General Notes

Gundred (daughter of Gherbod the Fleming), d. 27 May 1085; m. bef. 1077, William de Warenne, d. Lewes 24 June 1088, created 1st Earl of Surrey, son of Rudolf de Warenne and Beatrice.  [Magna Charta Sureties]

------------------------------------------

He married, 1stly, Gundred, sister of Gerbod the Fleming, EARL OF CHESTER, possibly daughter of Gerbod, hereditary advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin at St. Omer. She died in child-birth, 27 May 1085, at Castle Acre, Norfolk, and was buried the chapter-house at Lewes.  [Complete Peerage XII/1:493-5, XIV:604 (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

Note: I think that Gundred was daughter of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester.  He was also advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin of St. Omer (as CP itself indicated-see notes under Gherbod) .  As far as I know there is only one Gerbod.

-------------------------------------------

According to Magna Charta Sureties (and CP in a way), a daughter of Gherbod the Fleming.  According to the Plantagenet Ancestry, a daughter of William the Conquerer and Matilda of Flanders.  The following discussion in soc.genealogy.medieval illustrates the proof for Gundred being daughter of Matilda, wife of William I, and also the controversy still being debated about her ancestry.  I happen to believe that the Lewes Chartulary is not false on the basis that there is no reason for forging a relationship to Queen Maud, but not King William I.

From: Phil Moody (moodyprime@@cox.net)
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-30 21:52:15 PST

"Chris PHILLIPS" wrote"

> There was never any question of Gundred being an illegitimate daughter of
> William I, but rather it was a case of a fraudulent claim that she was a
> legitimate daughter. The reason people used to think that Gundred was a
> daughter of William the Conqueror was because the monks of Lewes forged some
> charters which stated that. But I don't think anyone now seriously maintains
> that these charters are authentic.
>
> Gundred is known to have been a sister of Gerbod, who was briefly earl of
> Chester under William the Conqueror. It's clear they were members of a
> Flemish family who were advocates of St Bertin's Abbey in St Omer, and who
> held Oosterzele and Scheldewindeke, although the genealogy isn't altogether
> clear.

PLM: There is some doubt in my mind, however. Per your earlier assistance to me; I do now have "The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras of Lewes", vol. I, ed. L. F. Salzman, and published by the Sussex Record Society in 1032 [sic?]. There is a lengthy charter by William Warrene nearly six pages in length; so I will not quote it's entirety, but this bit is curious.

Page 3:

"..., I have given for the welfare of my soul and that of Gundrada my wife and for the soul of my lord King William who brought me into England and by whose license I caused the monks to come and who confirmed my former gift, and for the welfare of my lady Queen Maud the mother of my wife and for the welfare of my lord King William his son after whose coming to England I made this charter and who made me Earl of Surrey,..." UNQ

PLM: It is quite clear from this charter, that Gundrada is the daughter of Queen Maud, and the lack of a reference to William I being the father of Gundrada is highly significant. If I were to rely solely on this evidence, I would have to conclude that Gundrada was NOT the daughter of William I at all.

People have referred to forged charters from Lewes, but what is the basis of these assertions, and which references discuss these "supposedly proven forgeries"? The premise of such an accusation appears to be up side down, in relation to the above charter. It seems illogical to forge a document that makes Gundrada the daughter of the Queen, as opposed to the King of England; which would essentially diminish her social standing, instead of elevating it, as most forgeries tend to do?

Cheers,
Phil

- - - - -

From: Chris PHILLIPS (cgp@@medievalgenealogy.org.uk)
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-31 01:54:55 PST

Paul Reed posted a quite detailed summary of the arguments that the charter was spurious, on 11 March 1998, entitled: "Gundred, the Conqueror, and the spurious charter of 1085 (LONG)".

Apart from the internal evidence that the charter has been tampered with, and the existence of a copy of the foundation charter, which doesn't mention Gundred's parentage, in the cartulary of Cluny, the parent house, there are also statements by two other sources that Gundred was the brother of Gerbod. Admittedly these could be circumvented by the suggestion that Gundred was only William's step-daughter, and that Gerbod's father had previously been married to Matilda (although there is no indication elsewhere that this was the case, despite quite a lot of documentation relating to Gerbod's family, and of course to the counts of Flanders).

What clinched the long-running Victorian controversy was the point made by Chester Waters, that when a marriage was proposed between an illegitimate daughter of Henry I and a son of Gundred, it was prohibited on the grounds of a 4th/6th-generation consanguinity. If Gundred had been Matilda's daughter they would have been first cousins, so this, rather than the much more distant relationship, would surely have been mentioned.

Chris Phillips

- - - - - -

From: Linda (lindas4@@aol.com)
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-31 08:52:44 PST

As with other "proof", I am curious about how conclusive Mr. Waters' arguement is.  People being the political animals that they are, it would seem to me that a closer relationship might not be mentioned if it were politically sensitive for some reason.  I have no thoughts on what that might be, but Mr. Waters' arguement, while persuasive, still does not seem to me to CONCLUSIVELY prove anything, simply because we cannot possibly know everything was going on in people's minds 1000 years ago (or today, for that matter).

I guess it's my background in math and computers that makes me question these things.  It does not seem to me that either side of this controversy has anything that could be considered absolute proof - just circumstantial evidence and theories, all of which can be contested with more theories. There seem to be plenty of sincere and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue, and I wonder if, barring discovery of new documentation, the issue will ever be resolved.  I keep going back to that tombstone - the only piece of evidence that is truly "cast in stone".

- - - - - -

Note: I happen to feel that Chester Water's analysis which invalidates the Chartulary is not altogether conclusive.  The fact remains that the marriage WAS invalidated on the grounds of consanguinity; quite possibly for political reasons the church chose a more distant relationship for invalidating the marriage (4th or 6th cousin rather than 1st cousin); the church may not have wanted to emphasize the illegitimacy of Gundred, ancestor of the Warennes, a very powerful family.