Zoe’s Comments (group member since Jul 07, 2013)

Zoe’s comments from the Ask Carol McGrath group.

For monarchs to be answerable to the people, the first step is to have a separate legislative body. I read just the other day that it was Stephen, Count of Treguier (1058/62- 21 April 1136), Alan Rufus's youngest brother, who first proposed the establishment of an English Parliament. There had of course been the Witenagemot, but that was a Senate in the early Roman sense of a stable Council of Elders, comprising the heads of the wealthiest and most powerful households, much like the King's or Privy Council of which Stephen was already a member, whereas a Parliament could include commoners as well as lesser nobility and clerics, and other people of talent.

The first sovereign, elected Parliament (with commoners having a vote, what's more) was the second of those called by Simon de Montfort (1208? – 4 August 1265), 6th Earl of Leicester. In his youth he shared guilt with his father and brother for the Albigensian Crusade and he maintained his family's hostility to the Jews, so in those respects he failed to overcome the prejudices of his time. But England and its neighbours would have been better (and improving) places had not Edward I defeated him.

Stephen and Simon were, in certain respects, well ahead of their time: to put it another way, it's a great pity that their times were so retarded.

The Roman Empire could have had an elected parliament, but the Principate put paid to that. In the original model, each town had its own elected governing body: if I recall correctly, that ended when Rome crushed the rebellion of the (other) cities of Latium at the end of the Latin War (343 BC – 338 BC).

How different history might have been had there been a democratic Roman Empire? It would have lasted longer, because the model would have allowed, for example, the peaceful addition of all the German tribes; this in turn would have provided a much shorter and more defensible border: from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Having all those extra happy soldiers would have helped hugely, too.

Rome would have expanded peacefully with continuity instead of by war and disruption. Nations across the globe would have clamoured to join it and instead of ripping it apart for treasure, they would have seen how they could contribute to their own wealth by working cooperatively. What's more, science would have advanced without a break and living standards would have risen across the board. The knowledge to treat diseases would have been much more advanced, and quite possibly the great plagues would have been prevented.

Nicky wrote: "...Ironic that through John, the one no one likes, that we have Edward I and Edward III, two of the great Medieval English kings, and through him, unintended by him of course, we have a monarchy that is answerable to its people."

From a principally Celtic perspective, the Plantagenet Edwards I and III are no heroes; moreover, greatness has to comprise something better than mass murder of civilians - a crime that also severely blots Wallace's copybook.

Regarding the Magna Carta, it has its origins in the Charter of Liberties signed by Henry I. One of the latter's provisions is that the King shall not prevent a marriage unless one of the parties is a (current) enemy of his. This seems to be in response to William I's refusal to sanction Ralph de Gael's marriage and William II's refusal in other cases.

Many genealogical sites state that Robert of Avranches, an (illegitimate?) son of Hugh of Avranches (born about 1047, died 27 July 1101), 2nd Earl of Chester, was actually named "Ruallon", which is Breton for Roland.

If so, then the Earls of Chester, the later great rivals of the Earls of Richmond during the Anarchy, were also (at least culturally) Breton! This makes sense because Avranches was part of Brittany until illegally ceded by the French King Charles III to Rollo under the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte in Autumn 911 during the absence of the Breton sovereign house who were then refugees in England.

For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_d%... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_o....

Admittedly, the above relies excessively on tertiary sources, especially Wikipedia, but they provide easily accessible starting points for further exploration.

Carol, to answer an earlier question of yours, the Bottrill document says that Alan Niger may have had an illegitimate son named "Hamo" by Gunnhilda.

It also says that Alan Rufus was born in 1038, in which case the Angevin charter he witnessed was in 1059.

Dates the "Eudes de Penthievre.pdf" document asserts for Alan's brothers:

Geoffrey Boterel: Count of Penthievre 1079-1093 (died 24 August, as we know). There is a paragraph of chronologically misplaced material in this entry,

Brien/Brian: 1033?-1086, probably illegitimate, left England by 1072, so not involved in the Revolt of the Earls, just retired because of injury.

Alan Niger born 1042?

William born 1044: illegitimate.

Bodin born 1045? (illegitimate if full-brother of Bardolf as Domesday indicates).

Stephen: 1046-1138. (Died at 92 years of age? Then his mother Agnes/Orguen of Cornouaille would have been 31 when he was born, which is plausible; other sites claim he was born around 1060, making him 78 when he died, but then Agnes would have been about 45 when he was born, which is just possible but it would have made her one *strong* medieval woman - perhaps that's why her sons were so strong?)

Ribald born 1048, died 1120: illegitimate. (However, Domesday calls him "Brother of Count Alan", with no hint of illegitimacy, but then maybe Bretons were less fussed by that than some).

Bardolf born 1050? illegitimate.

Robert born 1056: illegitimate.

Geoffrey the younger: illegitimate, birth date not given.

Arnald: illegitimate, birth date not given.

Richard: born 1058, illegitimate.

There's a portrait of Duke Alan IV Fergant at:

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ss...

The Bottrill family claim descent from Alan's eldest brother Geoffrey Boterel. The following document on their website lacks the most current estimates for the dates, but is interesting in other ways - at least as a source of material for novels.

http://bottrillfamilyhistory.com/file...

According to that, one of the Alans died in 1093 fighting Geoffrey! If this is so, that may explain why Alan Rufus died on 4 August 1093 and Geoffrey on 24 August 1093, for in this view, they were both fighting their most formidable competitors on the battlefield - their own family!

Why would Alan and Geoffrey battle each other? One historian I've read said that while Alan was pro-Norman, Geoffrey was anti-Norman, like their cousin Duke Conan II who had died in 1066 during a promising campaign to conquer Anjou and Normandy.

To really complicate things, Conan's grandson Alan IV "Fergant" (born about 1067, died 1119, Duke of Brittany from 1084 to 1112 when he retired to become a monk) was first married to princess Constance of Normandy (born 1057-1061, died 1090), daughter of William the Conqueror, but remarried in 1093 to Ermengarde of Anjou, daughter of Count Fulk IV of Anjou, an arch-rival of the Normans.

Alan IV was Alan Rufus's and Geoffrey's first cousin on one parent's side, and first cousin once removed on the other's, so that's genetically 3/4 of a brother. Alan IV also had red hair and was a powerful knight (as his nickname indicates), so I guess these two Alans would have looked somewhat alike.

Carol wrote: "For Zoe, do you know what banners Alan of Richmond had?"

The site http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fr... has some Breton Ducal banners from the 1200s.

Curiously, the House of Vermandois in Picardy had gold and blue checks similar to the gold and azure of the House of Rennes, but coincidences of that kind were frequent for simple patterns in heraldry, and in this case probably considered propitious.

Carol wrote: "Zoe,thank you. This is so very helpful."

Carol, I am always glad to contribute, when I can. Now, according to Google maps Wilton House (on the site of Wilton Abbey) is south of Gloucester, 77 miles by the A417, nearly in Salisbury. One passes through (or by?) Cirencester, Swindon and Marlborough.

Here's where I beg for evidence from more learned persons.

Depending on the terrain, the route in 1093 may have been longer, but assuming that it was of similar length, how long would it have taken Malcolm to travel the 77 miles?

Did Malcolm pass Gloucester on the way to Wilton? And did he find William II wasn't there, but discovered that William had gone to Wilton, then chased after him to protect his daughter Edith?

Or, contrary to the account in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_..., did Malcolm meet William II at Gloucester on 24 August, meet with his rebuff, then continue to Wilton for his daughter?

I'm thinking it would have been a roundabout trip to go to Wilton first, collect his daughter, then return via Gloucester. I haven't heard mention of William II and Edith meeting in Gloucester.

But why would Malcolm mention Alan Rufus as a potential suitor for Edith after 24 August, when/if Alan was already dead?

Or were Malcolm's words at Wilton that he wished that Alan were still alive to marry Edith, but with Alan dead, he feared there was no-one in England strong and wise enough to restrain William II and his bullies, and therefore he had to take Edith from Wilton for her own safety?

Important dates in 1093:


Anselm nominated for Archbishop of Canterbury:
6 March.

En route to Gloucester, Malcolm III visits daughter Edith and sister-in-law Cristina at Wilton Abbey:
Unknown date, but in 1093 before 24 August.

Alan Rufus dies:
4 August.

Anselm lays down his conditions for accepting the position:
24 August.

Geoffrey Boterel I, i.e. Alan's eldest brother, killed:
24 August.

Malcolm arrives at Gloucester to negotiate with William II Rufus:
24 August.

William II refuses to negotiate;
Malcolm returns to Scotland:
On or soon after 24 August.

Anselm enthroned as Archbishop of Canterbury:
25 September.

Letters of Anselm to Gunhilda (http://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/... and http://epistolae.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/...), dated:
Two occasions after 25 September 1093.

Malcolm III killed:
13 November.

While we're still in the dark as to how Alan Rufus died, I do have some ideas about when he was most likely born.

His father Eozen, several brothers and he witnessed an Angevin charter believed to have been issed in the 1050s, so between 1050 and 1059. If in those days one reached one's legal majority and right to inherit at age 21, and if witnesses to property transfers were required to be old enough to acquire and dispose of property, then Alan would have had to be born no later than 1038.

Eozen was born about 999, and Alan was either the second or third son, so if the sons' births were spaced say 2 to 4 years apart, and if his wife Orguen/Agnes was born, as thought, about 1015, and if they married when she was 14, i.e. in 1029, then Alan could have been born between 1033 and 1037, making him between 29 and 33 at Hastings (but at least 28), a credible age for a vigorous young commander.

William was about 38 at Hastings, his brothers Odo and Robert of course a few years younger (at most age 35?), whereas Eustace of Boulogne was between about 46 and 51. (Maybe that's why Eustace was so cautious on the battlefield?)

By the above estimate, Alan would have been aged between about 55 and 60 when he died on 4 August 1093.

Elizabeth wrote: "Hello all,
Fascinating discussion!
William Marshal was apparently a relative of William de Tancarville on his maternal line. Professor Crouch believes that his mother's grandfather Edward of Salisb..."

Thank you for that, Elizabeth! I'll endeavour to look into that.

By the way, William de Tancarville's mother, the daughter of Alan's youngest brother and eventual heir Stephen Tregor (Count of Treguier), was the delightfully named Tiphanie.

Tiphanie is a familiar form of Theophania, which she may have been named for religious reasons, or (otherwise or also) after the Armenian Byzantine Empress Theophania who lived from circa 960 to 15 June 991 and married the German Emperor Otto II in Rome on 14 April 972. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanu for her details.)

Nicky wrote: "I think regarding John and Arthur the major issue was always going to be age."

Yes, many states, from small counties to nations as large as China, have undergone terrible convulsions because, in a time of internal stress, the heir to the throne was too young to govern strongly or wisely.

John was in his majority by some years and Arthur was a child. There was no set precedence as to whether brother 2 of the deceased king or son of brother 1 had the greater claim. I believe in Brittany it was the latter and the former in Anjou which really muddies the water..."

In Brittany, it could be either the son or daughter of brother 1. In principle, the preferred ruler of Brittany could have been Arthur's elder sister Eleanor (even ahead of Arthur); that would underline John's and Henry III's concern that she was dangerous. Indeed, she may have been the decision-maker already, just as Keats-Rohan claims that Rivallon of Dol's sister Imogen was during the inception of the 1060s Norman-Breton War.

The earlier Anarchy arose from a disagreement about whether William I's son's daughter, or his daughter's son, should inherit. After years of bloodshed, the semi-Salic compromise was for the daughter's son to rule first, followed by the son's daughter's son.

All else being equal, one would have expected all the Bretons to support Empress Matilda as ruling Queen, on account of her being King Henry I's daughter and sole surviving legitimate offspring, but the complicated real politics of the time left them divided down the middle, like all the other ethnic groups with a presence in England.

In searching for links between Count Alan and Plouigneau in Brittany where www.geni.com/people/Alain-le-Roux-Fit...‎ claims he died, I found something else that is interesting in its own right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_H.... Thomas Holland (c. 1314 – 26 December 1360) was from Upholland in Lancashire, a son of Robert de Holland, 1st Baron Holand and Maud la Zouche.

The Zouches were Bretons with familial connections to both Alan Rufus and to the Stewarts.

Thomas Holland's wife was Joan of Kent, so he was later made Earl of Kent.

Thomas was an English military commander in the Hundred Years' war, during which he captured the Count de Tancarville. Thomas was the thirteenth knight to receive the Order of the Garter.

His son Henry married Anne of York, and Henry's daughter Anne married Thomas Grey, son of Sir John Grey and Elizabeth Wydeville (Woodville).

The site www.geni.com/people/Thomas-Holland/60...‎, which cites much documentary evidence for other statements, claims that Earl Thomas Holland died in Plouigneau, but it gives no evidence for that.

It may be that the mention of Plouigneau is a rampant typographical error common to genealogical lists on the internet, as I've encountered numerous surely spurious assertions about births there, including Roger of Montgomerie and Countess Adelaide.

So, the place of Alan's death remains unknown. Some unreliable sites claim Richmond, but surely in that case his body would have been conveyed directly to St Mary's in York, and not to Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk? (That is, unless Alan had specified a wish to be buried at Bury?)

Much of what I've learnt about the Domesday property owners I've read in the scholarly works of Katherine Keats-Rohan, from which I've recently discovered that Alan Rufus retained, without diminution of their position, some men of Danish descent who had rebelled twice against William.

Evidently Alan had a lot of confidence in his own position with the King, and with his own tenants!

The freebooting Danish Vikings who acknowledged no Norman lord and occasionally attempted assaults on Brittany include some who were captured, or otherwise pacified, and turned into loyal Bretons. One such was named Ansketil.

There are many people in Domesday with the name Ansketil, as it was also popular among Anglo-Danes and Normans.

Referring back to Durham, just last night I discovered regarding my ggf the superintendant of lighthouses William Foy, that his mother's name was Elizabeth Cuthbert.

Saint Cuthbert (c. 634 – 20 March 687) was an Anglo-Saxon "bishop of Hexham and later of Lindisfarne". He was "a saint of the early English church in the Celtic tradition" - intriguing!

The Strathclyde Britons of that surname in Kirkcudbrightshire claimed descent from St Cuthbert.

In the Norman and Plantagenet era the surname was recorded in Cambridgeshire and at York.

So, were the Bretons also fond of St Cuthbert? Likely, as popular saints' cults spread across Europe in all directions.

Another example of the adoption of popular figures' names is that several of the Bretons in Domesday were called Alfred! These included not only descendants of Bretons who had settled in England pre-Conquest, but also some who had been born in Brittany.

Elizabeth wrote: ...Richard trumped John in her affections, and John trumped Arthur. Besides, Arthur was Geoffrey's son and we don't know how Eleanor felt about Geoffrey come to that. ..."

Still, Eleanor was surely in no personal danger from her grandson and her namesake granddaughter, so perhaps John's haste was prompted by a fear that she might be convinced to favour Arthur, if only to pacify her own subjects in Poitou and Aquitaine?

When Poitou rebelled, despite John's mother Eleanor's presence, John would have been well aware that the political situation was unsympathetic to him.

Indeed, after word spread of Arthur's death, John irrevocably lost Eleanor's capital Poitiers and the whole of Aquitaine, as well as all his other continental possessions with the exception of Gascony.

Incidentally, the Gascons were also the last holdout of pro-English sentiment during the Hundred Years' War. Why?

Paradoxically, Gascony later provided the most renowned French Royal musketeers, in fact as well as in Dumas' embellished fiction.

Kathleen wrote: "..Henry's sons followed in his footsteps as his brothers warred against him, and possibly would have done so with Geoffrey their father if he had lived longer..."

Such trouble seems to have been expected; "The Lion in Winter" makes Henry II's family conflicts its central theme.

However, King John clearly took one step too far when, in about 1203, he killed his nephew Duke Arthur (a murder attested by the gaoler's wife, to her own family's cost), and most of his domains in France reacted accordingly.

Such a tangled tale! Poitou had rebelled against John's mother Eleanor, and Arthur and his elder sister, also named Eleanor, had gone to Mirebeau to persuade their grandmother that John was not fit to rule. It's said that John rushed to the scene with "uncharacteristic haste", so surprising Arthur and capturing him.

What puzzles me is why Eleanor of Aquitaine supported John at all: he had been Henry II's favorite, not hers. Did Eleanor not get along with Arthur's mother Constance of Brittany? But Constance had died in 1201.

Carol wrote: "...Do you know if Countess Adelaide William's sister, had property near to that ascribed to Alan in Yorkshire..."

None in Yorkshire. According to http://domesdaymap.co.uk/name/96000/c..., she owned 15 properties in total, of which 13 were in Suffolk and 2 just across from them in Essex.

So I was mistaken in visualising Adelaide's lands as being west of Bourn and Cambridge; rather they were well to the East.

Suffolk seems to have been prime real estate, desired by all. Suffolk seems to have been prime real estate, desired by all. (I’m reminded that among the Tweeds, “the rich ones” lived in Suffolk.)

So, in the major towns where Adelaide held land, other magnates also held land, often but not always including Alan. In a few smaller towns, Adelaide was the sole landlord.

Kathleen wrote: "...what Normans look like...
Gascons surely and Bretons and maybe Aquitaine? Some were seneschals in Ponthieu..."

One issue is why call it the "Norman Conquest"?

To the Bretons, it was a Reconquest of what the Anglo-Saxons had taken from them, the fulfilment of a long-treasured prophecy.

Also, the Bretons were real stayers: long after Normandy had lost its power, the Bretons took over the Crown of Scotland, and then of England, all the while expanding their trade and family links eastwards across Europe. There's a very good reason why so many royal and imperial houses chose to wear ermine: they were especially proud of their Breton roots.

It's well-known that Flemings and knights from central France joined William's army. The ethnic diversity of the soldiers can be further illustrated by way of looking at "the Men of Count Alan": in addition to Bretons, Normans, men of Maine and Anjou, they included Aquitanians and Spaniards.