Normandy

Adelaide of Normandy

Father: Robert I "le Magnifique"

Mother:
Adelaide was an illegitimate child of Robert I, duke of Normandy, as was William the Conqueror. William's mother is accepted to be a woman named Herleve, and some creditable sources (e.g. The Complete Peerage vol 1 p351 (George Edward Cokayne, enlarged by Vicary Gibbs, 1910)) claim that Adelaide had the same mother, based, it seems on a statement by Robert de Torigny in Gesta Normannorum ducum (Guillaume de Jumièges) book VIII p327, that Adelaide was William's "soror uterina" (uterine sister) which on the face of it would indicate the same mother, although historians disputing this point out the de Torigny uses this same phrase in other instances describing half-siblings whose mothers are known to be different. Furthermore, de Torigny, in his Chronicles, expressly states that William and Adelaide were born of different concubines.

Gesta Normannorum ducum (Guillaume de Jumièges) book VIII p327 (ed. Jean Marx, 1914)
Interpolation de Robert de Torigny
Roberto autem, filio Ricardi, successit filius suus primogenitus, natus ex quadam filiarum Wallevi, comitis Huntedoniae (2). Habuit enim idem Wallevus tres filias ex uxore sua, filia comitissae de Albamarla; quae comitissa fuit soror uterina Willelmi regis Anglorum senioris.
  (2) Robert, frère de Gilbert 1er de Tunbridge, épousa une fille de Waltheof, comte de Northampton et d’Huntingdon. Voir Orderic, t. III, p. 402. Waltheof lui-même avait épousé Judith, fille de la comtesse d’Aumale Aelize qui était la sœur utérine du Conquérant.
This roughly translates as:
Interpolation of Robert de Torigny
But Robert, the son of Richard, was succeeded by his eldest son, born of one of the daughters of Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon (2). For the same Waltheof had three daughters by his wife, the daughter of the countess of Albamarla; which countess was the maternal sister of William the Elder, king of England.
  (2) Robert, brother of Gilbert I of Tunbridge, married a daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon. See Orderic, Vol. III, p. 402. Waltheof himself had married Judith, daughter of the countess of Aumale Aelize, who was the Conqueror's half-sister.

Roberti de Monte Auctarium A. 960-1052 in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica vol 6 p478 (ed. G. H. Pertz, 1844)
1026. Mortuo Ricardo secundo duce Normannorum, filio primi Ricardi, successit ei filius eius Ricardus tercius. Hic genuit Nicolaum, postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis. Hic tercius Ricardus eodem primo anno ducatus sui mortuus est, et successit ei Robertas frater eius, qui genuit Willelmum de Herleva non sponsata, qui postea Angliam conquisivit, et imam filiam nomine Aeliz de alia concubina.
This roughly translates as:
This third Richard died in the same first year of his dukedom, and was succeeded by his brother Robert, who fathered, by Herleva, William, who afterwards conquered England, and a second daughter named Aeliz by another concubine.

Married (1st): Enguerrand II, count of Ponthieu

Enguerrand was the son of Hugues de Ponthieu and Bertha d'Aumal. At the Council of Reims in 1049, when the marriage of William (later the Conqueror) with Matilda of Flanders was prohibited based on consanguinity, so was that of Enguerrand, who was already married to Adelaide. Adelaide's marriage was apparently annulled at that time, although Adelaide seems to have still retained Enguerrand's lands in Aumale in dower after his death in an ambush at St. Aubin, near Arques, in 1053.

Children:
Married (2nd): Lambert de Boulogne

Children:
Married (3rd): Eudes, count of Champagne

Eudes was deprived of Champagne by his uncle Thibaut before 1071. He died in prison following a failed rebellion against William II, probably in 1108.

Children:
Occupation: Countess of Aumale. She is mentioned in Domesday Book as "Comitissa de Albamarla", holding some manors in Essex and Suffolk.

Notes:
The Complete Peerage vol 1 pp351-2 (George Edward Cokayne, enlarged by Vicary Gibbs, 1910)
  ADELAIDE(a) or ADELIZ, sister of William the Conqueror(b)  being illeg. da. of Robert, Duke of the Normans, by Herleve or Harlotte, da. of Fulbert or Robert, a pelliparius of Falaise, is mentioned in Domesday as Comitissa de Albamarla, and as holding some manors in Essex and Suffolk. In 1082, William, King of the English, and Maud, his wife, gave to the Abbey of La Trinité at Caen the bourg of Le Homme (de Hulmo) in the Côtentin, “sed et Comitissa A. de Albamarla concedente eo videlicet pacto ut ipsa teneret in vita sua.” (c) Adelaide m., 1stly, Enguerrand II, COUNT OF PONTHIEU, who d. s.p.m., being slain in 1053.(d) She m., 2ndly, Lambert, (a) COUNT OF LENS in Artois, who d. s.p.m., being slain in 1054.  She m., 3rdly, Eudes, (b) the disinherited COUNT OF CHAMPAGNE, who had taken refuge in Normandy.(c) She d. before 1090.(d) Her husband obtained Holderness after the date of Domesday. (e) Having conspired against William II in 1094, he was imprisoned in 1096. He occurs as Comes Odo in the Lindsey Survey (1115-18).
  (a) For some discussion on mediæval English names, see vol. iii, Appendix C.  V.G.
  (b) The pedigree of the earlier possessors of Aumale has been investigated by T.Stapleton in Archaeologia, vol. xxvi, pp. 349-360. There he supposed he had proved that Orderic was wrong in stating that the wife of Count Eudes of Champagne was da. of Duke Robert, and, that she was really the Duke’s grand-daughter. Later on, he discovered his own error. His amended conclusions are in Coll. Top. et Gen., vol. vi, p. 265, and, at greater length, in Rot. Scacc. Norm., vol. ii, pp. xxix-xxxi. He had, however, in the meantime misled Poulson (Holderness, vol. i, p. 24 sqq.).
  (c) Gallia Christ., vol. xi, instr., c. 68-72. Stapleton always misdates this charter.
  (d) A charter of the Church of St. Martin, at Auchy (now Aumale), narrates its foundation “a viro quodam videlicet Guerinfrido qui condidit castellum quod Albamarla nuncupatur in externis partibus Normannie super flumen quod Augus dicitur,” this charter being drawn up “jussu Enguerrani consulis qui filius fuit Berte supradicti Guerinfridi filie et Adelidis comitisse uxoris sue sororis scilicet Wilielmi Regis Anglorum,” and mentioning “Addelidis comitissa supradicti Engueranni et supradicte Adelidis filia que post obitum illorum in imperio successit,” and also “Judita comitissa domine supradicte filia.” (Archaeologia, ibid., pp. 358-60). As to Judith, in the Vita et passio venerahilis viri Gualdevi comitis Huntendonie et Norhantonie (an MS. of the 13th century in the Douai library), printed by F. Michel, Chron. Anglo-Normandes, vol. ii, it is stated, p. 112, that King William gave to Waltheof “in uxorem neptem suam Ivettam, filiam comitis Lamberti de Lens, sororem nobilis viri Stephani comitis de Albemarlia.” The following pedigree illustrates this descent.
          Guerinfrey. He built the castle of Aumale. =
                  |
              Berthe, da. and h. = Hugh II, Count of Ponthieu. d. 20 Nov. 1051.
                  |
             Enguerrand, Count of Ponthieu and Sire d'Aumale. Slain at the siege of Arques in 1053.
= 1. Adelaide, sister of William the Conqueror. She is styled Countess of Aumale. d. before 1090.
                     |
              Adelaide. Living 1096
        = 2. Lambert de Boulogne. Count of Lens. Slain in battle at Lille in 1054.
                     |
               Judith, m. Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon.
       = 3. Eudes, Count of Champagne; deprived of Champagne by his uncle Thibaut before 1071.
                     |
                Stephen, Count 1096.  of Aumale.
  (a) He was yr. s. of Eustace I, Count of Boulogne, by Mahaut, da. of Lambert I, Count of Louvain.
  (b) He was s. and h. of Stephen II, Count of Champagne, by Adele, whose parentage is unknown.
  (c) A charter to the Church of St. Martin at Auchy, was written by command of Adelidis the most noble Comitissa, sister to wit of William, King of the English, “confirmante viro suo videlicet Odone comite una cum filio suo Stephano.” (Stapleton, Rot. Scacc. Norm., vol. ii, p. xxxi).
  (d) It is here assumed that it was the sister of the Conqueror, and not her da. of the same name, who is mentioned in Domesday. Stapleton says of the former that “she did not long survive her br.. King William,” but there is nothing definite known beyond that she was living in 1082 and dead in 1090. There seems to be no charter in which the younger Adelaide is called Countess. The charter of her half-brother, Stephen, dated 14 July 1096, is “consensu simul et corroboratione sororis mee Adelidis,” showing she had some rights on Aumale. It is not very clear what they were, though she is said in the charter quoted above to have succeeded “in imperio.” Nothing further seems to be known about her, but Count Stephen had eventually the whole inheritance.
  (e) Count Eudes and his s., Stephen, gave the manor and church of Hornsea (in Holderness) to the Abbey of St. Mary at York. (Monasticon, vol. iii, p. 548).

The Conqueror and his companions vol 1 pp122-6 (James Robinson Planché, 1874)
Enguerrand, or Ingleram, Sire d’Aumale in right of his mother, who married Adelaide, sister of the Conqueror, and was killed in an ambush at St. Aubin, near Arques, in 1053, leaving an only daughter, named Adelaide after her mother, and having settled on his wife the lands of Aumale in dower. The widow of Enguerrand, being still young,  married secondly, and in the first year of her widowhood, Lambert, Count of Lens, in Artois, and brother of Eustace II., Count of Boulogne, and had by him a daughter, named Judith, whose hand was given by her uncle, William the Conqueror, to Waltheof, Earl of Northumberland. Count Lambert could scarcely have seen the birth of his child, for he was killed at Lille the following year, in a battle between Baldwin, Count of Flanders, and the Emperor Henry III. A widow for the second time, and still in the prime of life, she married, thirdly, Odo of Champagne, by whom she was the mother of Stephen, who, on the death of his elder sister Adelaide, became the first Comte d’Aumale, or Earl of Albemarle, the Seigneurie having been made a Comte by King William, but upon what occasion and at what time we have no evidence.
  The name of Adeliza with the title of “Comitissa de Albemarle” occurs in Domesday, but not that of Odo, which first appears in connection with English transactions in 1088 (1st of William Rufus), when Count Odo and his son Stephen gave the manor and church of Hornsea, in the wapentake of Holderness, to the Abbey of St. Mary of York.
… Whether the expatriated Count of Champagne fleshed his maiden sword at Senlac or not, he appears to have made no mark either for good or for evil in the annals of this country till, misled by ambition, he was induced to join in the conspiracy the collapse of which has given him an unenviable reputation in them.
  History is quite silent about him until after the death of the Conqueror, when we are told that Odo found himself embarrassed by his position as a feudatory of William Rufus in England and of Robert Court-heuse in Normandy. He owed allegiance to each; but how could he serve two masters who were at war with one another? He decided in favour of Rufus, and received an English garrison in his Castle of Aumale, which, in conjunction with his son Stephen, he enlarged and strengthened, at the expense of the royal treasury, on the invasion of Normandy by the Red King in 1090.
  Five years afterwards, however, he joined in a conspiracy with Robert de Mowbray, William d’Eu, and other disaffected nobles, to depose Rufus and place his own son Stephen d’Aurnale upon the throne.
  The conspiracy failing in consequence of timely warning having been given to the King, Odo and his son were both arrested, the former thrown into a prison, from which he never emerged alive, and the latter condemned to have his eyes put out; but the piteous prayers of his wife and family, to say nothing of the payment of a considerable sum of money, obtained a remission of his sentence and restoration to liberty. How long Odo lingered in his dungeon is unknown. The exact date of his death is as uncertain as nearly every other part of his history, but it is presumed to have taken place in 1108.

Sources:
Robert I "le Magnifique"
Robert I "le Magnifique", as depicted in the Genealogical chronicle of the English Kings (1275-1300) - BL Royal MS 14 B V
image posted at wikipedia
Statue at Robert I "le Magnifique"
Statue of Robert I "le Magnifique" as part of the Six Dukes of Normandy set of statues in the Falaise town square, Normandy, France
photo by FinnWikiNo taken in June 2006, posted at wikipedia

Robert I "le Magnifique"

Father: Richard II, Duke of Normandy

Roberti de Monte Auctarium A. 960-1052 in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica vol 6 p478 (ed. G. H. Pertz, 1844)
1026. Mortuo Ricardo secundo duce Normannorum, filio primi Ricardi, successit ei filius eius Ricardus tercius. Hic genuit Nicolaum, postea abbatem Sancti Audoeni, et duas filias, Papiam videlicet uxorem Walterii de Sancto Walerico, et Aeliz, uxorem Ranulfi vicecomitis de Baiocis. Hic tercius Ricardus eodem primo anno ducatus sui mortuus est, et successit ei Robertas frater eius, qui genuit Willelmum de Herleva non sponsata, qui postea Angliam conquisivit, et imam filiam nomine Aeliz de alia concubina.
This roughly translates as:
1026. When Richard the Second, Duke of Normandy, son of Richard the First, died, his son Richard the Third succeeded him. He fathered Nicholas, afterwards Abbot of St. Auden, and two daughters, namely Papia, wife of Walter of St. Walerick, and Aeliz, wife of Ranulf, Viscount of Bayeux. This third Richard died in the same first year of his dukedom, and was succeeded by his brother Robert, who fathered, by Herleva, William, who afterwards conquered England, and a second daughter named Aeliz by another concubine.

Mother: Judith de Rennes
Richard and Judith's contract of marriage is said to be dated in 1008 (The Conqueror and his companions vol 1 p78 (James Robinson Planché, 1874). and on p80 "Judith was the only child of Conan le Tort, Count of Rennes, by his second wife Ermengarde, daughter of Geoffrey Grisegonelle, married according to the " Chroniques de Mont St. Michel " in 9 70. Conan was slain at the battle of Conquereux in 992. ... Judith died in 1017, the mother of five children: Eichard, Robert, Guillaume, Alix (also called Judith), and Eleanore "
see also The History Of The Norman Conquest Of England vol 1 p458 (Edward A. Freeman, 1877) for ref to marriage contract

Gesta Normannorum ducum (Guillaume de Jumièges) book VIII p327 (ed. Jean Marx, 1914)
Interpolation de Robert de Torigny
Roberto autem, filio Ricardi, successit filius suus primogenitus, natus ex quadam filiarum Wallevi, comitis Huntedoniae (2). Habuit enim idem Wallevus tres filias ex uxore sua, filia comitissae de Albamarla; quae comitissa fuit soror uterina Willelmi regis Anglorum senioris.
  (2) Robert, frère de Gilbert 1er de Tunbridge, épousa une fille de Waltheof, comte de Northampton et d'Huntingdon. Voir Orderic, t. III, p. 402. Waltheof lui-même avait épousé Judith, fille de la comtesse d’Aumale Aelize qui était la sœur utérine du Conquérant.
This roughly translates as:
Interpolation of Robert de Torigny
But Robert, the son of Richard, was succeeded by his eldest son, born of one of the daughters of Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon (2). For the same Waltheof had three daughters by his wife, the daughter of the countess of Albamarla; which countess was the maternal sister of William the Elder, king of England.
  (2) Robert, brother of Gilbert I of Tunbridge, married a daughter of Waltheof, Earl of Northampton and Huntingdon. See Orderic, Vol. III, p. 402. Waltheof himself had married Judith, daughter of the countess of Aumale Aelize, who was the Conqueror's half-sister.

Married: Estrith
Robert is said to have ill-treated Estrith, and he repudiated her, sending her back to her brother, king Cnut, the Danish king of England. Estrith was also married to the Danish earl Ulf, to whom she bore Sweyn II, afterwards king of the Danes, although it is unclear in which order her marriages occured.

Children: (not by Estrith)
William's mother was Herleva, but Adelaide's mother is generally accepted to have been, as Robert de Torigny wrote "by another concubine" (de alia concubina) (Roberti de Monte Auctarium A. 960-1052 in Monumenta Germaniæ Historica vol 6 p478)

The Conqueror and his companions vol 1 pp4-5 (James Robinson Planché, 1874)
it was during the lifetime of his father, and while Robert was only Count of the Hiemois, and it may be in his nonage, that he first saw Herleve, Harlctt, or Arlot (for it is written in all manner of ways), daughter of a burgess of Falaise, an accident the results of which were the subjugation of England and the succession of a line of kings unsurpassed for valour and power by the greatest sovereigns in Europe.
p10
Herleve is said to have been extremely beautiful, and was not yielded to the young Count by her father without considerable reluctance. The proposal, made to him by “a discreet ambassador,” was received with the greatest indignation; but on consulting, we are told, his brother, who was a holy hermit in the neighbouring forest of Govert or Gouffern, a man of great sanctity, and who expressed his opinion that nothing could be refused to their liege lord (an acknowledgment of the “droit de seigneur” savouring more of policy than piety), his scruples were overcome, and Herleve was surrendered to the Count, by whom, we are told, she was treated with all affection and respect as his wife, according to the old Danish custom which still lingered in Normandy, whereby such connections were not regarded in the disreputable light they are at the present day. According to Benoit, the girl was exceedingly proud of her position, insisted on riding to the castle on a palfrey, and refused to enter it by a wicket. “Since the Duke has sent for me, why are his doors closed against me ? Throw open the gates, beaux amis!” And her commands were immediately obeyed.
   Upon Robert’s succession to the dukedom on the death of his elder brother Richard, in 1027, the father of Herleve was appointed his chamberlain, having therefore the care of the robes which he had probably made. Her brother Walter was also attached in some capacity to his person. Their residence in the market-place, we may presume, was now exchanged for an official one, either at Falaise or Rouen, and Herleve and her children were no doubt installed in the ducal apartments.
…  “The Duke,” adds the same chronicler, “loved the child as much as if he had been born in wedlock, and caused him to be as richly and as nobly cared for.”*
  * Benoit de Sainte-More; Roger de Hoveden.
 p14
  We hear nothing of Herleve after the birth of William until she appears as the lawful wife of a Norman knight named Herluin de Conteville, of whom little is known beyond the fact that he was a widower, father of a son named Ralph, on whom William is said to have bestowed large domains, besides heaping honours and possessions on Herluin, both in Normandy and England

Occupation: Duke of Normandy

Notes:
The ecclesiastical history of England and Normandy by Ordericus Vitalis book 3 chapter 1 pp381-2 (trans. Thomas Forester, 1853)
  On the death of Richard Gonnorides, his young son Richard succeeded, but he held the dukedom not quite a year and a half.3 Then it fell to his brother Robert, who held it with great honour seven years and a half, and following the example of his ancestors, laid the foundations of the abbey of Cerisi. Moved however with the fear of Grod, he relinquished his worldly honours and undertook a voluntary pilgrimage to the tomb of our Lord at Jerusalem, and died as he was returning home at Nice, in Bithynia, in the year of Christ 1035.
  3 All this part of the chronology of Normandy is surrounded with difficulties. The following are the probable results of a careful examination by the French editors: Richard II. (Gonnorides) died A.D. 1027; Richard III. is supposed to have taken the administration of affairs in 1026, during the life of his father, who passed the last months of his life in the abbey of Fécamp, and to have died in 1028. The same uncertainty attends the date of Richard III.’s death; it appears that he died before the 12th of November, 1028, and the probability is that both he and his father died in the month of August of that year. From July, 1035, to September 9, 1087, the time of William the Conqueror’s death, the fifty-third year was not completed, but only commenced.

William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the kings of England p189 (ed. John Allen Giles, 1847)
After Richard, his son of the same name obtained the principality, but lived scarcely a year. A vague opinion indeed has prevailed, that, by the connivance of his brother Robert, whom Richard the second begat on Judith, daughter of Conan, earl of Brittany, a certain woman, skilled in poisons, took the young man off. In atonement for his privity to this transaction he departed for Jerusalem, after the seventh year of his earldom; venturing on an undertaking very meritorious at that time, by commencing, with few followers, a journey, exposed to incursions of barbarians, and strange, by reason of the customs of the Saracens. He persevered nevertheless, and did not stop, but safely completed the whole distance, and purchasing admission at a high price, with bare feet, and full of tears, he worshipped at that glory of the Christians, the sepulchre of our Lord. Conciliating the favour of God, as we believe, by this labour, on his return homewards he ended his days at Nice, a city of Bithynia; cut off, as it is said, by poison. This was administered by his servant Ralph, surnamed Mowin, who had wrought himself up to the commission of this crime, from a hope of obtaining the dukedom. But on his return to Normandy, the matter becoming known to all, he was detested as a monster, and retired to perpetual exile.

The History Of The Norman Conquest Of England vol 1 pp467-75 (Edward A. Freeman, 1877)
  Richard died after a reign of thirty years. Before his death he assembled the chief men of his duchy, and by their advice he settled the duchy itself on his eldest son Richard, and the county of Hiesmes on his second son Robert as his brother’s vassal.1 Disputes arose between the brothers; Robert was besieged in his castle of Falaise, and when peace was made by the submission of Robert, the Duke did not long survive his success. After a reign of two years he died by poison2 as was generally believed, and was succeeded by his brother.3 Robert, known as the Magnificent,4 is most familiar to us in English history as the father of the Conqueror. But he has no small claims on our notice on his own account. What the son carried out, the father had already attempted. Robert was in will, though not in deed, the first Norman conqueror of England.1 In the early part of his reign he had to struggle against several revolts in his own dominions. We are not directly told what were the grounds of opposition to his government; but we are at least not surprised to hear of revolts against a prince who had attained to his sovereignty under circumstances so suspicious. But Robert overthrew all his domestic enemies,2 and he is at least not charged with any special cruelty in the reestablishment of his authority. With Britanny he did not remain on the same friendly terms as his father. His cousin Alan refused his homage, but he was brought to submission.3 In this warfare Neal of Saint-Saviour, who had so valiantly beaten off the English in their invasion of the Còtentin, appears side by side with a warrior whose name of Ælfred raises the strongest presumption of his English birth. The banishments of the earlier days of Cnut will easily account for so rare an event as that of an Englishman taking service under a foreign prince.4 But it was as the protector of unfortunate princes that Robert seems to have been most anxious to appear before the world. Baldwin of Flanders, driven from his dominions by his rebellious son, was restored by the power of the Norman Duke.5 A still more exalted suppliant presently implored his help. His liege lord, Henry, King of the French, was driven to claim the support of the mightiest of his vassals against foes who were of his own household. King Robert had at first designed the royal succession for his eldest son Hugh, whom, according to a custom common in France, though unusual in England, he caused to be crowned in his lifetime. Hugh, a prince whose merits, we are told, were such that a party in Italy looked to him as a candidate for the Imperial crown, was, after some disputes with his father, reconciled to him, and died before him. Robert then chose as his successor his second son Henry, who was already invested with the duchy of Burgundy. Henry was accordingly accepted and crowned at Rheims. But the arrangement displeased Queen Constance, who was bent on the promotion of her third son Richard. On King Robert’s death, Constance and Richard expelled Henry, who took refuge with his Norman vassal, and was restored by his help, Richard being allowed to receive his brother’s duchy of Burgundy. The policy of Hugh the Great had indeed won for his house a mighty protector in the descendant of the pirates.
  But there were other banished princes who had a nearer claim upon Duke Robert than his Flemish neighbour, a nearer personal claim than even his lord at Paris. The English Æthelings, his cousins Eadward and Ælfred, were still at his court, banished from the land of their fathers, while the Danish invader filled the throne of their fathers. Their mother had wholly forgotten them; their uncle had made no effort on their behalf; Robert, their cousin, was the first kinsman who deemed it any part of his business to assert their right to a crown which seemed to have hopelessly passed away from their house. That Robert did make an attempt to restore them, that the relations between him and Cnut were unfriendly on other grounds, there seems to reason to doubt. But when we ask for dates and details, we are at once plunged into every kind of confusion and contradiction. The English writers are silent; from the German writers we learn next to nothing; the Scandinavian history of this age is still at least half mythical; the Norman writers never held truth to be of any moment when the relations of Normandy and England were concerned. That Robert provoked Cnut by threats or attempts to restore the Æthelings, and also by ill-treating and repudiating Cnut’s sister, seem to be facts which we may accept in the bare outline, whatever we say as to their minuter details. That Cnut retaliated by an invasion of Normandy, or that the threat of such an invasion had an effect on the conduct of the sovereigns of Normandy, are positions which are strongly asserted by various authorities. But their stories are accompanied by circumstances which directly contradict the witness of authorities which are far more trustworthy. In fact, the moment we get beyond the range of the sober contemporary Chronicles of our own land, we find ourselves in a region in which the mythical and romantic elements outweigh the historical and moreover, in whatever comes from Norman sources, we have to be on our guard against interested invention as well as against honest error.
  We have seen that Estrith, a sister of Cnut, was married with to the Danish Earl Ulf, the brother-in-law of Godwine, to whom she bore the famous Swegen Estrithson, afterwards King of the Danes, one of the most renowned princes in Danish history. We are told by a crowd of authorities that, besides her marriage with Ulf, Estrith was married to the Duke of the Normans, that she was ill-treated by him in various ways, and was finally sent back with ignominy to her brother. Most of the writers who tell this story place this marriage before her marriage with Ulf, and make the Danish Earl take the divorced Supposed wife of the Norman Duke. With this story several writers connect another story of an invasion, or threatened invasion, of Normandy undertaken by Cnut in order to redress his sister’s wrongs. The most popular Danish writer even makes Cnut die, in contradiction to all authentic history, while besieging Rouen. We read also how the Norman Duke fled to Jerusalem or elsewhere for fear of the anger of the lord of six Northern kingdoms. Details of this kind are plainly mythical; but they point to some real quarrel, to some war, threatened if not actually waged, between Cnut and Robert. And chronology, as 'well as the tone of the legends, shows that the whole of these events must be placed quite late in Cnut’s reign. Robert The natural inference is that the marriage between Robert and Estrith took place, not before Estrith’s marriage with Ulf, but after Ulf’s death. The widow was richly endowed; her brother had atoned for the slaughter of her husband by territorial grants which might well have moved the greed of the Norman. A superior attraction nearer his own castle may easily account for Robert’s neglect of his Scandinavian bride, a bride no doubt many years older than the young Count of Hièsmes. Within three years after Estrith’s widowhood, Robert became the father of him who was preeminently the Bastard.
  It seems impossible to doubt that Robert’s intervention on behalf of his English cousins was connected with these events. The reign of Robert coincides with the last seven years of the reign of Cnut, so that any intervention of Robert in English affairs must have been in Cnut’s later days. Each prince would doubtless seize every opportunity of annoying the other; the tale clearly sets Robert before us as the aggressor; but as to the order of events we are left to guess. It would be perfectly natural, in a man of Robert’s character, if the repudiation of Estrith was accompanied, or presently followed, by the assertion of the claims of the Æthelings to her brother’s crown. The date then of the first contemplated Norman invasion of England can be fixed only within a few years; but the story, as we read it in the Norman accounts, seems credible enough in its general outline. The Duke sends an embassy to Cnut, demanding, it would seem, the cession of the whole kingdom of England to the rightful heir. That Cnut refused to surrender his crown is nothing wonderful, though the Norman writer seems shocked that the exhortation of the Norman ambassadors did not at once bring conviction to the mind of the usurper.3 The Duke then, in great wrath, determines to assert the claims of his kinsmen by force of arms. An assembly of the Normans is held, a forerunner of the more famous assembly at Lillebonne, in which the invasion of England is determined on. A fleet is made ready with all haste, and Duke Hobert and the Ætheling Eadward embark at Fécamp. But the wind was contrary; instead of being carried safely to Pevensey, the fleet was carried round the Côtentin and found itself on the coast of Jersey.1 All attempts were vain; the historian piously adds that they were frustrated by a special Providence, because God had determined that his servant Eadward should make his way to the English crown without the shedding of blood.2 The Duke accordingly gave up his enterprise on behalf of his cousin of England, and employed his fleet in a further harrying of the dominions of his cousin of Britanny.3 At last Robert, Archbishop of Rouen, the common uncle of Robert and Alan,4 reconciled the two princes, and the fleet seems now to have sailed to Rouen.5 Thus far we have a story, somewhat heightened in its details, but which may be taken as evidence that Robert, who had restored the fugitive sovereigns of France and Flanders, really thought of carrying on his calling of King-maker beyond the sea. … The storm, or whatever it was, which kept back Duke Robert from his invasion of England, put off the chances of a Norman Conquest for nearly forty years.
  1 W. Gem. v. 17. “Cunctos Nonnannorum principea apud Fiscannum convocat.” “Richardum filium suum consultu sapientum [mid his Witena geþeaht] præfecit suo ducatui, et Robertum fratrem ejus comitatui Oximensi, ut inde illi persolveret debitum obsequii.” See above, p. 173. …
  2 Will. Gem. vi. 2. “Cum suorum nonnullis, ut plurimi rettulerunt, veneno mortem obiit.” So Roman de Rou, 7434 et seqq. William of Malmesbury (ii. 178) more distinctly mentions the suspicion against Robert; “Opinio certe incerta vagatur, quod conniventia fratris Roberti … vim juveni venefica consciverit.” So Chron. Turon. (Duchesne, iii. 360); “ Hie dicitur veneno necasse Richardum fratrem suum.”
  3 Richard left a young son, Nicolas, seemingly illegitimate (see Palgrave, iii. 137-142), who became a monk, and died Abbot of Saint Ouen’s in 1092. Will. Gem. vi. a; Ord. Vit. 710 A, who records how he began, but did not finish, the abbey church. Of his work only a small part at the east end remains.
  4 There is no authority whatever for his common name of Robert the Devil which seems to have arisen from confounding him with the hero of some popular romance. The Norman historians give him a singularly good character, and certainly, unless he had a hand in his brother’s death, no great crime is recorded of him. We hear absolutely nothing of any such cruelties on his part as are recorded of many princes of that age. (See Will. Gem. vi, 3; Roman de Rou, 7453.) Altogether his actions might make us think that he was of the same generous and impulsive disposition as his forefather William Longsword (see above, p. 193). His conduct in the external relations of his duchy was far more honourable than that of William; but then he had no Hugh of Paris or Herbert of Vermandois to lead him astray. For another character of Robert, see below, p. 478
  1 Bishop Guy of Amiens goes a step further, and makes Robert actually conquer England; Carmen de Bello, 331;
  '‘Normannos proavus [Willelmi sc.] superavit, avusque Britannos; Anglorum genitor sub juga colla dedit.”
  2 Archbishop Robert his uncle, William of Belesme (of whose family more anon), and Hugh Bishop of Bayeux, who was son of Rudolf of Ivry (see above, p. 258), and therefore first cousin to Robert’s father. See Will. Gem. vi. 3-5; Roman de Rou, 7591 et seqq.
  3 Will. Gem. vi. 8; Roman de Rou, 7755-7896
  4 See Appendix OOO.
  5 Will. Gem. vi. 6. The younger Baldwin had married Adela, daughter of King Robert and the nominal widow of Duke Richard the Third.
  3 Will. Gem. vi. 10. “Ille salubribus monitis ejus non adquievit, sed legatos infectis rebus nihil lætum portantes remisit.”
  1 “Nimia tempestate acti ad insulam quæ Gersus vocatur,” says William of Jumièges. “Gersus” is a singular form for an island which is also called Cæsarea, but whose last syllable, like that of its neighbours, has a very Teutonic sound. Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 176) remarks that this is the first time that Jersey is spoken of in mediaeval history. Waco (7937) seems to have thought that a special description of the position of his native island was needed;
  “Gersui est prez de Costentin, En mer est devers occident, Là ù Normendie prent fin; Al fiè de Normendie appent.”
  2 Will. Gem. vi. 10. “Quod puto ita factum esse, Deo auctore, pro Edwardo rege, quem disponebat in future regnare sine sanguinis effusione.” William of Malmesbury is vaguer and more discreet; “per occultum scilicet Dei judicium, in cujus voluntate sunt potestates regnorum omnium.”
  3 Ib. vi. 11.
  4 Ib.
  5 William of Malmesbury winds up bis story with the singular statement; “Relliquiæ ratium, multo tempore dissolutarum, Rotomagi adhuc nostra ætate visebantur,”

The Conqueror and his companions vol 1 p4 (James Robinson Planché, 1874)
Robert I., Duke of Normandy, styled by some “the Magnificent,” from his liberalities and love of splendour; “the Jerusalemite,” in consequence of his pilgrimage; and by others less courteously “the Devil,” though wherefore or at what period has not been satisfactorily ascertained. … Robert was the second son of Richard II., Duke of Normandy, by his wife Judith, daughter of Conan le Tort (the Crooked), Count of Renncs, and sister of the half blood to Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany;

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition vol 23 pp400-2 (ed. Hugh Chisholm, 1911)
  ROBERT I. (d. 1035), called Robert the Devil, was the younger son of Richard II., duke of Normandy (d. 1026), who bequeathed to him the county of Exmes. In 1028 he succeeded his brother, Richard III., whom he was accused of poisoning, as duke of Normandy. His time was mainly spent in fighting against his rebellious vassals. At his court Robert sheltered the exiled English princes, Edward, afterwards King Edward the Confessor, and his brother Alfred, and fitted out a fleet for the purpose of restoring them to their inheritance, but this was scattered by a storm. When returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he died at Nicaea on the 22nd of July 1035. His successor as duke was his natural son, William the Conqueror, afterwards king of England. In addition to winning for him his surname, Robert’s strength and ferocity afforded material for many stories and legends, and he is the subject of several poems and romances (see ROBERT THE DEVIL below).
…
  ROBERT THE DEVIL, hero of romance. He was the son of a duke and duchess of Normandy, and by the time he was twenty was a prodigy of strength, which he used, however, only for outrage and crime. At last he learnt from his mother, in explanation of his wicked impulses, that he was born in answer to prayers addressed to the devil. He was directed by the pope to a hermit, who imposed on him by way of penance that he should maintain absolute silence, feign madness, take his food from the mouth of a dog, and provoke ill-treatment from the common people without retaliating. He became court fool to the emperor at Rome, and delivered the city from Saracen invasions in three successive years in the guise of an unknown knight, having each time been bidden to fight by a celestial messenger. The emperor’s dumb daughter recovered speech to declare the identity of the court fool with the deliverer of the city, but Robert refused the hand of the princess and the imperial inheritance, and ended his days in the hermitage of his old confessor.
  The French romance of Robert le Diable is one of the oldest versions of the legend, and differs in detail from the popular tales printed in the 15th and 16th centuries. It was apparently founded on folk-lore, not on the wickedness of Robert Guiscard or any historical personage; but probably the name of Robert and the localization of the legend may be put down to the terror inspired by the Normans. In the English version the hero is called Sir Gowther, and the scene is laid in Germany. This metrical romance dates from the beginning of the 15th century, and is based, according to its author, on a Breton lay. The legend had undergone much change before it was used by E. Scribe and C. Delavigne in the libretto of Meyerbeer’s opera of Robert le Diable.
  See Robert le Diable, ed. E. Löseth (Paris, 1903, for the Soc. des anc. textes fr.); Sir Gowther, ed. K. Breul (Oppeln, 1886); M. Tardel, Die Sage v. Robert d. Teufel in neueren deutschen Dichtungen (Berlin, 1900). Breul’s edition of the English poem contains an examination of the legend, and a bibliography of the literature dealing with the subject. The English prose romance of Robert the Devyll was printed (c. 1510) by Wynkyn de Worde.

Death: 2 July 1035, in Nicea, in Bithynia, returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem

The Conqueror and his companions vol 1 p12-6 (James Robinson Planché, 1874)
After Duke Robert had ruled Normandy some seven or eight years, he called together at Fécamp the chief persons in his dominions, announced to them his intention to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and his desire to settle the succession previously to undertaking a perilous journey from which he might never return. His auditors, amongst whom was his uncle Robert, Archbishop of Rouen and Count of Evreux, who had himself pretensions to that succession, strongly opposed his proposition. To leave Normandy under such circumstances would be ruin to it. The Duke was conjured to remain at home and protect the duchy from the inroads of the Bretons and Burgundians. Robert, however, was not to be dissuaded from his purpose. “Seigneurs,” he said, “you speak truly. I have no direct heir, but I have a little boy, who, if it please you, shall be your Duke, acting under the advice of the King of France, who will be his protector. He is little, but he will grow. I acknowledge him my son. Receive him and you will do well. It may please God that I shall return. If not, he will have been brought up amongst you. He will do honour to his culture, and, if you will promise to love and loyally serve him, I will leave him in my place.”
… Duke Robert lost no time in setting out on his pilgrimage, conducting on the way his son to Paris, where he caused him to do homage to the King for the Duchy of Normandy, and received personal assurance of the royal protection.
… Duke Robert died on his return from Jerusalem at Nikaia in Bithynia, poisoned, as it is reported, by Raoul, surnamed Mouin

The History Of The Norman Conquest Of England vol 1 pp477-8 (Edward A. Freeman, 1877)
A fit of purer religious enthusiasm, a fierce impulse of penitence for past sins, carried Robert of Normandy on the more distant pilgrimage to Jerusalem.3 On his return he died at the Bithynian Nikaia; some say by the same fate by which he was suspected of having made away with his own brother.1 In his lifetime he had begun to rear the noble abbey of Cerisy, where, after many changes and mutilations, some parts still remain to witness to the severe grandeur of the taste of Robert and his age.2 But the bones of its founder were not destined to rest among its massive pillars or beneath the bold arches which span the width of its stately nave. The relics which he had collected in the East were borne by his chamberlain Toustain to the sanctuary which he had founded,3 but the great Duke of the Normans4 himself found his last home in the lands beyond the Hellespont, beneath the spreading cupolas of a Byzantine basilica at Nikaia.5 The Norman thus died a stranger and a pilgrim in a land of another tongue and another worship.
  3 See William of Jumièges, vi. 12, who however does not distinctly connect the pilgrimage with the death of his brother. But William of Malmesbury says distinctly, “cujus rei gemens conscientiam.” So the Tours Chronicle quoted above (p. 468); “Quare … nudipes Hierusalem abiit.”
  1 Will. Malms, ii. 1 78. “Apud Nicseam urbem Bithyniæ dies implevit, veneno, ut fertur, interceptus; auctore ministro Radulfo, cognomento Mowino, qui scelus illud spe ducatus animo suo extorserit; sed Normanniam regressus, re cognita, ab omnibus quasi monstrum exsufflatus, in exsilium perpetuum discessit.” So Roman de Rou, 8372.
  2 Will. Gem. vii. 22. “At Robertus … antequam Hieruaalem pergeret, monasterium Sancti Vigoiis Ceratii ædificare cœpit.” So Roman de Rou, 7465 et seqq., 8390. On Cerisy, see Neustria Pia, 429.
  3 Roman de Rou, 8391.
  4 Will. Gem. vii. 1. “Roberti magni ducis.”
  5 Ib. vi. 13. “Sepultus est etiam in basilica sanctæ Marise a suis, intra mœnia Nicenæ civitatis.” According to the Chronicle of Saint Wandrille (D’Achery, ii. 288) Robert’s burial in this church was a favour the like of which had never before been granted to any man. This writer altogether casts aside the tale of Robert being poisoned. “Divino, ut credi fas est, judicio decessit, qui jam unus eorum effectus erat, quibus, ut apostolus conqueritur, dignus non erat mundus.” Evil counsellors had led him astray in youth; but he repented of his misdeeds—why did he neither marry Herleva nor take back Estrith?—and gradually reached this high degree of perfection.

Buried: in the basilica of St Mary, within the walls of Nicea, but later moved to Apulia, in Italy

Gesta Normannorum ducum (Guillaume de Jumièges) book VI p114 (ed. Jean Marx, 1914)
Porro invictus dux, pius et Deo amabilis, adorato Christo cum internorum singultuum suspiriis, et peragratis sanctorum locis, felicissimum convertens iter, ad Nicenam regressus est urbem. In qua correptus egrimonia corporis, millesimo tricesimo quinto anno ab Incarnatione Domini, viam petens universi generis humani, gaudentibus Angelis, Divinae vocationis jussu in pace vitae cursum explevit. … Sepultus est etiam a suis in basilica sanctae Mariae intra menia ipsius civitatis, regnante Domino nostro Jesu Christo in Paternae Deitate majestatis, cum coequalitate Spiritus sancti, per omnia secula seculorum.
This roughly translates as:
Then the invincible leader, pious and beloved of God, having adored Christ with sighs of inner sobs, and having traversed the holy places, he returned to the city of Nicea, having made the most happy journey. In which, seized with bodily weakness, in the one thousand thirty-fifth year after the Incarnation of the Lord, seeking the way of the entire human race, he completed the course of his life in peace, by the command of the Divine calling, with the rejoicing of the Angels. … He was also buried by his own people in the basilica of Saint Mary within the walls of that city, while our Lord Jesus Christ reigns in the majesty of the Father's Deity, with the coequal power of the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.

William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the kings of England p307 (ed. John Allen Giles, 1847)
  Honouring the memory of his father, by every practicable method, in the latter part of his life, he caused his bones, formerly interred at Nicea, to be taken up by means of a person sent for that purpose, in order to convey them elsewhere; who, successfully returning, stopped in Apulia, on hearing of the death of William, and there buried this illustrious man’s remains.

Sources:
Return to Chris Gosnell's Home Page

If you have any comments, additions or modifications to the information on this page, please feel free to email me.
Created and maintained by: chris@ocotilloroad.com