tion evidently being grounded on some nearness of kin (Labbe, Concilia, xix. 741). The relationship between Matilda and William has never been made out certainly. Of the various theories on the subject that best worth consideration is that the impediment arose from the marriage contract between Richard III, William's uncle, and Matilda's mother, Adela, although the marriage was not completed (see Spicilegium, iii. 390; Palgrave, England and Normandy, iii. 264; Norman Conquest, iii. 657). A rival but less satisfactory theory is that Matilda, as well as William, was descended from Rolf, for William, called Caput-stupæ, or Tow-head, count of Poitou, is said, on the strength of a vague statement by an anonymous writer, to have been the father of Adela or Adelais, wife of Hugh Capet, great-grandfather of Matilda (Duchesne, Rerum Gallicarum Scriptores, iii. 344, and Life and Times of St. Anselm, i. 419). Against this may be urged that Helgald, who wrote at least a century earlier than the anonymous writer, and was a friend of King Robert, Hugh's son, says that Robert used to declare that his mother Adelais was of Italian family. It is alleged that Helgald's words may be interpreted as meaning that Robert was sprung from Italy by his father's side, but the Italian genealogy of Hugh is baseless (Richer, lib. i. c. 5, and Recueil des Historiens, x. pref. i–xviii). If Hugh married a daughter of William Tow-head, it is hard to see why William IV, duke of Aquitaine, should have opposed Hugh's accession to the throne; for on this supposition Hugh would have been his brother-in-law. If, however, such a relationship existed between them, it is strange that neither Ademar of Chabanois nor Peter of Maillezais, nor indeed any other chronicler should notice it. It is therefore unlikely that Matilda was descended from Rolf through the wife of Hugh Capet. (For opinions on both sides see Recueil, ix. 273 n., x. 74, 99 n., xi. 130 n.; L'Art de Vérifier, x. 95; Guardian, 28 Nov. 1883, p. 1803, 19 Dec. p. 1919, 30 Jan. 1884, p. 176.)
The belief that Matilda was already the wife of Gerbod, advocate of the abbey of St. Bertin, near St. Omer, and that she had by him two or three children, one of whom was Gundrada, afterwards wife of William of Warrenne, earl of Surrey, is erroneous, and was founded on some charters of Lewes Priory, which have been proved to be untrustworthy (see Gundrada de Warenne; Monasticon, v. 12, 14. Stapleton argued that Gundrada was the daughter of Matilda by Gerbod, and that the prohibition of the marriage of Matilda and William was due to the fact that Gerbod was then alive, Archæological Journal, iii. sq.; Blaauw in answer asserted that Matilda was a maid when she married William, and made Gundrada a child of that marriage, Archæologia, 1847, xxxii. 108 sq.; Freeman accepted the alleged marriage to Gerbod as proved, Norman Conquest, iii. 86, 645–53; Mr. Chester Waters pointed out that the marriage was a fiction, and that Gundrada was not the daughter either of Matilda or William, Academy, 28 Dec. 1878, and 24 May 1879, and so far he was followed by Mr. M. Rule, Life and Times of St. Anselm, i. 419, and, finally, Freeman owned that he was mistaken, and summed up the case against the alleged marriage in a paper on the ‘Parentage of Gundrada’ in English Historical Review, 1888, xii. 680–701). According to another story, Matilda wished to marry Brihtric, a Gloucestershire thegn, who came on an embassy to Bruges, but was rejected by him; and that she afterwards when queen of England took vengeance on him for his refusal (Cont. Wace, Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 73; Monasticon, ii. 60; Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, ii. 55) is unworthy of belief (Norman Conquest, iii. 83, iv. 761–4). In spite of the papal prohibition, Matilda was married to William, probably in 1053 (Chronicon Turonense ap. Recueil des Historiens, xi. 348) at Eu, whence William brought her to Rouen, where she was received with much rejoicing. An idle legend records that she at first refused William's offer, declaring that she would never marry a bastard; that William rode secretly to Bruges, caught her as she was coming out of church, and beat and kicked her; and that she thereupon took to her bed, and told her father that she would marry none but the duke (ib.)
Malger, archbishop of Rouen, and Lanfranc [q. v.], then prior of Bec, severely blamed William for this marriage, on the old ground that Matilda was too nearly related to him, and it is said that Normandy was laid under an interdict (William of Jumièges, vii. c. 26; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, iii. c. 267; Vita Lanfranci, p. 288; Wace, l. 9659). The matter was not settled until the Lateran Council of 1059, when Nicolas II granted a dispensation for the marriage. As her share in the atonement required from her and her husband, Matilda built the abbey of the Holy Trinity for nuns at Caen; the church, of which the eastern part only can be the work of the foundress, was consecrated 18 June 1066 (Norman Conquest, iii. 107 n.) A curious though untrustworthy story represents her as talking much with Earl Harold [see Harold II, d. 1066] during his visit to the Norman court, and persuading him to promise to marry one of her daughters (Snorro ap. Laing, iii. 76). When William was preparing
