140 MARRIAGJ19co11cl wife in Thorpe's translation, under the title 1li~tory ,if Enyland under Constance of Provence, whom he nuu-ricd soon :Lftcr, or in, tho year th,i .Nonruin Kin!lx, l'(Jfo1Ti11g to this pi1,.'ls1tge in Licquet, says :- 998, when his first wife Bertha was at last separated from him on the Da in jcuem Contracte nur Adele, uicht aber ihre Aeltern benunnt slnd, so ground of the double impediment between them of cons11nguinity and will Licq net in der irrigen Vorauaactzung, ,Ills,. die so beuannte Konigstochter compaternity. This same wife Constance was mother of Henry I, damal« noch nicht geboren gcweHen, nicht glauben, dasz hier von ihr die Rede afterwards King of France, who was at his death in 1060 fifty-five sein kiinne, Doch wurde dieso itu Jahre 1028 an den Gmfen vou Fhmderu Balduin V, wirklich verrnahlt, und ihr Sohn heirnthcte im Jahre 1050. Ist se years of age, and was therefore born about the year l 005, and he was demselben bereits in der Wiege verlobt, wie Wilh. von Jumieges (lib. vi ca.p. vi), not the eldest child of this union. The age of Adela, his sister of the oder doch sehr jugendlich, wie die Narratio restaurat. Abbat, S. Martini Torna• whole blood, is not known ; and it has been the subject of most cenais (Ftpud Bouquet: X, 2~6) sagt. so mus, also dieses VerHihnisz sich viol frtiher discordant statements. Nothing is known with certainty as to the ereignct hnbcn, und kunn 11lso spiiter eine Ausliisu11g dosselben beabsichtigt seiu, B~ wird in der !Jrknmle iilirigcns angi,fiihrt, Adele werde [uxta nobilitatis suie year of her birth, anrl in 10:W she is roprescntcd as being of marriage• lineam dutat,i, uud ,ius .lcr uicht gcschehenen Voll:f.iPhung dor Ehe nuch Ausstel• able age by Home, while othor» rluscribc her iLH then "1L baby." She lung ,Jes ~"1c1,111·torll dnrf man ,~uf verwiekelte Verhiiltni~•c schlicssen. • founded a convent at MessimlH(l\:fo1,chineH) 11ca1· Ypres about tlu: yo11r The meaning of this pasH11go is for from clear. There is no ground 1065, and having in her widowhood rec1iived the veil from Pope for saying that the ' marriage-indcnturo ' was not followed by con• Alexander II, Jived there till her death. This occurred in 1071 summation, nor for saying that any dissolution was then, or ever, according to the necrology of tho same convent" and the Flemish 'contemplated.' Neither point is relevant, and many dissolutions were chronicles,2 but is elsewhere stated to have happened in I 079/ and in contemplated which never succeeded in obtaining pontifical recogni• this house of her foundation she was buried. Leaving any long tion. Even on the question of Adola's age, the dates quoted digression as to her precise age it may he taken, as sufficiently near for prove nothing beyond the fact that she was alive in 1028. the present purpose, tlmt she was born not perhaps very long before, To that however it may be added that whatever may have been the but almost cod,ainly not after, the y1\/11· 1010. Aclda's ma1TilLgo is of considemble interest from ~mvcral points of 4 Vol. ii, p. 5. view, of which not tho 1011,.-;t is tlmt it lms been taken to justify the 5 Ocscl,icltte ,:cm Evularid, Band ii, p. ~ 3. allegation of consanguinity between William the Com1um·m· urul 8 The following trnn.slo.tion is aulnnitted on ncconnt of the difficulty of the text:• Matilda of Flanders. Tu deduce however from Adelu's marriage 11ny As in this contract [the Douutio priut.ed in the Spir.ilegium] only Adela is named, and not her parents, Licquet-on the erroneous assumption that the consanguinity whatever between William and Matilda is simply princess so named was then not yet born-will not believe that it is she to whom impossible, and some investigators have given up the whole question reference is made here [there], Yet the princess was actually married in the as hopeless, denied the fact of any consanguinity either by this or by year 1028 to Baldwin V [subsequently] Count of Flanders j furthermore her son any line, and have advanced surprising thcorie.~, and imagined some married in the year 1050. If she was betrothed to Baldwin V [demselben] while still in the cradle according to William of J umieges .. or while still very young, mythical affinity tu have arisen by Adela, inasmuch as she was mother as Bouquet .. Bays, then this betrothal must have taken place much earlier, and of William's queen Matilda. therefore a dissolution can be [may have been) contemplated later [1 therefore a dissolution subsequently can be entertained (aa a poasible explanation)). It is more• 1 Migue, Patrologire O«rltU8 Oomplctua : tom. 209, col. 958, note 73. over set forth in the document [the Donatio] that Adeln was "dowered according to the degree of her nobility," and from the fact that the consummation of the 2 de Smct, Corp : Ohron: Plondr : I De Limiers, Annalt• de la Monarchic Frcinroi,e, pt. ii, p. 42, where he quotes marriage did not follow the drawing up of the marriage-indenture some sort of Aubert le llfo:-e, Notice de, l!.'glisea de Fland,·ca, p. 167. complication in their relations may be inferred. 142 MARRIAGE OF RICHARD DUKE OF THE NORMANS WITH ADELA OF FRANCE 143 age of Adela's son Baldwin VI in the yeai· 1050, and however early of a certain marriage contract or deed of gift ·or dower settlement, her own espousals, her daughter Matilda queen of the Conqueror must " Donatio," preserved in the Cartulary of St. Peter at Aire in have been born by about 1030, if there is the slightest truth in Artois, and printed hy Dom Luc d'Achery in his Spicilegium. the Norman accounts of her personal and intellectual charms in The authors of later times who have mentioned this marriage 1049, or earlier, for there is no exact knowledge as to when the arc fairly unanimous about it. Sir Francis Palgrave, whose History Norman duke became aware of her adorable quulities as described rif Nurmandy and Enyland was, one must remember, left unfinished, hy William of Jumibges and William of Poitiers, s1LVe only that !ms tho point hopoloHsly confused in the expression" " Richard le it was some time before ri Oct. 1049, when his aspirations were Bon, Duko of Normandy, uncle of William." Richard II, le Bon, thwarted by the Papal intervention. Leaving however all such it must be quite needless to remark, was grandfuther not uncle digressions, the first step towards disproving the allegation that the of William the Conqueror, and Richnrd the uncle of William was Norman Adela was daughter of the French king is to suggest Richard ITT, Richard the Young or Junior, Juvenis of Vitalis. at the least of what other parentage she may have been, and this Elsewhere? Palgravc represented Adela as contracted to Richard III first step is as yet still to take. Moreover M. Licquet was somewhat after the death of Richard II, for which there is no recognisable fanciful in other of his opinions, and was prepared for example to authority. Thorpe in his History of Enyland under the Norman dispute," without advancing any gi-ounds at all, the perfectly credible K·in!IR,10 translated with improvements from Lappenberg's work, statements of Vitnlis and others on the illegitimacy of Nicholas says of Richard III that he " appears to have flattered himself Ahhot of St. Ouen, Hon of Richard TII. with the idea that the King of France, Robert, would give him With the exception of M. Liequot modern historians appear to to wifo his daughter, Adela, who had previously been promised agree that Adela the Norman bride was Adela daughter of King to Baldwin Count of Ftanders." Thia alleged sequence again has Robert, and there docs not seem to bo the least ground for no recognisablo basis, and would be a difficulty, but for the fact questioning this identity. But why she is so .generally called the that no authority for this interesting assertion is vouchsafed; wife, or the betrothed, of Duke Richard the Third is an extremely besides which, perhaps a detail, Baldwin V was not yet Count of puzzling question : because the fact that she was not so plainly Flanders, since his father Baldwin IV the Bearded, survived appears by the very evidence which is freely quoted as authority till 1034. Lapponberg's own words are to the same effect11-" und for that erroneous assertion. Duke Richard the Third, whom er scheint sich damit gcschmeichclt zu haben, dasz der Konig von Vitalis generally speaka of aH Richard the Young, did not wear Ii'rankreich, Hobert, ihm seine fruher dem Gmfen Balduin von the coronal of Roucn for· any great length of time. The duration Flundern verheisson Tochtor, Addo, zur Gomahlinn geben wiirde." of l1iH tenure is vm-iously HLatc

u lliatoire de Normandie, vol. ii, p. 269. 11 M, Deville, 1e Jlnnalea de l~ Mona.rckie Pranroi1e, pt. ii, p, 42. WITH ADELA OF FRANCE. 146 MARRIAGE OF RICHARD DUKE OF THE NORMANS 147 anno mortuus est. Robertus frater ejus succeasit," Several chronicles January before Sunday 10 April 1026, namely January Easter narrate these events in words so nearly or precisely the same 1025 Old Style, or 1026 New Style, otherwise called historical as to leave some doubt which are and which are not original year, the present usage throughout · Christendom as represented statements, but if it could he shewn that all are mere copyings by the Western Church. Therefore on this occasion the year was of one original, then that original is thereby demonstrated to have reckoned as beginning, not at Easter nor at Easter Eve, nor at enjoyed wide credence and authority at very early periods. J...abMW the Annunciation ; hut either from the Nativity or aH at present giveA these particular» from three chronicles. The Rouen Chronicles? from the Circumcision, innsmuch aH this is the only possible way roads "10'.36 Obiit Ricardus aecundus Dux Normunnorum. Suceedit of including J 11nuary, 01· any duy in January, at once in the ye:ir Ricardu« III qui eodern anno mortuus est. Rohertus frutor ejus 1026 and also in the ninth I'ndiction. Consequently there iH no suocedit." 'l'he .chronicle of St. Michael on the Mount21 reads again room for doubting that the author of this footnote was betrayed "MXXVI Obiit Hicardus II Dux Normannorum, cui successit into a very natural error in saying, ' The year beginning at Easter Ricardus III filius ejus qui eodem anno morbuus est, cui suocessit one must read 1027 '-an error which probably arose from omitting Robertus Irater ejus." The chronicle of Fecamp as printed in the to notice the Indiction, and from a momentary forgetting that same colleetion22 most mysteriously ignores the death of this Duke, the "Old Style" was then still so new as to be yet far from suggested to have been himself a monk there as well as an honoured general in any country, or even in a,ny province. and munificent pat.ron, for the entry reads " I 026 Obiit Ricard us It becomes then necessary to determine who was " Richard Dux Normunnorum succedit, frator ejus." But the strong resemblance Duke of the Normans " in the month of January I 02f>-6, since of what st1111ds suggext1-1 that the intervening words relating the that iH when thi» Donatio iH expressed to be made. T II the first auecesaion 1~11d death of Richurd III may possibly hy some means place there iH some doubt aH to when ltieh111'!l le Bon llid din. have been dropped 0111, of this sentence at sometime. Tho text Next there is the doubt a;; to whether he ruled the Duchy till from which it was printed must itself have been a transcript as the day, or very nearly till the day of his death, a doubt however the next preceding item, the first on page 326, reads:-"1014 which appears to be of no particular importance when due con• Scribe 1024 obijt Henricus Imp." etc. and the necessity for the sideration has been given to the genesis of the statement that interpolated correction here ma.y in some degree support the he spent or may have spent some appreciable period of time in a conjecture tlmt, the following entry may have been an imperfect monastic life, resigning the government to his son Richard III. reproduction of the original, and possibly the text itself was also There iR some authority for s11ying that he was shorn a monk of a somewhat. late copy. Again another uccount'" "Quo tempore " the Abbey of Fecamp, but whether thuf wr-re actually HO or not (quo armo Hnrwtona.. ~ urbs . . . concremata e1-1t] "gloriRsimus the 11rgurrwnt is little udvunced t.heroby. His xu ruume le Bm1, H.icardus ]tol.011uig!,nsis conwH obiit, sepultua apud Fescunum Creno• hiH appollutivc "the father of th« Monks," his lnrge l•nrlowmm1t:,; bium in .Basilica Sancta: Trinitatis. Et sucoeaaif pro eo Hicardus of new religious houses, and his large grn11L:,; to ulrendy exiHting filius oi11H & ipso non longo post tempore veneno extinctus est monastieal foundations, :111 xhow his strong predilection for monuehism succeditquo pro eo Robertus frater eius." Yet again the in the abstract. On the other hand it wa.s a common thing for chronicle of Caen, as printed by Duchesne, and reprinted by Baron men who realised that their days were numbered to seek admission Maseres, says:--" Anno MXXVI Obit Ricardus secundus, Dux to religious houses, and to take the monastic vows in order to a Normannorum. Succedit Ricardus tert.ius, qui eodem anno mortuus fitting end Instances were frequent, and many are on record est. Rodbcrtus frater ejus, sucoedit." showing that the votary lived but two or thr<'e days, thus giving Vitalis a;; a monk of St. Evroult must have known tho chronicle a sufficient indication of what tho praetico was, a:,; embodied in quoted under tlurt namo if it was in existence during his time, a proverb too familiar for quotation. Duke Richard Tl might but in hi~ l•:ecl<'Hinstienl History ho 111,ikeH an entirely equivalent equally have roceived tlH! tonsure from rdigiou.~ foeling in his statement in totally different form. Ho sayii in two p1LsHnges24 graver age, or from ghostly terrors ,,,d·1·1··111.i . .s, and therefore it in that Richard II reigned thirty years, and he reckoned that period must next be shewn that he was still alive, and not yet a monk, from 996. This date presumably he took from Duclo of St. Quintin, in and after the month of January 1025-6. who says himself that he wrote at the request of Duke Richard II, First as to the year of his death, the authority for stating that and certainly he must have known the date of his patron's Richard II died in the year 1026 appears tu be amply sufficient, accession. Duclo says quite definitely that Richard I died in 996 and the statements which differ or appear to differ from this, refer his decease to a later, and not to an earlier date. The chronicle 11 Philippe Labbe, Nova Bibliathecai Manuae1·ipt. . • • Paris, 1657. of St. Evroult first printed as an appendix to the French text of 20 Ohronicon Rotlwma.gense,vol. i, p. 366, 21 Oht'Onicon Dupla 8. Michaelia in Periculo Ma.1•is, vol. i, p. 348. Vitalis edited hy M. le Prcvust18 states :-" 1026. Obiit Ricardus 21 Ohranic~n Fircannen,e, vol. i, p. 326. secundus dux Normannorurn ,uccessit Rieurdus toreius qui eodem 23 Ohrm1foon .ddemari Oha.ba.nnenai& mo11achi Sancti Eparchii Eng.,li•menaia. Ibid, vol. ii, p. 182. 18 Orderlcus Vitlllie (Sociit• de l'lli,toire de la Pr,mce), 5 vole. 1833, etc 2, Lib. iii, cap. j, e.nd lib. v, cap. xj. [Oartulaire de EJ. Evroult, ,fon,ilea Ut,cen,il] vol. v, P: 156, 148 MARRIAGE OF RICHARD DUKE OJt' THI<: NORMANS WITH ADELA OF J<'RANCE, 149 in December, and appended is a note "aged 64 years of apoplexy." xij kal. Septembris, indict. xv, A.D. 1031, anno reg. v113, anno Returning to Vitalis, he says in a third passage25 "Anno ab imp. vj. Here 1031 must be meant for 1032, which is the year incarnatione Domini MII0 Otto Tmperator obiit eique Henricus i¥dicated by the other three statements, and this carries on Conrad's successit. Dein 11XXIV° Cono Augustus imperavit, cujus iij? first yea1· to 21 August 1025, namely within seventeen days of the anno Richardus II obiit qui pro studio religionis pater monachorum anniversary of his coronation. By the " third year of Cono " then appellari meruit," Vitalis meant a year which he reckoned probably from 8 September, The quoted chroniclea then say with more or less originality but possibly from 13 July, 1026, and his statement is thus consistent that Richard II died in 1026. Vitalis s11ys he ruled for thil'ty with the chronicles. years; which, as this period must have been reckoned from December If Richard II le Bon died in the third year of Conrad II, and 996, could not have been actually completed till December 1026; within the year 1026, he was plainly still living on the 13 of July and in January 1025-6 would have been only twenty-nine years if not on the 8 of September 1026, namely about six if not and one month. Further Vitalis enables us to test his calculation upwards of seven months after the date of the Donatio in January by comparing his statement that Richard II died in the third 1025-6. The actual day of his death as will presently appear has year of Cono. By Cono is meant Conrad TI the Salian. He been referred, perhaps on good grounds, to 22-23 August 1026. It succeeded Henry II the Saint, otherwise the Lame, Duke of has been maintained that he lived till 1027. This is on the Bavat-ia, who died 13 July 1024. Conrad was crowned King of authority of certain charters of which it will be sufficient to Germany 8 Hep. 1024!.>tl at Mnyence, hy the Arch bishop of Mayence specify one to the abbey of Bemay. Malet, in his translation of on the Nativity of the Virgin, llJ-1 appear» on the authority of Waco's Crmqu,eHt mti\ orhitatc paki,i churissimi. Herourn foil to indicate un identical spot. ora 1111

llAMIL'l'ON HALL.

~& Vol. i, p. 176, note to Vitalis, lib. i , cap. xxiv,