Countess Gundred of Warwick and Countess Gundred of Norfolk

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Chris Phillips

Countess Gundred of Warwick and Countess Gundred of Norfolk

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 01 okt 2005 17:29:29

Following on from the discussion about the identity and chronology of
Gundred, the wife of William de Lancaster, I thought I'd raise a couple of
niggling difficulties with the accepted genealogy of her and her supposed
daughter.

Complete Peerage [vol. 9, p. 585, note e] summarises the circumstantial
evidence suggesting that Gundred, the wife of Hugh Bigod, Earl of Norfolk,
(d. 1176/7) was the daughter of Roger, Earl of Warwick, (d. 1153) by
Gundred, the daughter of William, Earl of Surrey.

The first item is the one I've already posted. A charter of William de
Lancaster, with the consent of his wife Gundred, is witnessed by "Gundrea
filia comitissa". Taken together with a statement in the Furness Coucher
Book, that William de Lancaster married Gundred, countess of Warwick, this
is interpreted to mean that this Countess Gundred had a daughter Gundred by
Earl Roger.

The remainder of the evidence concerns the tenure of Bungay, in Suffolk.
Evidence is cited that:

(1) An Earl of Warwick received Bungay in exchange from an Earl of Leicester
before 1166.

(2) Roger, Earl of Norfolk (d. 1270), held Bungay of the Earl of Warwick.
[This Roger was the great grandson of Gundred's husband Hugh, but descended
from Hugh's _previous_ marriage.]

(3) Gundred, Countess of Norfolk, granted to her foundation, Bungay Priory,
five churches which were part of her "liberum maritagium". [The churches
were those of Holy Cross of Bungay, All Saints of Mettingham, and St
Margaret, St Andrew and St Laurence of Ilketshall.]

The additional complication is that Earl Hugh's first wife Juliane evidently
outlived him (as did Gundred). It is deduced that their marriage must have
been annulled, which would explain why after Hugh's death his widow Gundred
claimed part of the estates for her son Hugh - and CP thinks this went as
far as effectively claiming the earldom itself - and it is suggested that a
compromise settlement must have been reached by which Gundred's maritagium
of Bungay passed to the issue of Juliane.

This already seems quite a convoluted story, but a further problem is that
the Bigods are known to have held Bungay Castle as early as 1140 [CP vol. 9,
p. 581].

If this was part of Gundred's maritagium, it creates difficulties. As John
Ravilious pointed out in his chronological analysis, the parents of the
elder Gundred (Countess of Warwick) were not married until after June 1118.
The timescale for a granddaughter of this marriage herself to be married by
1140 is extremely short. The granddaughter could be no more than 7 or 8 by
that date, and on CP's reckoning, her husband, Hugh Bigod, would have been a
widower in his mid 40s.

The other problem with the CP account if the younger Gundred was married to
Earl Hugh by 1140 is her suggested appearance in William de Lancaster's
charter as "Gundrea filia comitissa". The charter mentions William's wife
Gundred, and therefore - on the received genealogy - must have been dated
after 1153 when the elder Gundred's first husband, Roger, Earl of Warwick,
died. "Gundred daughter of the Countess" seems a strange way for the
Countess of Norfolk to sign herself.

I am not sure what the solution is to these problems, but it seems likely
that CP is wrong about Bungay itself being Gundred's maritagium. Note that
Earl Hugh's father Roger held in or before 1071 the manor of Earsham, which
is only about a mile from Bungay [CP vol. 9, p. 575]. This would explain why
Bungay continued to be held by his successors even though they were not
descendants of Gundred, and would allow Hugh's marriage to Gundred to take
place much later than 1140, removing both the difficulties mentioned above.

In fact, the marriage may have taken place _much_ later than 1140. After
Hugh's death in 1176/7, Gundred made a claim on behalf of her son Hugh,
which makes it sound as though he was a minor at the time. This idea is
perhaps strengthened by the fact that a formal settlement was made between
this Hugh and his half brother Roger ten years after Roger had succeeded.

Going back to the wife of William de Lancaster, this perhaps opens up an
interesting possibility. If, as Farrer apparently suggested, William married
Gundred, the daughter of Gundred Countess of Warwick (rather than the
countess herself) - consistent with the "Gundrea filia comitissa" of the
charter being William's wife herself - perhaps this marriage could be
fitted in _before_ the younger Gundred's marriage to Earl Hugh. Keats-Rohan
has William de Lancaster's marriage to Gundred taking place by 1156, and
William alive in 1166 (assuming this is he rather than his successor of the
same name), but gives no date of death for him. If he died soon after 1166,
that would allow his widow to remarry Earl Hugh, though by that time he
would apparently have been a septuagenarian.

Against this, there is still the Coucher Book narrative stating that
William's wife was Gundred, countess of Warwick, and apparently a refutation
of Farrer's suggestion by Clay, which I haven't seen yet.

Chris Phillips

Chris Phillips

Re: Countess Gundred of Warwick and Countess Gundred of Norf

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 01 okt 2005 17:31:56

I apologise for the double posting. I didn't realise the first had got
through, as I lost the connection just as I submitted it. The second version
is slightly revised.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»