E-mail from 26th December 2001

Dear Mr.Marek, 

On your website, you have: 

"B1. [2m.] William I de Warenne, Seigneur de Varennes, created 1st Earl of 
Surrey, *Bellencombe, Seine Inferieure, France 1055, +Lewes, Sussex 
24.5/6.1088; m.Normandy 1077 Gundred, dau.of William I "the Conqueror" 
(*Normandy ca 1063, +Acre Castle, Norfolk 27.5.1085)" 

However, it is now known that Gundred was not William's daughter, nor that of 
his queen, Matilda. The tradition that she was seems to have sprung from two 
documents, both proven to be incorrect. The first is an obituary of Gundred, 
published 1444, more than three hundred years after her death. It reads: 

"Lady Gundrade Countess of Surrey, daughter of the Conqueror and wife of 
William the first [Earl of Surrey], died in the pangs of childbirth (vi 
partus cruciata) at Castelacre 27 May 1085 and the 3rd year before her 
husband. She lies buried in the Chapterhouse of Lewes with her husband." 

There are several noticeable problems here. The statement about Gundred's 
death seems to have been universally accepted, although it occurs in a 
document written three and a half centuries after the event, and immediately 
follows the statements that Gundred was William I's daughter (which everyone 
agrees she was not), and that she was Countess of Surrey (which she could not 
have been if she died in 1085). It appears Gundred actually survived William 
de Warrenne, as donations were made to monastaries from his wife for his 
soul. Moreoever, contemporary chronicler Orderic Vitalis specifically says 
she outlived him. 

Gundred's epitaph calls her "the stock of dukes", which immediately implies 
that she was not the King's daughter. Why not call her "of a royal line" 
instead of a ducal one? A charter was sent to Lewes Priory by Queen Matilda, 
Gundred's reputed mother, in which Matilda is called "mother of King Henry 
and Countess Gundred". But it is obvious the "and Countess Gundred" is 
written in another hand, in different ink, at a later date. This charter has 
therefore been tampered with, and the original version did not call Gundred 
Matilda's daughter. 

In 1109, Gundred's eldest son, William II de Warrenne, was engaged to marry 
the illegitimate daughter of King Henry, but a letter from Archbishop Anselm 
forced them to call off the marriage. Anselm cited consanguinity (marriage 
between persons too closely related) and specifically states William and the 
unnamed daughter to be related with "four and six degrees". Had Gundred been 
the Conqueror's daughter, she and Henry would've been siblings, and William 
and his fiancee first cousins. Surely Anselm would have made mention of such 
a close relationship, had it existed, and instead of prohibiting fouth 
cousins to marry, he would've forbidden first cousins to marry. 

So who was Gundred, if not King William's daughter? Orderic Vitalis calls her 
sister of Gerbod, Earl of Chester. She seems to be of the family of Flemish 
lords of Oosterzele (her younger son, Reynold, inherited lands in Flanders 
from her) and may be descended from the Saxon dukes. But she was not the 
daughter of William the Conqueror. 

Jessica Bonner nichol_storm@yahoo.com


Back to Warenne page.

31st January 2002