I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories. Not all were formally barons, but would probably be known
as "Lord of [principal seat]. I am rather new to Norman and
Anglo-Norman history, so please bear with any mistakes. In trying to
figure out how Norman noblemen in families such as the Montgomeri
[Montgomery], Beaumont, Toeni, Grandmesnil, Giffard, Clare, and
Mortimer families chose their brides, I came to some conclusions:
1. the bride in question was sister or daughter to a powerful nobleman,
and was possible heir to some or all of the family lands. [I don't know
if Roger de Beamont, father of the two Anglo-Norman earls, married his
wife on this basis, but she or rather her eldest son was certainly heir
to his maternal uncle. Roger de Montgomeri's first wife was eventual
heiress to Belleme etc].
2. the bride in question was of a powerful nobleman, and had as her
dowry, lands that the bridegroom wanted (neighboring to his own lands,
or useful for some other reason). At least, I conjecture that this is
one reason why Robert de Beaumont, count of Meulan and earl of
Leicester might have wanted to marry Godehild de Toeni (before she
chose a Crusader).
3. the bride in question came with a fat dowry in gold or silver. More
or less useful, depending on the needs of the bridegroom. If he was
building several castles all at once or raising private armies for
private wars, he would need cash for wages, food, and supplies.
4. the bride in question was of royal birth and/or royal descent.
Presumably, such a bride might come with a lesser dowry, and still be
an attractive proposition.
5. the bride in question did *not* come from a family that was feuding
with one's own (obviously) and furthermore, was not from a family that
was out of political favor (or could constitute a liability).
This apart from the usual issues of consanguinity.
The rest of my question is about the early Anglo-Norman period (roughly
1066-1100):
I suppose I am wondering why there were no marriages between Montgomeri
(earls of Shrewsbury) and Avranches (earls of Chester) - possibly the
king would have disapproved after his sad experience circa 1075; or
between Montgomeri and Beaumont (counts of Meulan and earls of
Warwick). In my opinion, the brothers of any Montgomeri daughter would
probably have been a definite liability. But then, I might be applying
modern sensibilities here; perhaps what would have concerned a
potential suitor would not be their reputations (violent and cruel) nor
their political sentiments (in preferring Robert Curthose) but rather
the fact that with so many siblings, the dowries would have been
smaller. I am assuming that the eldest daughter who married the king's
half-brother Robert, Count of Mortain, was well dowered, and hers
appears to have been the best marriage.
But it also appears to me that Norman magnates who won lands in England
then sought brides from Normandy (whether their brides and their
families had land in England or not). Sort of similar to British HEICS
nabobs choosing brides from "back home" rather from among their fellow
HEICS families, or rich Creoles (in the sense of born in Spanish
colonies) sometimes choosing brides from back in Spain. This might
explain why Chester married a daughter of Clermont, and Meulan chose
first a Toeni daughter and then a Capetian bride.
Would a Norman magnate considering marriage find lands in Normandy and
Maine far more valuable than land in England (and Wales)? That is to
say, would only lesser noblemen (including the younger sons who made
their fortunes in England) consider as brides the ladies with land/
dowries in England and Wales. Welsh land would be problematic, needing
to be defended against invasion, so that might explain why ladies with
such lands would be not considered when there were problems enough in
Normandy.
Kind of related - if a nobleman of this period had several sons and
daughters, and land in both Normandy and England, would he provide for
the younger sons and the younger daughters out of his English lands
only? I am assuming that this is what Roger de Montgomeri, earl of
Shrewsbury did (apart from marrying the third Roger to a Poitevin
heiress), and that his youngest daughter Sybille had only English or
Welsh land as her dowry when she married the lord of Gloucester. I
may be wrong on this point of course.
If these issues have been discussed earlier on the group, I apologize.
Please point me to the relevant messages (my search did not locate
them). Is there any book or article that discusses any or all of these
issues?
Thank you
Shinjinee
(curious about marriage alliances in this period after beginning to
read "Jackals of Iron" by Merlin Douglas Larsen; occasional poster over
at alt.talk.royalty)
Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what criteria?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Renia
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
Shinjinee wrote:
Baron was not a formal title at the time. Lord/Baron, in effect had the
same meaning - a principal landholder. The land was held of the King.
The lord of the manor held the lordship, by which he was recognised as
that principal landholder. Much of the time, lords did not live in their
baronies for they held several. They would "sub-let" them to other
people. They might even prefer to live in someone else's barony and
"sub-let" that from them.
Without going into the particular families you name, below, it might
make it a little easier if you think of these landholdings as "business
enterprises". One lord/baron might have several "businesses" and he
might wish to amalgamate his business with another - in other words, get
married to an heiress with landholdings of her own. Sometimes these
"business ventures" were planned before the prospective bride and groom
were even born, or conceived, with families planning future alliances.
Sometimes, the infant bride or bride-to-be was brought up by her
(prospective) in-laws, in order to continue family traditions and customs.
Some of the Norman barons were already related, either by marriage or
blood. Others became so soon after the Conquest. Love rarely had
anything to do with it.
(I have to dash out now, and haven't had time to read what your wrote,
below.)
Renia
I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories. Not all were formally barons, but would probably be known
as "Lord of [principal seat].
Baron was not a formal title at the time. Lord/Baron, in effect had the
same meaning - a principal landholder. The land was held of the King.
The lord of the manor held the lordship, by which he was recognised as
that principal landholder. Much of the time, lords did not live in their
baronies for they held several. They would "sub-let" them to other
people. They might even prefer to live in someone else's barony and
"sub-let" that from them.
Without going into the particular families you name, below, it might
make it a little easier if you think of these landholdings as "business
enterprises". One lord/baron might have several "businesses" and he
might wish to amalgamate his business with another - in other words, get
married to an heiress with landholdings of her own. Sometimes these
"business ventures" were planned before the prospective bride and groom
were even born, or conceived, with families planning future alliances.
Sometimes, the infant bride or bride-to-be was brought up by her
(prospective) in-laws, in order to continue family traditions and customs.
Some of the Norman barons were already related, either by marriage or
blood. Others became so soon after the Conquest. Love rarely had
anything to do with it.
(I have to dash out now, and haven't had time to read what your wrote,
below.)
Renia
I am rather new to Norman and
Anglo-Norman history, so please bear with any mistakes. In trying to
figure out how Norman noblemen in families such as the Montgomeri
[Montgomery], Beaumont, Toeni, Grandmesnil, Giffard, Clare, and
Mortimer families chose their brides, I came to some conclusions:
1. the bride in question was sister or daughter to a powerful nobleman,
and was possible heir to some or all of the family lands. [I don't know
if Roger de Beamont, father of the two Anglo-Norman earls, married his
wife on this basis, but she or rather her eldest son was certainly heir
to his maternal uncle. Roger de Montgomeri's first wife was eventual
heiress to Belleme etc].
2. the bride in question was of a powerful nobleman, and had as her
dowry, lands that the bridegroom wanted (neighboring to his own lands,
or useful for some other reason). At least, I conjecture that this is
one reason why Robert de Beaumont, count of Meulan and earl of
Leicester might have wanted to marry Godehild de Toeni (before she
chose a Crusader).
3. the bride in question came with a fat dowry in gold or silver. More
or less useful, depending on the needs of the bridegroom. If he was
building several castles all at once or raising private armies for
private wars, he would need cash for wages, food, and supplies.
4. the bride in question was of royal birth and/or royal descent.
Presumably, such a bride might come with a lesser dowry, and still be
an attractive proposition.
5. the bride in question did *not* come from a family that was feuding
with one's own (obviously) and furthermore, was not from a family that
was out of political favor (or could constitute a liability).
This apart from the usual issues of consanguinity.
The rest of my question is about the early Anglo-Norman period (roughly
1066-1100):
I suppose I am wondering why there were no marriages between Montgomeri
(earls of Shrewsbury) and Avranches (earls of Chester) - possibly the
king would have disapproved after his sad experience circa 1075; or
between Montgomeri and Beaumont (counts of Meulan and earls of
Warwick). In my opinion, the brothers of any Montgomeri daughter would
probably have been a definite liability. But then, I might be applying
modern sensibilities here; perhaps what would have concerned a
potential suitor would not be their reputations (violent and cruel) nor
their political sentiments (in preferring Robert Curthose) but rather
the fact that with so many siblings, the dowries would have been
smaller. I am assuming that the eldest daughter who married the king's
half-brother Robert, Count of Mortain, was well dowered, and hers
appears to have been the best marriage.
But it also appears to me that Norman magnates who won lands in England
then sought brides from Normandy (whether their brides and their
families had land in England or not). Sort of similar to British HEICS
nabobs choosing brides from "back home" rather from among their fellow
HEICS families, or rich Creoles (in the sense of born in Spanish
colonies) sometimes choosing brides from back in Spain. This might
explain why Chester married a daughter of Clermont, and Meulan chose
first a Toeni daughter and then a Capetian bride.
Would a Norman magnate considering marriage find lands in Normandy and
Maine far more valuable than land in England (and Wales)? That is to
say, would only lesser noblemen (including the younger sons who made
their fortunes in England) consider as brides the ladies with land/
dowries in England and Wales. Welsh land would be problematic, needing
to be defended against invasion, so that might explain why ladies with
such lands would be not considered when there were problems enough in
Normandy.
Kind of related - if a nobleman of this period had several sons and
daughters, and land in both Normandy and England, would he provide for
the younger sons and the younger daughters out of his English lands
only? I am assuming that this is what Roger de Montgomeri, earl of
Shrewsbury did (apart from marrying the third Roger to a Poitevin
heiress), and that his youngest daughter Sybille had only English or
Welsh land as her dowry when she married the lord of Gloucester. I
may be wrong on this point of course.
If these issues have been discussed earlier on the group, I apologize.
Please point me to the relevant messages (my search did not locate
them). Is there any book or article that discusses any or all of these
issues?
Thank you
Shinjinee
(curious about marriage alliances in this period after beginning to
read "Jackals of Iron" by Merlin Douglas Larsen; occasional poster over
at alt.talk.royalty)
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
Dear Shinjee ~
In this time period, a marriage partner was often chosen for an
individual by his overlord, especially if you were a minor in wardship
or your wife was in a similar condition. Consequently, for many
individuals, the "choice" of a bride was no choice at all, except what
pleased the overlord.
All the same, you might liken it to one big meat market, with different
kinds of meat and different cuts. All "choices" had their advantages
and disadvantages. The goal was to be married to someone of your same
rank or higher. Once that condition was met, a marriage proposal could
be advanced.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry,net
Shinjinee wrote:
In this time period, a marriage partner was often chosen for an
individual by his overlord, especially if you were a minor in wardship
or your wife was in a similar condition. Consequently, for many
individuals, the "choice" of a bride was no choice at all, except what
pleased the overlord.
All the same, you might liken it to one big meat market, with different
kinds of meat and different cuts. All "choices" had their advantages
and disadvantages. The goal was to be married to someone of your same
rank or higher. Once that condition was met, a marriage proposal could
be advanced.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry,net
Shinjinee wrote:
I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories. Not all were formally barons, but would probably be known
as "Lord of [principal seat]. I am rather new to Norman and
Anglo-Norman history, so please bear with any mistakes. In trying to
figure out how Norman noblemen in families such as the Montgomeri
[Montgomery], Beaumont, Toeni, Grandmesnil, Giffard, Clare, and
Mortimer families chose their brides, I came to some conclusions:
1. the bride in question was sister or daughter to a powerful nobleman,
and was possible heir to some or all of the family lands. [I don't know
if Roger de Beamont, father of the two Anglo-Norman earls, married his
wife on this basis, but she or rather her eldest son was certainly heir
to his maternal uncle. Roger de Montgomeri's first wife was eventual
heiress to Belleme etc].
2. the bride in question was of a powerful nobleman, and had as her
dowry, lands that the bridegroom wanted (neighboring to his own lands,
or useful for some other reason). At least, I conjecture that this is
one reason why Robert de Beaumont, count of Meulan and earl of
Leicester might have wanted to marry Godehild de Toeni (before she
chose a Crusader).
3. the bride in question came with a fat dowry in gold or silver. More
or less useful, depending on the needs of the bridegroom. If he was
building several castles all at once or raising private armies for
private wars, he would need cash for wages, food, and supplies.
4. the bride in question was of royal birth and/or royal descent.
Presumably, such a bride might come with a lesser dowry, and still be
an attractive proposition.
5. the bride in question did *not* come from a family that was feuding
with one's own (obviously) and furthermore, was not from a family that
was out of political favor (or could constitute a liability).
This apart from the usual issues of consanguinity.
The rest of my question is about the early Anglo-Norman period (roughly
1066-1100):
I suppose I am wondering why there were no marriages between Montgomeri
(earls of Shrewsbury) and Avranches (earls of Chester) - possibly the
king would have disapproved after his sad experience circa 1075; or
between Montgomeri and Beaumont (counts of Meulan and earls of
Warwick). In my opinion, the brothers of any Montgomeri daughter would
probably have been a definite liability. But then, I might be applying
modern sensibilities here; perhaps what would have concerned a
potential suitor would not be their reputations (violent and cruel) nor
their political sentiments (in preferring Robert Curthose) but rather
the fact that with so many siblings, the dowries would have been
smaller. I am assuming that the eldest daughter who married the king's
half-brother Robert, Count of Mortain, was well dowered, and hers
appears to have been the best marriage.
But it also appears to me that Norman magnates who won lands in England
then sought brides from Normandy (whether their brides and their
families had land in England or not). Sort of similar to British HEICS
nabobs choosing brides from "back home" rather from among their fellow
HEICS families, or rich Creoles (in the sense of born in Spanish
colonies) sometimes choosing brides from back in Spain. This might
explain why Chester married a daughter of Clermont, and Meulan chose
first a Toeni daughter and then a Capetian bride.
Would a Norman magnate considering marriage find lands in Normandy and
Maine far more valuable than land in England (and Wales)? That is to
say, would only lesser noblemen (including the younger sons who made
their fortunes in England) consider as brides the ladies with land/
dowries in England and Wales. Welsh land would be problematic, needing
to be defended against invasion, so that might explain why ladies with
such lands would be not considered when there were problems enough in
Normandy.
Kind of related - if a nobleman of this period had several sons and
daughters, and land in both Normandy and England, would he provide for
the younger sons and the younger daughters out of his English lands
only? I am assuming that this is what Roger de Montgomeri, earl of
Shrewsbury did (apart from marrying the third Roger to a Poitevin
heiress), and that his youngest daughter Sybille had only English or
Welsh land as her dowry when she married the lord of Gloucester. I
may be wrong on this point of course.
If these issues have been discussed earlier on the group, I apologize.
Please point me to the relevant messages (my search did not locate
them). Is there any book or article that discusses any or all of these
issues?
Thank you
Shinjinee
(curious about marriage alliances in this period after beginning to
read "Jackals of Iron" by Merlin Douglas Larsen; occasional poster over
at alt.talk.royalty)
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
In message of 11 Mar, "Shinjinee" <ssen_royal@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
Forget all this talk about "nobility". These were not noble people
spreading loving kindness around, they were descendants of vikings
spreading a conquest. You will be better off if you see them as
gangsters, taking anything they could lay their hands on.
By and large they did not choose their wives, though they may have
chosen their mistresses, as did the father of William the Bastard. The
wives were chosen by the parents and strictly on the grounds of what
dynastic advantage could be gained. The marriage "settlements" are an
education in what they hoped to gain.
And if you can bear to see them as gangsters, then compare them with
Sicilian gangsters and the insistence on loyalty to the Chief. And then
ask yourself how this gangster code got there. Did not the Normans at
one stage conquer Sicily?
The remarkable thing was the sheer energy of these Norsemen (Normen to
you?) in spreading and extending their power base and the lands in which
they could hunt game.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories.
<snip>
Forget all this talk about "nobility". These were not noble people
spreading loving kindness around, they were descendants of vikings
spreading a conquest. You will be better off if you see them as
gangsters, taking anything they could lay their hands on.
By and large they did not choose their wives, though they may have
chosen their mistresses, as did the father of William the Bastard. The
wives were chosen by the parents and strictly on the grounds of what
dynastic advantage could be gained. The marriage "settlements" are an
education in what they hoped to gain.
And if you can bear to see them as gangsters, then compare them with
Sicilian gangsters and the insistence on loyalty to the Chief. And then
ask yourself how this gangster code got there. Did not the Normans at
one stage conquer Sicily?
The remarkable thing was the sheer energy of these Norsemen (Normen to
you?) in spreading and extending their power base and the lands in which
they could hunt game.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
Forget all this talk about "nobility". These were not noble people
spreading loving kindness around, they were descendants of vikings
spreading a conquest. You will be better off if you see them as
gangsters, taking anything they could lay their hands on.
You should make allowance to exceptions even if not many.
And if you can bear to see them as gangsters, then compare them with
Sicilian gangsters and the insistence on loyalty to the Chief. And then
ask yourself how this gangster code got there. Did not the Normans at
one stage conquer Sicily?
Yes they did. But one of their descendants, Roger II (Rüdiger or
Rugger), a Hauteville, was one of the most excellent sovereign of all
times and in his own time only comparable with Abd al-Rahman III in
Cordoba.
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)
-
Gordon Banks
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
If you are interested in historical fiction, let me highly recommend
Bernard Cornwell. I just finished his book "The Last Kingdom" which
deals with the Viking conquest of most of England. The protagonist is
"Earl Uhtred" a fictional Saxon who was captured as a child by Vikings
and disposessed of Bamborough. He is adopted by a Viking and "reverts"
to paganism. He fights for both the Vikings and King Alfred, but even
after he goes over to Alfred and marries a Christian, he still has a
pagan outlook, which is quite critical of Christianity. It covers the
time up until Alfred's victory over Gunthrum and tries to stick to
history where it is known. It isn't about the Normans, but it does give
you the feeling for Viking "ethics." It's pretty bloody.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 01:46 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
Bernard Cornwell. I just finished his book "The Last Kingdom" which
deals with the Viking conquest of most of England. The protagonist is
"Earl Uhtred" a fictional Saxon who was captured as a child by Vikings
and disposessed of Bamborough. He is adopted by a Viking and "reverts"
to paganism. He fights for both the Vikings and King Alfred, but even
after he goes over to Alfred and marries a Christian, he still has a
pagan outlook, which is quite critical of Christianity. It covers the
time up until Alfred's victory over Gunthrum and tries to stick to
history where it is known. It isn't about the Normans, but it does give
you the feeling for Viking "ethics." It's pretty bloody.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 01:46 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 11 Mar, "Shinjinee" <ssen_royal@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories.
snip
Forget all this talk about "nobility". These were not noble people
spreading loving kindness around, they were descendants of vikings
spreading a conquest. You will be better off if you see them as
gangsters, taking anything they could lay their hands on.
By and large they did not choose their wives, though they may have
chosen their mistresses, as did the father of William the Bastard. The
wives were chosen by the parents and strictly on the grounds of what
dynastic advantage could be gained. The marriage "settlements" are an
education in what they hoped to gain.
And if you can bear to see them as gangsters, then compare them with
Sicilian gangsters and the insistence on loyalty to the Chief. And then
ask yourself how this gangster code got there. Did not the Normans at
one stage conquer Sicily?
The remarkable thing was the sheer energy of these Norsemen (Normen to
you?) in spreading and extending their power base and the lands in which
they could hunt game.
-
Shinjinee
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
Gordon Banks wrote:
[snip]
Thank you for the recommendation. I will look out for that particular
title. I think there is a book about the bloody feud in Northumbria
earlier in the 11th century, involving an Earl Uchtred, but that is
history, not historical fiction, IIRC.
I have to admit that I have been addicted to historical fiction ever
since I discovered Anya Seton's Devil Water (not based in the medieval
period) and some equally populist historical fiction writers such as
Jean Plaidy. [Not that I have anything against writing at a simple
level to gain the interest of young readers].
I do understand that by and large they did not choose their wives. I
know that several noblemen were betrothed relatively young. However,
many of the Anglo-Norman magnates I read about recently married
relatively late. I suppose I *could* believe that they were betrothed
under age to babes in arms and had to wait for their affianced wives to
grow up. But what I was wondering was what dynastic advantage was most
important.
You mention the marriage settlements as an education in themselves.
Since I am not a historian, I am afraid I have to look at secondary
sources (and analyses of primary of secondary sources) for help here.
What I could not understand is whether the wife's lands promised as a
dowry was the biggest consideration, or whether the wife's connections
(by birth or by marriage to other important families) would play an
equally important if not greater role. I certainly did not think that
Anglo-Norman (or for that matter, Anglo-Saxon nobles earlier) married
for love.
Marriages for family connections - I would place William of Normandy's
marriage to Matilda of Flanders here (I don't think any land was given,
was it?). She had the all-important descent from Alfred the Great
(assuming that we agree he was thinking of the English succession
already). She was the daughter of a powerful count, not too far away.
Furthermore, her maternal uncle Henry I of France was the French king
(and William's feudal overlord).
In a different light (and rather later than 1100), there is Isabel de
Vermadois's second marriage to William de Warenne, earl of Surrey.
Most of the books I have read about this period (focusing more on
Anglo-Norman territorial conquests!) mention that Surrey was anxious to
find a royal bride. Isabel would have provided the necessary
connections through her Capetian and Carolingian descents. It appears
that her descendants were rather proud of these lines (at least,
judging from the coats of arms I have seen reproduced in History
Today).
Marriages for lands - I cannot think of any offhand, but I believe that
Baldwin of Boulogne (the crusader) married Godehild/ Godeheut/
Godechilde de Toeni (former betrothed of Meulan) partly or mainly for
her lands. When she died during the First Crusade, he lost access to
those lands which was more of an impetus for him to carve out his own
little kingdom at Edessa. I am sure there are many better examples.
<http://www.geneajourney.com/toeni.html> a simple genealogy
<http://genealogy.patp.us/conq/toeni.shtml> from Planche (1874)
Anyway, thank you for all your responses, mostly kind and helpful. I
suppose that I will have to puzzle this out as I go along. If I am
really lucky, I will find some obscure article somewhere re these
marriages.
Shinjinee
If you are interested in historical fiction, let me highly recommend
Bernard Cornwell. I just finished his book "The Last Kingdom" which
deals with the Viking conquest of most of England. The protagonist is
"Earl Uhtred" a fictional Saxon who was captured as a child by Vikings
and disposessed of Bamborough. He is adopted by a Viking and "reverts"
to paganism.
[snip]
Thank you for the recommendation. I will look out for that particular
title. I think there is a book about the bloody feud in Northumbria
earlier in the 11th century, involving an Earl Uchtred, but that is
history, not historical fiction, IIRC.
I have to admit that I have been addicted to historical fiction ever
since I discovered Anya Seton's Devil Water (not based in the medieval
period) and some equally populist historical fiction writers such as
Jean Plaidy. [Not that I have anything against writing at a simple
level to gain the interest of young readers].
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 01:46 +0000, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 11 Mar, "Shinjinee" <ssen_royal@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have been reading some historical fiction about this era, and
wondered what were the principal criteria by which Norman magnates
chose their wives. By magnates, I mean those principal noblemen who
would have been granted lands in England (if they so chose) or who had
considerable lands of their own in Normandy and allied/ vassal
territories.
By and large they did not choose their wives, though they may have
chosen their mistresses, as did the father of William the Bastard. The
wives were chosen by the parents and strictly on the grounds of what
dynastic advantage could be gained. The marriage "settlements" are an
education in what they hoped to gain.
I do understand that by and large they did not choose their wives. I
know that several noblemen were betrothed relatively young. However,
many of the Anglo-Norman magnates I read about recently married
relatively late. I suppose I *could* believe that they were betrothed
under age to babes in arms and had to wait for their affianced wives to
grow up. But what I was wondering was what dynastic advantage was most
important.
You mention the marriage settlements as an education in themselves.
Since I am not a historian, I am afraid I have to look at secondary
sources (and analyses of primary of secondary sources) for help here.
What I could not understand is whether the wife's lands promised as a
dowry was the biggest consideration, or whether the wife's connections
(by birth or by marriage to other important families) would play an
equally important if not greater role. I certainly did not think that
Anglo-Norman (or for that matter, Anglo-Saxon nobles earlier) married
for love.
Marriages for family connections - I would place William of Normandy's
marriage to Matilda of Flanders here (I don't think any land was given,
was it?). She had the all-important descent from Alfred the Great
(assuming that we agree he was thinking of the English succession
already). She was the daughter of a powerful count, not too far away.
Furthermore, her maternal uncle Henry I of France was the French king
(and William's feudal overlord).
In a different light (and rather later than 1100), there is Isabel de
Vermadois's second marriage to William de Warenne, earl of Surrey.
Most of the books I have read about this period (focusing more on
Anglo-Norman territorial conquests!) mention that Surrey was anxious to
find a royal bride. Isabel would have provided the necessary
connections through her Capetian and Carolingian descents. It appears
that her descendants were rather proud of these lines (at least,
judging from the coats of arms I have seen reproduced in History
Today).
Marriages for lands - I cannot think of any offhand, but I believe that
Baldwin of Boulogne (the crusader) married Godehild/ Godeheut/
Godechilde de Toeni (former betrothed of Meulan) partly or mainly for
her lands. When she died during the First Crusade, he lost access to
those lands which was more of an impetus for him to carve out his own
little kingdom at Edessa. I am sure there are many better examples.
<http://www.geneajourney.com/toeni.html> a simple genealogy
<http://genealogy.patp.us/conq/toeni.shtml> from Planche (1874)
Anyway, thank you for all your responses, mostly kind and helpful. I
suppose that I will have to puzzle this out as I go along. If I am
really lucky, I will find some obscure article somewhere re these
marriages.
Shinjinee
-
Shinjinee
Re: Marriages of Norman barons circa 1040-1100 by what crite
Shinjinee wrote:
On the attitudes towards consanguinity, apart from the annulment of the
marriage between William Clito and a daughter of Fulk, Count of Anjou
(in the 1120s) which annulment appears to have been on political
grounds (considering that Fulk's son then married his deceased
brother-in-law's older sister), I found this rather interesting
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... bury.shtml
.... the statement as to Josceline is in part corroborated by Ives,
bishop of Chartres. In a letter of the year 1114 to Henry I (Rec. des
Hist. de France, vol. xv, p. 167) he points out that a projected
marriage between a natural daughter of the King and Hugh, son of
Gervase de Châteauneuf, would be invalid on the ground of
consanguinity. He traces Hugh's pedigree as follows: Senfrie, sister of
Gunnor, had a daughter Josceline, the mother of Roger de Montgomery,
who had a daughter Mabel married to Gervase de Châteauneuf, by whom
she was the mother of Hugh. ...
Senfrie -> Josceline md Roger I of Montgomery -> Roger II of
Montgomery, later Earl of Shrewsbury -> Mabel/ Mabille md Gervaise de
Chateauneuf -> Hugues de Chateauneuf (considered inelible to marry
Henry I Beauclerc's illegitimate daughter
Gunnora md Richard I of Normandy -> Richard II of Normandy -> Robert II
of Normandy -> William II (The Bastard, later The Conqueror) -> Henry I
-> [whichever illegitimate daughter]
This makes or appears to make the projected match one between fourth
cousins. Ironically, I think it was the same Hugues who married a
daughter of Robert, count of Meulan (also descended from one of Gunnora
and Senfrie's sisters). Consanguinity not a problem there?!
This means that even distant relationships could create problems - if
the Church chose to examine the match closely or if the connection was
otherwise well known. When Meulan married Isabel/ Elisabeth de
Vermandois, he and his bride's father Hugh count of Vermandois shared a
great-grandfather and so to gain the marriage, Hugh had to agree to go
on Crusade.
Even relationships by marriage could create problems. At least, I
assume that the Papal objections to the marriage of William and Matilda
were based on the betrothal (if it existed) of her mother Adela to
William's paternal uncle Duke Richard III.
Shinjinee
This apart from the usual issues of consanguinity.
On the attitudes towards consanguinity, apart from the annulment of the
marriage between William Clito and a daughter of Fulk, Count of Anjou
(in the 1120s) which annulment appears to have been on political
grounds (considering that Fulk's son then married his deceased
brother-in-law's older sister), I found this rather interesting
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cp/ ... bury.shtml
.... the statement as to Josceline is in part corroborated by Ives,
bishop of Chartres. In a letter of the year 1114 to Henry I (Rec. des
Hist. de France, vol. xv, p. 167) he points out that a projected
marriage between a natural daughter of the King and Hugh, son of
Gervase de Châteauneuf, would be invalid on the ground of
consanguinity. He traces Hugh's pedigree as follows: Senfrie, sister of
Gunnor, had a daughter Josceline, the mother of Roger de Montgomery,
who had a daughter Mabel married to Gervase de Châteauneuf, by whom
she was the mother of Hugh. ...
Senfrie -> Josceline md Roger I of Montgomery -> Roger II of
Montgomery, later Earl of Shrewsbury -> Mabel/ Mabille md Gervaise de
Chateauneuf -> Hugues de Chateauneuf (considered inelible to marry
Henry I Beauclerc's illegitimate daughter
Gunnora md Richard I of Normandy -> Richard II of Normandy -> Robert II
of Normandy -> William II (The Bastard, later The Conqueror) -> Henry I
-> [whichever illegitimate daughter]
This makes or appears to make the projected match one between fourth
cousins. Ironically, I think it was the same Hugues who married a
daughter of Robert, count of Meulan (also descended from one of Gunnora
and Senfrie's sisters). Consanguinity not a problem there?!
This means that even distant relationships could create problems - if
the Church chose to examine the match closely or if the connection was
otherwise well known. When Meulan married Isabel/ Elisabeth de
Vermandois, he and his bride's father Hugh count of Vermandois shared a
great-grandfather and so to gain the marriage, Hugh had to agree to go
on Crusade.
Even relationships by marriage could create problems. At least, I
assume that the Papal objections to the marriage of William and Matilda
were based on the betrothal (if it existed) of her mother Adela to
William's paternal uncle Duke Richard III.
Shinjinee