdale, who, as we have observed, was entirely misled by Ordericus Vitalis, in the way in which he has applied the word "suror" in his "Ecclesiastical History," Gundreda had always been handed down and acknowledged as the Conqueror's daughter. Leland, for example, in the reign of Hen VIII. gives us in his "Collectanea" the following extract:- "And these thinges that folow I translatid owte of an olde French Historie yn Rime of the Actes of the Guanines onto the death of Fulco the II."

<sup>lieth bu6 Ex libro Computorum, olim Prioratui de Lewes spectante (Dugdale).
"The Genealogie of the Countes of Guarine, alias Surreie:"
"William the firste Counte Guarine married Gndreda, the Doughter of King William Conquerour." Benolte, also, who was Clarenceux from 1516 to 1534, in his Visitation, in remarking on the tombs existing in his day," in the Chapter House of Lewes Priory, observes:- "Willyam the firste Erle Waryne and Surrey, furste founder of the howse of Saynt pancrase, assituate within the towne of Lewys, in the countye of Sussex, wiche Willyam and Gondrede, his wyffe, ryede in the Chapytre of the same howse, wich Gondrede was dawghter unto Willyam the Conquerour." (MS. D. 13. Col. Arm.) (Suss. Arch. Coll., iii, 187.)
 
Again, dating back to an early part of the same reign, we find in one of the Harleian MSS. some remarkable portraits or sketches,7 though somewhat rude, of William of Normandy, his Queen, and three sons, with three only of his six daughters, to the exclusion, namely, of Cecilia (the abbess of Caen); Adeliza (a nun); and Agatha (who died, betrothed to the King of Galicia). Inasmuch as the three therein depicted Princesses are partly robed in the Royal purple, and partly display the heraldic ensigns of their respective husbands, embroidered on their mantles, that of Gundreda having the Checky or. and az. Coat of Warenne,8
 
 [This family portrait should be enough for any historian with no axe to grind,it can be seen that Gundrada is under attack just as her father was during his reign [rjw]

the inference is clear, that the excluded sisters, being dead to the world, needed no portraying or worldly vestments, according to the artist's view, and that the remaining daughters, of whom the wife of William de Warenne was one, were well-known and acknowledged daughters of the Conqueror at that date. In addition to these instances, Ralph Brooke, York Herald, [in his "Catalogue of the Earls of Surrey," Ed. 1619]; and Vincent, Rouge Croix [in his "Discoverie of Brooke's Errours," Ed. 1622],

7</sup> Also noticed by Mrs Everett Green, in her "Lives of English Princesses."
⁸ The Warenne Checky coat, (or that of Vermandois), was first assumed in the next generation by Gundreda's son, the 2^nd Earl of Surrey, as that of his wife, Isabel de Vermandois; but this fact is not material; it proves that one of the Conqueror's daughters was admitted to have allied herself to the House of Warenne.
equally agree in respect of Gundreda's degree of affinity to the Conqueror. The former goes so far as to say that she had, on her marriage with W. de Warenne, "all Chirkland, Bromfield, and Yale," but this is disallowed by the latter.
These different extracts establish Gundreda as the Conqueror's daughter beyond any reasonable doubt, and of themselves prove the entire fallacy of the hypothesis of Mr. Stapleton and his followers,⁹ which has already received, as may be said, its coup de grace at the hands of the late Mr Blaauw,¹⁰ indeed, an impartial study of them can lead to no other conclusion.
There remain still, however, many other forcible reasons which may be cited, conclusive of the illogical nature of this doctrine, relying as its main, or sole, argument upon a previous marriage of Queen Matilda.
The very wording of the epitaph¹¹ on Gundreda's tomb at Lewes is conclusive of her affinity to the Conqueror- "Stirps Gundrada ducum"- and clearly points to her paternal descent from the Dukes of Normandy; whilst on her mother's side, that on Matilda's tomb at Caen, "Germen regale Mathildem," indicates royal not ducal descent, her mother having been the daughter of Robert, King of France, the son and nephew of kings, from other

⁹ Archaeological Journal iii, pg 20
¹⁰ Archaeologia xxxii, 108
¹¹ These well known epitaphs scarcely need repetition, but we give them to save the trouble of reference:--
"Stirps Gundrada ducum decus evi nobile germen
Intulit ecelesiis Anglorum balsama morum
Martir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -uit miseris suit ex pietate Maria
Pars obiit Marthe superest pars magna Marie
O pie Pancrati ter - - - - - - - - - - - - - et equi
Te facit heredem tu clemens suscipe matrem
Sexta kalendarum Junii lux obvia carnis
Ifregit alabastrum ..." 

[the above text begins "Gundrada born of Dukes and descended from noble Kings [rjw]

The epitaph of Queen Matilda, given by Vitalis (Ed. Prevost, iii. 192-3), is :--
"Egrgie pulchri tegit haec structura sepulchri
Moribus insignem, germen regale, Mathildem;
Dux Flandritae pater, huic exstitit Hadala mater,
Francorum gentia Roberta filia regis
Et soror Henrici regali sede potiti,
Regi magnifico Willelmo juncta marito, &c., &c.
kings descended.¹² "Regali ex genere descendentem nomine Mathildem," are the words also of William of Jumieges (lib. 7, c. xxi.); and William of Poictou (the Conqueror's chaplain), corroborates this fact.
A very material point in the present enquiry are the dates of Duke William's birth, his marriage, and his death; and still more so those of Gundreda.
Without adducing other proof, if reference be made to William de Jumieges, and Thierry ("Histoire de la Conquete de l'Angeleterre par les Normans"), it is plain that the birth of William of Normandy may be fixed in the year 1027, or the commencement of 1028. The former states that he was in his 60^th year ("fere sexagenarius), at the time of his death, and that he succeeded his father in 1036, being then a boy of 8 years old.¹³ Matilda was married to him, if we are to take the Roman de Rou of Wace chronologically, after he had fortified Ambrieres, near Mayenne¹⁴; an event, however, of certainly later occurrence, for both William of Poictou and William de Jumieges (contemporary chroniclers) record how, when only just a young man, having received at the Chateau d'Eu (Ponthieu), his youthful bride the French King's niece, at the hands of her father, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, Duke William made his public entry with her into the city of Rouen.15
Pluet [Ed. Of Wace's "Roman de Rou"], observes-

¹² Baldwin, Count of Flanders, (Queen Matilda's father), was known as Baldwin de l'Isle, because he rebuilt the city of l'Isle (Lille). He married the daughter of Robert Capat, King of France, and by her had two sons, Baldwin (surnamed de Mons), and Robert le Frison, and one daughter, the above-mentioned Matilda. (Chronique de Flandres).
¹³ According to William of Malmsbury, the Conqueror died in the fifty ninth year of his age, and his death occurred in 1087.
¹⁴ Par cunseil de sa barunie,
Prist une fame de haut lin,^a
En Henri li rei France,
Fille soe fille ^b Cunstance;
A maint noble home fit parente,
Mahelt ^c out nom, mult bele e gente.
["Roman de Rou", Ed. Pluquet, ii, 58.]
^a Lineage ^b Fille de sa fille. ^c Matilda
¹⁵ Gemmet, lib. Vii, c. 21.
"No Norman historian had thought proper to fix the date of this marriage, and we are constrained to seek it in the "Chronicle of Tours." Here we are told that the marriage was celebrated in the [year] 1053, the same year in which must be placed the revolt of William of Arques against his nephew, William of Normandy (the Conqueror in question). It seems that this projected marriage between the Duke and Matilda had been an affair of long standing inasmuch as it was prohibited by the Council of Rheims in 1049; the Count of Flanders being enjoined not to bestow his daughter on the Duke, or the latter to take her to wife."
The reason which the French editor of the "Roman de Rou" assigns for the incorrectness of the date (viz 1053), although adduced in respect of Agatha, another daughter of the Conqueror, applies with equal force to Gundreda.
We know from Wace's Chronicle that the Conqueror called for, and mounted before the Battle of Hastings, his Spanish war horse;--
Sun boen cheval fist demander,
Ne poeit l'en meillor trover;
D'Espaingne li ont enveie
Un Reis par mult grant amistie.
["Roman de Rou", ii. 193. Ed. Pluqet.]
as to which Pluquet makes this significant remark;- "It is possible that this horse was sent to the Duke by (Alphonso) the King of Galacia, to whom was betrothed (against her will) Agatha (or Adelaide), the same daughter who had been previously affianced to the Anglo-Saxon King Harold. Constant to her first love, this young Princess implored the Almighty to take her to Himself rather than that she should become the wife of the Spanish monarch, and as we know, the prayer was so far heard, that she died previous to the consummantion of the event. This touching anecdote (he continues), recorded by Ordericus Vitalis (l. V. p 579), leads one to conclude that the "Chronicle of Tours" has assigned too late a date to the marriage of William and Matilda, in placing
it in the year 1053. It is highly improbable that Harold would have inspired so violent a passion in a young girl of eleven years, and we have already observed the more probable date of this marriage would have been in 1049."
We have, however, additional and even stronger reason for assigning the year 1049 as the marriage of Matilda and Duke William, the very year, namely, in which the Council of Rheims had prohibited it, as just observed by Pluquet; indeed, the recently published MS of an ancient Flemish chronicle places the marriage as early as 1047.¹⁶According to William of Jumieges, (who was not only contemporary with the events he relates, but dedicated his work to the Conqueror, so that his authority on this point is unquestionable), it was not until after the marriage that the fact of their near relationship was brought to the cognizance of the Pope. Seeing that if he pronounced a divorce between them (as Jumieges observes), a probable war would ensue between Flanders and Normandy, the Pope wisely determined that Duke William and his consort should atone for the crime, and from which he absolves them, on their agreement to found two separate monasteries. The result of this decision was that the monastery of the Holy Trinity was founded by Matilda at Caen, whilst that of St Etienne was founded by the Duke at the same place, [Gemmet, lib. vii., c. 26]
A similarity of reasoning applies to Gundreda. We are told that in 1070 she and her husband went on a pilgrimage to Rome, as detailed by W. de Warenne himself in his second charter of foundation of Lewes Priory [MS Cott. Vesp. F. xv.; Mon. v., I sq], and that their progress was arrested on reaching Burgundy by the contest then going on between Henry IV of Germany and Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand). The year 1070, however, has manifestly been wrongly fixed as the date of this occurrence. The period at which the war ensued between the Emperor and the Pope, was between the years 1073 and 1077, so that it must necessarily be referred to some year between those dates, for Pope

16 "Corpus Chronicorum Flanderiae," i., 552.
Gregory did not succeed to St Peter's chair until the death of Pope Alexander in 1073. Assuming, therefore, the Conqueror and Matilda to have been married in 1053 (as in the case of Agatha), Gundreda would have been scarcely marriageable unless she had been the first-born child. The death of Gundreda, may, from her epitaph, be safely placed in 1085, so that although it has been said she died in her thirty-fifth year, she might thus have been the offspring of a marriage in 1049 (or 1047), though scarcely at the date of 1053.
These dates equally tend to show the fallacious and absurd reasoning of those who maintain a previous marriage of her mother, Queen Matilda.
That William of Normandy was Matilda's first and only husband is plain from the following facts. From Domesday [B vol. i., fo. 100] we know that Queen Matilda had conferred upon her the lands of the Saxon noble Brictric (Brihtrik or Bric'trich Mau), the son of Earl Algar. [Intro. Domesd. i. 452.] Thierry mentions her name as the first inscribed on the partition roll of the territory of England, receiving as her portion this same Saxon's lands. It is recorded of her, that being in love with the young noble in question, when a representative at her father's court from King Edward (the Confessor), her advances to him were not reciprocated¹⁷ [Dug. Mon.,

¹⁷ Malde de Flandres fu nee
Meis de Escoce fu appelee,
Pur sa mere ke fu espuse
Al roi de Escoce ki l' out rove;
Laquelle jadis, quant fu pucele,
Ama un conte d'Engleterre,
Bric'trich Mau le oi nomer,
Apres le rois ki fu riche her;
A lui la pucele envela messager
Pur sa amur a lui procurer;
Meis Bictrich Maude refusa,
Dunt ele mult se coruca,
Hastiyement mer passa
E a William Bastard se maria.
[MS. Cott. Vitellius A. x., fo. 129]
The continuator of Wace, who wrote temp. H. III., and is the authority for this fact, has, however been guilty of more than one anachronism, in confounding two subsequent Matildas, viz., the daughter of Malcolm, King of Scotland, and the daughter of Henry I of England, married to the emperor of Germany.
i. 154; Wace's "Brut d'Angleterre," i. 73; Thierry's "Conquest of England," i. 428 (Hazlitt)], and that she thereupon resolved on marrying William of Normandy.
It thus becomes clear, that Matilda of Flanders could not have been married at the time of this occurrence, neither were her affections set on William of Normandy, until after the Saxon's slight, in fact one was a consequence of the other; so that had her marriage with him been indefinitely postponed, on the ground of its being within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity, or the prohibition by the Council of Rheims, and thus not consummated for some considerable time, (which some maintain, although the very reverse is stated by that contemporary historian as we have shown, William de Jumieges) (lib. vii. c. 26), it is contrary to all likelihood that she, in the interim, would have contracted marriage with another person (as alleged by Mr Stapleton), or have been in addition the mother of three small children, the improbability of which is otherwise sufficiently apparent. What are we in such case to understand by these words:- Laquelle jadis quant fu "pucelle;" what by the same word "puella," twice occurring in the "Chronicle of Tours," with reference to Matilda and her marriage with William of Normandy; and again by the following in Benoit's "Chronicle of the Dukes of Normandy?"--
"Cist out une fille trop bele
Maheut out nom jeune "pucele."
[Harl. MS 1717]
On the other hand, with regard to the alleged brother Gherbod; how could Ordericus Vitalis, whether his errors were many or few, who says of Matilda of Flanders that she derived her descent from the Kings of France and Emperors of Germany, have reasonably intended to imply that she was the mother of this Gherbod the Fleming? We know that some of his assertions are unfounded; they have been corrected by some of Mr Blaauw in his already quoted paper in the "Archaeologia:" by Ellis, "Introduction to Domesday," i. 506, 429, 502, 364; by Masseres, p 217; they have been pointed out by Lappenberg; and Watson ("Memoirs of Warren," i); but we are disposed in this case to consider that he meant otherwise, as we shall proceed to shew, or else how comes it to pass that throughout his whole work, Ordericus never hints at any connection or supposed marriage with any one on the part of Matilda? Gherbod is never once mentioned as Queen Matilda's son; sooner or later in his narrative of events it would not have escaped his notice had such been the undoubted fact. He would certainly have intimated as much when relating how the Conqueror had given him the Earldom of Chester. Instead of saying- "Cestriam et comitatum ejus Gherbodo," &c (as in the context), his words would have been somewhat to this effect: Cestriam et comitatum ejus Gherbodo Flandrensi, filiovidelictet Mathildis postea Reginae Angelorum, jamdudum rex dederat.
If there is any foundation whatever on the part of Ordericus in naming her "sister" to Gherbod, we would suggest that she was simply his foster-sister, for we see improbability stamped on the face of any other supposition.¹⁸ We arrived at this solution of the point in question, that "soror Gherbodi" has been used in the sense of "seur de lait," for these reasons. In old (and Norman) French "seurer" signifies to wean from suck; (seuree, weaned from suck; qui est seure that is weaned). We know apart from this, that "soror" is often used figuratively, but inasmuch as the old Norman French of Vitalis's time would readily suggest "soror," so are we convinced that the term is used by him without respect to consanguinity. A very singular application of the word in the same sense (which we give over leaf), may be found in the "Collection of Latin Inscriptions," by

¹⁸ Assuming (for the sake of argument) the Conqueror and William de Warenne to have been nearly of equal age, seeing that they died within a year of each other, the first, namely, in 1087, and the latter in 1088, the possibility might certainly exist of a prior marriage on the part of W. de Warenne. The sister of Gherbod might have been the first wife, and his marriage with the Princess Gundreda a subsequent event. Against this reasoning, however, it is highly improbable that Ordericus Vitalis, who wrote in the succeeding century, would, in such case, have confined his mention to one wife only; he would assuredly have named the wife of the greatest rank and importance, had he even omitted (which is equally improbable), all mention of another. We are forced, therefore, to conclude that Vitalis alludes to Gundreda alone, as the "Soror Gherbodi."

Jo. Gaspar Orellius, published at Zurich, in 1828. The derivative word "sororiae" [maiden's paps], may be also taken as indicating analogy, in connection with the above words, seur, [soror,] seurer. There is something in the very wording of the passage which implies this sense:- "Sororem Gherbodi conjegem habebat." Gherbod must have been her foster-brother. In the early days of chivalry foster-brotherhood was one of its peculiarities, and the foster-sister or brother was socially more than the brother or sister by blood. That the family of Gherbod was one of more or less pretension, may be inferred from the instances of the name which can be quoted; and bearing this in mind, the relative position of Gundreda to Gherbod becomes quite explainable. In the case of the former, the rank of the wife of the avoue (or protector) of St Bertin, would be quite in unison with that of a mother called upon to foster a child of Royal birth; whilst the subsequent elevation of Gherbod to the Earldom of Chester is in accordance altogether with the custom of those ages, and the spirit of foster-brotherhood; his promotion to honour, as Gundreda's foster-brother, being a natural consequence of such position.
This simple view of the matter goes far also to explain the otherwise unintelligible and far-fetched story of a former "divorced husband," the burden of Mr Stapleton's song,¹⁹ of which we confess, apart from the question of Royal and Ducal descent, we never could see the exact bearing, either as applicable to Matilda or the disproof of her daughter's affinity to Duke William, as under our hypothesis the "divorced" husband would have been simply a "foster-father."
A few instances of the use of the word "foster", will rather elucidate the peculiar applicability of the word, taken from the older writers:--
Chaucer says of some one:- "She was fostered in a nunnerie."
[The Reve's Tale]
Again, of another:--
"Fostered she was
With milk of Irish breast; her sire an Earl, her dame of Prince's blood."
[Surrey]

¹⁹ Archaeological Journal, iii, p 20, seq.
Again, Bacon:- "The Duke of Bretaigne having been a host or a kind of parent or foster-fatherto the king, in his tenderness of age and weakness of fortune, did look for aid this time from King Henry." [Bacon]
In Ireland Foster children do love and are beloved by their foster-fathers, and their sept, more than of their own natural parents and kindred. [Davies]
In the opinion of the Irish, fostering has always been a stronger alliance than blood.
[Davies on Ireland]

"My father was your father's client, I
His son's scarce less than foster-brother."
[Byron's "Doge of Venice"]
There still remains in the Islands, though it is fast passing away, the custom of fosterage, &c. [Johnson, "A Journey in the Western Islands.]
That the word "soror" may be interpreted in its strictly classical sense, foster-sister, as well as real sister, irrespective of any employment as a term of mediaeval Latin, or the greater latitude habitual to it, the following inscription (Orellius, 3007 [Zurich, 1828]) offers a very strong presumption, and in support of our hypothesis we lay considerable stress upon it:--
IULIA HELLAS I HYGIAE DOMIMAE ET SORORI
BENEMERENTI I FECIT. QUAE VIXIT I
ANNOS XXXV.
Here we have unmistakably combined mistress and sister; the one owing allegiance to the other, her superior in blood, though equal on the score of fosterage. We do not find either in Ducange or elsewhere, any word, classical or mediaeval, which would have suggested itself to Ordericus so applicable to represent seur (de lait) as the one he has used, unless he had said "collactea" or (collactanea), an expression corrupt even to him as a mediaeval writer, and which, with French uppermost in his mind, we can quite understand his rejecting for the purer word "soror."
In the foregoing we have thus adduced different unanswerable arguments in favour of the Royal parentage of Gundreda. That the occasional errors attributed to Ordericus should be able to be brought home to him is not
[page 19]
a matter of much surprise, but in the main his authority, as a nearly contemporary historian, is trustworthy, his assertions generally supported by other chroniclers and historians, and on this one particular point, the parentage of Gundreda, he has not erred, if the above is the sense in which he intended the passage to be understood, and that he did so is evident, seeing that on the score of "consanguinity" all evidence goes otherwise to prove the expression totally unfounded, and (one may add) impossible.
Finally, should others concur in the same view with ourselves, it will happily tend to reconcile the opposite opinions of some modern writers on this disputed subject.


<sup>2+




Chester Waters, Dugdale and others.

One later writer Chester Waters[1836] States that he had not trusted the Charters written back in the early days just after the invasion? Why he trusts the Domesday book and the Magna Carta but not those to do with the Royal family and their children points to defamation aimed at punishing the Normans for conquering their little island. Even more odd is that Dugdale, Stapleton and Chester stake their limited reputations on the ramblings of [who else but] Orderic Vitalis.
Chester Waters states that Gundrada was the sister of a no-account named Gherbod the Fleming who has no parentage nor family tree. All we are told about this man is that he was Earl of Chester for nine months and that the Welsh and English did not like him and that he was chased out of England and returned to Flanders where he was thrown into prison and died. Now, if Gherbod the Fleming was Gundrada's brother, would she have not made some attempt to save him? Why did William the Conqueror give Gherbod's lands away to another Knight just a few months later and not give the lands to his supposed sister?</sup> 
Waters tries to show that Archbishop Anselm believed Gundrada was not the daughter of William the Conqueror [Orderic Vitalis again] and that the only two contemporary Chronicles in which Gundrada is mentioned show the same. 
Mr Waters although long dead will be tossing about in his grave because he has left out some very important information, whenever we go to a cemetery we see the last written material on the life of the owner of a grave or tomb embedded in stone telling us who loved them and who they were. 
Orderic Vitalis, Bishop Anselm, Dudale and others of their ilk have conveniently left out this most important data set in stone. It is certain that Sir George Duckett knew what he was talking about when he stated that Gherbod the Fleming was Gundrada's "foster brother". To explain, Gherbod's mother was the carer for Queen Matilda's young children and this is why Gherbod was awarded land in England after being in the fight at Hastings. 
Matilda still had young children left behind with Gherbod's mother [foster mother] and there were still more children to be born. Gherbod did not do right by that which was bestowed on him and he left England in disgrace and headed for Rome and the Pope. 
For some reason, Duke William did nothing to save him and Gundrada and her husband appear to have never shown any interest in his existence. Gherbod's only connection to Gundrada was his mother who was Foster mother to Queen Matilda's young children. We have several charters that confirm Gundrada's parentage although some were faded and where faded scribes have attempted to show what was therein written on one of them. The one item that cannot be denied is the beautiful Black Marble Grave Stone of Gundrada, identical to her mother's Black Marble Grave Stone both of which tell who was buried beneath and who loved them. One thing that will destroy the myth of would be historians is DNA and that will solve many paternity and maternity tests into
the future. 

Freeman makes notes.

The well known English historian Freeman. also got into the Ordericus controversy and placed his two-penny worth. Perhaps so as to keep up with Dugdale and Stapleon, Below is a section from his notes.
Freeman states that had he not noticed that modern day followers of Ordericus Vitalis were becoming fired up over the question of Gundrada and of the marriage of King William and Queen Matilda and so he decided to look into it. Soon he was following along on the hay wagon, taking part in what he termed unimportant question.

The career of Gerbod, Earl of Chester

(i) Orderic Vitalis: the grant of the earldom of Chester, and the capture of Gerbod on his return to Flanders

[The king [William I] gave Gerbod the Fleming Chester and its county ... at the request of those to whom he had entrusted his hereditary honor he returned to Flanders, but was captured by his enemies and imprisoned for a long time. Meanwhile the king gave the earldom of Chester to Hugh of Avranches.]

Cestram et comitatum eius Gherbodo Flandrensi iamdudum rex dederat; qui magna ibi et difficilia tam ab Anglis quam a Gualis aduersantibus pertulerat. Deinde legatione coactus suorum quos in Flandria dimiserat, et quibus hæreditarium honorem suum commiserat; eundi citoque redeundi licentiam a rege acceperat, sed ibi aduersa illaqueatus fortuna in manus inimicorum inciderat, et in uinculis cohercitus mundanaque felicitate priuatus, longæ miseriae trenos depromere didicerat. Interea rex Cestrensem consulatum Hugoni de Abrincis filio Ricardi cognomento Goz concessit...

[The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. M. Chibnall, vol.2, p.260 (Oxford, 1990).
Complete Peerage, vol.3, p.164, states that Gerbod was made Earl of Chester "early in 1070". Unfortunately, CP does not cite evidence for any of its statements about Gerbod. The date given may depend on this passage from Orderic. Note, though, that Orderic was wrong about the timing of at least one other earldom: he says that William fitz Osbern was made Earl of Hereford in 1070, but this is known to have taken place at least 2 years earlier.]

(ii) Orderic Vitalis: the grant of the earldom to Hugh of Avranches

[Hugh of Avranches was given the county of Chester after Gerbod the Fleming returned to his own people.]

Ex his Hugo Abrincatensis Ricardi cognomine Goz filius inter ceteros magnates effulsit, cui postquam Gherbodus Flandrensis ad suos recessit; rex comitatum Cestrensem consilio prudentum concessit.

[Ibid., vol.3, p.216.
R.H. George, in Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, vol.5, p.87 (1926), cites a notification of William I addressed to Peter, Bishop of Chester, Earl William Fitz Osbern and Hugh, earl of Chester (printed in H.W.C. Davis, Regesta, 57), and points out that as Earl William was killed at the Battle of Cassel, 22 February 1071, Hugh must have been given the earldom of Chester before this date. If we accept that Gerbod was made Earl of Chester in 1070, it seems difficult to find time for the long imprisonment described by Orderic, before Gerbod's reappearance at the Battle of Cassel, described below.]

The chronicle of Hyde Abbey: the death of Gerbod

[At this time Gerbod the Earl of Chester died, the brother of the Countess Gundred; coming into Flanders he was ambushed by his enemies and perished miserably.]

Quo tempore Comes Cistrensis decessit Gerbodo, frater Gondradæ Comitissæ, Flandriamque veniens, inimicorum præventus insidiis miserabiliter periit.

[Liber Monasterii de Hyda, p.296 (Rolls Series 45; London, 1866). This statement immediately follows the accounts of Frederick's murder by Hereward (which Clay dates to c.1070) and of the plot of Ralph, Earl of Norfolk, against William I (in 1075).
The statement suggests that Gerbod was killed on his return to Flanders, which conflicts with the other accounts above. Note also that Gundred was never a countess, as her husband was not made an earl until after her death (Complete Peerage, vol.12, part 1, p.494).] 

Gherbod at the battle of Cassel, 22 February 1071.

The chronicle of St Hubert's Abbey in the Ardennes [Arnold of Flanders was killed by his uncle Robert Frison, by the hand of a certain Gerbod ("Gerbodo"), who in penitence went to Pope Gregory VII in Rome. He was sentenced to have his hands cut off, but pardoned because of his steadfastness, and sent instead to Hugh, the abbot of Cluny, under whom he would serve for the rest of his life.]

24.(34.) Erat non longe a maiori ecclesia fiscus Caviniacus
x patrimonio Richeldis Montensis comitissae, quae viduata Balduino iuvene Flandrensium comite, Flandras amiserat, occiso filio suo Arnulfo a patruo eius Roberto Frisone, per manus cuiusdam Gerbadonis. Qui Gerbaldo non multo post confusus conscientia tantae iniustitiae et temeritatis Romam petiit, et manus quibus dominum suum interfecerat domno papae Gregorio VII. pro poenitentia eiusdem criminis detruncandas obtulit. Gregorius executionem huius detruncationis magistro coquorum suorum publice commisit. Educto Gerbodone ad poenam quam decreverat pati, praedictum ministrum papa revocari praecepit, eique secreto edixit, ut si elevato ferro aliquo modo manibus motis titubaret continuo eas incideret; si vero constanter persisteret, patientiae persistentis statim retento ictu parceret. Gerbodo ad ictum persistit, statimque incolumem deputatus percussor papae repraesentavit. Laetatus papa sic provenisse paenitentiam Gerbodonis, manus quas de truncandas obtulerat iam non suas sed Domini esse iudicavit, praecepitque ei ut per dominum Hugonem Cluniensem abbatem revertens, referret ei omnem rei ordinem, seque eius consilio crederet. Ille ad abbatem veniens, eius exhortationibus credidit, et postea eximius sub eo monachus claruit.⁹⁷

96. Chévigny.
97. Arnulfum a Gerbodone interfectum esse, et totam de hoc narrationem eisdem fere verbis refert Gislebertus in Chron. Hannoniae, ed Du Chasteler p.6,7.

[From Chronicon S. Huberti Andaginensis, printed in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptorum vol.8, p.582 (Hanover, 1868). The numbering, and the Latin text, of the footnotes have been retained.]

The chronicle of Gilbert of Mons (chronicle of Hainaut)

[Arnold of Flanders was killed by Gerbod, with his own hands, who in penitence went to the Pope in Rome. He was sentenced to have his hands cut off, but pardoned because of his steadfastness, and sent instead to the abbot of Cluny, who made him a monk, and afterwards he was distinguished by good works and religion in the church of Cluny.]

Cecidit eciam Arnulphus, justus Flandrie heres, et a quodam homine suo ligio, Gerbodone nomine, interfectus fuit ...
... De Gerbodone, qui dominum suum Arnulphum manibus propriis interfecit, preter mittendum non est quod ille penitentia ductus, Romam adiens pedibus summi pontificis se prostravit confitens tanti sceleris peccatum. Ad hec dominus papa cuidam coquo suo manifeste indixit et eum foras induceret, eique manus quibus dominum suum interfecerat, abscinderet. Injunxit autem ei secretius ut si ad extensionem ictus manus illius trepidarent, illas ei abscinderet continuo; si non trepidarent, illum ad se sanum reduceret. Ductus vero Gerbodo ad supplicium, stetit manibus immotis et nequaquam trepidantibus. Quod videns coquus illum ad dominum papam reduxit. Dominus papa illi injunxit titulo penitentie ut ad abbatem Cluniacensem reverteretur, et ejus preceptis obediret. Cujus intentionem bonam ipse abbas percipiens, illum in monachum ordinavit; qui postea operibus bonis et religione in Cluniacensi ecclesia claruit.

[Printed in La chronicque de Gislebert de Mons, ed. L. Vanderkindere, p.8 (Brussels, [1904]). The editor comments that the whole of this passage seems to be inspired by the Chronicle of St Hubert, and asks whether this Gerbod is connected with those who were advocates of St Bertin's (apparently he accepts Stapleton's theory that one of these had married Matilda of Flanders before she became the wife of William the Conqueror - although this theory had been demolished some years earlier).] 

Charter to St Bertin's Abbey, [?]1075, with the consent of Gerbod the advocate

[Confirmation of Drogo, bishop of Morins, to Abbot Herbert of St Bertin, dated 1075, with the consent of Gerbod the advocate.]

... Actum hoc Verbi incarnati millesimo septuagesimo quinto anno, indictione tercia decima, regnante Philippo Francorum rege, episcopii mei anno quadragesimo sexto, in ecclesia sancte Dei genetricis Marie, coram universali sinodo, decimo sexto kalendas novembris, astantibus bonis et ydoneis testimonio viris. Nomina testium:
Signum Drogonis, episcopi, qui hanc traditionis cartam fieri jussit et recenseri fecit. Signum Arnulfi et Humberti, archidiaconorum. Signum Ermengeri, abbatis sancti Winnoci. Signum Balduini, prepositi sancti Audomari. Signum Geroldi, decani. Signum Grimelandi, cantoris.

In a vidimus of 1372 appears the clause: Preterea vero, ad petitionem memorati abbatis et fratrum, una cum voluntate et assensu Gerbodonis advocati, sacravimus principalis ecclesie sancti Bertini atrium, ubi idem sanctus corpore quiescit, ab ipsa videlicet ecclesia circumquaque usque ad medium fluminis Agnione, quo ejusdem cenobii insula cingitur. Si quis vero etc.

[The confirmation was printed by Guérard, p.192, from a cartulary of c.1500. The additional clause, mentioning Gerbod, was printed by Haigneré, no 83, from an 18th-century copy of a vidimus of 1372. Guérard's version is dated 1075; Haigneré accepts this date, but notes that the vidimus has 1070 instead of 1075, and the 8th indiction instead of the 13th, although the episcopal year is the 46th, as in Guérard's version.]

Lewes Priory documents, c.1078-1082 and later

Charter of William of Warenne to Cluny [for the foundation of Lewes, c.1078-1082]

[William of Warenne and Gundred his wife, with the consent of William I, give to Cluny specified property, including the vill of Falmer as Gundred held it.]

Notum sit omnibus fidelibus quod ego Willelmus de Warenna . et Gundreda uxor mea pro redemptione animarum nostrarum consilio et assensu domini nostri regis Anglorum Guillelmi . donamus Deo et sanctis apostolis eius Petro et Paulo . ad locum Cluniacum ubi preest domnus Hugo abbas in eadem Anglorum terra ecclesiam sancti Pancracii cum his que ad eam pertinent . et terram duarum carrucarum in proprio in Suamberga . cum uillanis ad eam pertinentibus . et unius in terra que nuncupatur . et uillam Falemelam . ubi sunt tres carruce proprie . cum his omnibus que ad eam pertinent . sicut tenebat eam supradicta uxor mea.
In nomine Domini nostri Ihesu Christi ego Guillelmus Dei gratia rex Anglorum inspiratione diuina compunctus pro incolomitate regni mei et salute anime mee . rogantibus etiam et obnixe postulantibus Willelmo de Warenna et uxore eius Gundreda hanc inscriptam donationem quam faciunt sanctis apostolis Dei . P[etro] et P[aulo] ad locum Cluniacum sigillo nostro signatam confirmo . et regali auctoritate corroboro . ut in perpetuum firma et inconcussa permaneat. Hanc donationem ita concedo ut habeam eandem dominationem in ea . quam habeo in ceteris elemosinis quas mei proceres faciunt meo nutu . et hoc in ista elemosina habeam . quod habeam in aliis.
+ signum Willelmi regis Anglorum + signum M[athildis] regine Anglorum + s[ignum] Willelmi comitis filii regis . + signum Willelmi de Warenna . + s[ignum] Gundrede uxoris W[illelmi] de Warenna . + s[ignum] Rotberti de Bellomonte . + sig[num] Henrici de Bellomonte . + s[ignum] Rotberti de Gifardi . + s[ignum] Rogeri de Mortuomari . + s[ignum] Goisfridi de Caluomonte . + s[ignum] Radulfi dapiferi . + s[ignum] Mauricii cancellarii.

[Printed in Clay, op. cit., vol.8, p.54, from the original charter in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Clay dates this charter to c.1078-1082.] 
Now it should be noted that Cluny was from where the Prior and three or four monks [Brothers] were sent to occupy the Lewes Priory and that among these monks were probably Gherbod and Frederick, both of whom were mentioned several times and yet none of the historians were able to place them other than to state that both were brothers to William De Warren and Gundrada his wife! Perhaps this is the beginning of evidence that will show that Frederick [Brother to William and Gherbod] and Gherbod [brother to Gundrada and Frederick] were actually simply being called Brother and Sister because of the Monks now being part of the Warren family at Lewes.

(ii) Notification by William I of his confirmation of the gift of William of Warenne and his wife, c.1078-1082

Wuillelmus rex Anglorum Lanfranco archiepiscopo et Ottoni Bajocensi salutem. Sciatis quia concedo ut sanctus Petrus de Cluniaco habeat illam terram quam Willelmus de Warenna suaque femina ei tribuunt, scilicet Falemelam, et super hoc tantum unde habeant vj carrucas in dominium cum hominibus qui ad vj carrucatas terre pertinent, tali pacto ut abbas predicti loci Willelmo sueque femine faciat hoc quod eis propter hoc pepigit, et ego inde habeam quod ad me pertinet, scilicet meum wergeldum, nisi indulsero.

[Printed in Clay, op. cit., vol.8, p.55, from the Cluny cartulary.]

(iii) Confirmation by William I, of the manor of [West] Walton, to Lewes, 1081-1083

[Confirmation by William I to the monastery of St Pancras at Lewes, for the souls of Edward the Confessor and others, including William of Warenne and his wife Gundred, of the manor of [West] Walton in Norfolk.]

Notum sit presentibus et futuris quod ego Willelmus g[?racia Dei] rex Anglorum concedo monasterio sancti Pancratii quod situm est apud Leuuas . pro anima domini et antecessoris mei regis Euuardi . et pro anima patris mei comitis Rotberti . et pro mea ipsius anima et uxoris mee Matildis regine . et filiorum atque successorum meorum . et pro anima Guillelmi de Uuarenna et uxoris sue Gun[dre]de ...* quandam mansionem in Norfolc nomine Waltona cum omnibus que ad eandem mansionem pertinent . que Willelmus ad illam mansionem tenet de me. Concedo etiam ut monachi in eodem monasterio conversantes et conuersaturi ea libertate possideant . qua ecclesie quas barones mei me concedente construunt possident elemosinas quas ego eis concessi. Et ita quod ego in ista elemosina habeam . quicquid in illis habeo. Et ut donatio hec firma et inconcussa perpetuo maneat . signo sancte crucis manu propria confirmaui . et manibus fidelium meorum testificandum liberaui
S. Willelmi regis ... S. Willelmi filii regis. S. Hainrici filii regis. S. Willelmi de Warenna S. Thome archiepiscopi S. Osmundi episcopi S. Wauchelini episcopi S. Remigii episcopi S. Willelmi episcopi Dunelmensis S. Hainrici S. Richardi de Ton... S. Milonis Crispini S. Walteri Giffardi S. Eduuardi uicecomitis.

[Printed in Clay, op. cit., vol.8, p.56, from Cotton MS Vespasian F. iii, no 1. Two of the witnesses names are now illegible.
*Above part of this illegible phrase is written, in a much later hand, "filie mee" - implying that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror.][and was according to specialists in the field of ancient Latin, simply a fill in for what had faded due to time and the rubbing in of Gall.]

(iv) Gift by William of Warenne to Lewes Priory

[William, the first Earl, with the consent of his son the second Earl, gave us, for the soul of Gundred his wife, [West] Walton and its [named] appurtenances.]

Willelmus comes primus, concedente filio suo secundo Comite, dedit nobis pro anima Gundrade uxoris sue Waltuna cum pertinentiis suis, scilicet, dimidiam Walpolam et terram de Chenewica et terram Brunsuen ...

[Printed by Stapleton, p.2, from Cotton MS, Vespasian E.11, "an early fragment of a register of Lewes".]

(v) Gift to Lewes Priory, purportedly by Queen Matilda

[Carlton, which Queen Matilda the mother of King Henry and* the Countess Gundred gave, and the same Gundred gave to us.]

Karletuna quam dedit Matildis regina mater Henrici regis et* Gundredæ comitissæ et ipsa Gundreda dedit nobis: locata fuit pro x. libris.

[Printed by Clay, op. cit., p.44, citing Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum vol.5, p.14; R.E. Chester Waters, Gundrada de Warenne ..., p.13 (Exeter, 1884) gives the same extract, from Cotton MS Vespasian F iii, fo.1.
*Waters suggests that the word "et" has been inserted, to give the reading "which Queen Matilda, the mother of King Henry and the Countess Gundred gave", and that it originally read "which Queen Matilda the mother of King Henry gave to the Countess Gundred". Clay (p.44) regards this argument as convincing, pointing out that the same gift is also referred to in two spurious Lewes charters - (vi) and (vii) below - and that there is no reason to doubt that Matilda did give Gundred the manor of Carlton. Even if this is the case, the entry above is inaccurate in referring to Gundred as a countess, as she died before her husband was made an earl (Complete Peerage, vol.12, part 1, p.494).][Gundred, by her marriage to William de Warren became Countess de Guarrine of Bellecombre in Normandy just as William was Count  de Guarrine of that place.

(vi) Extract from a spurious charter of William of Warenne to Cluny

[William of Warenne and his wife Gundred, wishing to make a pilgrimage to St Peter's in Rome ... coming into Burgundy, were told that they could not safely cross on account of the war between the pope and the emperor, and turned aside to the monastery of Cluny.]

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritu Sancti. Amen, Ego Willelmus de Warenna et Gundrada, uxor mea, volentes peregrinationem facere ad Sanctum Petrum in Roma, pereximus per plura monasteria que sunt in Francia et Burgundia, causa orationis; et cum venissemus in Burgundiam, didicimus quod non potuimus secure transire propter guerram que fuit tunc inter papam et imperatorem, et tunc divertimus ad Cluniacum monasterium ...

[This extract is from a copy made in 1417, printed in Recueil des chartes de l'Abbaye de Cluny, ed A. Bruel, vol.4, p.689 (no 3561) (Paris, 1888). (Another version is in the Lewes cartulary, compiled in 1444.)
A footnote says that the conflict that caused the pilgrims' detour was that between the Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, which had started up again after the submission of the emperor at Canossa in 1077.
Clay, op. cit., vol.8, pp.59-62, discusses this charter at length, and supports the earlier conclusion that the charter is spurious, both on stylistic grounds and because some of its statements - including the reference to Queen Matilda as the mother of Gundred - are contradicted by other evidence. Clay concludes that the charter was written almost certainly later than 1201, and possibly as late as the start of the 15th century.][what this means is that an historian or monk, in trying to save a decaying charter, rewrote it, just as 19th century historians were trying to do with charters from 1069-1100 except that the monks were a little more religiously concerned with ancient material and could speak fluent Latin].

(vii) Spurious confirmation charter of William II of Warenne to Lewes

[William, Earl of Surrey, confirms to the monastery of St Pancras, which his father and his mother Gundred founded beneath the castle of Lewes, all the gifts that his father made in his lifetime, his mother being willing and he and his brother Reynold consenting.]

Sciant omnes qui sunt et qui futuri sunt quod ego Willelmus de Warenna comes Surregie cum primum post mortem patris mei comitis Willelmi venissem in Angliam et intrassem in capitulum monasterii sancti Pancratii quod fundaverunt pater meus et mater mea Gundrada sub castro Lewiarum, requisitus a domino Lanzone priore ... libens laudavi, concessi, donavi et confirmavi ... omnes donaciones et concessiones et confirmaciones quas eis fecerat et omnia que eis donaverat pater meus vivente et volente matre mea et concencientibus me et Rainaldo fratre meo in terris et in ecclesiis et decimis ...

[Printed by Clay, op. cit., vol.8, p.63. Clay notes that the form of the charter is suspicious, and identifies six separate anachronisms in the text. He concludes that the charter is a forgery, made before c.1306.][This confirms how low Waters and company would stoop to get rid of another part of Norman history, they even take the attack onward to the son of William De Warren and call his charter spurious and in effect, both he and his brother liars. Remember that the Warrens were extremely religious and that drawing up spurious charters was not in their interest and in fact what purpose would it serve?]

Fifteenth-century narrative pedigrees
[Translation from the Latin:] William the first Earl Warenne took to wife Gundrada daughter of William the conqueror of England; of whom issued William the second Earl Warenne.

William the First de Warenne first Earl of Surrey and founder of the church of Lewes died 24 June in the year of grace 1088, and of the foundation of the church in the 11th, and from the conquest the 23rd. He at first was only called simply William de Warenne. But afterwards in the course of time by William the King and Conqueror of England, whose daughter he married, he was much honoured and was made and called Earl of Surrey. He lies in the Chapterhouse of Lewes beside Lady Gundrada his Countess daughter of the said King, the Conqueror. This Earl continued through the whole time of William the Conqueror, for 20 years, and for one year in the time of King William II Rufus.

[Translation from the French:] William de Garenne first Earl of Surrey had to wife Gundrade daughter of the Conqueror and begot by her two sons William the second and Reinaud. This William the first Earl came to England with the said Conqueror and founded this Priory the twelfth year after the Conquest which was the year of our Lord 1078.

[Printed in translation, Sussex Record Society, vol.40, p.14, 15, 19 (1934), from a Lewes cartulary compiled in 1444. Another version, relating Gundred's death, in 1085 is given below. Of course, these narratives are so late that they have little authority.][These charters were copied in 1444 by Monks wishing to save decaying material, so for what reason would they seek to change this material in the sight of their God?]

Letter of Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Henry I, prohibiting the marriage of Gundred's son to the king's daughter [1100-1109]

[Archbishop Anselm writes to Henry to prohibit the marriage of his daughter and William of Warenne, because they are cousins in the fourth generation on the one part and in the sixth on the other.]

Henrico charissimo suo domino, Dei gratia regi Anglorum, Anselmus Archiepiscopus, fidele servitium cum orationibus.
Gratias ago Deo pro bona voluntate, quam vobis dedit, et vobis qui eam servare studetis. Quaerit consilium celsitudo vestra quid sibi faciendum sit de hoc 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. Scitote absque dubio quia nullum pactum servari debet contra legem Christianitatis. Illi autem, si ita propinqui sunt, nullo modo legitime copulari possunt, neque sine damnatione animarum suarum neque sine magno peccato eorum qui hoc ut fiat procurabant. Precor igitim et consulo vobis ex parte Dei sicut charissimo domino, ut nullatenus vos hinc peccato misceatis, neque filiam vestram eidem Guillelmo contra legem et voluntatem Dei tradatis. Omnipotens Deus dirigat vos et omnes actus vestros in bene placito suo.

[Printed by Chester Waters, p.10, from Migne's Patrologia, vol.159, Epistolæ S. Anselmi Cantuar book 4, letter 84. I haven't seen a specific date suggested for this letter, but as Henry was king and Anselm archbishop, it must at least have been written between 1100 and 1109.
This letter was used by R.E. Chester Waters as strong circumstantial evidence against the old belief that Gundred was the daughter of Queen Matilda. If this had been the case, the parties referred to in the letter would have been first cousins, and he argued that, if this were so, it would be absurd for Anselm to have prohibited the marriage on the grounds of a far more distant relationship. The relationship specified has always been understood to refer to the parties' common descent from the parents of Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy. The descent of the Warennes from a niece of Gunnora has been accepted since at least c.1140. However, it has recently been questioned by Keats-Rohan (Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol.37, p.21 (1993)), and this raises the possibility that the parties may instead have been related through some Flemish connection between Queen Matilda and Gundred instead. An alternative explanation is that the traditional Warenne descent - even if mistaken - may have been believed early enough to account for Anselm's statement.] [another very odd document gathered up by Waters, for all the world this looks like a transcript regarding the applied for marriage by William Duke of Normandy when he wanted to wed his Matilda. William King of England was told by the Pope that he could not marry Matilda because they were too closely related being one fourth cousins on one side and one sixth on the other, the same as is written above.  Has Waters mistakenly taken the one story from the other? Note that the Bishop does not name the daughter [there were five, three named Matilda, one Sybilla and one Alice, most were born between 1092 [Matilda] and 1103 with the earliest girls already having their lives sorted out by the time the Bishop wrote this very suspect letter if in fact he wrote it at all. Waters does not explain how, in a very religious time, the Bishop could have a child [William 2nd] of Gundrada applying to marry a first cousin [unnamed daughter of Henry 1st] and receiving a letter from Bishop Anselm between 1103 and 1109 about a marriage to one of three girls from different women by Henry, the daughters that were possibles were all around the age of 7 or 8 years old when the letter was written.]


GERBOD (-after 22 Feb 1071).  Earl of Chester: Orderic Vitalis records that King William had “iamdudum” granted “Cestram et comitatum eius” to “Gherbodo Flandrensi”, who was harried ceaselessly “ab Anglis quam a Guallis”, who was granted permission by the king to return to Flanders but was captured and imprisoned, dated to 1071.  The Complete Peerage states that he returned to Flanders where he fought and was captured at the battle of Cassel 22 Feb 1071 “and kept captive for a long period, never coming back to England” (no primary source cited)].  same person as...?  GERBOD [II] (-[after 6 Jan 1056]).  .  The Complete Peerage says that Gerbod Earl of Chester was “avoué of the abbey of St Bertin” without stating the primary source on which this information is based.  If correct, the chronology suggests that he was Gerbod [II].  However, this co-identity is not ideal considering that Gundred, sister of Gerbod Earl of Chester, married in 1070, which suggests that her brother was a relatively young man when appointed earl by the English king.  Another possibility is that the sources, quoted below, in which Gerbod [II] is named in fact refer to two different avoués named Gerbod, and that the earl of Chester was the same person who was named only in 1056.  "…Gerbodonis advocati, Ernulfi advocati…" signed the charter dated 1026 under which "Balduinus Taruannensis ecclesia episcopus" exchanged property with the abbot of Saint-Bertin.  ["…Gerbodonis advocati" signed the charter dated 6 Jan 1042 under which Baudouin V Count of Flanders settled the entitlements of the avoués of Saint-Bertin in the seigneurie of Arques.  "Dominum Bovonem abbatem et advocatem huius loci Gerbodonem" settled a dispute relating to "villa sancti Bertini Arkas" by undated charter, placed in the compilation with other charters dated 1056].  Baudouin V Count of Flanders confirmed privileges relating to "villa sanct Bertini Arkas", settling a dispute between "abbatis Bovonis et Gerbodonis advocati", by charter dated 6 Jan 1056[ All of the above is supposition and incorrect, the Complete Peerage should be ashamed to have included this spurious and unsupported data in it's files.

GUNDRED

If one takes a look at the below data, it can be seen just how low

these incredibly inept historians have stooped. Even here, the

Author has completely ignored the fact that William De Warren 1st

Earl of Surrey, has written into his charter that "domine mee

Matildis regine, matris uxoris meae" [Queen Matilda, mother of

my wife] Never in all my years, have I ever seen such an attempt at

such vandalism as this, these are men that have dug[daled]

themselves into a very deep hole and are unable to find a way out so

they resort to calling everything a forgery no matter when or by

whom it was written.

 GUNDRED (-Castle Acre, Norfolk 27 May 1085, bur Lewes Priory).  Orderic Vitalis records that King William I granted "Sutregiam" to "Guillelmo de Guarenna" who had married "Gundredam sororem Gherbodi".  "Willelmus de Warenna…Surreie comes [et] Gundrada uxor mea" founded Lewes Priory as a cell of Cluny by charter dated 1080.  This charter also names "domine mee Matildis regine, matris uxoris mee", specifying that the Queen gave "mansionem quoque Carlentonam nomine" to Gundred.  It is presumably on this basis that some secondary works claim, it appears incorrectly, that Gundred was the daughter of William I King of England.  Weir asserts that the charter in question "has been proved spurious", although it is not certain what other elements in the text indicate that this is likely to be the case.  Assuming the charter is genuine, it is presumably possible that "matris" was intended in the context to indicate a quasi-maternal relationship, such as foster-mother or godmother.  The same relationship is referred to in the charter dated to [1080/86] under which William I King of England donated property in Norfolk to Lewes priory, for the souls of “…Gulielmi de Warenna et uxoris suæ Gundfredæ filiæ meæ”.  Gundred died in childbirth.  The necrology of Longpont records the death “VII Kal Jun” of “Gondreda comitissa”m (1070) as his first wife, William De Warenne son of RAOUL de Warenne & his [first wife Beatrix ---] (-Lewes 24 Jun 1088, bur Lewes Priory).  He was created Earl of Surrey in [late Apr] 1088. 

3.   FREDERIC (-[after 1086]).  Domesday Book records that “William” held land in Trumpington village, Cambridgeshire, in the land of “William de Warenne”, adding that “Toki” held it from the bishop of Ely in the time of King Edward and that “afterwards Frederick William’s brother had this land”[20].  The implication of the passage is that “William” was “William de Warenne”, and that “Frederick” was therefore his brother.  It is assumed that “brother” was used in a broad sense and that Frederic was William’s brother-in-law.  Domesday Book records the lands of William de Warenne in Norfolk, including in Greenhoe Hundred “Acre...this is of the fief of Frederick”[21]. [Here we have exactly what I am talking about when I stated that Gherbod and Frederick were Brothers at Lewes Priory with Gherbod belonging to Gundrada and Frederick belonging to William De Warren, not as slaves but as religious brothers and sisters within Castle Lewes and the Priory. For some reason it has become necessary for modern historians to want to show Brothers as being related when even today, many people not at all related refer to themselves as brothers or sisters to those of the same persuasion] 

Gundrada's Epitaph at Lewes Priory

+ STIRPS . GVNDRADA . DVCV' . DEC[VS] . EVI . NOBILE . GERMEN : INTVLIT . ECCLESIIS . ANGLORV' . BALSAMA . MORV' . MARTIR ... [F]VIT . MISERIS . FVIT . EX . PIETATE . MARIA . PARS . OBIIT . MARTHE . SVP'EST . PARS . MAGNA . MARIE . O. PIE . PANCRATI . TES[TIS . PIE]TATIS . ET . EQ[VI] . TE . FACIT . HEREDE' . TV . CLEMENS . SVSCIPE . MATREM . SEXTA . KALENDARV' . IVNII . LVX . OBVIA . CARNIS . I'FREGIT . ALABASTRV' ...

[Victoria County History, Sussex, vol.7, p.49; the gravestone is now in Southover Church in Lewes.
Various more or less speculative attempts have been made to explain the reference to Gundred as "the stock of dukes", but there is no definite evidence to explain the statement.] 

The above statement by a person of a very low nature is perhaps the worst assassination attempt on Gundada's Royal blood that one could ever behold, especially when here it is written on her Grave Stone "The Blood of Dukes [Duke William the Conqueror] and of Noble Royals [From her mother Queen Matilda] run in her veins". Gundrada died about 1085 in childbirth but was buried as one of Royal blood with [in fact] the same identical tombstone as her mother.

Below is the original written work of Chester Waters who was inclined to follow the original documents and beliefs regarding the Norman Royal Family, he was soon swayed by Stapletons erroneous work and had dug himself too deep a hole to get out of by the time Stapleton was discredited.

 
                                          GUNDRADA DE WARRENNE
                                  From the work of Edmond Chester Waters

 Chester Waters makes his first foray against Gundrada when he offers up only part of her tombstone epitaph, he like all of the rogue historians who became inclined to try and destroy the Norman conquerors by the pen and not the sword. He takes part of the first line from Gundrada's tombstone and tells us that in Latin, the words on her tombstone says she is sprung from Dukes.

"Stirps Gundrada Ducum, Decusaevi, Nobile Germen." a timeless beauty of nobility.

Waters then goes on to say that the charters of Lewes and King William's grant of the manor of Walton were contradictoory to Odericus Vitalis. How droll, Odericus Vitalis did not write his work until almost 100 years after these events took place. Is the Domesday book also an erroneous manuscript, is the Bayeaux Tapestry also erroneous? "O what a tangled web ye weave when first ye practice to deceive". One should first place all of this within the English bread basket by saying that Gundrada was truly the daughter of Queen Matilda and King William of England and if this barrage of rubbish keeps flying about, the Royalty of the past present and future will be in one fine mess because Gundrada has at least eleven Royal families out of the first 96 Royal families of England. These eleven have all been traced through Gundrada. 

It is here that Waters then quotes Dugdales "Baronage" which work also followed Odericus down the back passage. Dugdale quotes Odericus also when he states that Gundrada was the sister of Gherbod the Fleming. So we have a small group of historians flopping about like fish out of water trying to embellish the flawed work of Odericus Vitalis and when they realised their errors, they tried harder to cover themselves by trying to show that the charters and tomstone writings had been forged or interferred with. When they realised that they could not show Queen Matilda as having had a previous marriage before she married Duke William, they then had to figure out how they could fit Gherbod in as Gundrada's brother. What better way than to then state, against all 11 pedigrees, against long established history and family history, that Gundrada was not the daughter of William and Matilda. Waters goes on with his struggle trying to find ways to offer up something that will help him out of the mire that his collegues have helped him into.So he states that so many of his contemporaries now believe Stapletons words that Queen Matila hd been married before and that Gherbod and Gundrada were children of that union. Finally, Waters tries to make himself the hero of the situation this mad mob had plowed their way into. He states that he was in complete agreement with Stapleton, Freeman and Odericus until he could find fresh evidence. He waited a while and then tells us that he was reading some 9 years before, the letters of St Anselm, Archbishop of Cantebury 1073.1109. when suddenly he comes upon a letter from Anselm to King Henry [brother of Gundrada son of King William] He states increduously that this letter had been previously overlooked by all and sundry and that he was the only one to pick up on it. [We don't want another hero]. He states that this letter shows beyond doubt that Gundrada was not the daughter of Queen Matilda by King William or any other husband. 

The Letter 

The letter is rather strange and does not read like a letter would read coming from an Archbishop, it is a declaration that William De Warren II was not allowed to marry King Henry's natural daughter  because they were related on the sixth generation on one side and the fourth generation on the other.This appears odd because if Gundred and King Henry were brother and sister, then their natural children would have been first cousins. So how were they related to such a far out degree? Another thing is that this letter has never been recognised by publications since Waters allegedly found it.
I personally believe that this is a reference to the refusal by the Pope of the marriage of Duke William amd Queen Matilda. It is too ridiculous that Waters would expect that the Archbishop would not know the relationship of William de Warrenne to Henry King od England through his wife Gundrada. I also believe that a simple answer to the Gherbod the Fleming and Frederick brother of William de Warrene can be solved with perhaps this thought.  Most of the nobles under the Duke of Normandy, including the Duke himself had "Brothers" who were their confessors and helpmates. Could this be the reason that "Sister" Gundrada was said to have had Gherbod as "Brother". William de Warren has a "Brother" named Frederick and this is also odd because he is not mentioned in anything not connected in some way to the church. Duke William has a "Brother" named Odo who is made a Bishop. I am suspicious of the term "Brother" for as we know, Monks were called Brothers. It is also obvious that the "Brothers" were sent from Cluny in France/Normandy where William de Warren and his wife Gundrada [daughter of King William and Queen Matila of England stayed whilst arranging for Monks to be housed at Lewes Priory in Kent. That someone has made a serious error whilst translating Latin is obvious, I am unsure if Ordericus Vitalis, Dugdale or even Archbishop Anselmo have been the main suspects but thay have all made errors in their histories. The Archbishop was no lover of the English, he had numerous fights with King William Rufus [son of Duke William the Conqueror] and Henry 1st [also a son of Duke William] and although I have serious doubts that the Archbishop ever wrote such a letter to King Henry [I am sure that the King being religiously minded would never have suggested a marriage of first cousin to first cousin] or in fact suggested a marriage of two adults when in fact the girl [unnamed] would have been far too young for even a Muslim marriage. It is too ridiculous to even give it credence. 
Perhaps it is Waters who appears to get very disjoined when he cannot rid himself of William de Warren's words; "and my wife Gundrada and Queen Matilda, mother of my wife". To contemplate that major charters telling of gifts given to the Priory at Lewes and in Norfolk arae forgeries is contemptible, especially from 19th century historians who were obviously lacking in their knowledge of Latin, at least in the fullest translation of words of the period. 

William De Waren had no family relationship with Gherbod the Fleming and Gundrada can only be described as a foster sister to Gherbod as perhaps his mother was the Queens foster carer for the Queens young chjildren or perhaps it was a Brotherly Monk thing. 
Anselm's Letter
Now I say that this letter is strange because King William and Queen Matilda were refused marriage based upon the same grounds, that they were related and it took two churches and two years to get a special dispensation. the second reason is that Archbishop Anselm had such wonderful records of the family tree of all the nobles, then where are they now, what has happened to this wonderful record of family trees during that period? Waters agrees that his "letter" is flawed but that it basically proves that Gundrada is not of the blood royal. He then tries to take down the charters and other historic material from the time of the conquest and thereafter by stating that the monks in all abbeys were prone to falsification. It is now that I have finally acceptted that Mr Waters had gone stark raving mad in his diatribe against the Charters, he blatently begins calling them forgeries and anything else he can set his mind to doing without realising that he is reliant on and depending on papers that were written during the 15th century and not at the time of the conquest. He states that what he has gained from Odericus and Bishop Anselm prove his point and that everything he has put forward has come from absolutely legal proven unfaded documents from the 15th century and that they are correct and not those written by the persons involved. What Waters states and how he states it it tantamount to listening to a raving madman and it is only because he is not among the living that I do not state further to lower his historian  flag. He has the gall to state that the monks at Lewes priory were liars and forgers whilst Bishop Anselm 15 years later was the epitome of honesty. Mr Waters must have died a very frustrated man because toward the end of his work, his anger breaks through at not being able to destroy the statement made by William De Warren that said "Queen Matilda, the mother of my wife Gundrada". Waters anger increased to such a state that he denounced William De Warren's charters as forgeries and fraud. Now why would such a forgery be made, the charter was a simple thing thanking family and giving certain goods etc to the monks, so why a forgery?

All that can be said for now now is that  
"Controversy will have it's say, 
until Gundrada has her day. 
For truth will finally have it's way, 
when first we test their DNA".

"May God meet those who oppose and destroy these [that I have put in place] with the sword of anger, fury, and vengeance, and eternal malediction; but may God meet those who preserve and defend them, in peace, grace, and mercy, and eternal salvation. Amen, Amen, Amen." 
William De Warren 1087.