A Note on the Marriagr of Richard Duke of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
140 MARRIAGJ<J OF RICHARD DUKE OF THE NORMANS. 141 It is unnecessary here to go into the mazes of conjecture which have been offered to explain some of these relationships, but it is impossible A NOTE ON THE MARRIAGR OF RICHARD DUKE OF to disregard the fmggestion of M. Fran~ois Isidore Licquet, in his THE NORMANS WITH ADELA OF FRANCE. Histoire de .Norrnanilie,4 that Adela of France mother of Matilda was not the same Adela who married the Norman duke Richard. His In the course of some recent enquiries into the gencu.!ogy of the ground for this, passing by his contention, doubtless just, that the Norman Counts of Rauen, it wu ..'! observed that modern writers have Norman bride wns plainly of mnrri11goablcage, is in brief that the very genemlly set forth the statement tlmt the fifth Count 01· Duke of marriage covenant of thnt bride clons not specially assert her royal the Normans, Richard III surnamed the Y uu11g or Junior, wu ..'l parentage; nor, in words, say anything about her parentage, which is married or contracted to Adela, -fi1Lughter of Hobert the Devout, King at best only 1t negative argument. He might have added that the of France. It seems that this statement is the result of a curious Flemish chroniclers, who are not very easily read, do not apparently cornbination of misapprehensions, and that grounds can be found for mention anywhere that the French Adela Countess of Flanders had rejecting the assertion as an impossibility. been previously married to the Norman, but that is only in accordance There is not much doubt that in this case no small part of the with the usual practice of tlmt period, as illustrated by the Encomium difficulty arises from the fact that very little can be known of these Emnu», which amongst other similar flatteries terms that mother personages. Adela has been the subject of some conjecture and much of three children "virgo." L11ppenberg"in a note, which is omitted dispute, She wus daughter of King Robert hy his >19co11cl 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.