Name Prefix:<NPFX> Countess
Name Suffix:<NSFX> Queen Of England
ANCI: HIGH
It thus becomes clear, tha t Matilda of Flanders could not have been
married at the time of this occurre nce, 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 m arriage with him been
indefinitely postponed, on the ground of its being with in 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 mot her of three small children, the
improbability of which is otherwise sufficie ntly apparent. What are we in
such case to understand by these words:- Laquel le 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
t he 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 co uld
Ordericus Vitalis, whether his errors were many or few, who says of
Mat ilda of Flanders that she derived her descent from the Kings of France
and Em perors 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 unfounde d; 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 Wats on ("Memoirs of
Warren," i); but we are disposed in this case to consider tha t he meant
otherwise, as we shall proceed to shew, or else how comes it to pa ss 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 plac ing
[page 13]
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 p laces 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 divorc e between them (as
Jumieges observes), a probable war would ensue between Fla nders and
Normandy, the Pope wisely determined that Duke William and his cons ort
should atone for the crime, and from which he absolves them, on their
a greement to found two separate monasteries. The result of this decision
was t hat 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. v ii., c. 26]
That William of Normandy was Matilda's first and only husband is p lain
from the following facts. From Domesday [B vol. i., fo. 100] we know tha t
Queen Matilda had conferred upon her