General Notes

!Hist. of Norway; Desc. of Charlemagne

FOSTER LINE - 25th ggrandmother

!2nd wife of William I. [Ped. of Charlemagne, Vol. III]

!Described as "minute".  [History of England]

!About 1049 William began negotiations with her father for her hand in marriage.  Emperor Henry III was displeased that her father was making friends with William and convinced his ally, Pope Leo IX, at the council of Rheims in October 1049 to forbid the marriage, presumably on the grounds of consanguinity.  Despite the papal ban, they were married in 1052/3.  It is unlikely that this was a love match, but rather that William valued the alliance, as he was marrying somewhat above himself.

!William built a monastery and nunnery at Caen as penance for their incestuous marriage. [William I and the Norman Conquest]

!Her out-of-wedlock child may be why her father was willing to allow her to marry "below herself" and her cousin at that.

!Westminster, 11 May 1068.  Matilda was crowned queen of England in the abbey. Unlike previous queens she was acclaimed as queen ordained by God.  The marriage is a byword for fidelity.  They are oddly matched, he being nearly 6' tall and she only just over 4'.  When he was 18 she rejected his proposals, saying that she would marry no bastard.  According to popular belief, he rode straight to her palace, forced his way in and dragged her round the room by her hair.  This won her heart.  Three years later the pope banned them from marrying because they were distant cousins.  Thanks to Lanfrance, abbot of Bec, the ban was lifted, and they were married about 1050.  She is the only person who had defied William with impunity. [Chronicle of the Royal Family, p. 34]

Matilda evidently kept the Foresters close to the throne for many years. Foresters played an important part in the service of their kings in Britain and Scotland from 1066-1650 and in some instances even into the 18th and 19th centuries. It is worthy of note that Matilda was the ancestral grandmother of every British king or queen from her children with William the Conqueror to the House of Stuart. [House of Forrester, p. 5]

[inglis family.and Keith .4FBK.ged.FBK.FBK.FBK.FTW]
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 theSaxon'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 Councilof Rheims,
and thus not consummated for some considerable time, (which some
maintain, although the very reverse is stated by that contemporary
historianas we have shown, William de Jumieges) (lib. vii. c. 26), it is
contrary toall likelihood that she, in the interim, would have
contracted marriage withanother 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 occurringin 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."
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 motherof 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 paperin 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?
"Chronicle of Tours"has assigned too late a date to the marriage of
William and Matilda, in placing
[page 13]
it in the year 1053. It is highly improbable that Harold wouldhave
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
beenin 1049."
We have, however, additional and even stronger reason for assigningthe
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 byPluquet; indeed, the recently published MS of an ancient
Flemish chronicle places the marriage as early as 1047.16According to
William of Jumieges, (whowas not only contemporary with the events he
relates, but dedicated his workto the Conqueror, so that his authority
on this point is unquestionable), itwas not until after the marriage
that the fact of their near relationship wasbrought 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, whilstthat of St Etienne was founded by the Duke at the same
place, [Gemmet, lib. vii., c. 26]
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 land