Companions of William the Conqueror

[Eric Kniffin]

So many threads on this. I randomly picked this one.

Just reading the section on Arundel in The Dormant and Extinct Baronage of England, by T.C. Banks. Regarding Roger de Montgomery, it says:
"He was also one of the council which proposed the invasion of England; and led the centre of the Norman army in the famous battle of Hastings, where king Harold was slain, and his crown obtained by the duke of Normandy."

Anybody know his source of that? I've never heard it said he was at Hastings, and have heard it said he was NOT at Hastings.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
So many threads on this. I randomly picked this one.
"He was also one of the council which proposed the invasion of England; and led the centre of the Norman army in the famous battle of Hastings, where king Harold was slain, and his crown obtained by the duke of Normandy."
Anybody know his source of that? I've never heard it said he was at Hastings, and have heard it said he was NOT at Hastings.

He wasn't, as explained by JFA MAson in ODNB:

"In the years before 1066 Roger de Montgomery extended his influence in
the Hièmois and the Alençonnais; his career culminated, in the duchy at
least, in his appointment as adviser ... to Duchess Matilda in the
government of Normandy during Duke William's invasion of England
(1066–7). Hence neither Roger himself nor his teenage elder sons were
present at Hastings. When King William returned to England in November
1067 after his visit to Normandy, Roger returned with him, and grants to
him of lands in England quickly followed."

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Eric Kniffin
So many threads on this. I randomly picked this one.
"He was also one of the council which proposed the invasion of England; and led the centre of the Norman army in the famous battle of Hastings, where king Harold was slain, and his crown obtained by the duke of Normandy."
Anybody know his source of that? I've never heard it said he was at Hastings, and have heard it said he was NOT at Hastings.

"In the years before 1066 Roger de Montgomery extended his influence in
the Hièmois and the Alençonnais; his career culminated, in the duchy at
least, in his appointment as adviser ... to Duchess Matilda in the
government of Normandy during Duke William's invasion of England
(1066–7). Hence neither Roger himself nor his teenage elder sons were
present at Hastings. When King William returned to England in November
1067 after his visit to Normandy, Roger returned with him, and grants to
him of lands in England quickly followed."
Peter Stewart

Thanks. Yes, that's what I've always read everywhere else. I just wonder why Banks wrote that. He wrote specific information, not simply, "He was at Hastings." It seems very odd to me. Did he make it up entirely? Did he accidentally confuse Montgomery with someone else?

Eric

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Eric Kniffin
So many threads on this. I randomly picked this one.
"He was also one of the council which proposed the invasion of England; and led the centre of the Norman army in the famous battle of Hastings, where king Harold was slain, and his crown obtained by the duke of Normandy."
Anybody know his source of that? I've never heard it said he was at Hastings, and have heard it said he was NOT at Hastings.

"In the years before 1066 Roger de Montgomery extended his influence in
the Hièmois and the Alençonnais; his career culminated, in the duchy at
least, in his appointment as adviser ... to Duchess Matilda in the
government of Normandy during Duke William's invasion of England
(1066–7). Hence neither Roger himself nor his teenage elder sons were
present at Hastings. When King William returned to England in November
1067 after his visit to Normandy, Roger returned with him, and grants to
him of lands in England quickly followed."
Peter Stewart

Thanks. Yes, that's what I've always read everywhere else. I just wonder why Banks wrote that. He wrote specific information, not simply, "He was at Hastings." It seems very odd to me. Did he make it up entirely? Did he accidentally confuse Montgomery with someone else?

Look at the publication date of the work by Banks that you were reading
- accurate scholarship, as opposed to woolly romance, was not a
particular mark of a great many early-19th century antiquarians.

Banks was one of those who looked forward to (and eventually lived
through) the histrionic medievalism that brought about the Eglinton
tournament; the earl of Eglinton was a Montgomery, and practically
everyone wanted an agnatic ancestor (real, or failing that just a
plausible namesake) who played a distinguished part at Hastings.
Boasting one of these became a national fixation. Historians who
provided them got commissions and invitations. Nowadays such
opportunists become TV presenters who jolly along the general public,
but in Banks' day they published weighty sycophantic books for the elite.

Peter Stewart

[k***@gmail.com]

So he probably didn't get it from an inaccurate older source? He probablyjust made it up? Lovely. Lol.

Thanks.

Eric

[taf]

Post by k***@gmail.com
So he probably didn't get it from an inaccurate older source? He probablyjust made it up? Lovely. Lol.

Hard to say. The 19th century historians were the culmination of centuries of historical invention that trace back almost as early as the Conquest itself. It certainly wouldn't have been out of character for a historian of his generation to have made it up, but given that it is almost inevitable that every Norman of the Conquest generation (as well as many who were of the wrong generation) has been claimed to have participated in the battle, someone may have beat him to it, with him simply uncritically copying it.

taf

[k***@gmail.com]

Fair enough.

Eric

[Peter Stewart]

Post by k***@gmail.com
So he probably didn't get it from an inaccurate older source? He probablyjust made it up? Lovely. Lol.

He didn't make it up, but chose to take it uncritically from a source
that he knew enough not to credit on this point - this is what I meant
by characterising Banks as an opportunist.

Orderic, was well-informed about Roger and his family, tells us that he
stayed behind in Normandy during the events of October 1066.

Wace, writing a literary work ('Roman de Rou') a full century after the
Conquest and a generation after Orderic, placed Roger at Hastings. There
was no excuse for historians in the early 19th century accepting his
colourful verses as any kind of proof to contradict Orderic.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart

So he probably didn't get it from an inaccurate older source?  He
probablyjust made it up? Lovely. Lol.

He didn't make it up, but chose to take it uncritically from a source
that he knew enough not to credit on this point - this is what I meant
by characterising Banks as an opportunist.
Orderic, was well-informed about Roger and his family, tells us that he
stayed behind in Normandy during the events of October 1066.
Wace, writing a literary work ('Roman de Rou') a full century after the
Conquest and a generation after Orderic, placed Roger at Hastings. There
was no excuse for historians in the early 19th century accepting his
colourful verses as any kind of proof to contradict Orderic.

I should add that Wace was not the first to place Roger falsely at the
battle of Hastings - Robert de Torigni had also stated this, but only
mentioned his presence there in passing. Wace fictitiously turned him
into a hero in the thick of the fighting, with invented command to him
as directly spoken by William on the field.

Peter Stewart

[Eric Kniffin]

Very interesting! Thanks! I've only come to know of Orderic recently. He is mentioned frequently in Matt Morris' books, which I am currently listening to during my work commute.

I only read the name Robert of Torigni for the first time yesterday, while reading Gunnor/Gunnora's entry in Wikipedia. He apparently claimed Gunnor's unknown father was a forester from the Pays de Caux.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Very interesting! Thanks! I've only come to know of Orderic recently. He is mentioned frequently in Matt Morris' books, which I am currently listening to during my work commute.
I only read the name Robert of Torigni for the first time yesterday, while reading Gunnor/Gunnora's entry in Wikipedia. He apparently claimed Gunnor's unknown father was a forester from the Pays de Caux.

This is an error in the Wikipedia article that was taken over from the
cited authority, Elisabeth Van Houts.

Robert de Torigni in his own chronicle agreed with Dudo, saying that
Gunnor's ancestors were Danes of the highest nobility ("Gonnor, ex
nobilissima Danorum prosapia ortam"). In his additional book to the
chronicle by William of Jumièges he related the traditional story told
(sicut ab antiquis didici") about Gunnor's first meeting with Duke
Richard I, in which her sister Sainsfrida's husband - not their father -
was a forester near Arques.

Apart from the relationships involved, a forester was not necessarily an
unsuitable husband for a nobly-born woman. The counts of Anjou were
legendarily descended from a forester - this was an honourable office,
that gave its holder the benefit of spending time and becoming friendly
with the ruler (as in the story told about Gunnor and Richard, where the
duke went to stay in the forester's house).

Appointment to roles like this, that may seem lowly from a modern
perspective, were keenly sought - as in later time was the invidious
occupation, for instance, of the groom of the stool (try that on Wikipedia).

Peter Stewart

[k***@gmail.com]

Thanks so much for the education!

[Eric Kniffin]

Wahul/Wodhull/Woodhull

Wondering if anyone can help me out on this line? It apparently started with Walter of Flanders. He is said to have been with William at Hastings, and held a barony in Domesday. I first ran across him in The Woodhull Family in England and America, by Mary Gould Woodhull, while looking for more info on my Woodhull ancestors. Richard being the immigrant to America in the 1600s. She wrote:
'Among the names which occur in the lists of the Conquerors of England, may be found those of "Gerbod," a son of Matilda by her first husband, "Gilbert of Ghent," and "Walter of Flanders." (See "History of the Norman People," by Edward A. Freeman, Vol. III., p. 312.)'

P. 312 of Freeman says:
'The Flemings, above all, the countrymen of Matilda, pressed eagerly to his standard, and thry formed an important element in the Conquest and in the settlement which followed it. Matilda's son Gerbod, Gilbert of Ghent, and Walter of Flanders, are all names which occur among the conquerors of England, and those of Gerbod and Gilbert will again appear in our history.'

The note at the bottom of the page says:
'Dugdale, I. 425; Mon. Angl. vi. 959; Ellis, I. 420, 504. "Walterus Bec … venit cum Conquæstore et habuit hæreditatem suam in Flandriâ." He appears in Domesday as "Walter Flandrensis."'


The last part of page 425 of Dugdale - I'm looking at https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A36794.0001.001/1:6.110?rgn=div2;view=fulltext - begins the entry for Bek of Eresby. It starts with:
'AT the time of the Norman-Conquest, Walter Bec; though he had a fain inheritance, in Flanders, came over into this Realm with Duke William (whom we
vulgarly call King William the Conqueror) and of his gift had Eresby, in Comit. Linc. and divers other fair Lordships.'


So I have a few questions, if anyone has the time.

1) What is 'Bek' from 'Bek of Eresby' and 'Bec' from 'Walter Bec'?

2) I found Dugdale, but what are 'Mon. Angl.' and 'Ellis' that Freeman refers to?

3) Was Walter at Hastings? Dugdale says he 'came over into this Realm with Duke William...' If William was Duke, and not King, then Walter did not come only *after* the conquest. But what are Dugdale's sources? I'm looking, but haven't found out yet. He says Hugh de Grantemaisnill was at Hastings. I don't know if Poiters was his source, but Poitiers *does* agree. But if Poitiers also said Walter was there, why do I not see him listed anywhere?

4) Dugdale says Walter's wife was 'Agnes the Daughter heir of Hugh the
Son of Pinco'. Pinco apparently fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in War' to Eudo. (Odo of Bayeux?) But I don't know who Pinco is.

That might be enough for the moment. Difficult to keep my questions straight. heh

[taf]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Wahul/Wodhull/Woodhull
Wondering if anyone can help me out on this line? It apparently started
with Walter of Flanders. He is said to have been with William at Hastings,

The number of people who are _known_ to have been at Hastings on the Norman side is very small. There is no Walter among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_William_the_Conqueror

Obviously William was not a before-his-time Pizarro, conquering a kingdom with 21 men, but these are the only ones documented by reliable sources to have been at Hastings (as opposed to more generally assisting in the conquest of England, or being listed in Domesday, or holding land centuries later, which many of these claims 'upgrade' to participation in the battle).

Post by Eric Kniffin
'Among the names which occur in the lists of the Conquerors of England, may
be found those of "Gerbod," a son of Matilda by her first husband,

Matilda did not have a first husband, nor did she have a son Gerbod. This comes from taking two conflicting records and trying to find a way to make them both true. It goes something like this (largely from memory).

Gundred, wife of William de Warenne was reported by the Lewes priory cartulary to have been daughter of William and Matilda. This cartulary purports to preserve a contemporary document attesting to that relationship, but in actuality is of a much later date and modern scholars dismiss it as a forgery, a superficial attempt to flatter their patrons by giving them a royal connection. Conversely, both Orderic Vitalis and the Hyde abbey chronicle reported that Gundred was sister of Gerbod, without naming their parents.

Because the children of William the Conqueror are pretty well documented by the Anglo-Norman chroniclers and do not include either Gundred or Gerbod, Stapleton (among others), writing in the 1840s, tried to 'fix' the problem by proposing that Matilda had an earlier marriage, and Gundred was thus daughter of Matilda and step-daughter of William, and that meant that Gerbod must have also been son of Matilda. He is thus creating new entities - the earlier marriage of Matilda - just to avoid the obvious conclusion that the priory cartulary is late and untrustworthy.

Post by Eric Kniffin
So I have a few questions, if anyone has the time.
1) What is 'Bek' from 'Bek of Eresby' and 'Bec' from 'Walter Bec'?
2) I found Dugdale, but what are 'Mon. Angl.' and 'Ellis' that Freeman refers to?

Monasticon Anglicanum, Dugdale's work, and Henry Ellis, A General Introduction to Domesday Book

Post by Eric Kniffin
3) Was Walter at Hastings?

See above. For anyone of this generation not on the short list, the answer is usually 'maybe, maybe not', though there are some we know definitely were not.

Post by Eric Kniffin
Dugdale says he 'came over into this Realm with Duke William...' If William
was Duke, and not King, then Walter did not come only *after* the conquest.

You are reading too much into this. It just means that he was not in England before the Conquest, and in England after, not when precisely he came.

Post by Eric Kniffin
But what are Dugdale's sources? I'm looking, but haven't found out yet.

Often this is based on the presumption that everyone with a non-Anglo-Saxon name holding land at Domesday must have come as part of the Conquest (broadly defined).

Post by Eric Kniffin
He says Hugh de Grantemaisnill was at Hastings. I don't know if Poiters
was his source, but Poitiers *does* agree. But if Poitiers also said Walter
was there, why do I not see him listed anywhere?

Where do you see Poitiers saying Walter was there?

Post by Eric Kniffin
4) Dugdale says Walter's wife was 'Agnes the Daughter heir of Hugh the
Son of Pinco'. Pinco apparently fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in
War' to Eudo. (Odo of Bayeux?) But I don't know who Pinco is.

This is probably a garbled representation of fitz Picot, perhaps an old genealogical attempt to link this family to that of Picot de Say. Anyhow, no such Hugh is on the list either. While Dugdale was a scholar, the whole idea of what constitutes scholarship has changed. This is a claim that will not have stood up well to modern scrutiny.

Keats-Rohan suggests that Walter the Fleming may have been from the Artois, where he was a vassal of Judith of Lens. In Domesday his holdings were among a number in the area belonging to Flemings, and she suggests that the 'Walter frater Seiheri' of Domesday was his uncle, that he may have been son of Seiher.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
4) Dugdale says Walter's wife was 'Agnes the Daughter heir of Hugh the
Son of Pinco'. Pinco apparently fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in
War' to Eudo. (Odo of Bayeux?) But I don't know who Pinco is.

This is probably a garbled representation of fitz Picot, perhaps an old genealogical attempt to link this family to that of Picot de Say. Anyhow, no such Hugh is on the list either. While Dugdale was a scholar, the whole idea of what constitutes scholarship has changed. This is a claim that will not have stood up well to modern scrutiny.

I have not been following the discussion closely but perhaps this helps:

1. Keats-Rohan writes, in her entry for "Filius Pincun, Hugo" (Domesday Descendants, p.938):
*Steward of William de Sainte-Barbe, bishop of Durham, who later joined the party of the bishop's adversary, William Cumin (Simeon of Durham Cont., s.a. 1144). He married his daughter to cumin's nephew. Father of Agnes, wife of Walter Bec.

2. Dugdale, Tatshall, in Baronage https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A36794.0001.001/1:6.126?rgn=div2;view=fulltext;q1=tateshall
*AT the time of the Norman Conquest, Eudo, who, together with one Pinco, his sworn Brother in War (though otherwise not allied) came into England with Duke William, merited so well from him in that service; as that, for recompence thereof, they obtained, of his gift, the Lordship of Catshall, with the Hamlet of Thorpe, and Town of Kirkeby in Com. Linc. to be equally shared betwixt them: Eudo to holdd his proportion immediately of the King; and Pinco his, of Saint Cuthbert of Durham.

3.
*Mon. Angl. https://books.google.be/books?id=i3AzAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA418 " Hugo filius Eudonis et Hugo filius Pincionis fuerunt fratres sacri". So Pinco himself does not appear in that record.

4. Eudo filius Spirewic has an entry p.195 of Domesday People. Ancestor of the Tatersalls. His son and heir was Hugh. Also see Cockayne, Gibbs, et al, Complete Peerage, 2nd ed., Vol.12i, p.645

I'd say no one really knows anything about the earlier generation, Pinco and Spirewic. Keats-Rohan and CP think Spirewic is a Breton name. Pinco is also a reasonably unusual name, and also perhaps Breton. There is one in Domesday People, and Keats-Rohan says:
*Domesday tenant of Alberic de Vere; possibly the same as Phanceon, a Breton tenant of Count Alan, or possibly the same as the man the Abingdon Chronicle, II, 59, calls Picot, dapifer of Alberic c.1105/11.

[Andrew Lancaster]

I don't think we addressed the question, which is a bit unclear, about Bek of Eresby. Walter de Bec was a real person who appears in Keats-Rohan Domesday People p.448.

...and I believe the lordship of Eresby is associated at least with his descendants if not him. I found this which seems to be relevant to your reading interests, but have not read it myself:
https://books.google.be/books?id=7QJ2PQvTnRsC&pg=PA1

A trick to remember is that you google is your friend if ever you have an unusual combination of words like "Bec of Eresby".

[taf]

Post by Andrew Lancaster

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
4) Dugdale says Walter's wife was 'Agnes the Daughter heir of Hugh the
Son of Pinco'. Pinco apparently fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in
War' to Eudo. (Odo of Bayeux?) But I don't know who Pinco is.

This is probably a garbled representation of fitz Picot, perhaps an old genealogical attempt to link this family to that of Picot de Say. Anyhow, no such Hugh is on the list either. While Dugdale was a scholar, the whole idea of what constitutes scholarship has changed. This is a claim that will not have stood up well to modern scrutiny.

*Steward of William de Sainte-Barbe, bishop of Durham, who later joined the party of the bishop's adversary, William Cumin (Simeon of Durham Cont., s.a. 1144). He married his daughter to cumin's nephew. Father of Agnes, wife of Walter Bec.

I see I misread this. I thought he was making Hugh fitz Pinco the father-in-law of the first Walter mentioned, the Fleming, rather than Bec. Anyhow, it was particularly the "fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in War' to Eudo." that looked most dubious to me.

taf

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by taf
I see I misread this. I thought he was making Hugh fitz Pinco the father-in-law of the first Walter mentioned, the Fleming, rather than Bec. Anyhow, it was particularly the "fought at Hastings, a sworn 'Brother in War' to Eudo." that looked most dubious to me.

Yes. It could of course be that the earlier generation of these two families were ALSO sworn allies, and maybe they did fight at Hastings (maybe they were even in England earlier than Hastings) but as you pointed out very well this type of story is both common and almost always based on garbling the precious few verifiable facts we have.

By the way concerning Walter de Bec, his name sounds Flemish but Keats-Rohan seems very confident he was Norman.

[Eric Kniffin]

Thanks for that flurry, folks! Let me see what I can make of it. (And let's see if I format things correctly here.)

Post by taf
The number of people who are _known_ to have been at Hastings on the Norman side is very small. There is no Walter among them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companions_of_William_the_Conqueror
Obviously William was not a before-his-time Pizarro, conquering a kingdom with
21 men, but these are the only ones documented by reliable sources to have
been at Hastings (as opposed to more generally assisting in the conquest of
England, or being listed in Domesday, or holding land centuries later, which
many of these claims 'upgrade' to participation in the battle).

Yeah, that all makes sense.

Post by taf
Matilda did not have a first husband, nor did she have a son Gerbod. This
comes from taking two conflicting records and trying to find a way to make
them both true. It goes something like this (largely from memory).
Gundred, wife of William de Warenne was reported by the Lewes priory cartulary
to have been daughter of William and Matilda. This cartulary purports to
preserve a contemporary document attesting to that relationship, but in
actuality is of a much later date and modern scholars dismiss it as a forgery,
a superficial attempt to flatter their patrons by giving them a royal
connection. Conversely, both Orderic Vitalis and the Hyde abbey chronicle
reported that Gundred was sister of Gerbod, without naming their parents.
Because the children of William the Conqueror are pretty well documented by
the Anglo-Norman chroniclers and do not include either Gundred or Gerbod,
Stapleton (among others), writing in the 1840s, tried to 'fix' the problem by
proposing that Matilda had an earlier marriage, and Gundred was thus daughter
of Matilda and step-daughter of William, and that meant that Gerbod must have
also been son of Matilda. He is thus creating new entities - the earlier
marriage of Matilda - just to avoid the obvious conclusion that the priory
cartulary is late and untrustworthy.

Ah, I see. Frankly, I was not at all concerned with Matilda's "other" children, since I have no reason to believe I'm a direct descendant of theirs. (I'm working on direct ancestors exclusively, for the time being.) But that's another great lesson on how/why these thing are sometimes wrong on fairly big issues. Good to know.

Post by taf
Monasticon Anglicanum, Dugdale's work, and Henry Ellis, A General Introduction
to Domesday Book

Thank you!

Post by taf
You are reading too much into this.

Looking for clues that aren't there. ;)

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
But what are Dugdale's sources? I'm looking, but haven't found out yet.

Often this is based on the presumption that everyone with a non-Anglo-Saxon
name holding land at Domesday must have come as part of the Conquest (broadly
defined).

Seriously? Mary Gould Woodhull said it because Freeman said it because Dugdale said it, and Dugdale said it based on that kind of evidence?

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
He says Hugh de Grantemaisnill was at Hastings. I don't know if Poiters
was his source, but Poitiers *does* agree. But if Poitiers also said Walter
was there, why do I not see him listed anywhere?

Where do you see Poitiers saying Walter was there?

I don't. I just don't explain myself very well sometimes. In fact, very badly sometimes. Looking back at what I wrote... LOL. Anyway, what I mean is, if Dugdale said Hugh de Grantemaisnill was at Hastings because he read it in Poiters, then maybe he read that Walter was there in Poitiers. Or Orderic Vitalis, or the Bayeux Tapestry, or some other source that might be considered valid. If so, then why don't we see Walter listed anywhere other than in this progressions of Dugdale > Freeman > Woodhull (and whoever else may have gotten it from somewhere in that chain). Of course, now that I know Dugdale's likely source - the presumptive interpretation of Domesday - the whole idea is irrelevant.


Andrew,
I was literally asking the meaning of Bek/Bec. I wouldn't think it is a surname, because I don't see many surnames back then. But if he's Walter of Flanders, then where does Bek fit into it?


Peter,
Walter is a very confusing figure. So two Walters, but not two Walters of Flanders? Bek was incorrectly labeled as such, simply because his name was Walter?

I've never heard of Keats-Rohan.

[taf]

Post by Eric Kniffin

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
But what are Dugdale's sources? I'm looking, but haven't found out yet.

Often this is based on the presumption that everyone with a non-Anglo-Saxon
name holding land at Domesday must have come as part of the Conquest (broadly
defined).

Seriously? Mary Gould Woodhull said it because Freeman said it because
Dugdale said it, and Dugdale said it based on that kind of evidence?

I wasn't so much suggesting that Dugdale was the one who drew the conclusion based on this, but his predecessors, and their predecessors.

An appeal to authority can go wrong in this way. In the 20th century, Freeman was respected, so he was a quality secondary source for Woodhull. In the 19th century Dugdale was respected, so Freeman was comfortable using him. But in the 17th century there were sources respected by the likes of Dugdale that are now dismissed. One of the key shifts underlying modern historical research standards that sets them apart from previous practice is that appeal to authority is no longer adequate - you don't trust anyone, and if you can't trace it back to a primary source, you should not rely on it.

Post by Eric Kniffin

Post by taf
Where do you see Poitiers saying Walter was there?

I don't. I just don't explain myself very well sometimes. In fact, very
badly sometimes. Looking back at what I wrote... LOL.

Happens to the best of us.

Post by Eric Kniffin
Anyway, what I mean is, if Dugdale said Hugh de Grantemaisnill was at
Hastings because he read it in Poiters, then maybe he read that Walter was
there in Poitiers. Or Orderic Vitalis, or the Bayeux Tapestry, or some
other source that might be considered valid.

Unlikely - the short list was compiled with the explicit intent of determining which people were explicitly placed at the battle by these very sources. Likewise, in the century since, definite scholarly editions of each of them has been copied, and the topic is of enough interest to the scholarly community that one can get a whole paper just out of identifying one additional member of the short list. It is unlikely a novel name would have escaped such scrutiny. It is more likely the information came from a source that was in Dugdale's time considered valid, but is not now.

Post by Eric Kniffin
I've never heard of Keats-Rohan.

Katherine S. B. Keats-Rohan has published two prosopographical collections, one entitled Domesday People (1999) cataloging the identity and what could be discovered about the history of every person found in Domesday Book, and a followup called Domesday Descendants (2002) that does the same for Pipe Rolls, surveys, Cartae Baronum, and and other analogous records, down to about 1166. Together, they provide a biographical survey of the landholding class of England for a century after the Conquest.

taf

[k***@gmail.com]

It was only in the last two weeks that I learned there's a difference between the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest. Didn't know the one battle wasn't Winner Take All. Heh.

Woodhull has been off much interest to me, since I (supposedly) go back to Charlemagne through Elizabeth Parr, wife of Nicholas Woodhull; their son Fulke & Alice Cole; their son Lawrence; and his son Richard, the first Woodhull in America. So I figured I'd see if Nicholas goes back to Walter of Flanders from Domesday.

Thank you very much for your patience and great info!

[Peter Stewart]

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin

Post by taf

Post by Eric Kniffin
But what are Dugdale's sources? I'm looking, but haven't found out yet.

Often this is based on the presumption that everyone with a non-Anglo-Saxon
name holding land at Domesday must have come as part of the Conquest (broadly
defined).

Seriously? Mary Gould Woodhull said it because Freeman said it because
Dugdale said it, and Dugdale said it based on that kind of evidence?

I wasn't so much suggesting that Dugdale was the one who drew the conclusion based on this, but his predecessors, and their predecessors.
An appeal to authority can go wrong in this way. In the 20th century, Freeman was respected, so he was a quality secondary source for Woodhull. In the 19th century Dugdale was respected, so Freeman was comfortable using him. But in the 17th century there were sources respected by the likes of Dugdale that are now dismissed. One of the key shifts underlying modern historical research standards that sets them apart from previous practice is that appeal to authority is no longer adequate - you don't trust anyone, and if you can't trace it back to a primary source, you should not rely on it.

If only ...

Of course this doesn't help much if the primary source is wrong, but the
basic principle would be (and perhaps eventually will be) a milestone in
scholarly standards.

The main problem today is that scholars still trust each other far too
much. There is an assumption that if a fact is asserted in a
peer-reviewed, "scientific" or simply annotated publication then its
veracity must have been checked already. But countless hours can still
be wasted pursuing details from one cited secondary authority to another
only to reach a dead end in some living or recent historian's error.

As an example, the other day I came across this in the People of
Medieval Scotland database (here https://www.poms.ac.uk/record/person/323/):

"Gilla Míchéil ... died before 16 August 1139 and probably before 11
July 1136, when his successor, Duncan (Donnchad), appears".

The authority cited for the date 11 July 1136 is *Handbook of British
Chronology*, p. 508:

"Duncan, st. 16 August 1139 and prob. 11 July 1136".

The Handbook editors don't cite their sources, but in this case
(directly or indirectly) they were perhaps relying on *Scots Peerage*
that mentions "the dedication of the Church of Glasgow on 11 July 1136",
an occasion when Duncan was present and titled earl, drawing in turn on
Archibald Lawrie in *Early Scottish Charters*, pp. 348-9:

"It is stated in the charter by Bishop Herbert ... that King David
granted part of Partick on the day of the dedication of the church of
Glasgow; and as it is probable that this charter is that referred to, it
has commonly been dated 11 July, 1136, the day on which the church was
dedicated".

But Lawrie was mistaken - the dedication took place on 7 July according
to the only primary source which gives the date, the chronicle of
Holyrood under 1136 ("Dedicatio Glascuensis ecclesie, nonis Julii").

Generations of scholars through the 20th century and into the 21st have
apparently thought this point was not worth their trouble to
investigate, and/or that respected predecessors can simply be trusted to
get such things right.

Some readers of SGM are unfortunately prone to read about little
problems like this and think that's just a one-off, and they keep on
keeping on with the same level of unwarranted trust until another
mistake is pointed out, that they also suppose to be just another
one-off. That is, for instance, why we keep getting rubbish information
from the MedLands database rehashed here.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Peter Stewart
The Handbook editors don't cite their sources, but in this case
(directly or indirectly) they were perhaps relying on *Scots Peerage*
that mentions "the dedication of the Church of Glasgow on 11 July 1136",
an occasion when Duncan was present and titled earl, drawing in turn on
"It is stated in the charter by Bishop Herbert ... that King David
granted part of Partick on the day of the dedication of the church of
Glasgow; and as it is probable that this charter is that referred to, it
has commonly been dated 11 July, 1136, the day on which the church was
dedicated".
But Lawrie was mistaken - the dedication took place on 7 July according
to the only primary source which gives the date, the chronicle of
Holyrood under 1136 ("Dedicatio Glascuensis ecclesie, nonis Julii").

I should add that the date given in the Holyrood chronicle has been
questioned by Geoffrey Barrow in his edition of David I's charters, p. 81:

"Professor A.A.M. Duncan has kindly informed me (personal communication,
16 October 1995) that the date given in Chron. Holyrood ... for the
dedication, viz. 'nones of July' (7 July), is quite unsafe, being
probably based on a misreading of a calendar entry which referred to the
dedication in 1197".

It doesn't seem to have occurred to either expert that the dates for
dedication ceremonies, especially ones attended by the king and leading
nobles travelling across the country for the purpose, were usually if
not invariably chosen for their particular significance - and that
consequently it would not be at all remarkable that two such ceremonies
for the same cathedral 61 years apart would have happened on the same date.

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Andrew,
I was literally asking the meaning of Bek/Bec. I wouldn't think it is a surname, because I don't see many surnames back then. But if he's Walter of Flanders, then where does Bek fit into it?

[...]

Post by Eric Kniffin
I've never heard of Keats-Rohan.

Bec is presumably a place name. On both sides of the English channel there are many places with Bec in them. It is an old Germanic word for a small creek or rivulet. If I understand correctly it was still used as an everyday word in northern England and southern Scotland until relatively recently, and nearer to Flanders, with a bit of a tweak it is still close to normal Flemish. The problem is that many places in Normandy also have such Germanic names do to all the early medieval churning about of different language groups.

Concerning Keats-Rohan, I've posted some summary and extended quotes on the wikitree website. And Walter is one: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bec-4

Actually I notice that in that quote she seems open to a Flemish origin.

[Eric Kniffin]

Post by Andrew Lancaster
It is an old Germanic word for a small creek or rivulet.

As in J.S.! :D

Post by Andrew Lancaster
Bec is presumably a place name. On both sides of the English channel there are
many places with Bec in them. It is an old Germanic word for a small creek or
rivulet. If I understand correctly it was still used as an everyday word in
northern England and southern Scotland until relatively recently, and nearer
to Flanders, with a bit of a tweak it is still close to normal Flemish. The
problem is that many places in Normandy also have such Germanic names do to
all the early medieval churning about of different language groups.
Concerning Keats-Rohan, I've posted some summary and extended quotes on the
wikitree website. And Walter is one: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bec-4
Actually I notice that in that quote she seems open to a Flemish origin.

Well thanks again. I am not familiar with wikitree.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin

Post by Andrew Lancaster
It is an old Germanic word for a small creek or rivulet.

As in J.S.! :D

Post by Andrew Lancaster
Bec is presumably a place name. On both sides of the English channel there are
many places with Bec in them. It is an old Germanic word for a small creek or
rivulet. If I understand correctly it was still used as an everyday word in
northern England and southern Scotland until relatively recently, and nearer
to Flanders, with a bit of a tweak it is still close to normal Flemish. The
problem is that many places in Normandy also have such Germanic names do to
all the early medieval churning about of different language groups.
Concerning Keats-Rohan, I've posted some summary and extended quotes on the
wikitree website. And Walter is one: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bec-4
Actually I notice that in that quote she seems open to a Flemish origin.

Well thanks again. I am not familiar with wikitree.

You might do well to avoid it - in this case, the compiler hasn't even
bothered to get one of the sources cited correctly, naming "T. Beke"
instead of Charles T. Beke.

There are two separate questions that are being conflated: first, who
was Walter of Bec documented as living at the time of the Conquest and
did he have anything to do with Walter of Flanders ("Flandrensis")?; and
secondly, who was Walter Bek the ancestor of the lords Wiloughby de Eresby?

The only Walter of Bec we know of who was living ca 1066 was the Norman
I mentioned before. A namesake of his, presumably his direct or
collateral descendant, naming himself "Waukelinus" (a diminutive from
Walter) was living in 1140. A Walter Bek was married to Agnes daughter
of Hugh fitz Pincheon around this time and they were ancestors of the
Willoughby de Eresby family. It is not known for certain if these
contemporary Walters were two different men, one from a Flemish origin
and the other a Norman, or if they may have been one and the same man in
which case he was definitely a Norman.

We have no sound reason to suppose that the Walter of Flanders occurring
in 1086 had anything at all to do with any place or person, then or
later, called Bek. This was based on no better ground than the late and
demonstrably unreliable statement from the Alvingham priory register
that was debunked (and then speculatively reinterpreted) by Charles Beke.

Peter Stewart

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Peter Stewart

Post by Eric Kniffin
Well thanks again. I am not familiar with wikitree.

You might do well to avoid it - in this case, the compiler hasn't even
bothered to get one of the sources cited correctly, naming "T. Beke"
instead of Charles T. Beke.

Wikitree must surely be getting better if that is the worst thing you can find on this profile Peter. :)

In any case, it is important to understand our sources, even tertiary online sources. For example it is important to remember that a wiki is not written by individual compilers. This of course creates problems, but also gives advantages. We can also still follow the principle of judging the source based on whether it shows its sourcing, but in a wiki we should judge each part of the text as if it were possibly written and sourced by a different person than another part. In this case you are pointing at the label of an old convenience hyperlink at the bottom of the profile.

...On the other hand, trying to be realistic and practical, the use I was making of this profile was the Keats-Rohan quotations (which I placed in the article). That was very useful for this conversation. I don't see how a missing first name in a hyper-link at the bottom of the profile has any effect on that.

Post by Peter Stewart
It is not known for certain if these
contemporary Walters were two different men, one from a Flemish origin
and the other a Norman, or if they may have been one and the same man in
which case he was definitely a Norman.

Can you please explain why this would be definite? I think I am missing something.

Best Regards
Andrew

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 7:55:53 AM UTC+2, Andrew Lancaster wrote:
I have tidied up the Wikitree article a bit, though it is of course not perfect.

As Peter very correctly pointed out, my reference to that profile confuses this discussion a bit in the sense that it is about a later Walter. Maybe this also clear up why Peter says that if they are one person they are Norman.

Here is her entry for the Domesday Walter "Walter de Bec":
*Norman, from Le Bec-aux-Cauchois, Seine-Maritime, cant. Valmont, a dependency of Angerville-la-Martel, Domesday tenant of Walter Giffard. Occurs as a benefactor of Saint-Georges-de-Boscherville c. 1060 (Fauroux, 197). Walter II Giffard and his wife Agnes made a grant to Tréport attested by Robert de Becco and Walter his brother (Hist. Tréport, 236ff). Walter de Bec was pardoned Danegeld in Buckinhamshire in 1129/30; this was probably the son of the Domesday Walter.

Keats-Rohan also has an entry, Domesday People, p.225, called "Goisfrid De Bec", who Beke speculated might be the father of the second Walter, as per the article linked to on Wikitree, discussed previously:
*Norman, Domesday tenant-in-chief in Hertfordshire. A Geoffrey Delbec attested a charter of Richard count of Evreux, among others, for Sainte Trinité de Rouen (Guérard, Cart. pp. 433, 439-40). His fief seems to have been escheated soon after 1100. Parts were subsequently granted at different times to Ralph Pincerna (VCH Herts iv, 32), de Clare and Malet of Graville (VCH Herts iii, 37).

[Eric Kniffin]

Well, although most of this - multiple contemporary Walters; sources I'd never heard of until yesterday; etc. - is currently beyond my understanding, I think my main question has been answered. That is, we have no evidence that Walter of Flanders was at Hastings. He may have been involved in the Norman Conquest, but even that is uncertain. The fact that he had whatever lands Domesday says he had in 1086 is not proof of anything other than that he had those lands in 1086. It would be surprising if Matilda of Flanders did NOT have some fairly powerful people fighting with her husband, but that's about all that can be said.

Although it's all more confusing than I imagined. I can't make heads or tails of most of it. Surely, there was a Walter who came from Flanders?? It wouldn't be a surprise if people from Matilda's home fought for her husband. Especially knowing the possible rewards. If I'm reading and understanding it correctly, Domesday has a Walter Flandrensis. (At least one, assuming it's just one person being listed more than once?) Do we think the people who wrote those records were wrong about his origin?

Also, Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum has Flandria. It's in Latin, so I assume it's from the original priory record? Do we have reason to think they were wrong to write that word? Or are they only saying he held land in Flanders, and assuming it means he was from Flanders is reading too much into it? I don't know what year they're talking about (and if one of you mentioned it above, I apologize for having lost track amidst all this), and that might change our confidence in its accuracy. It is NUM. XI., and says Ibid. Above is NUM. X., and says Ibid. fol. 147. What the heck is 147? And NUM. IX. says Edwardus Dei. I assume that's the Confessor. Otherwise, if Longshanks, this is written more than two centuries after Hastings.

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Although it's all more confusing than I imagined. I can't make heads or tails of most of it. Surely, there was a Walter who came from Flanders?? It wouldn't be a surprise if people from Matilda's home fought for her husband. Especially knowing the possible rewards. If I'm reading and understanding it correctly, Domesday has a Walter Flandrensis. (At least one, assuming it's just one person being listed more than once?) Do we think the people who wrote those records were wrong about his origin?

Absolutely there were many Flemings in the conquest, and not only because of Mathilda. Basically nobles from all the countries around Normandy were involved, but Flanders and Britanny come up particularly often, and they are countries with a particularly strong reputation in this period. Keats-Rohan's Domesday People is a big book, but not a complete listing of all that is known. One of her stated aims was to look into the origins beyond simply "French".

Post by Eric Kniffin
Also, Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum has Flandria. It's in Latin, so I assume it's from the original priory record? Do we have reason to think they were wrong to write that word?

That type of question is par for this course here. Keats-Rohan's reasons are generally there somewhere, but you sometimes need to put several comments together to see them.

But to explain why this is common: these monastic cartularies routinely wrote up a romantic and/or simplified history about their founders, often many generations later and many/most of these have regularly been proven wrong over time, just by comparing to more contemporary records. This does not mean they are ALL wrong of course, and some are rather dry and clearly written within a few generations.

When I say simplified, what clearly happened quite often is that the monks did something similar to modern genealogists: they looked at some old documents and tried to patch it into a story. For example, if they knew a sequence of barons in a family they named them all as a series of sons, whereas some might have been brothers or cousins.

If you think about the case of Walter, it would be just as easy for a medieval antiquitarian as a modern one to notice some hints of him being connected to Flemish people, or having a name used by Flemish people etc.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 3:55:12 PM UTC+2, Eric Kniffin wrote:

Eric to consider the Domesday Becs, the mapping of two websites has gotten nicer recently:

Geoffrey:
https://opendomesday.org/name/geoffrey-of-bec/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=42181

Walter:
https://opendomesday.org/name/walter-of-bec/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=48439

So neither of them are near Gilbert of Ghent's main holdings in Lincolnshire, where the later Walter was found:
https://opendomesday.org/name/gilbert-of-ghent/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=40478

[Eric Kniffin]

Post by Andrew Lancaster
https://opendomesday.org/name/geoffrey-of-bec/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=42181
https://opendomesday.org/name/walter-of-bec/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=48439
https://opendomesday.org/name/gilbert-of-ghent/
http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=40478

Sorry, I'm still too new to these names and sources. What do Geoffrey of Bec and Gilbert of Ghent have to do with Walter of Flanders?

[Andrew Lancaster]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Sorry, I'm still too new to these names and sources. What do Geoffrey of Bec and Gilbert of Ghent have to do with Walter of Flanders?

Peter's answer is excellent but maybe it is worth pointing out one more thing which is sometimes considered relevant, and might have been in the minds of the monks for example.

The Walter Bec of the 12th century (the one whose Wikitree page I posted) is associated with Lusby in Lincolnshire.

At Domesday, Gilbert of Ghent, certainly a Fleming, was tenant in chief of Lusby and many other places in that area.

Lusby at Domesday: https://opendomesday.org/place/TF3367/lusby/

However, the name of his tenant was William. Just having a single common name like this makes it difficult to know whether this William was the same as any other Williams in Domesday, but for example the PASE website calls him William 'the man of Gilbert of Ghent' and connects him to some more places under Gilbert:

http://domesday.pase.ac.uk/Domesday?op=5&personkey=54707

I think this can only be a speculation though the one in Hagworthingham looks particularly likely as it neighbours Lusby. The Open Domesday map simply counts 283 places where there was a man named William holding a tenancy, and these are scattered all over England. https://opendomesday.org/name/william/ These clearly weren't all the same person.

Just to complicate things, according to Keats-Rohan Walter Bec in the 12th century was a tenant of an Earl, William de Roumare, for the lands he had before his marriage. The Roumare Lincolnshire barony of Bolingbroke was NOT derived from the inheritance of Gilbert of Ghent, which was the so-called barony of Folkingham. This neither proves nor disproves anything but reminds us that not all the landholders were Flemish in this area. Walter could even have been from an English family.

[k***@gmail.com]

Thank you guys very much for all this. Not only for the information, but for opening my eyes to the depth to which all this is being studied. I'd never heard of most of these sources until your posts. I can't say I've absorbed nearly all of this yet. Another several readings, if I'm lucky.

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Well, although most of this - multiple contemporary Walters; sources I'd never heard of until yesterday; etc. - is currently beyond my understanding, I think my main question has been answered. That is, we have no evidence that Walter of Flanders was at Hastings. He may have been involved in the Norman Conquest, but even that is uncertain. The fact that he had whatever lands Domesday says he had in 1086 is not proof of anything other than that he had those lands in 1086. It would be surprising if Matilda of Flanders did NOT have some fairly powerful people fighting with her husband, but that's about all that can be said.
Although it's all more confusing than I imagined. I can't make heads or tails of most of it. Surely, there was a Walter who came from Flanders?? It wouldn't be a surprise if people from Matilda's home fought for her husband. Especially knowing the possible rewards. If I'm reading and understanding it correctly, Domesday has a Walter Flandrensis. (At least one, assuming it's just one person being listed more than once?) Do we think the people who wrote those records were wrong about his origin?
Also, Dugdale's Monasticon Anglicanum has Flandria. It's in Latin, so I assume it's from the original priory record? Do we have reason to think they were wrong to write that word? Or are they only saying he held land in Flanders, and assuming it means he was from Flanders is reading too much into it? I don't know what year they're talking about (and if one of you mentioned it above, I apologize for having lost track amidst all this), and that might change our confidence in its accuracy. It is NUM. XI., and says Ibid. Above is NUM. X., and says Ibid. fol. 147. What the heck is 147? And NUM. IX. says Edwardus Dei. I assume that's the Confessor. Otherwise, if Longshanks, this is written more than two centuries after Hastings.

There is no reason to doubt that Walter Flandrensis occurring in 1086
was a man from Flanders - the questions about him are (1) whether or not
he had taken part in the Conquest 20 years before he appears in Domesday
(most probably unanswerable), and (2) whether he had anything at all to
do with the Walter Bek living in the next century who was ancestor of
the lords Willoughby de Eresby (perhaps unanswerable).

That he existed and was a Fleming is not in doubt. Keats-Rohan's entry
for him is as follows (in *Domesday People* p. 456):

"Domesday tenant-in-chief in Bedfordshire. He was probably related to a
number of the other Flemings whose holdings were concentrated on this
region, and were also tenants of Judith of Lens ... He is likely to have
been son of Seiher and nephew of Walter brother of Seiher, and probably
brother of Hugh Flandrensis. The group probably originated from Artois,
a region subject to Flanders that included the county of Lens. His
descendants were lords of the honour of Odell. His successor was Simon
d. c. 1147-51. It has been suggested that his immediate successor was
William Flandrensis, who accounted in 1129/30 for the widow of Richard
de St Medard ... but this does not seem particularly likely."

Keats-Rohan had found no indication of a link to Walter Bek who married
Agnes. The monks of Alvingham did this by projecting the later Walter
back in time and making him into a contemporary of William the
Conqueror. On the actual evidence available to us, this should be set
aside as a fantasy of no value beyond mere curiosity.

Peter Stewart

[Peter Stewart]

Post by Eric Kniffin
Wahul/Wodhull/Woodhull
'Among the names which occur in the lists of the Conquerors of England, may be found those of "Gerbod," a son of Matilda by her first husband, "Gilbert of Ghent," and "Walter of Flanders." (See "History of the Norman People," by Edward A. Freeman, Vol. III., p. 312.)'
'The Flemings, above all, the countrymen of Matilda, pressed eagerly to his standard, and thry formed an important element in the Conquest and in the settlement which followed it. Matilda's son Gerbod, Gilbert of Ghent, and Walter of Flanders, are all names which occur among the conquerors of England, and those of Gerbod and Gilbert will again appear in our history.'
'Dugdale, I. 425; Mon. Angl. vi. 959; Ellis, I. 420, 504. "Walterus Bec … venit cum Conquæstore et habuit hæreditatem suam in Flandriâ." He appears in Domesday as "Walter Flandrensis."'
'AT the time of the Norman-Conquest, Walter Bec; though he had a fain inheritance, in Flanders, came over into this Realm with Duke William (whom we
vulgarly call King William the Conqueror) and of his gift had Eresby, in Comit. Linc. and divers other fair Lordships.'
So I have a few questions, if anyone has the time.
1) What is 'Bek' from 'Bek of Eresby' and 'Bec' from 'Walter Bec'?

It is Le Bec in Normandy - two different Walters at the time of the
Conquest have been mistakenly conflated into a single person, but one
was from Flanders and the other from Normandy.

The Norman occurs (as Gauterius de Bec) in an undated ducal charter
issued ca 1050/66. He was a Giffard tenant and his descendant Vauquelin
(a nickname from Gautier) of Le Bec gave land to Longueville priory, a
Giffard foundation, in 1140. The exact connection between them is not
certain.

Peter Stewart