GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-08 > 0935602216


From: "Todd A. Farmerie" < >
Subject: Re: Early MONTGOMERYs
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:30:16 -0400


raymond l montgomery wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:09:50 -0400 "Todd A. Farmerie" < >
> writes:
> >raymond l montgomery wrote:
> >>

> who do you have senfrei married to
> Who do you have wevia married to
>
> I haave senfrei married to pontaudemere
> and wevia or wevie married to forrester

Well, this is in conflict with the only original source for this
information, and thus should be taken as an indication of the inaccuracy
of whatever source it derived from if this is from the Paris library
mss., then one must question it's value.

>From Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Rogert de Torigni's autographed redaction
(trans. van Houts):

"Because we have refered to Countess Gunnor on account of Roger de
Montgomery's mother, her niece, I should like to write down the story as
reported by people of old of how Gunnor cane to be Duke Richard's wife.
One day when Duke Richard was told of the celebrated beauty of the wife
of one of his foresters, who lived at a place called Equiqueville near
the town of Arques, he deliberately went hunting there in order to see
for himself whether the report he had learned from several folk was
true. While staying in the forester's house, the duke was so struck by
the beauty of his wife's face that he summonedhis host to bring his
wife, called Sainsfrida, that night to his bedchamber. Very sadly the
man told this to Sainsfrida, a wise woman, who comforted him by saying
that she would send in her place her sister Gunnor, a virgin even more
beautiful than her. And thus it happened. Once the duke perceived the
trick he was delighted that he had not committed the sin of adultery
with another man's wife. . . .

Apart from Sainsfrida, Gunnor had two sisters, Wevia and Duvelina. The
latter (Duvelina)*, with the help of the countess, who was a very wise
woman, married Turulf of Pont-Audemer. He was the son of someone called
Torf, after whome several towns are called Tourville to the present
day. Turulf's brother was Turketil, father of Ansketil of Harcourt.
Turulf had by his wife Humphrey of Vieilles, father of Roger of
Beaumont. The third of Countess Gunnor's sisters (Wevia)* married
Osbern de Bolbec, by whom she bore the first Walter Giffard, and then
Godfrey, father of William of Arques. . . ."

* The original manuscript, of which several copies survive, did not
further identify these sisters, other than as "the latter" and "the
third". This resulted in a certain degree of confusion, since Duvelina
is actually named third, but had already been described as "the
latter". However, in Robert's autographed copy, he has specifically
inserted their names, which removes all ambiguity. Thus we have
Sainsfrida married to the unnamed forester of (St. Vaast
d')Equiqueville, Wevia married to Osbern de Bolbec, and Duvelina married
to Turulf de Pont-Audemer.


> >What did this hypothetical older Roger do to be called 'the great'?
> it is believe via the document in the bibioth library that this roger the
> great is Gorm
> the danish prince that was conquering in rouen and st germain and
> obtained the
> place of the monte gormerie castle area was the great!
> Roger was the baptismal name of gorm just as robert was rollos
> equivelant.

Boy, that's convenient, but I recall no source calling him Roger.

> >How
> >can we draw this conclusion when this document is the only record we
> >have of any 'earlier' Roger?
>
> There seems to be some evidence to support the above in the manuscript
> before noted.

But can this manuscript be trusted. What is its date?

> >> Wevie was married to De forrester who it appears did not own very
> >much
> >> property whom you are stating as the source for the montgomerys
> >lands.
> >
> >Wevia married Osbert de Bolbec, not a forester and definitely not De
> >(of) Forrester. The Forester (title, not surname) was Senfria's
> >husband.
> What is your source for this info
> I need to sort this out as now i am confused.

See above.

> >Again, what is the evidence (other than the one charter you mention
> >above, the dating of which is subject to debate) for any Montgomerys
> >prior to Hugh?
> agian this is from the manuscript in the library in paris.

What does this manuscript purport to be. Is it a charter, a history, a
chronicle? What is its date?


> >> >2) what is the parentage of Roger. Past recostructions have been
> >> >split in either proclaiming the charter or the combined testimony
> >of
> >> >historian and priest erroneous regarding the name of the person
> >> >involved. Thus Roger is shown as either son of Hugh and Josceline
> >> >(rejecting the charter) or of Roger and Josceline (altering the
> >> >testimony of the historian and clergyman).
> >
> >> What charter are you speaking of here??
> >> if it is the charter of toarne (not sure of spelling here as going
> >from
> >> memory) this charter does not list the names of wifes.
> >
> >I am not saying that it does, only that it states that Roger was son
> >of
> >Roger (not Hugh). In so doing, it is in conflict with the historian
> >(Robert de Torigny) and the priest (Bishop? Ivo). (This of course
> >assumes that it is refering to Roger, husband of Mabel.)
> >
> >> Also yeatman shows documents if i remember right that proved the
> >count of
> >> heismois status. This property (heismois) had been esheated to the
> >crown
> >> so how did the montgomerys come up with it?
> >
> >What were these documents. This question, of when the first Norman
> >Counts were named was addressed by Douglas:
> >
> >Douglas, David C. "The Earliest Norman Counts." EHR 61 (1946):
> >129-156.
> >
> >And he concluded that there were no Counts before Richard I's time,
> >and
> >none outside Richard's immediate family until later than that. If we
> >don't know HOW the Montgomerys came to posess the property in
> >question,
> >how do we know WHEN?
> Thanks todd!!! :) good point
> i think that is why the charters date is at question

I should add that Douglas places the origin of the County of Heimois
only after the death of William, son of Richard I, and thus in the time
of Roger I or II, and not prior to Hugh.

ta

This thread: