Genealogy Wylie » Gundred of Flanders (± 1052-1085)

Personal data Gundred of Flanders 

• Also known as Gundreda de /Gand/.
• She was born about 1052 in Ghent, Flanders.
• (MARR ) .
• She died on May 27, 1085 in Castle Acre, Norfolk, England.Sources 1, 4

  Oorzaak: Childbirth

• She is buried in Priory, Lewes, Sussex, England.
• A child of Father Gherbod and Gundred Fleming
• This information was last updated on April 5, 2023.

Household of Gundred of Flanders

She is married to William de Warenne.

They got married before 1077 at Normandy, France.Source 4

Child(ren):

1. William de Warenne  ± 1071-1138 
2. Reynold (Rainald) de Warenne  ± 1075-< 1115 
3. Edith (Ediva) de Warenne  ± 1076-???? 

Notes about Gundred of Flanders

!Title: Princess of England and COUNTESS OF SURREY.
"Royal Ancestors" by Michel Call, 1989, Chart # 11672.
Change Date: 25 Feb 2001 at 13:45:15

Father: William I b: 14 Oct 1024 in Falaise, Calvados, France
Mother:Matilda (Maud) b: ABT 1031 in Flanders, Normandy, France

Marriage 1 Williamde WARREN b: ABT 1030 in Bellencombe, S Infr, France
Married: ABT 1077 in , Normandy, France
Sealing Spouse: 2 Mar 1955 in SLAKE
Children
William II deWARENNE Earl of Surrey b: ABT 1078 in , Sussex, England
Reginald de WARREN b: ABT 1082 in , Sussex, England
Edith de WARREN b: ABT 1076 in , Sussex, England
Gundred de WARREN b: ABT 1085 in Acre Castle, Acre, Norfolk, England

"[William] married 1stly, Gundred, sister of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl ofChester, posibly da of Gerbod, hereditary advocate of the abbey of St Berten atSt Omer. She d. childbirth, 27 May 1085, at Castle Acre, Norfolk."(CPXII/1-491)

Gundred (daughter of Gherbod the Fleming), d. 27 May 1085; m. bef. 1077,William de Warenne, d. Lewes 24 June 1088, created 1st Earl of Surrey,son of Rudolf de Warenne and Beatrice. [Magna Charta Sureties]

------------------------------------------

He married, 1stly, Gundred, sister of Gerbod the Fleming, EARL OFCHESTER, possibly daughter of Gerbod, hereditary advocate of the Abbey ofSt. Bertin at St. Omer. She died in child-birth, 27 May 1085, at CastleAcre, Norfolk, and was buried the chapter-house at Lewes. [CompletePeerage XII/1:493-5, XIV:604 (transcribed by Dave Utzinger)]

Note: I think that Gundred was daughter of Gerbod the Fleming, Earl ofChester. He was also advocate of the Abbey of St. Bertin of St. Omer (asCP itself indicated-see notes under Gherbod) . As far as I know there isonly one Gerbod.

-------------------------------------------

According to Magna Charta Sureties (and CP in a way), a daughter ofGherbod the Fleming. According to the Plantagenet Ancestry, a daughterof William the Conquerer and Matilda of Flanders. The followingdiscussion in soc.genealogy.medieval illustrates the proof for Gundredbeing daughter of Matilda, wife of William I, and also the controversystill being debated about her ancestry. I happen to believe that theLewes Chartulary is not false on the basis that there is no reason forforging a relationship to Queen Maud, but not King William I.

From: Phil Moody ((XXXXX@XXXX.XXX))
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-30 21:52:15 PST

"Chris PHILLIPS" wrote"

> There was never any question of Gundred being an illegitimate daughterof
> William I, but rather it was a case of a fraudulent claim that she was a
> legitimate daughter. The reason people used to think that Gundred was a
> daughter of William the Conqueror was because the monks of Lewes forgedsome
> charters which stated that. But I don't think anyone now seriouslymaintains
> that these charters are authentic.
>
> Gundred is known to have been a sister of Gerbod, who was briefly earlof
> Chester under William the Conqueror. It's clear they were members of a
> Flemish family who were advocates of St Bertin's Abbey in St Omer, andwho
> held Oosterzele and Scheldewindeke, although the genealogy isn'taltogether
> clear.

PLM: There is some doubt in my mind, however. Per your earlier assistanceto me; I do now have "The Chartulary of the Priory of St. Pancras ofLewes", vol. I, ed. L. F. Salzman, and published by the Sussex RecordSociety in 1032 [sic?]. There is a lengthy charter by William Warrenenearly six pages in length; so I will not quote it's entirety, but thisbit is curious.

Page 3:

"..., I have given for the welfare of my soul and that of Gundrada mywife and for the soul of my lord King William who brought me into Englandand by whose license I caused the monks to come and who confirmed myformer gift, and for the welfare of my lady Queen Maud the mother of mywife and for the welfare of my lord King William his son after whosecoming to England I made this charter and who made me Earl of Surrey,..."UNQ

PLM: It is quite clear from this charter, that Gundrada is the daughterof Queen Maud, and the lack of a reference to William I being the fatherof Gundrada is highly significant. If I were to rely solely on thisevidence, I would have to conclude that Gundrada was NOT the daughter ofWilliam I at all.

People have referred to forged charters from Lewes, but what is the basisof these assertions, and which references discuss these "supposedlyproven forgeries"? The premise of such an accusation appears to be upside down, in relation to the above charter. It seems illogical to forgea document that makes Gundrada the daughter of the Queen, as opposed tothe King of England; which would essentially diminish her socialstanding, instead of elevating it, as most forgeries tend to do?

Cheers,
Phil

- - - - -

From: Chris PHILLIPS ((XXXXX@XXXX.XXX))
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-31 01:54:55 PST

Paul Reed posted a quite detailed summary of the arguments that thecharter was spurious, on 11 March 1998, entitled: "Gundred, theConqueror, and the spurious charter of 1085 (LONG)".

Apart from the internal evidence that the charter has been tampered with,and the existence of a copy of the foundation charter, which doesn'tmention Gundred's parentage, in the cartulary of Cluny, the parent house,there are also statements by two other sources that Gundred was thebrother of Gerbod. Admittedly these could be circumvented by thesuggestion that Gundred was only William's step-daughter, and thatGerbod's father had previously been married to Matilda (although there isno indication elsewhere that this was the case, despite quite a lot ofdocumentation relating to Gerbod's family, and of course to the counts ofFlanders).

What clinched the long-running Victorian controversy was the point madeby Chester Waters, that when a marriage was proposed between anillegitimate daughter of Henry I and a son of Gundred, it was prohibitedon the grounds of a 4th/6th-generation consanguinity. If Gundred had beenMatilda's daughter they would have been first cousins, so this, ratherthan the much more distant relationship, would surely have been mentioned.

Chris Phillips

- - - - - -

From: Linda ((XXXXX@XXXX.XXX))
Subject: Re: tombstone of Gundrad, wife of William de Warenne
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Date: 2002-12-31 08:52:44 PST

As with other "proof", I am curious about how conclusive Mr. Waters'arguement is. People being the political animals that they are, it wouldseem to me that a closer relationship might not be mentioned if it werepolitically sensitive for some reason. I have no thoughts on what thatmight be, but Mr. Waters' arguement, while persuasive, still does notseem to me to CONCLUSIVELY prove anything, simply because we cannotpossibly know everything was going on in people's minds 1000 years ago(or today, for that matter).

I guess it's my background in math and computers that makes me questionthese things. It does not seem to me that either side of thiscontroversy has anything that could be considered absolute proof - justcircumstantial evidence and theories, all of which can be contested withmore theories. There seem to be plenty of sincere and knowledgeablepeople on both sides of the issue, and I wonder if, barring discovery ofnew documentation, the issue will ever be resolved. I keep going back tothat tombstone - the only piece of evidence that is truly "cast in stone".

- - - - - -

Note: I happen to feel that Chester Water's analysis which invalidatesthe Chartulary is not altogether conclusive. The fact remains that themarriage WAS invalidated on the grounds of consanguinity; quite possiblyfor political reasons the church chose a more distant relationship forinvalidating the marriage (4th or 6th cousin rather than 1st cousin); thechurch may not have wanted to emphasize the illegitimacy of Gundred,ancestor of the Warennes, a very powerful family.

Do you have supplementary information, corrections or questions with regards to Gundred of Flanders?
The author of this publication would love to hear from you!

Timeline Gundred of Flanders

Click on the names for more info. Symbols used:  grandparents    parents    brothers/sisters    children