Bourgthéroulde, near Rouen, in the opinion of M. Le Prevost, was founded by a Theroulde, brother Achard de Bourg-Achard. This is little more than conjecture, and disputed as soon as the ink dried. Yet, successive generation repeat Prevost’s hypothesis as if it is fact, and the more times it is seen in print lends credence to it, as if the continuous repetition of a mantra makes it true. There is little that can be proved true of the chaotic times of pre-Conquest Normandy. M. Le Prevost was a very clever man, and, like politicians, knew what less clever people wanted to hear, and that was certainty, any suggestion that would be repeated as a certainty would do.

François Génin, a contemporary of M. Le Prevost, was of the ‘awkward squad’of genealogical pundits, and, hence, is not widely known. He was a ‘questioner of certainties’, and, therefore, not popular. He put forward the idea that Abbot Theroulde had connections with the Monastery of Préaux (which was founded by Onfroi de Vielles, who just happened to be a son of a Theroulde), tutor to William the Conqueror. He asked whether the two Therouldes were synonomous, and pointed readers to the foundation charter of the Benedictine Abbey of Préaux, c. 1031, which was situate within a mile of Pont-Audemer. He listed the donators:

1. Roger de Beaumont, son of Onfroi, and son of Theroulde the tutor. ‘Turoldis teneri ducis pedagogus perimitur’ (Will. Gemet, VII.).
2. Gilbert de Brionne, who had appointed Theroulde as tutor.
3. Duke Robert, the father of William the Conqueror, who had appointed Gilbert de Brionne, his kinsman, as guardian of William. He gave to Préaux a farm in an area called Toustainville (the vill of Thorsteinn), in recognition of which Onfroi de Vielles gave Robert twelve pounds of gold, two silk garments, and two valuable horses.
4. Theroulde, quoted in the body of this charter, whom François Génin made synonomous with Abbot Theroulde and he with the father of Onfroi de Vielles (Turoldi filias); he being an elderly man, born circa 960, and his son being born circa 985. This contains an element of ‘Norman’ reality – it was a frquent occurence for elderly Norman knights to ‘take the habit’.
5. Nigel. He was gifted one of the beforementioned horses. He is referred to in the charter as vetulus Nigellus, that is, Nigel the Viscount, de S. Saveur.
5. Raoul, son of Gerald. (Tancarville).
6. Goszlin Rufus, of Formeville
7. Onfroi de Vielles, with his two sons, Roger and Robert. That is, Roger de Beaumont; husband of Adeline of Meulan, Count Waleran’s daughter, and father of Robert de Beaumont, as follows.
8. Hugh, son of Count Waleran. (See Bouquet, xi., p. 387).

These donators to Préaux were a Norman mafia, a collection of powerful families, which operated under the Dukes as Norman Godfathers.

Their core was Scandinavian. Onfroi or Onfroy was a Frankish form of Ansfrid, the Scandinavian Osfrid. Theroulde was a form of the Scandinavian Thorvald, made Turold by the Franks. Anschetil, as follows, is the Scandinavian Asketill. Therein lies the ingredients of speculation: the names Ansfrid, Asketill, Thorsteinn, and Turold, were used as multiple ‘fillers’ in the void of uncertainty, to plug any gap, so a seamless genealogical transition could be offered to a gullible public. A garnish of respectability is added by referring to the various chroniclers of the Norman dukes, but, at worst, these were nothing more than propagandists, who sought to present the Norman mafia as an intermarried whole, which had a Divine right to rule; many linked through the many nieces of the Countess Gunnora, other ‘fillers’ of the void, most likely.

François Génin called this subject as one ‘so full of darkness’. He noted that Theroulde is one of the most common in the Norman Annals, and likened the search for ‘Theroulde of Pont-Audemer’ to searching for someone called Smith who lived a thousand years ago.

François Génin was surely entitled to his interpretation and opinion, which I suggest is better than the continuous repetition of myth, in the hope of making it appear certain. That is no more than fog made ink; a practice that is much preserved today, by fraudulent claims of an ancestor being a ‘companion of the Conqueror’ (Mr. Burke was also a clever man who knew what those less clever wanted to believe); or an ‘ancient planter’ of Virginia, which are accounted for in numerous articles, which are often the mutton of speculation dressed as academic lamb. A prime example of such fare was served up by Gilles-André de La Roque, in his fairytale of 1662, brazenly entitled ‘Preuves de l’histoire généalogique de la maison de Harcourt’, which is nothing more than a collection of myths formulated to ‘prove’the Harcourts descended from the ‘founders of Normandy’, and them from the heroes of Troy! French academics of later years did not flinch from pointing out the many Achilles’ heels of La Roque’s yarn.

It is an insight to the human psyche that no one wants to be descended from someone who made pots in a hut.

A paper delivered at the Congrès archéologique de France (1984) more credibly stated: ‘The first to take the name d’Harcourt was Anchetil, alive circa 1050, contemporary of Roger de Beaumont, his relative’. Mr. Crouch gives some account of this Anchetil; which can be summarised thus:

1. Anschetil, dapifer of Roger de Beaumont (ctl. Preaux, fol. 125; cart. Beaumont; Lot, p. 96, 1913 – 1080’s).
1.1. Robert fitz Anschetil, ob. 1118 (ctl. Preaux, fol. 102v). Held Norman fiefs.
1.1.1. William fitz Robert fl. 1149 (P.R. 31 H. 1). Granted Stanton-under-Bardon, Leic., to Garendon Abbey, founded by Robert de Beaumont (cart. Garendon, fols. 5v., 15v.).
1.1.1.1. Robert fitz William, mar. Eve Crispin. In 1192, he made grants to the abbey of La Noe with the consent of Richard, John, and Amaury, his sons, and to the abbey of Bec for prayers for Albereda, his sister. He was also a benefactor to the abbey of Mortemer-en-Lions by reason apparently of his having contracted marriage with the daughter of a baron of the Vexin Normand, Joscelin Crispin.
1.1.1.2. Alice, mar. i. Robert de Montfort, ii. John de Lindsey, iii. Earl Waleran of Warwick.
1.1.2. Ivo de Harcourt. Ratified the confirmation of his brother, William, of their father’s gifts to Garendon (ctl. Garendon, fol. 15v.; Nichols’ Leic. vii.). ‘In 1148/9, William de Harcourt, with the consent of his brother and heir, Ivo, and mother, Agnes, alienated to Garendon the manor of Stanton-under- Bardon, which was specifically their patrimonium’ (Benjamin Thompson, Monasteries and Society in Medieval Britain, p. 107, 1999). ‘It was Ivo who was the progenitor of the English line of Harcourts … The later forfeiture of the English lands of the ‘Norman’ Harcourts makes them difficult to trace, but we do at least know some of them in Leicestershire … the remaining part of the Harcourt inheritance in the manor of Leicester was being held by Ivo de Harcourt before the end of Stephen’s reign’ (Crouch, Beaumont Twins, pp.125-6).
1.1.2.1. Robert de Harcourt, ob. c. 1206, mar. Milicent de Camville. Attested charters of Earl Waleran; accompanied him to Normandy in 1153.
1.1.2.1.1. William Fitz Robert de Harcourt; confirmed his father’s gifts.

The Harcourts were of Haricourt, Ar. Bernay, c. Brionne (Eure).

There have been numerous attempts to explain the connection between the Beaumont and Harcourt families, all based on conjectured relationships between ‘legendary’ people. The office of dapifer was usually occupied by a ‘junior’ member of the family; a nephew, perhaps, so anyone looking to investigate the true origin of the Harcourts should perhaps look to such people; a task not to be envied, but one which might include considering Anschetil, dapifer of Roger de Beaumont, to be a son of his brother, Robert.

Who can ever honestly say they know?

copyright m stanhope 2016