Talk:Gundred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Parents

Some authors in the United States state that Gundred was not a daughter of William The Conqueror. See The Magna Charta Sureties 1215, (by Fredk. Lewis Weis, et al, 5th edition, Baltimore, 2002, p.188), where she is described as daughter of "Gherbod the Fleming". David Lauder 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been closed for some time, it is just unfortunate that there are sources that are over 100 years out of date. Stapleton in 1846 first showed that Orderic Vitalis explicitly calls Gundred sister of Gerbod the Fleming, and in 1888, Edmund Freeman wrote a summary of the situation that made the issue clear (Edward A. Freeman, "The parentage of Gundrada, wife of William of Warren", English Historical Review 3 (1888):680-701). Specifically, he says, "As the evidence now stands, there is really no ground either for the old belief that Gundrada was the daughter of King William and Queen Matilda, or . . . that she was daughter of Matilda but not the daughter of William", and, "We may say without any kind of doubt that Gundrada was not the daughter of William." Basically, in the original document in which William is shown as father of Gundred, no such relationship was given, but a later hand added "my daughter" into it. In a known authentic document, William names Gundred without any indication of relationship. The documents that show Gundred as daughter of Matilda ware from the 15th century, and cannot be taken as authentic. Particularly persuasive, when William de Warenne, son of Gundred, was to marry a daughter of Henry I, the marriage was prohibited by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, because they were related via four generations on one side, six on the other. Had Gundred been daughter of William, she would have been sibling of Henry I, and the proposed bride and groom first cousins. The same ground was covered by Clay, in Early Yorkshire Charters, VIII: 50-6, who reached the same conclusion. (See also http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/matil000.htm which summarizes the question, and http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/gundred/gundocs.shtml which provides primary source material.) It should also be noted that the traditional chronology is problematic - Reynold de Warenne appears to have been commanding troops in 1090, making a 1083 birth unlikely (see Freeman). Agricolae 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just how does a source become "over 100 years out of date"? In addition, is Vitalis correct here? He gives Agatha (Malcolm III's mother) as a daughter of the Hungarian King and this is now stated to be wrong by many so-called modern experts. I have no idea who Edward A. Freeman is or why his personal opinion should take precedence over established famous scholars, and I really would like it explained to me why 15th century sources are worthless. In addition I can cite umpteen instances of Papal Dispensations being issued to permit 1st cousins to marry so it is beyond me (again) why this seems to fantastic. I get a little rattled when acknowledged experts of the past are trashed by today's superior people. David Lauder 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Orderic's reliability has been questioned, as has the Hyde chronicle, but the two are clearly independent of each other, and as such appear to confirm each other. It is, of course, possible that they are based on the same bad informant, but all things being equal, information appearing in two near-contemporary sources is more likely to be authentic than information not appearing anywhere until over 300 years later. Further, even were we to set these early items aside, there is still reason to reject that Gundred was daughter of William. As to Freeman, I guess I should have linked it: Edward Augustus Freeman was an established famous scholar (not that it is about whose historian is more famous, either).
In this case, the 15th century material is of reduced value because the documents are copies made several centuries after the events they are reporting and they were not compiled written by disinterested parties, but by parties who might see a benefit to linking their foundation to the royal family, and the critical information was, in one case, not in the original but has been added by a later hand, and in the other case subject to alternativereading. Also, they conflict with various aspects of the contemporary record. They are at odds with Orderic and the Hyde chronicle. The information fails to appear in the works of other Norman genealogists and chroniclers such as Robert of Torigni and Florence of Worcester. In an authentic document William the Conqueror fails to refer to Gundred as his daughter in a context in which this would have been expected. Most importantly the purported relationship conflicts with a direct relational statement by a contemporary - that a proposed marriage shouldn't happen because Gundred's son was 3rd cousin, twice removed to the daughter of Henry I, when if the Lewes documents were correct they would have been first cousins - as close as you can get to direct contemporary testimony that they were not first cousins. Note that the issue on this last is not one of the granting (or not) of a dispensation, but of direct testimony of what their relationship really was (i.e. something very much more distant than first cousin). Agricolae 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed this to use separate notes and references sections, since I think that's easier to follow when the same references are used repetitively. But I don't feel all that strongly about it.Loren Rosen 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)