The Norman elite can be identified when the method by which they formed familial associations is understood – “Foedus inter consobinos heredes” – inheritance (and close tenurial association) passing down non-consanguineous lines of cousins; a necessary element of colonisation in a hostile environment.

SOCIAL CONTEXT
Whichever historical period under consideration, it is necessary to research within the context of the social norms of that time – what were the conventions within which families intermarried?; how did that shape their immediate environment?, that is, why were families neighbours? When considering the early medieval period a renowned historian stated that “the answer is in the soil”: neighbours were invariably kin of sorts; a method of mutual survival. The only change in this arrangement in the post-medieval period was that families intermarried through consanguineous lines of cousins – the religious barriers to this had gone.

VALIDITY OF REFERENCES
It is also necessary to search within a knowledge of the validity of references. Orderic Vitalis and Robert de Torigny, writing circa 1120-1140, were propagandists of a ruling establishment of elite families, each of which claimed descent from the Duchess Gunnora or her relatives. They treated tenure and lineage as equivalents when composing their accounts, so as to enhance the veracity of these claims, and promote the concept of a continuity of rule, which was the consequence of Divine Providence, and, thus, unchallengable. Their accounts owe as much to approximation as they do to fact. Where accounts are factual, they may be so by degrees – a great-niece may be designated as a niece, etc., such innacuracy being discerned by the test of chronology.

Taking into account the two parameters aforementioned, an example of an assumed Norman genealogy can be examined.

A 1st lineage
1. Harfast. Brother of Gonnor, Duke Richard’s wife.
1.1. … m. Osmund de Centville (not the tutor of Richard 1). She received (assumed as dower) the fief of Livarot, where Gilbert Crispin I. held land.
1.1.1. Foulques d’Anet. James Robinson Planché: “The continuator of Guillaume de Jumiéges, however, enlightens us as to his parentage; a point of more importance. As I have already stated, page 47 of this volume, he tells us that Fulk de Aneio (de Alneto, de Aneto, d’Anet, for it is spelt all manner of ways) was the son of Osmund de Centumville (i.e. Cotenville) by a niece of the Duchess Gonnor or Gunnora. From a similarity of names, Fulk d’Aulnay has been confounded constantly with Fulk d’Aunou, of whom I have already discoursed. Even M. le Prévost has been partially misled by it. A Simon d’Aneti or de Aneio, recorded in the red book aforesaid, is asserted by the authors of the “Recherches sur le Domesday” to be the recognized descendant of Foulques d’Anet,” but they have not favoured us with the materials for such recognition”.
1.1.1.1. Gunnora d’Anet, m. Gilbert Crispin 1.

1.2. Osborn de Crépon, m. Emma, dau. of Raoul d’Ivri (Count Rodolph), uterine brother of Duke Richard I. “We (Osborn and Emma) donate from the area of Rothornagensi our mill in Rauleni villa, and our fields in Chevilly. In addition we give our cultivated land, which is near the valley Erchembald and the mountain called Cochetel” (Cart. St. Amand).
1.2.1. William FitzOsborn. In a charter concerning land at Guernanville, ‘Foulques the elder, tainted by corruption, lifted his heart (toward God) and withdrew to Ouche, where he assumed monk’s robes, and gave to St. Evroult the church of Guernanville and its tithes’. This donation was confirmed by Guillaume de Breteuil (William FitzOsborn’s son), Gilbert Crispin I. and his sons (Gibert Crispin II. and William Crispin I), in the presence of Roger de Clare; son of Richard FitzGilbert, son of Gilbert de Brionne, son of Godfrey, illigitimate son of Duke Richard.

Mr. Planché was referring to the writings of Léchaudé d’Anisy, a translation of which:
The difference between these two Foulques is even better demonstrated in the Red Book of the Exchequer (Translated by Ducarel, pp. 229/230). It reads: Simon d’Aneti, or de Aneio, the recognised descendant of Foulques d’Anet, owes to the King as Duke of Normandy his military service. (1172). Simon d’Anet held of the honour of Ivry, under the Counts of Meulan, who had inherited the title of Ivry of the lords of Breteuil (FitzOsborn). His hereditary right to such as Anet, Bréval, Illiers-l’Evêque, and Marcilly, was noted thus: “Notum sit presentibus et futuris quod ego Simon de Aneth concessi pro salute animæ meæ et omnium antecessorum et heredum meorum et ad petitionem domini mei Gualeranni Comitis Mellenti”.

As Mr. Stapleton commented: “Anet itself is a chef-lieu de Canton, in the Département de l’Eure et Loir, and was situate in the district called Belsia (La Beauce) lying within the diocese of Chartres, and next the confines of Normandy. It is, however, probable that this portion of La Beauce was included in the chatellenie of Dreux, which formed part of the Norman dominions prior to 1005 … From this time Anet was held as a fief of France, but its lords, like the Comtes of Meulan, and other Lords Marchers, were likewise owners of considerable territory in Normandy”.

This locality appears in 1030 as among “the lands that the Count of Vexin”, which can be taken to be one of two brothers:

(1) Ralph, count of Mantes (Radulfum comitem Medantensium), and Crépy, witnessing a ducal charter of May 27, 1067 as “Rodulfi comitis Crispiniacensis” … “Rodulfus comes de Crespeio”.
(2) Dreux de Mantes, Comte du Vexin and Amiens, husb. of Godgifu (dau. of Æthelred king of England and Emma, dau. of Richard (the Great Prince) of Normandy and Gunnor); sister of Edward the Confessor. (A link to the family of Malet may be assumed). The said lands included a mill and a farm in Gelle/Gilles* where on meadow land was situated “Mansum Fulcoldi” near Salcido**. (Cart. Saint-Germain des Prés). *Gilles (Eure-et-Loire, arr. Dreux, Canton d’Anet . **Saussay, commune du département d’Eure-et-Loir, see Merlet, Dict. top. d’Eure-et-Loir, p. 171.

Such as Mr. Planché and Léchaudé d’Anisy would have been aware that Gilbert Crispin’s wife can not have been a dau. of a Foulque (who was a son of the fabled “Baldric the Teuton”), and a brother to a number of heads of elite Norman families (their exact relationships being equally as “fabled”). There would have been a plethora of gifts to Bec-Hellouin from the Crispins in conjunction with any of their large number of assumed cousins (or from the Crispins to them), where in fact there are none recorded. In contrast, there are any number of connections between the Crispins and the d’Anets, as exampled here:

Our first knowledge of Damville is a charter of 1070, by which William the Conqueror confirmed various donations made by the Crespin family to the Abbey of Bec. These concessions are from Gilbert Crespin, including the gift of the Church of Damvill. The deed that we consider is only a confirmatory act; but the original donation could not be much earlier, as the founding of the Abbey of Bec goes back to just before 1040. In the charter of 1070, we see, included among the signatories, Richard, son of Count Gilbert, who, apparently, succeeded his father in the lordship of Damville.

By 1188, Gilbert (great-grandson of the donator of 1070) had ceased to possess Damville. He had sold it to Simon Anet (Simon II. d’Anet) before leaving for the Holy Land, where he died in 1190, at the siege of Acre (‘Isti obierunt eodem anno [1190] in obsidione Acrae: vicecomes of Turonia, Gilibertus of Tillers’).

In 1162, Simon of Anet was ordered by King Louis “the Younger” to restore to the abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés all the rights he claimed on the lands of the said abbey, and of other abbeys. Thus, in 1169, he gave the whole parish of Rouvres to the Abbey of Bec-Hellouin, which had been the possession of his father (Simon) and his father (Robert). In 1188, he also owned the castle and the seigneury of Damville. This very important seigneury belonged to the illustrious family of Tillières, and, to raise money for the Crusade, Gilbert de Tillières sold his castle of Damville to the lord of Anet. (Anet. Archaeological Society of Eure-et-Loir, 1877).

From the cartulary of Bec:
From the donation of Simon d’Ânet: The church and the house of Rouvres with the entire tithe and all its belongings; the church of Marcilly (Marcelleio) with the entire tithe and its affiliations, and the land near the church given by Simon Senioris; the church of Bérou with the tithe and its affiliations; of Gilbert Crespin’s donation, half of the tithe of the toll of Brezolles and the house of the monks in which they lodged in Chartres, juxta posternam episcopi. 1194. Bibl. nat., lat. 12884, f, 254. (The said Gilbert held the fief of Armentieres).

To note, the donations of the Anets and Crispins are adjoined, representative of a close association. Simon d’Anet held the fief of Mauricius, br.-in-law of Fulques d’Anet, and father of Fulk de Marcilly, as follows.

(Prior to the year 1077, Gilbert Crespin had given to Bec the church of Saint-Hilaire de Tillières, the chapel of the castle and several other goods. In 1107, the bishop of Evreux granted and confirmed to Bec the vicariate of Saint-Hilaire de Tillières, and the chapels of Saint-Christophe and Saint-Nicolas of the same place for the maintenance of the monks living in Tillières, on the condition that the monks of Bec would establish a priest in the vicarage and provide him with suitable means of existence).

A 2nd lineage
1. Sprotta, concubine of William Longsword.
Sprotta (Scand. Sprottr), described as ‘nobilissima‘ (Frodoard, 933, MGH SS III, p. 381). She was not a Breton. Eric Christiansen’s (History of the Normans, note 234, p. 199, 1998), explains that in 934 William Longsword was given Breton lands by King Ralph as a bulwark against the Vikings to the west of them. These Vikings were led by Ragnall, and Sprotta was likely allianced with William as a peace-weaving exercise, giving William an uncontested (by Ragnall) claim to the Cotentin and Avranchin. The loire Vikings held sway in Brittany between 919 and 936.
1.1. Richard I., m. Gunnor, his former concubine.
1.1.1. Richard II., ‘the Great Prince’.
1.1.1.1. Godfrey.
1.1.1.1.1. Gilbert de Brionne, cousin of Gilbert Crispin 1 ?

1. Sprotta, m. (2) Asperlenc.
1.1. Raoul (Rodolph) d’Ivri.
1.1.1. Hugh, Archbishop of Bayeux. Between 1042-1049, Hugh gave Celloville, that is Serlos villa (Seine-Maritime, cant. de Boos), and Sahurs (Seine-Maritime, cant. Grand-Couronne), to St Amand. Notice the close similarity between the names Celloville and Colleville.
1.1.2. … m. “Richardus de Bello-fago”. (See Pierre Bauduin, ‘La première Normandie’, p. 206, 2004).
1.1.2.1. … m. Vicecomes Erchembald, who, on entering La Trinité du Mont, gave to the house his meadow in Sahurs, and all that he held by hereditary right in Celloville. (RADN, no. 82, 1030-1035).
1.1.2.1.1. Gilbert Crispin I, who attempted to defend Osmund the dapifer during the successful attempt to kill him in 1040. Gilbert made a gift to St. Amand to honour Osmund’s memory, a gift witnessed and approved of by Emma d’Ivri (Receuil, ed. Fauroux, no. 82).

1.1.3. Emma d’Ivri, Abbess of St Amand, m. Osborn the dapifer. Cart. St. Amand: “We donate from the area of Rothornagensi our mill in Rauleni villa, and our fields in Chevilly. In addition we give our cultivated land, which is near the valley Erchembald and the mountain called Cochetel”.
1.1.3.1. William FitzOsbern.
1.1.3.2. … de Crepon, m. Osmund de Centville.
1.1.3.2.1. Foulques d’Anet.
1.1.3.2.1.1. Gunnor, m. Gilbert Crispin 1.
1.1.3.1.1.1.1. Gilbert Crispin II., donated a moiety of Brezolles to Bec.
1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1. Robert d’ Armentieres, held under Gilbert de Gand in 1086, as his kinsman?
1.1.3.2.2. Alberada. “Alberada, the wife of Mauricius, was in fact no other than the sister of Fulk d’Anet, father of Fulk de Marcilly and Simon, benefactors to Coulombs, and the same who with her brother gave lands to the abbey of Bec Hellouin”. (Mr. Stapleton).

1.1.4. … de Beaufour, m. Gilbert de Brionne?
1.1.4.1. Baldwin FitzGilbert, raised by Emma d’Ivri at Rouen, possibly his aunt; donated to St Amand in memory of his mother.
1.1.5. … de Beaufour, m. Hugh de Montfort-sur-Risle. By a second wife, Hugh was the father of Adeline de Montfort-sur-Risle, who m. William of Breteuil, eldest son of William FitzOsbern.
1.1.5.1. Alice de Montfort-sur-Risle, m. Gilbert de Gand.

It can not be discounted that the latter family of Anet stemmed from Alberada and Mauricius, or that Fulk de Marcilly was ‘Foulques the elder, tainted by corruption’, as given heretofore.

That the Gunnor who m. Gilbert Crispin 1 was not a dau. of Foulques d’Alnou has been known since antiquaries such as Mr. Planché and Léchaudé d’Anisy turned their attention to this subject (and repeated by modern historians).  Ipso facto, this Gunnor (if she existed as named, and not contrived to have the same name as ‘duchess’ Gunnor), was always named as a dau. of Foulques d’Anet. That she has been conjoined to another family is typical of research into Norman genealogies. She joins a list of such as Gilbert Crispin 1, who is confounded with Count Gilbert de Brionne, a proposition that does not even pass the low hurdle of common sense, yet proliferates on the internet, accompanied by references having all the validity of a fake banknote.

‘Academic’ research into such subjects exists in the realms of universities, but is only truly ‘academic’ when it questions the validity of references on which premises are made, for, without that, premises are based on a ‘format of research’ that owes nothing to a substance of thought; to paraphrase a comment my tutor made about one of my essays. From memory, the phrase “an impressive amount of (a pause) useless references” comes to mind.

Do the two lineages suggested heretofore suggest an alliance between families associated through the norm of familial relationships which governed elite, Norman society? – “Foedus inter consobinos heredes” – inheritance (and close tenurial association) passing down non-consanguineous lines of cousins. Yes.

The proposition that the Crispins and FitzOsberns were related in the way given as always been known, again, ipso facto, implicit to the true understanding of “Gunnor’s” parentage, with a concomitant mutual link to the Ivris. That such as Erchembald (if the father of Gilbert Crispin 1) married into the Ivris is a consequence and validation of that mutual link – an example of marriages between non-consanguineous lines of cousins – with Gilbert Crispin 1 (if a son of Erchembald) and his sons being defined within this kinship group.

This is what the ‘patterns in the data’ suggests – an interpretive research methodology which places meaning-making practices of people in the context of the their society at the centre of scientific explanation, a methodology which is often used when conventional data is missing or unreliable. Trying to identify characters and their relationships in early Normandy is truly like peering into a thick fog – we can only try to make a contextual sense of such.

Erchembald gave La Trinité du Mont all that he held by hereditary right in Celloville, almost certainly derived from his wife’s uncle, Hugh, Archbishop of Bayeux.

Erchembald’s son, Gilbert, donated land to St Amand with the permission of Hugh’s sister, Emma, husband of Osmund dapifer, whom Gilbert tried to defend from assassination.

Was Gilbert synonomous with Gilbert Crispin I? Probably.

Was Gilbert Crispin the vassal of Gilbert de Brionne in the relationship of being his cousin?, with Gilbert de Brionne’s son, Baldwin FitzGilbert, being overlord of the Crispins at Damville in the capacity of close kinship. The granting of a lordship of a strategically vital border fort was always based on familial bonds that sought to secure loyalty.

Does this make sense?

copyright m stanhope 2021