DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a William the Conqueror and the Selection Ofwilliam Fitz Rivallon As Abbot of Saint-Florent of Saumur,June 28, 1070

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a William the Conqueror and the Selection Ofwilliam Fitz Rivallon As Abbot of Saint-Florent of Saumur,June 28, 1070 APPENDIX A WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR AND THE SELECTION OFWILLIAM FITZ RIVALLON AS ABBOT OF SAINT-FLORENT OF SAUMUR,JUNE 28,1070 n this appendix I elaborate on the possibility evoked earlier (pp. 30--31) that I William the Conqueror had a personal role in William fitz Rivallon's entry into the monastery of Saint-Florent and his selection as abbot in 1070. Though sparing in detail the successive stages in William fitz Rivallon's conversion to monasticism and selection as abbot are factually documented, as summarized earlier (pp. 23-24). His parents had not destined him for the monastic life from childhood as often happened in the aristocracy. Instead he chose this way of life after already having accepted the succession to his father as secular lord of Dol, and he changed his mind very soon thereafter (prior to 1066). His nomination as abbot in 1070, when thirty or less, came at a very early age, and his novitiate of five years or less prior to accepting the abba­ rial office was exceptionally short. Moreover his nomination almost immediately after the death of his predecessor, only eleven days later, suggests that his succession had been arranged in advance. Not mentioned earlier but also striking is the silence of historians of the time about the circumstances of William's selection. Whereas they name distinguished personalities from outside the monastery, the abbots ofMarmoutiers and the counts of Anjou, who had exercised a decisive voice in the selection of earlier abbots of Saint-Florent, 1 in William fitz Rivallon's case, they say nothing other than that he took the office. 2 The two modern historians who have had occasion to examine the subject have been struck by the apparent absence of those who had traditionally controlled the elections and have proposed other explanations. W Ziezulewicz attributes William's selection to his wealth and personal" contacts among Breton and Norman nobility," and to the success of the monastic community of Saint-Florent in breaking away from the dominance of the abbey of Marmoutiers. 3 H. Guillotel speculates that it was William's association with early stages of the Gregorian reform movement in Anjou which brought about his selection. 4 Both of these explanations 104 WAS THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY MADE IN FRANCE? seem reasonable, particularly Guillotel's, but, like the one made here, they cannot be confirmed by contemporary sources. Nonetheless the suggestion that William the Conqueror encouraged William fitz Rivallon to dedicate himself to a monastic career, with a commitment to arrange his election as abbot, does help to explain several features in the latter's life between ca. 1065 and ca. 1070, as just outlined earlier. Even though his brothers reported that he turned to the monastic life under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, William's abrupt decision could also have been influenced by the Conqueror's promise to advance him to the prestigious office of abbot. Then one might suspect that the intervention of a great personage such as the king of England could have been deci­ sive in bringing about his selection as abbot in 1070.While it is conceivable that a youthful and inexperienced novice could have shown enough talent and dedication in only five years of monastic life to persuade his elders to chose him as abbot at the age of thirty or less, it seems more reasonable to credit his election to the interven­ tion of a distinguished outsider such as the king of England. And, as argued earlier, his election only eleven days after his predecessor's death hints at something pre­ arranged from the outside by someone other than the young monk himself. Two different considerations would seem to stand out as the principle objections to this hypothesis, and the first of these is the silence of the two contemporaries who recorded William's selection in 1070 but made no mention of any Norman inter­ vention. The lack of any detail whatsoever could mean that these historians had no information about what happened, or chose, for one reason or another, to suppress it. Though their silence casts doubt on a Norman intervention it does not rule it out. A more weighty objection asks how the duke of Normandy could have inter­ fered in the territory of the counts of Anjou, something for which there was no precedent from the past. 0. Guillot's 1972 study of the eleventh-century counts of Anjou may help to answer these questions. In his analysis of the role of the counts ofAnjou in abbatial elections during that century, Guillot found that the success of what he calls a pre-Gregorian reform movement with the Angevin church, and championed by papal legate Hildebrand (later Pope Gregory VII) at a council in Tours in 1054, had the effect oflimiting the ability of the counts ofAnjou to control elections as they had done in the past (see summary earlier, pp. 24-25). Then in the decade of the 1060s a familial struggle between Fulk Rechin and Geoffrey the Bearded for the comitial office weakened its authority and led to their abandonment of further attempts to control abbatial elections in their county. 5 At precisely the same time period their Norman counterpart, William the Conqueror, was pursuing a very different policy from that of the Angevin counts. Viewing monasteries as valuable sources of support for his rule, he encouraged monastic expansion in Normandy and involved himself directly in the selection of abbots. While exercising authority in secular matters, that is, landed endowments, he respected the pre-Gregorian insistence on the monks' spiritual liberties in their internal religious life and thus won the support of the papacy. 6 In the case of Saint-Florent William could have profited from the withdrawal of the count of Anjou from abbatial elections, as well as from the political confusion there, and have persuaded the monks to accept his tutelage and select his candidate for the abbatial office. Not a Norman, or an outsider he was trying to thrust upon them, but a APPENDIX A 105 member of their own monastic community. His reasons for favoring William fitz Rivallon are obvious: here was a proven ally from the critical Breton frontier region, and one who through his family ties would have a voice in future elections of the archbishop of Dol. And by promising to respect their religious liberties William could well have won their acceptance.7 Why William the Conqueror might have had an interest in Saint-Florent of Saumur in the 1060s can be clarified by a glance at the Norman duke's relation with the counts of Anjou during the two previous decades. From early in his reign one of his major concerns was to protect his vulnerable southern frontier from Angevin expansionist moves into that county under count Geoffrey Martel. After Geoffrey's death in 1060 the Norman duke reversed the earlier trend and directed a Norman expansion to the south, culminating in the conquest of Maine in 1063, thus placing Normans on theAngevin frontier. 8 The conditions existing in Anjou in the later 1060s, governmental confusion and disorder, the Norman advance from the north, and differing attitudes of those in power regarding secular participation in the choice of abbots, all mean that an intervention by William the Conqueror in William fitz Rivallon's selection in June 1070 is not implausible. What would have amounted to an alliance between the Angevin abbey and the English king could have seemed advantageous to him in that it would enable him to extend his influence into that region as well as bringing him the support of a growing and influential religious house. At a time of political unrest in Anjou the Saint-Florent monks and William fitz Rivallon could have welcomed the support of an able ruler who guaranteed their religious freedom, as well as envi­ sioning future benefits under the patronage of the recently crowned king, conqueror of England. APPENDIXB COULD QUEEN MATHILDA HAVE COMMISSIONED THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY? n the course oflooking for an explanation for Queen Mathilda's gift of a golden I chalice to the abbey ofSaint-Florent sometime prior to 1083 (her date of death), I commented (see p. 36) that there is a remote chance the she herself was the person who ordered the Bayeux Tapestry. The evidence for this comes not from the charter referring to the chalice but from the author of the Historia Sancti Florentii who in a curious passage tells about a certain queen from overseas who ordered two famous tapestries from the abbey. Though it is extremely unlikely, the possibility cannot be ruled out entirely that this sentence refers to Mathilda's commissioning of the famous tapestry. Because this possibility is so remote I have made no further reference to it in developing the hypothesis central to this book. However, the prevailing belief until the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Mathilda was somehow asso­ ciated with the tapestry makes this new evidence sufficiently fascinating as to justifY presenting it here in an appendix. Everything hinges on the interpretation of a single sentence in the HSF which I have already discussed at length in the first part of this book (see pp. 13-15). This is the anonymous author's report at the end of his list of outstanding hangings, carpets, vestments, and the like at the abbey in the time of Abbot Robert (985-1011) that, "Due etiam praecipua tapetae a transmarinis partibus a quadam regina directa sunt" (seep. 10). I have given my reasons (seep. 14) for translating this as "Two outstanding tapestries were commissioned by a certain queen from over­ seas;' and for my argument that the queen in question was most likely Emma, wife ofKingAethelred I from 1002 to 1015 (seep.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Bayeux Tapestry
    The Bayeux Tapestry The Bayeux Tapestry A Critically Annotated Bibliography John F. Szabo Nicholas E. Kuefler ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD Lanham • Boulder • New York • London Published by Rowman & Littlefield A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB Copyright © 2015 by John F. Szabo and Nicholas E. Kuefler All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Szabo, John F., 1968– The Bayeux Tapestry : a critically annotated bibliography / John F. Szabo, Nicholas E. Kuefler. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4422-5155-7 (cloth : alk. paper) – ISBN 978-1-4422-5156-4 (ebook) 1. Bayeux tapestry–Bibliography. 2. Great Britain–History–William I, 1066–1087– Bibliography. 3. Hastings, Battle of, England, 1066, in art–Bibliography. I. Kuefler, Nicholas E. II. Title. Z7914.T3S93 2015 [NK3049.B3] 016.74644’204330942–dc23 2015005537 ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Hie Est Wadard: Vassal of Odo of Bayeux Or Miles and Frater of St Augustine's, Canterbury?'
    Reading Medieval Studies XL (20 14) Hie est Wadard: Vassal of Odo of Bayeux or Miles and Frater of St Augustine's, Canterbury?' Stephen D. White Emory University On the Bayeux Embroidery, the miles identified as Wadard by the accompanying inscription (W 46: Hie est Wadarcf) has long been known as a 'vassal' of William l's uterine brother, Odo of Bayeux (or de Conteville), who was Bishop of Bayeux from 104911050 until his death in 1097; earl of Kent from e. 1067 until hi s exile in 1088; and prior to his imprisonment in 1082, the greatest and most powerful landholder after the king.' Wadard appears just after Duke William's invading army has landed at Pevensey (W 43) and four of his milites have hurried to Hastings to seize food (W 44-5: Et hie milites festinaverunt hestinga lit eibum raperentur).' On horseback, clad in a hauberk and armed with a shield and spear, Wadard supervises as animals are brought to be slaughtered by an axe-wielding figure (W 45) and then cooked (W 46). Writing in 1821, Charles Stoddard was unable to identify Wadard, because written accounts of the conquest never mention him .4 Nevertheless, he cited his image, along with those of two other men called Turold (W 11) and Vital (W 55), as evidence that the hanging must have dated from 'the time of the Conquest', when its designer and audience could still have known of men as obscure as Wadard and the other two obviously were.' In 1833, Wadard was first identified authoritatively as Odo's 'sub-tenant' by Henry Ellis in A General introduction to Domesday Book, though as far back as 1821 Thomas Amyot had I am deeply indebted to Kate Gilbert fo r her work in researching and editing this article and to Elizabeth Carson Pastan for her helpful suggestions and criticisms.
    [Show full text]
  • L'expédition De Guillaume, Duc De Normandie, Et Du Comte Harold En
    L’expédition de Guillaume, duc de Normandie, et du comte Harold en Bretagne (1064) : le témoignage de la tapisserie de Bayeux et des chroniqueurs anglo-normands Trois très importants articles sur la tapisserie de Bayeux – qui est plutôt une broderie – ont été publiés en 2004 par Pierre Bouet, François Neveux et Barbara English1. Tous trois ont montré de façon convaincante que la tapisserie est une source originelle de la plus grande importance, car, si l’on fait exception du Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, poème prenant d’ailleurs d’étonnantes libertés avec la vérité, c’est le document le plus ancien nous donnant le récit complet des événements menant à la conquête de l’Angleterre en 1066. Elle couvre une période allant du début de l’année 1064 au couronnement de Guillaume de Normandie, à Noël 1066 ; cette dernière scène a toutefois longtemps été absente de l’extrémité de la tapisserie. La raison principale faisant dater l’achèvement de cette dernière d’avant la fin de 1069 est le portrait qui est dressé du roi Harold. Aucun adjectif péjoratif ne lui est appliqué, et, bien au contraire, il y apparaît comme un héros pour avoir sauvé des Normands des dangereux sables mouvants de la baie du Mont-Saint-Michel. Guillaume avait, au départ, l’intention de gouverner son nouveau royaume selon les normes anglaises, et il accorda de bonne grâce à son rival déchu le titre de roi, rex. Après que les Anglais se furent soulevés pour la première fois en mai 1068, inaugurant ainsi une série de rébellions, la situation changea rapidement.
    [Show full text]
  • Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England Frederic William Maitland
    Domesday Book and Beyond: Three Essays in the Early History of England Frederic William Maitland Essay One Domesday Book At midwinter in the year 1085 William the Conqueror wore his crown at Gloucester and there he had deep speech with his wise men. The outcome of that speech was the mission throughout all England of 'barons,' 'legates' or 'justices' charged with the duty of collecting from the verdicts of the shires, the hundreds and the vills a descriptio of his new realm. The outcome of that mission was the descriptio preserved for us in two manuscript volumes, which within a century after their making had already acquired the name of Domesday Book. The second of those volumes, sometimes known as Little Domesday, deals with but three counties, namely Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, while the first volume comprehends the rest of England. Along with these we must place certain other documents that are closely connected with the grand inquest. We have in the so-called Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiae, a copy, an imperfect copy, of the verdicts delivered by the Cambridgeshire jurors, and this, as we shall hereafter see, is a document of the highest value, even though in some details it is not always very trustworthy.(1*) We have in the so-called Inquisitio Eliensis an account of the estates of the Abbey of Ely in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and other counties, an account which has as its ultimate source the verdicts of the juries and which contains some particulars which were omitted from Domesday Book.(2*) We have in the so-called Exon Domesday
    [Show full text]
  • Medieval Clothing and Textiles
    Medieval Clothing & Textiles 2 Robin Netherton Gale R. Owen-Crocker Medieval Clothing and Textiles Volume 2 Medieval Clothing and Textiles ISSN 1744–5787 General Editors Robin Netherton St. Louis, Missouri, USA Gale R. Owen-Crocker University of Manchester, England Editorial Board Miranda Howard Haddock Western Michigan University, USA John Hines Cardiff University, Wales Kay Lacey Swindon, England John H. Munro University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M. A. Nordtorp-Madson University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, USA Frances Pritchard Whitworth Art Gallery, Manchester, England Monica L. Wright Middle Tennessee State University, USA Medieval Clothing and Textiles Volume 2 edited by ROBIN NETHERTON GALE R. OWEN-CROCKER THE BOYDELL PRESS © Contributors 2006 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2006 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 1 84383 203 8 The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This publication is printed on acid-free paper Typeset by Frances Hackeson Freelance Publishing Services, Brinscall, Lancs Printed in Great Britain by Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wiltshire Contents Illustrations page vii Tables ix Contributors xi Preface xiii 1 Dress and Accessories in the Early Irish Tale “The Wooing Of 1 Becfhola” Niamh Whitfield 2 The Embroidered Word: Text in the Bayeux Tapestry 35 Gale R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anglo-Saxon and Norman "Eigenkirche" and the Ecclesiastical Policy of William I
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1981 The Anglo-Saxon and Norman "Eigenkirche" and the Ecclesiastical Policy of William I. Albert Simeon Cote Jr Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Cote, Albert Simeon Jr, "The Anglo-Saxon and Norman "Eigenkirche" and the Ecclesiastical Policy of William I." (1981). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3675. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3675 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Deddington Castle, Oxfordshire, and the English Honour of Odo of Bayeux1 R.J
    Deddington Castle, Oxfordshire, and the English Honour of Odo of Bayeux1 R.J. Ivens SUMMARY From an examination of Odo of Bayeux’s estate as recorded in Domesday Book, together with an analysis of the excavated structural phases at Deddington Castle, it is suggested that Deddington may have been the caput of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire parts of Odo’s barony. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, was one of the greatest of the tenants-in- chief of his half-brother King William, outstripping in wealth even such a magnate as his own brother Robert, Count of Mortain. Odo held lands in twenty-two English counties, and Domesday Book lists holdings in 456 separate manors. In all, these lands amounted to almost 1,700 hides worth over £3,000, and of these some 274 hides worth £534 were retained in demesne. The extent of these lands is far too great to consider in any detail, so only the distribution of the estates will be discussed here.2 Tables 1 and 2 list the extent of these holdings by county totals.3 The distribution of Odo’s estates may be seen more graphically on the maps, Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1, which shows the distribution of the individual manors, demonstrates that this distribution is far from random, and that several distinct clusterings may be observed, notably those around the Thames Estuary, in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, in Suffolk and in Lincolnshire. The maps presented in Fig. 2 are perhaps even more enlightening. These show the proportion of Odo’s estate in each of the twenty-two counties in which he held lands, and illustrate: the distribution of the total hidage; the value of the total hidage; the demesne hidage and the demesne value (the exact figures are listed in Tables 1 and 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Cer',0Cj~') Edited by R
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE -BATTLE CONFERENCE ON ANGLO-NORMAN STUDIES IV . 1981 Cer',0cJ~') Edited by R. AlIen Brown ( ;(9~2) ( WOOO{h-1~cae ) C Tohwo., N 1-) BOYDELL PRESS : BIBLIO THE 'GENS NORMANNORUM' - MYTH OR REALITY? G. A. Loud 'The Normans are an untamed race, and unless they are held in check by a firm ruler they are all too ready to do wrong. In all communities, wherever they may be, they strive to rule and often become enemies to truth and loyalty through the ardour of their ambition. This the French and Bretons and Flemings and their other neighbours have frequently experienced; this the Italians, Lombards, Saxons and Angles have suffered to the point of destruction.' The words of Orderic Vitalis encapsulate, albeit with his characteristic moralising overtone, both the theme of this conference and, in a rather different way, that of my paper. I They embody a topos of other contemporary writers. William of Malmesbury called the Normans 'a people accustomed to knighthood and scarcely knowing how to live without warfare', who, when they failed to gain what they wanted by prowess, resorted to cunning to achieve their ends.s Geoffrey Malaterra, the author of the official, and highly propagandist, history of the conquest of Sicily, described the Normans as 'a most astute people, impatient of injuries, seeking to grow rich by other means than tending their hereditary fields'.3 And yet, if we are to follow the recent and suggestive analysis of R. H. C. Davis, the concept of Normanitas enunciated by Orderic and his fellow historians and their exaltation of the conquests of the indomita gens Normannorum were the expressions of a myth which reached its apogee at a time when Norman blood and Norman customs were already being subsumed into the lands which the Normans themselves had conquered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bayeux Tapestry
    THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY With needle, thread, and Latin the Bayeux Tapestry tells the story of the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. Stretching for 230 feet, it consists of a linen background stitched with eight colors of wool yarn, an artistic tour de force . A running commentary describes scene after scene in succinct, simple language. In cartoon format, with a very serious purpose, the Tapestry depicts over 600 people, 190 horses and mules, 35 dogs, 500 other animals, and more than 100 trees, buildings, and ships. It is a valuable document for the study of medieval weapons, warfare, architecture, costumes, folklore, and attitudes. For the Latinist, it is a 230-foot text set in brilliant technicolor. (J. Anderson, “The Bayeux Tapestry,” The Classical Journal 81 [1986] 253) The three principal players in the story of the Norman Conquest of England, as told in the Bayeux Tapestry, are: Harold , the Duke of Wessex and the most prominent military figure in England in the early 1060s CE. Harold came from an important, powerful family. As a “Englishman,” he spoke Anglo-Saxon (Old English). William , the Duke of Normandy. Normandy is in the northwestern corner of France, directly across the English Channel from England. William’s ancestors were Vikings originally from Scandinavia (Northman = Norman), who before William’s day had settled in Normandy. These Vikings had early on abandoned their own Scandinavian (Germanic) language and now spoke dialectally the language of the people they had displaced in France. This dialect (called Anglo-Norman), derived ultimately from Latin, is a modified form of early French.
    [Show full text]
  • The Norman Conquest
    OCR SHP GCSE THE NORMAN CONQUEST NORMAN THE OCR SHP 1065–1087 GCSE THE NORMAN MICHAEL FORDHAM CONQUEST 1065–1087 MICHAEL FORDHAM The Schools History Project Set up in 1972 to bring new life to history for school students, the Schools CONTENTS History Project has been based at Leeds Trinity University since 1978. SHP continues to play an innovatory role in history education based on its six principles: ● Making history meaningful for young people ● Engaging in historical enquiry ● Developing broad and deep knowledge ● Studying the historic environment Introduction 2 ● Promoting diversity and inclusion ● Supporting rigorous and enjoyable learning Making the most of this book These principles are embedded in the resources which SHP produces in Embroidering the truth? 6 partnership with Hodder Education to support history at Key Stage 3, GCSE (SHP OCR B) and A level. The Schools History Project contributes to national debate about school history. It strives to challenge, support and inspire 1 Too good to be true? 8 teachers through its published resources, conferences and website: http:// What was Anglo-Saxon England really like in 1065? www.schoolshistoryproject.org.uk Closer look 1– Worth a thousand words The wording and sentence structure of some written sources have been adapted and simplified to make them accessible to all pupils while faithfully preserving the sense of the original. 2 ‘Lucky Bastard’? 26 The publishers thank OCR for permission to use specimen exam questions on pages [########] from OCR’s GCSE (9–1) History B (Schools What made William a conqueror in 1066? History Project) © OCR 2016. OCR have neither seen nor commented upon Closer look 2 – Who says so? any model answers or exam guidance related to these questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph III and the House of Tosny
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 8-1984 Ralph III and the House of Tosny Joseph P. Huffman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Medieval Studies Commons Recommended Citation Huffman, Joseph P., "Ralph III and the House of Tosny" (1984). Master's Theses. 3843. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/3843 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RALPH III AND THE HOUSE OF TOSNY by Joseph P. Huffman A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts The Medieval Institute Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 1984 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to dedicate this thesis in loving remembrance to my mother, Patricia, whose courage has left a legacy of love in all who knew her, I would also like to express deep appreciation to those who were involved in the preparation of this study. Special thanks go to Dr. George Beech, whose guidance and enthusiasm were indispensable to this effort; and to my wife, Peggy, without whose support and encouragement this endeavor would not have been possible. Joseph P. Huffman ii RALPH III AND THE HOUSE OF TOSNY Joseph P. Huffman, M.A. Western Michigan University, 1984 The purpose of this study is to provide a full prosopographical examination of the origins of a great Norman noble family known as the Tosnys, and of its principal figure Ralph III.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford, St George's
    27 JULY 2018 OXFORD, ST GEORGE’S 1 actswilliam2henry1.wordpress.com Release date Version notes Who Current version: H1-Oxford St George-2018-1 27/7/2018 Original version RS/DXC Previous versions: — — — — This text is made available through the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs License; additional terms may apply Authors for attribution statement: Charters of William II and Henry I Project Richard Sharpe, Faculty of History, University of Oxford David X Carpenter, Faculty of History, University of Oxford OXFORD, ST GEORGE’S Collegiate church of St George in Oxford Castle; archive of Osney abbey County of Oxford : Diocese of Lincoln Founded in late eleventh century The church of St George in the castle at Oxford began as a house of secular canons. What is always said about its origins depends wholly on statements in annals of Osney abbey, which, when still a priory, took over the college. Here we are told that Robert d’Oilly built the castle in 1071 and founded St George’s church in 1074, and also that Osney priory was founded by Robert II d’Oilly (nephew of the first), in 1129 (Osney Annals, Annales monastici, iv. 9–10, 19; Salter, Ctl. Oseney, iv. 1, 11). In 1149 the same Robert II d’Oilly and one Geoffrey d’Ivry, the narrative says, gave the church to the canons of Osney (Annales monastici, iv. 26; Salter, Ctl. Oseney, iv. 24). The names of the patrons who made this gift and the year are contradicted by charters of the Empress Matilda and of King Stephen, but they represent the level of falsehood in the history invented for Osney.
    [Show full text]